A plan for Africa

[Farnan]

Ok we all know Africa has gone to **** and has been that way for centuries.

Now we must decide on how to deal with Africa and fix the situation.

Many ideas have been spread around, but here is some of mine:

1. Establish a Marshall Plan for Africa. As the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, a similiar effort will be launched for Africa. With this plan, any stable and liberal, though not neccessarily democratic, government will be offered low-interest loans and grants from the nations of the developed world. This will not be offered to unstable, or illiberal nations. For the former it is due to the fact the money will just end up in the hands of some warlord, for the other it offers an incentive to change. The carrot works harder than the stick for change.

2. Increase the size of the Peace Corps, allow college students to sign up for summer tours, and high school graduates for year long tours in exchange for college aid. Deploy the Peace Corps to every stable region possible with instructions to teach the people the skills neccessary for them to take their future in their own hands and survive successfully.

3. With the permission of the host government, military Civil Affairs troops will be deployed to unstable regions. They will play the same role as Peace Corps personnel, except being armed they can defend themself and their charges.

[JayHawk357]

I think the issues facing Africa is beyond a message board about Total war,'s pay grade.

If I were to throw two cents in, their governments are too corrupt by european, american and local business interests.

[Cyphon88]

1) yes Marshall plan. As i recall rostow advocated this in part to create allies for the US, to almost force people to think as the US did. If we guarentee that our form of government/society/culture is the best/right then that would be ok.

other 2 points seem ok, however i don't know too much about the peace corps.

Your plan certainly has points of value and areas i approve of. However it seems that maybe your looking at this from only one perspective. Personaly my preffered approach to development is the Basic Needs approach, although i can't claim a fully functioning blueprint for development.
However another area that needs to be sorted out is the MNCs exploitation of countries, for example the difficulty of profits from countries natural resources remaining within the country and helping the country.

I could spend hours going over development issues and plans, (i'm studying this at uni and is the area i want to move into after i leave uni) and yet i wouldn't even scratch the surface. Perhaps this thread can become a area to raise ideas of what combination of strategies for development would be best. Ie should we chase economic growth, or chase the situations that cause economic growth, and so on.

[Farnan]

1) yes Marshall plan. As i recall rostow advocated this in part to create allies for the US, to almost force people to think as the US did. If we guarentee that our form of government/society/culture is the best/right then that would be ok.

Rostow didn't advocate it, George Marshall did in Europe and he offered it to anyone, including Soviet Puppets without strings. The idea was that it would rebuild Europe so we can trade with it quicker...

And Peace Corps: http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?...learn.whatispc

Hellheaven - Also, read the Marshall Plan details, only provided to liberal and stable governments (though an exception for Kenya). As I said Peace Corps to stable areas, Civil Affairs (basically Peace Corps with weapons) to unstable areas. Both will work to build infastructure, teach better farming techniques, and help set up medical clinics and teach proper healthcare.

[hellheaven1987]

Hellheaven - Also, read the Marshall Plan details, only provided to liberal and stable governments (though an exception for Kenya). As I said Peace Corps to stable areas, Civil Affairs (basically Peace Corps with weapons) to unstable areas. Both will work to build infastructure, teach better farming techniques, and help set up medical clinics and teach proper healthcare.

Now, care to explain what is defination of "liberal and stable government"??

[hellheaven1987]

Now we must decide on how to deal with Africa and fix the situation.

Must?? Why??

1. Establish a Marshall Plan for Africa. As the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, a similiar effort will be launched for Africa. With this plan, any stable and liberal, though not neccessarily democratic, government will be offered low-interest loans and grants from the nations of the developed world. This will not be offered to unstable, or illiberal nations. For the former it is due to the fact the money will just end up in the hands of some warlord, for the other it offers an incentive to change. The carrot works harder than the stick for change.

So, for the case of Congo, who do you want to provide this plan??

Simply, most time both rebels and government are corrupted... In the case of Rwanda Genocide, the Hutu government even ignore the violent act.

2. Increase the size of the Peace Corps, allow college students to sign up for summer tours, and high school graduates for year long tours in exchange for college aid. Deploy the Peace Corps to every stable region possible with instructions to teach the people the skills neccessary for them to take their future in their own hands and survive successfully.

I am sure no one want to sign up in Sudan - they just attacked UN convoy a while ago.

And people in "stable" region need jobs and stable life; learn new skill really would not help as there are not many new jobs.

3. With the permission of the host government, military Civil Affairs troops will be deployed to unstable regions. They will play the same role as Peace Corps personnel, except being armed they can defend themself and their charges.

Men, they need jobs, not new skills.

May be you can teach them how to make weapon though...:hmmm:

[Farnan]

One which allows for human rights = liberal
A government that is not in danger of toppling = stable

[hellheaven1987]

One which allows for human rights = liberal
A government that is not in danger of toppling = stable

So, now list down how many African country fit the rule.

Cannot really think many...

Edit: I think US should concern more about how to repay their own debt rather than thinking a new Marshall Plan...

[mocker]

This is basically what people have done the last decades, to be fair.

And we're starting to see results now.
Africa's slowly getting better.

[Farnan]

Ethiopia (some problems, but still basically liberal)
Rwanda (suprisingly, not perfect but working on it)
Dijibouti (on condition of its release of opposition leaders)

I'm sure there are others those are the ones who came to mind.

[hellheaven1987]

Ethiopia (some problems, but still basically liberal)

Ya, and support others to attack Muslim warlords in Somalia. If they are that free, why not use the resource to build their economy??

Rwanda (suprisingly, not perfect but working on it)

Never know when Hutu rebels would get back to Rwanda, just like Tusi rebels did.

Not to mention Rwanda was the one who started recent Congo conflict.

Dijibouti (on condition of its release of opposition leaders)

Dijibouti is under French influence - and without international troops, that place would disappear soon or later.

[hellheaven1987]

By the way, just find an interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7232140.stm

Nice "liberal" Ethiopia.

[MaximiIian]

Ethiopia (some problems, but still basically liberal)
Rwanda (suprisingly, not perfect but working on it)
Dijibouti (on condition of its release of opposition leaders)

I'm sure there are others those are the ones who came to mind.

Benin, South Africa, Mali, Namibia, and Botswana are doing fairly well, in regards to civil liberties and stability. The Democracy Index 2007 ranking list shows those nations as functioning or flawed democracies, which is doing better than hybrid states and authoritarian states. So, if the other African countries begin to follow their examples, we should see some definite improvement with the next quarter century.

I'll be blunt. What's in it for us? Why should Australia, as an example, contribute too this program...

Because you should think of others before you think of yourself. Until people in the industrialised states stop collectively acting like they're 4 years old, and start donating more money to charities, the governments of those countries will continue to be forced to use state funds to send aid.

It may not be the best solution immediately, but funding charity organisations is a start, and it's better than just sitting there and doing nothing about it. When the ball gets rolling, more and more people will do something about the problems of that continent, and will actually start acting on their convictions to help these failing countries.

[hellheaven1987]

It may not be the best solution immediately, but funding charity organisations is a start, and it's better than just sitting there and doing nothing about it. When the ball gets rolling, more and more people will do something about the problems of that continent, and will actually start acting on their convictions to help these failing countries.

That is not very good to convice people. In fact, the situation in Africa was getting worse compare with 30 years ago, when people sent less aid into there.

So, now explain why the aid increase = situation getting worse???

[Cyphon88]

Rostow didn't advocate it, George Marshall did in Europe and he offered it to anyone, including Soviet Puppets without strings. The idea was that it would rebuild Europe so we can trade with it quicker...

Aye i know. But Rostow in later days when he was a national security advisor advocated the marshall plan. But the point i should make more, is that rostow would advocate this use of funding suggested in the OP. Give them money to spend money on american goods, and also attach strings (if not direct strings, indirect strings) to force them to think like the US. I just dont wholly agree with that, especially as your loans would have these strings ( i admit that corrupt governments is not a good government to lend to - my issue is more to do with cultural imperialism) and would be focused on business by the sounds of things - you didnt elaborate on which areas would the loans and grants would be focused.

[Farnan]

Aye i know. But Rostow in later days when he was a national security advisor advocated the marshall plan. But the point i should make more, is that rostow would advocate this use of funding suggested in the OP. Give them money to spend money on american goods, and also attach strings (if not direct strings, indirect strings) to force them to think like the US. I just dont wholly agree with that, especially as your loans would have these strings ( i admit that corrupt governments is not a good government to lend to - my issue is more to do with cultural imperialism) and would be focused on business by the sounds of things - you didnt elaborate on which areas would the loans and grants would be focused.

Focused on Agricultural improvements, building of infastructure, healthcare improvement, education improvement, to send exceptional students to universities around the world to create leaders, along with grants of food. The loans would be low interest with no payment until they are certified as ready by an international body.

[William the Bastard]

Here is an Africa question that I have wondered about but never come up with a fixed answer.

Is the actual land and resources of Africa sustainable for the population they have?

I went to Kenya just under a year ago and tbh it looks like there simply isn't the possibility of giving that many people jobs from scratch. Of course over time there could be economic growth and therefore a rise in jobs but right now there just isn't any possibility.

What I noticed was that the only real way for Mombasa (and therefore the rest of Kenya) to get out of poverty is tourism. The workers in the hotel I was staying at were getting paid bot all but more than the others who appeared to either be trying to sell crap on the beach (for someone else who takes a cut out of that) or hanging around doing nothing.

For the numbers of people living there it just doesn't seem possible for them to "catch up" with the rest of the world unless there are far fewer of them. I do not condone killing off a load of Kenyans but in a rational sense they are ****ed until there are fewer of them.

Not to mention fewer bribe taking, corruption ridden filthy bastards who rape their own people dry of the little money they already have woud be a good start.

[hellheaven1987]

That is the problem every country faced before - job shortage. The best way is to industrial the country, thous provide more job oppoturnity.

That is why I say provide job skill training is useless - basically there is no job so even new skill will not help. The possible way for Africa to recover, is rather follow USSR style in 1920s ~ 1930s, or follow Korea, Taiwan or Singapore style in 1950s ~ 1980s.

Both ways would not provide much democracy, so West would piss off.

[William the Bastard]

Both ways would not provide much democracy, so West would piss off.

Exactly. Which is why I tend to think that the only good the West can do for Africa is either to get all Imperialistic again by occupying the hotspots and spending a shedload of cash and lives on fixing it up or alternatively leave off and let them sort themselves out and help them if they ask. Neither option is really palatable or even destined for success anyways.

[Farnan]

Umm... I was talking about internal matters which is what matters.