|
African Debt and Poverty: 50 Points of Interest. |
|
 |
|
Sunday, 17 July 2005 |
African Debt and Poverty: 50 Points of Interest.by Neop
Note from Neop: In this piece, I have collected and distilled some of the arguments and ideas I have encountered about African debt and poverty as "Points". My response to these ideas, I have categorized as "RePoints".Enjoy!
1. Point: That African Debt is Odious because it was loaned with the knowledge of the bad risk involved.RePoint: This is untenable. Loans given to African cannot be classified as bad even if we assume that they were loaned with the knowledge that they would be embezzled. The truth of the matter is that these loans were guaranteed to African States as institutions. These institutions by virtue of their powers might still have access to the embezzled funds; as do the officers that guaranteed the loans in the first place. The money didnt just vanish into thin air - the question then becomes; how is such a debt odious when the stashes of loot are available for all to see? 2.Point: That the West forced African States into accepting certain loans, through the use of Economic consultants; thus the West bears some responsibility for the misuse of the loans.RePoint: So what? The fact remains that the misuse of the loans and the embezzlement thereof is entirely a function of African States who have refused to initiate correctives to recover stolen funds and prosecute those implicated. Thus there is no odious debt insofar as the terms of the loans were understood and agreed to by all parties before hand. Which they were. 3.Point: Africa is too indebted to repay.RePoint: Nonsense. There is no evidence to support this, inasmuch as we do not have enumerations of the assets of leaders of African States over the entire period of indebtedness. The truth might very well be that the missing funds, with the interest accrued in foreign banks; is more than enough to repay the debts. But were we even to assume that African is too indebted to repay; again, so what? This fact does not introduce a compulsion to cancel - not even a moral one; every debtor can work and repay at future times. 4.Point: Corrupt African Leaders who embezzled funds were Western stooges.RePoint: So what? On whose behalf did they embezzle funds and on whose behalf are calls for debt cancellation now being raised? If in fact they were Western stooges; then would a moral west not be better served by an exposure of such relationships with the appropriate repatriation of funds; rather than a self serving gesture at debt cancellation? 5.Point: Western views of African corruption are fueled by Racism.RePoint: This is ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that the world has not yet plumbed the depths of the corruption of African States. Were we even to accept the charge of misinformedness attributed to the West, it would be with regards to their ignorance of the complicity of Western States in African corruption. Racism is so entrenched within the Western view of Africa that to deploy it as a peculiar factor contributing to the view of rampant African corruption is trite; especially in the face of data from within African countries, sourced by Africans (many of them fierce anti-imperialists) showing such corruption.6.Point: Africa is trapped in a never ending cycle of Poverty that began with colonialism. It is this depredation of Africa that led to the debt in the first place.RePoint: Then what about successful Asian economies which were able to pull themselves out of poverty? What about Botswana? Did they not take loans also? 7.Point: Debt should be canceled because the West owes Africa and not the other way around.RePoint: This is insulting. Even if the West owed Africa; there is no indication that any cancellation of African debt is in fact for the purpose of the payment of Western debts to Africa. Indeed, the Western debt is hardly every mentioned in the talks of the G8 leaders. 8.Point: Debt cancellation is a new scramble for Africa, since it is tied in with trade conditionalities.RePoint: This is ludicrous. The economic strangulation of Africans has little to do with Western conditionalities (deplorable as they are) and more to do with the policies of African States which freeze competition; employ ethnic patronage, stifle innovation in the Universities and fuel public corruption. It is hard to believe that any country built upon continual National and ethnic subjugation (as is the case in many African States) can experience marked increases in prosperity. 9.Point: Other countries have had their debts cancelled. Why not African countries? Besides, even in Personal and Business banking, Bad loans can always be renegotiated.RePoint: This is a non-sequitur. This argument assumes that there is an authoritative center from which policies of States towards themselves in the International system are determined. Why exactly, should the USA treat Nigeria the same way it treats Israel? The USA has unique interests, as a State; as does Nigeria. Besides, this argument comes dangerously close to reifying the World Bank and the IMF as global financial loci which any sane person ought to reject - we ought not to take cues with regards to our future from the whims and caprices of the Bretton Woods institutions. Furthermore, what Africans are getting is not a mere renegotiation. They want a cancellation or some kind of relief or the other - i.e. a total repudiation of the burden; i.e. a default euphemistically named. Along with this, they want to be able to continue to do business as normal institutions even after such a default. This is bad economics and bad business, pure and simple. 10.Point: African States are no more corrupt than other States.RePoint: This is laughable. Were we even to assume this to be the case, the troublesome question of then identifying the perennial cause of African poverty becomes ours. Yet we need not assume this since there are tons of empirical data from both within and outside Africa elucidating African State corruption as beyond the pale when compared with that of other States. 11.Point: African corruption was built into the system by Imperialists.RePoint: The truth of this statement does not infer the notion that it is then up to the Imperialists to fix the corruption or alleviate its effects since we can quite clearly note that these State systems preside over Nations to which many Africans owe primary loyalty (as opposed to owing loyalty to the State-Country) and are subjugate and colonized. Why fix a system which might just as easily be abolished with no net damage to human lives? 12.Point: African Military Governments were Western trained and supported.RePoint: The truth of this Statement again, does not infer any responsibility for remedy on the part of the West; if the remedy is merely a further strengthening of the Militaristic State systems that the West stands accussed of imposing in the first place, in blatant denial of National self determination and territorial control. 13.Point: Western Imperialism is at the root of African Poverty.RePoint: Not in a linear sense. Nigeria, as a colony, was relatively "prosperous" doing the colonial era (i.e., in the sense of being on par with other comparative economies at the time like South Korea). The unraveling of Nigeria was due to the fact that the process of decolonization introduced an ambiguous center of State Power. In the colonial era, the British were a standard. Beyond that; the State (which administered various National spaces) lacked such a standard and social culture fragmented into precolonial National identities (at least on the political scene, hence Ethnic patronage which fuels corruption and civil unrest). The cause of Poverty then, is the presence of the State, in the absence of its British administrators. Hong Kong which remained under British administration grew more prosperous than other parts of China. 14.Point: Charities, such as Live8 with Geldof and others such as Bono ought to be commended for doing a good work.RePoint: There is no evidence that such charities are doing a good work. Much of the aid raised by such charities (the "We Are the World" concert comes to mind) in the 1980s that ended up in Ethiopia went to strengthening a depredatory State system involved in socialist and redistributionist policies that killed more lives than they saved. The provision of resources into a system is not always a good thing if the system in question is depredatory. Charity sometimes kills more people than it saves.
15.Point: Preserving the image of an independent Africa must not be done at the expense of a biological interest in African lives.RePoint: This is nonsense. There is no evidence to justify the notion that Charity concerts can have a net positive effect in saving African lives. It might even be the case, that for every life they save, ten are taken in return because the resources provided strengthen a system that is fundamentally depredatory. Much like giving money to Saudi Charities which end up going to suicide Bombers; providing Aid / Charity to African institutions has not been guaranteed to serve its due purpose. What happened to all the aid/charity of yesteryears?
16. Point: Debt cancellation is not charity.RePoint: Au contraire; it is charity, since it is an undeserved favor. The argument that Africans "deserve" debt cancellation simply will not stick. How do they deserve it? The loans were properly and legally entered into and the entire debt fiasco is the fault of African State systems and officers of the Bretton Woods institutions who should be made to pay the price. Besides, these loans were guaranteed on the strength of Western taxpayers. To therefore continue providing more largesse to Africa in the face of such blatant unaccountability is sheer robbery of Western taxpayers.
17.Point: The debt fiasco is the fault of the West because they arranged for the misuse of the funds disbursed.RePoint: This is ridiculous. All funds misused were misused by Africans. The mansions bought and built were so done by Africans. The oppression deployed, the suitcases of dollars exported were done by African hands. It is immoral to exempt African States from any responsibility and to guarantee them further largesse in the absence of correctives for past misdeeds.
18. Point: Attempts to bypass the State in the delivery of Aid commit the fallacy of separating African leaders from the rest of the populace.RePoint: This is completely false. African leaders, functionally, are separate from the rest of the populace; as are leaders everywhere else. This is even truer under colonial conditions where the Institutions of Political power are the result of Imposition. For instance, we seperate the CCP from the rest of the Chinese populace as an institutional and political regime. The same is true of African States which are essentially entities which administer (still) colonized Nations.
19.Point: If African States are corrupt, there is no proof that NGOs are any less corrupt since NGOs in Africa, in most cases have ties to Government officers. Thus Aid which is designed to bypass the State is may very well end up being useless.RePoint: Again, the truth of the matter is that there is no data to support the above assertion. Indeed, surveys of Nigerians ( page 19) for instance reveal that they perceive NGOs to be the least corrupt institution next to religious bodies in a survey of 15 social institutions
20.Point: We should not allow our pride as Africans to get in the way of commending a good work as Live8.RePoint: If only this were true. But there is no evidence that Live8 is a "good" work. As pointed out above; Charities of this nature often end up having a net negative effect when coupled to depredatory institutions. One only needs remember the caprices of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as well as the collections taken up for them in the West to understand the crux of the matter. But were we even to assume a net positive biological and material benefit from these charities in Africa - we have to ask - then why arent Charity concerts being organized for the many poor and homeless in the USA or the UK or those in India and China? The reality is that there are more people at death's door in Asia (in China and India particularly) than there are in Africa. Where are the Charity concerts and publicity for them? Furthermore; the image of persistent African misery that these Charities convey smack of calls to collect pennies to "save black Babies in Africa" back in the 19th century in Europe - Indeed; we can posit a psychological interest in refusing such charities, because of the overall negative image of African helplessness that they convey and in full view of the fact that such an image was one of the main justifications for the Imperial project which many Charity supporters now argue is responsible for African poverty in the first place. In view of the fact, that the millions dying in Asia arent eliciting such calls and synonymousity with misery - we have to ask - "Why Africa?" More people have died of State managed and Bureaucratic induced Hunger and Famine in China and India than there have in Africa; one thus has to wonder if there isnt a sinister purpose in maintaining the marriage of the concept of Poverty and helplessness to the black condition. Thus, even if we assume a net salvific effect materially, this is not enough reason to support such charities; as the means and method of conveying such charity may very well prove to be inimical in the long run purely by its effect on the human psyche.
21.Point: Africans should not allow their paranoia to stand in the way of good gestures from the West.RePoint: If only African Paranoia existed. The simple truth of the matter is that there have been calls and insinuations for the recolonization of Africa or placing it under a United Nations mandate system from respected quarters in the West. (See for instance a supposed liberal view calling for a disinterested neocolonialism in William Pfaffs "A New Colonialism". For what might be a conservative view; look no further than Paul Johnson's "Colonialism Is Back and Not a Moment Too Soon"; New York Times Magazine, April 18, 1993). The notion that Africans should submit to misguided Western attempts to further impose systems on them which they have no desire to be subjugate to and which are inimical to them, is simply risible. Africa doesnt need good gestures from the West to further strenghten the poisoned chalice of the current depredatory State systems on the continent (which incidentally, were also created for the "good" of Africans). Indeed, the British who are gravitating towards what is supposedly "new leadership" in African affairs did not hesitate to support the slaughter of 1 million Igbos in a pompous and egotistic war to keep their "creation" on the African continent called Nigeria alive. The Europeans have shown themselves quite willing to sacrifice African lives in pursuit of the survival of particular institutions thus there is no reason for Africans to reconsider a fundamental inclination towards believing in Western malevolence - this is not paranoia. It is an evidence based and historically informed bias.
22.Point: Debt cancellation is a gesture that acknowledges and rectifies Western culpability in the mismanagement of African affairs.RePoint: This surely is an ambitious remark. One notices, right off the bat that such culpability is something that has never been acknowledged nor discussed when African affairs are in the International spotlight. It is thus presumptuous to assume that the West is rectifying a wrong that it wont even acknowledge. Furthermore; the rectification of such culpability is best served by the exposure and punishment of the guilty. Even if debt cancellation was a conciliatory gesture (which it isnt); the covering of past crimes is not in the best interests of anyone. It is all very well to stomp on Abacha's grave (because he is dead) but what about Babangida? What about the looters of the Second Republic? There will be no "moving forward" until corrective atonements are applied (and this includes the punishment of bad behavior).
23.Point: Humanitarian ventures such as Live8 should not be conflated with Western State sponsored actions with regards to solving African problems.RePoint: The truth of the matter is that even in the absence of such conflation, the effects remain the same. Missionary efforts to "save" Africa years back were also conceived of independently of State action. They were also billed as disinterested, humanitarian, individual driven actions to "help" Africans. In the long run; the Missionaries became merely another arm of Imperial policy. There is thus a precedent for such "humanitarian" interventions as spear carriers for Empire.
24. Point: Humanitarian ventures such as Live8 are merely representing the reality of Poverty in Africa and are deserving of praise for their goodwill and disinterested pursuit of humane policies.RePoint: If only this were true. As mentioned above; where is the History of concerts for the millions dead in India and China? Why arent these regions which contain far more poor people in absolute numbers (and hence represent a greater absolute toll on Humanity as a whole) the poster faces for Poverty and Helplessness? Where is the representation of the reality of Poverty in China, India and Central Asia? Or are we to assume that the inhabitants of these regions are too "human" to be associated with the very worst kinds of Poverty and Disease? The truth of the matter is that for 200 years; ignorant do-gooders in the West have been trying to represent the "reality" of African conditions and have failed woefully. Live8 is not representing any African realities; but rather, the jaundiced views of Western popular culture. Furthermore; there is an uncanny history of "disinterested pursuits of humane policies" by Westerners ending up in wide ranging sanctions for carnage and genocide in Africa. The justification for colonization and the murder of millions was such "humaneness". No institution that has as its thrust such a jaundiced view of Africa is deserving of praise.
25.Point: Live8 is designed to provide immediate relief to the suffering in Africa as a Humanitarian venture.RePoint: Again, there is no reason to believe that such relief would be immediate - or relieving in any sense of the word. As noted before, other attempts to provide immediate "relief" - down to the recent attempts at relieving victims of the Asian Tsunami have carried with them a terrible cost. Ethiopia has gotten poorer since the last Live Aid concert organized by Geldorf. Could this be because the funds raised by the last concert were in part funneled to warring groups; in part used to support Mengistu's collectivized agriculture policies and in part used to relocated hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians as part of a "fake famine" scenario designed to elicit Western sympathy? Mengistu also committed Genocide during the resettlement campaign - a fact which is hardly acknowledged by Geldorf and Live Aid even though its monies were used to support the project and the ensuing mass murders. This is a mistake that such "Charities" make over and over again. In the pursuit of their policies, they provide resources to Murderous, depredatory institutions. Indeed; during the 2nd World War the Red Cross colluded with the Nazis and was thus indirectly complicit in horrendous murders at Auschwitz. This is a lesson that all those who hasten to support "Humanitarian ventures" might do well to reflect upon.
26.Point: Humanitarian ventures such as Live Aid / Live8 raise awareness of the global community to otherwise underreported tragedies in Africa.RePoint: This is nonsense. Ethiopia is another good example. China and Russia at the time of the Ethiopian famine faced far worse famine disasters than the Ethiopians ever did. Where was the "awareness" effort for both regions? The truth of the matter is that such "awareness" efforts stem from the History of Paternalism towards Africa which emphasizes only the negative aspects and the belief that Africa cannot succeed without external assistance. If this werent the case; we would have to ask why it is that Africa is almost always the focus of such efforts when indeed, worse disasters have and are taking place in other parts of the world. The truth of the matter is that the primary issue of State and National self determination is THE issue in need of discussion; yet it is hardly every reported or brought into consideration in any "awareness" campaign - probably because it is swallowed up in doctrinal constructs and exotic occidental projections which talk about "Tribes" and their "primitive" lifestyles. The notion that these peoples want to govern themselves is of course never considered since received wisdom holds that they are "tribes" that need to be subsumed into some supranational political structure. In the case of Ethiopia, the famines that Live Aid sought to combat in the 80s were directly created by Mengistu's wars which again were caused by State / Self determination / National autonomy issues. This of course, is never brought to light in any "awareness" campaign - yet it is THE fundamental issue.
27.Point: The West provided reconstruction for Japan after WW2 and the Marshall Plan for Europe. It should do the same for Africa which suffered through horrendous colonial depredation.RePoint: This is an untenable argument. First of all, Japan mostly paid for its own reconstruction. Furthermore, it provided Okinawa to the Americans under a Status of Forces Agreement. In Okinawa today, America owns prime real estate and beachfront property on Japanese soil as well as housing for its bases and immunity for American citizens against Japanese Laws; even rape. East Germany to a large extent paid for both its reconstruction and that of significant sectors of the Soviet Union. Iraq today is paying for its reconstruction with Oil. And both Germany and Japan were allowed to rebuild only to serve the ideological interest of the West in deterring communism (thus the inclusion of all the ex-militarists and far-rightists from Tojo's administration). Are those who make this argument therefore claiming that Africa should give up more of its liberty and patrimony to the West as payment for a Western ameloriation of a Western induced condition? The notion doesnt even make sense. Furthermore; were the argument even to be accepted, it should be pointed out that the major depredator in Africa today is the State and its military which violates the National spaces of most Africans. Why then provide a palliative for colonial depredation when the major instrument for such depredation; which is the colonial State; is still in place?
28.Point: Presenting Foreign Aid and Loans as Charitable acts of Benevolence on the part of the West is misguided; since these two elements are instruments for the control of African economies.RePoint: This is ludicrous. So Foreign Aid and Loans within the OECD is also for the purpose of controlling Western economies by other Western economies? Foreign Aid and Loans to Israel is also for the same purpose? How much control has American been able to exert over Israel? There is simply no support for this ridiculous argument. Africans entered into these Loans and took Aid with their two eyes and ears wide open; as did other countries. And in fact; much of the aid given to Africa is indeed constructed as "charity" - since there can be no possible hope of recompense. And even if these elements were for the purpose of controlling African economies - so what? Were they imposed? Did someone not sign for them? Why is that fellow as yet unpunished?
29.Point: Unwillingness to completely cancel the African Debt is because the West is afraid of losing control over African economies.RePoint: Another ridiculous argument. Does this mean that the West was afraid then, of losing control over the economies of countries whose debts were canceled? Furthermore; there is precious little in African economies to control, that is not already under Western control (of sorts) and would remain under such control even if the debts were to be canceled.
30.Point: It is impossible for Africa NOT to be better off in the absence of having to spend so much money on debt servicing.RePoint: This is a very foolish argument. The notion that more money in the purses of the African State means more growth is like saying that more water in a Sieve means more retention. Nigeria has been gaining more and more money from Oil receipts and the people have grown poorer and poorer. There is no reason to believe that any monies retained in the absence of debt servicing will be any more effective than the embezzled oil receipts of yesteryears. Thus, more Aid and Debt Relief to Africa will simply be of NO GOOD in the presence of Institutional depravity.
31. Point: The money retained from debt servicing can be used to build more schools, hire more teachers and provide better public infrastructure.RePoint: If only this were the case! We have to ask - so what happened to all the surplus oil monies of yesteryears? Why wasnt it used to build more schools, hire more teachers and provide infrastructure? The quality of education in Nigeria has been decreasing steadily in the face of more monies in the Government purse. There is no reason to believe that States which cannot judiciously spend funds obtained from trading oil will be able to judiciously handle a sudden barrage of free "chop chop" money released in Government coffers by the absence of debt servicings and virtually unaccountable to the public because even Government institutions are unaware of how much is being deployed towards debt servicing.
32.Point: It is morally unacceptable for African countries to continue to service debts after they have paid off the original amounts on what were essentially dubious debts.RePoint: This is simply not true. Debts must be serviced according to the terms. Indeed, it is immoral to hold that a debtor is excused of the terms of his agreement entered into by both parties under any circumstances - especially in the light of the fact that the funds needed to pay off all debts might very well be in possession of the debtor.
33. Point: The Debts were not entered into by African countries but rather by Military Dictators and hence are dubious; because these Dictators didn't represent the country and now, the people of the country have to suffer from their perfidy.RePoint: This is another ridiculous argument. If we say that the Dictators didnt represent the country; then who does? We might even ask - Does the country represent the people? How is a debt originating from the actions of Military Dictators like Babangida any more dubious that one originating from Obasanjo? Both are representatives of the Nigerian State and there is no reason to believe that this State is a genuine democratic represenation of the National peoples it administers. If we hold that debts originating from a Democratic regime are legitimate; then debts from Military regimes are no less legitimate - since in both cases; the State as the party entering into the agreement cannot be said to be a genuine representative of the "people of the country".
34.Point: Debt cancellation and Aid is reparations for slavery.RePoint: Then why not say so? Why do we have to "assume" this; when it isnt even featured in any of the talks? And who put a numerical amount on all that Africa lost to the West anyway?
35.Point: Debt cancellation and Aid is reparations for the modern Western depredations on the continent ranging from damage to the environment, to fueling conflicts.RePoint: Then why not say so? There has been no mention of this in all the talks and one cannot assume that this is the case. In the absence of evidence to the contrary; such aid must be regarded as charity. Just because one views "debt cancelation" as reparations does not make it so - and it does not make Aid any less of an act of charitable benevolence which Africa certainly doesnt need.
36.Point: Demanding that Africa institutes reforms before receiving aid is tantamount to sacrificing human lives on the altar of perfectionist idealism.RePoint: This is nonsense. The truth of the matter is that providing aid in the absence of such reform is equivalent to mass murder. This again, is illustrated by the Ethiopia case, as well as in Nigeria - where financial, military and political support for despotic regimes by Western States and NGOs led to the loss of countless lives. We must understand that millions of Africans live in unfree spaces under the rulership of Colonial States. There is no guarantee that any aid provided to these States will ever reach the people. Indeed, experience shows that such aid goes more to solidify State power, which is them deployed through channels of ethnic patronage. It is a bit ludicrous to expect States which cannot productively use receipts obtained from National economic activity to handle "aid". It is ludicrous to expect States like Obasanjo's Nigeria which has no compunction in deploying the Military against legitimate forces of self determination to be judicious in its disbursement and usage of aid. Providing Aid to depredatory institutions is equivalent to mass murder.
37.Point: Since African Poverty is also a threat to America; it should provide free aid without conditionalities to Africans just like the Marshall Plan in Europe was provided as a bulwark against Communism.RePoint: First of all, the Marshall Plan was hardly "free money to Europe" as most of the monies financed American firms and projects. Secondly, the $500 bn embezzled by Nigerian leaders over a period of 40 years is already equal to centuries of Aid from the U.K alone. Thirdly, Nigerian rulers have embezzled the equivalent of multiple Marshall plans already. We thus have to ask - where is the rational basis for belief that any further "Marshall plan" will be efficacious if no correctives, no punishments and no judgments have been issued (in full knowledge of the fact that officers of the State have a pretty good idea of who the criminals are) ?
38.Point: The Key to eliminating African Poverty lies in more aid and debt cancelation.RePoint: This is an ignorant idea. Aid has been increasing to Africa and people have been growing poorer. Ethiopia, the quintessential charity basket case has grown poorer than it was since the last mass charity events of the 1980s and this is representative of Africa as a whole. Furthermore; it is also possible that any debt cancellation (in the absence of punitive correctives) will disconnect Africa from the foreign investment promised by all and sundry. It doesnt make sense to do business with folks who arent in the habit of managing wisely, or paying back what they borrowed according to the terms. Besides, there is a fair amount of economic research showing that trade is simply not effective in the face of institutional decadence.
39.Point: African Poverty is caused by debt.RePoint: This is a big myth. The truth of the matter is that even with the piling up of debts by African States, these States have found more and more ways to spend money on wasteful white elephant projects. The Abuja Stadium, The Eldoret Airport, The National Capitals of Ivory Coast, Ridiculous Sports projects etc were all expenditures by unsound State systems even as they accumulated debt. African Poverty is thus not a result of debt; but the result of State policies which again are tied to underlying political and ethnic patronage networks.
40. Point: The current situation is a result of years of Western neglect which must now be remedied.RePoint: This is wrong. Western agencies have been calling for some form of debt relief or the other for about 40 years now. The World Bank has on more than one occassion reccommended debt relief and longer grace periods. Indeed, debt terms have grown more lenient as the years have gone by with numerous postponements of debt payment deadlines. The truth of the matter is that all funds received have been so squandered, that these countries take loans to pay back old debts. The West has been granting debt relief to HIPCs for decades with nothing to show for it. The current situation is thus the result of factors within African States that make them incapable of forging prosperity for the populace.
41.Point: African Poverty can be eradicated by eliminating Western agricultural subsidies.RePoint: Even in the face of the fact that Western agricultural subsidies are hypocritical and morally wrong (as well as economically unsound); there simply is no evidence that access to Western agricultural markets will grow African economies. We ought not to forget that there are other countries around the world that have successfully penetrated niches in Western agricultural economies even in the face of such subsidies. Furthermore; we have to ask - what about Chinese markets? What about other Asian and Central European markets? Is it subsidies that is preventing Africans from penetrating those markets also? The argument that the West is a sole reservoir of wealth simply will not hold in the face of over 4 decades of South East Asian economic prosperity. The elimination of subsidies might well provide more markets to Africans; but the absence of such markets is trivial to the presence of poverty in African economies. We should not forget that Nigeria used to be a net exporter of food and most of these exports went to Western countries to a large extent. The destruction of African agricultural economies thus has little to do with Western protectionism and more to do with failed State policies, ethnic patronage, redistributionist and collectivist policies as well as cabals of Political elites who monopolize huge segments of the Agric economy and the Agric import business.
42.Point: It is ridiculous to expect Africans not to push for more Aid and Debt cancellation in light of the fact that such measures will benefit them.RePoint: This fallacy rests on the unsupported assumption that more Aid and Debt cancellation will in fact benefit Africans in a net positive sense. We have seen that Aid sometimes kills more Africans than it saves. We have seen that Aid supports corrupt and depredatory State systems. Furthermore, we have seen that past debt reschedulings and minor reliefs granted by the West have not translated into anything good for Africans. Why then should we assume that the recent effort will be anything other than another means to provide funds into the pockets of certain elites - who, BTW,are the only ones with the business connections and economic placements to benefit from these actions anyway?
43.Point: Research shows that Aid has been found to be effective in promoting economic growth in Asian countries such as Vietnam. Why should we assume that the same cannot be the case in Africa?RePoint: We cannot make such assumptions because there is no reason to believe that the internal dynamics of such Asian States; with their corresponding National and ethnic structures parrallels that of African States. Indeed, African States are some of the most ethnically fractionalized States on the Planet; and economic growth is negatively correlated with ethnocultural fragmentation. But were we even to accept the argument on logical grounds alone; we would find it refuted by empirical evidence. For instance; Research also shows that as is often the case in African countries; foreign Aid never reaches the people on ground but is instead routed to political cliques who use it to buy support (c.f. Easterly ) - but even more, there is a whole slew of economic literature that makes a convincing case for the notion that in the absence of institutional soundness, which include property rights, aid is virtually ineffective and sometimes has a negative effect on growth. For instance, see this paper by Dollar as well as this by Benyon and this by Burnside & Dollar .
44. Point: Aid has been found to be successful in some African countries such as Uganda in the eradication of Poverty. Why not in other African countries?RePoint: This perspective rests upon an urban legend of Ugandan success and upon a failure to properly understand African State depredations. Ugadan has been a beneficiary of both aid and debt relief of some sort or the other; yet, it is instructive that almost every negative anticipation ensued as a result of these measures and there is no evidence that the lives of Ugandans are better of as a whole. In 1998, Ugandan debt was a mere $3bn. Under the HIPC program, is got about $2bn debt relief. Uganda's debt was accumulated under the Obote and Museveni regimes in a era of SAP. Upon debt relief, what did Uganda do? It launched useless capital projects, launched military expenditures and adventures in foreign countries and was indebted to the tune of about $5bn at the end of 2004; and thus back at the table begging for more relief. The irony of course was that in this period, Uganda was majorly a recipient of grants. In the case of Uganda; whatever gains were made in the 90s began to be squandered in the new millenium since poverty actually increase by 3% from 2000 to 2003 after debt relief. Whatever poor countries spend on health and education; whatever increases are gained cannot even be shown to be a function of any debt relief since "increased spending" as shown in State budgets may merely be a function of inflated contracts. Nigeria has just commissioned a non-functional "National Website" at the whooping cost of $400,000 (http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/). Is any more evidence needed as to the deep decandence that pervades the State policies? Even in this era where fiscal discipline ought to be the watchword, the Nigerian State still finds ways, means and methods to be profligate!
45.Point: If African States would institute strong property rights regimes; they would be on the fast track to eliminating poverty.RePoint: This is an easy talking point. Property rights are of course right and just. The problem is that African Nations have had regimes of Property Ownership for centuries. Today; claims to land are still regulated under National systems according to ancestral titles which are for the most part recognized by communities. What "Property Rights" advocates fail to address is that the very structure of African countries is one huge regime of Property Rights violation and theft. How come the Nigerian State has claim to Igbo, Yoruba or Ijaw land and resources? Is this not a property right violation? How come all land is vested in the State; such vestment being a function merely of the State's theft of such land through Colonial and Imperial usurpage? Is this not a property rights violation? The Colonial African State is incapable, in the presence of ethnic and National claims of instituting any favorable property rights regimes because it is itself the greatest violator of the concept. The idea that Land and its use is vested in the person of Governors and Presidents, even in Lagos State, is a product of Colonial usurpage which continues to find implementation in the policies of the State.
46.Point: Reforms are in place with transitions to civilian democracies to combat corruption and eliminate wasteful spending, thus Aid has a higher chance of success.RePoint: If only this were true. For instance, almost all of Uganda's new debt was acquired via prodigal spending under a civilian regime. The Obasanjo regime also is guilty of corruption to the highest levels - as is shown by the award of inflated contracts to his wife and Son. The COJA contracts also are yet to be effectively probed.
47.Point: The tide of Poverty in Africa will be stemmed by good governments. Bad governments are largely responsible for the current situation.RePoint: This begs the question of how such governments arose in the first place. In Nigeria, the entrenchment of bad governance is the direct product of the structure of the State; going back to 1966 and the colonial years which were rife with national animosities and differing agendas. The rise of the military in State governance occurred in this context. Furthermore, it is hard to posit a theory of Good governments in an atmosphere where National loyalties stand in the background of any service to the State. Politics in Nigeria is largely conducted on a system of ethnic bloc interests which coupled with religious factors like Sharia are unlikely to make Nigeria the loci of Patriotism anytime soon. There are too many despots in the North willing to support Sharia, the Caliphate and a backward, retrogressive system for there too be any emergence of good governance untainted by National factors. What we are therefore witness is the logical outcome (much like in Yugoslavia) of an ethno-national logjam in State function.
48.Point: Emergency situation such as the intense hunger that plagues much of Africa need urgent remedies which foreign Aid can meet.RePoint: Again, this rests upon the fallacy of assuming all of Africa is in the throes of deep, emergency hunger - which simply is not true. It is also the result of projecting conditions in one part of the continent upon the whole - a projection that ignorant Western observers seem to revel in (partly because it absolves lazy brains from the need for any serious analyses). The truth of the matter is that Ethiopian conditions are far removed from Nigerian realities and Nigerian realities may make little sense to Tanzanians - and even within Nigeria; Yoruba might not know what the Ijaw are experiencing. Famine in Africa and Hunger are not about a lack of food which requires external supplies to combat it. As Amartya Sen pointed out (based on his studies of the famine in Ethiopia between 1972 and 1974; the drought and famine in the Sahel between 1968 and 1973, the famine in Bangladesh in 1974 and the Bengal famine of 1943-1944), famine is rarely about the net, material absence of food; but often about a deficit in supply to those who need it the most. In fact, according to the International Association for the Study of Obesity's Task force (http://www.iotf.org/media/globalprev.htm), 40% of Morrocans, 12% of Kenyans and close to 10% of Nigerians are dangerously obese. Thus we have a situation where some are growing fatally fat and others are shown to be skinny and underfed. Focusing on the underfed alone is simply not an accurate representation of the situation. What we have are structural, State policies that prevent natural economic currents from allocating goods (and this includes food) to those who need them the most. Thus much of the images of hunger in Africa are depicting an artificial situation - which is not to say it is any less dangerous; but at least should inform the focus of action. The focus of action should be on minimizing the influence of the State in peoples lives, land and property. Yet, this is the entire thrust of the colonial African State project. The acquisition of land, usurpage of territory and so called "Federal Character" laws cooked up to cater to Northerners whose backwardness is more the result of their own cultural and institutional bankruptcy. Yet, this crucial element is the part given the least attention and the Nigerian State (as an example) continues to frustrate legitimate self determination processes and demands for National autonomy.
49.Point: Every country has experienced corruption on the path to development. African State corruption is a stage that we should expect African States to grow out of. We should not cut back support to them simply because they are in a critical phase.RePoint: If only this were true. The fact of the matter is that corruption in other States which went on the experience economic boom deposited the proceeds of such corruption within the economy and in many cases; such corruption was reinvested to promote growth. This is certainly not the case in Africa where proceeds flee the country and the environment for investment is simply atrocious because of the lack of respect for individual human life and dignity that so besets colonial State regimes everywhere. Furthermore, this argument is totally myopic with regards to the fact that this "phase of corruption" is exerting a net negative toll: It is killing lives, destroying bright minds and ideas and entrenching long term bitterness in the populace. There is therefore no guarantee that this "Phase" will not be the terminal phase of these States if we indulge them in it for long enough. Furthermore, if this "corruption phase" is wrecking so many human lives - why support it? Why support an instrument of depredation, even for the short term? It is such myopia that led to support for the Nazis and the Communists in the short term by otherwise good men and women.
50.Point: Debt Relief / Cancellation provides economic freedom for African countries.RePoint: This is ridiculously naive. It provides nothing of the sort since Freedom is experienced on an individual level. State restrictions and impositions are the biggest impediments to the freedom of Africans today. The harrasment of journalists, the thievery of Police men which is brazenly justified by the Number 1 law enforcers (c.f. "Why we won’t stop collecting N20 – Police" ) are losses of economic freedom that have nothing to do with debt and everything to do with the caprice of the State. Furthermore, there is no debt cancellation or relief regime that doesnt come with conditionalities for African countries. Yet, were we even to assume that such cancellation brought "freedom"; we would have to ask - "How did the bondage come about in the first place?" The answer to that question lies in State policies, corruption, fiscal indiscipline, military adventurism, white elephant projects and profligate public officers. All these factors are still in place in Nigeria and there is no reason to believe that Nigeria; like Uganda, will simply not revert into worse debt - in which it follows the cycle of even greater borrowing based on new credit and an unproductive economy which cannot create wealth needed to repay. The bondage of African economies thus has little to do with debt and more to do with the habits and the nature of the State. What is even more appalling is that the individuals who have been of paramount importance in shaping State habits of profligacy and prodigality are still walking around today as free men and are insinuating themselves further into the workings of government in times of supposed "reform".
|
|
Last Updated (
Thursday, 24 April 2008 ) |
|
Posted by Robot| 26.04.2008 09:01