The Atlanticist

Daily our calloused senses and consciences are assaulted by the African tragedy: starving babies with bloated bellies, bloody tribal and sectarian genocide, massive government corruption and pillaging, military coups, endemic AIDS, resurgent tuberculosis and malaria, UN employees and blue hats buying child prostitutes and French protégé the Central African Republic’s Emperor Jean-Bédel Bokassa credibly accused of cannibalism.

There is not a single state on the African continent that would not today be better off administered under a colonial regime, as Hong Kong was by Britain. If the West genuinely cared about Africa and wanted to make a difference rather than more charity, it would send soldiers to overthrow corrupt and despotic regimes, and constitutional law experts and administrators to architect and operate governing legal and economic systems there patterned after our own.

The West –principally Britain and France – abandoned Africa. The British colonial – to use that unfashionable word- model was reasonably successful worldwide, if less so in Africa, planting institutions incubating and sustaining political and economic freedom. In the Americas economically and politically free countries once governed or administered by Britain include: Canada, the US, Barbados, Jamaica, and Belize; in Asia Pacific: Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Australia and New Zealand; and in Europe: Ireland, and Germany. In stark contrast, France’s colonial legacy includes no free countries, much less any exemplars of freedom.

The African continent is a patchwork quilt of artificially drawn and imposed borders, established, for the most part, by European colonial powers. They force together different, often violently antagonistic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups, resulting in festering tension, outbreaks of horrific violence, and in the politically and militarily dominate group oppressing, brutalizing and harvesting economic rents from other factions. This has resulted in millions of Africans having been slaughtered by other Africans, while the West has simply watched.

By most fundamental metrics the quality of life in Africa is poor and getting worse.

Africa is the least free continent on the planet. The Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index ranks not a single African economy as free. In most of the continent Africans cannot hold a transferable and enforceable title to their homes and land. This renders the most significant potential source of capital for the average African inert.

2005 Heritage Freedom Rankings Select African countries

  2005 Ranking 2005 Score
Libya 153 4.40
Zimbabwe 151 4.36
Nigeria 141 3.95
Guinea
Bissau
138 3.85
Congo, Republic of 136 3.80
Sierra Leone 135 3.78
Ethiopia 133 3.73
Togo 131 3.68
Malawi 129 3.65
Benin 128 3.63
Cameroon 126 3.60
Rwanda 121 3.54
Niger 118 3.53
Equ
atorial Guinea
118 3.53
Central African Republic 117 3.51
Algeria 114 3.49
Tanzania 109 3.41
Zambia 106 3.40
The
Gambia
106 3.40
Gabon 106 3.40
Chad 103 3.38
Egypt 103 3.38
Lesotho 102 3.36
Mozambique 100 3.34
Ghana 98 3.30

*Note Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan were not rated. Of 155 countries scored, North Korea ranked as the least economically free country on the planet.

Freedom House’s 2003 survey of political rights and civil liberties, ranks no country in Northern Africa as free, and, generously, categorizes 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa as free.

Africans on average live their freedom-starved lives far fewer years than people of any other continent. Life expectancies in huge swaths of Africa are plummeting. Of the ten countries with the world’s lowest life expectancies all are African. Life expectancy in these countries is under 40 years, comparable to medieval England.

Rank Country 2000-2005 Life Expectancy
at Birth (in years)
1 Zambia 32.4
2 Zimbabwe 33.1
3 Sierra Leone 34.2
4 Swaziland 34.4
5 Lesotho 35.1
6 Malawi 37.5
7 Mozambique 38.1
8 Rwanda 39.3
9 Central African Republic 39.5
10 Botswana 39.7

*UN Department of Economic & Social Affairs, Population Division, 2004

In many of these countries Aids and other diseases ravage the population. Aids has not however reduced European and North American life expectancies to medieval levels.

Under Robert Mugabe’s rule life expectancy in Zimbabwe fell from 56 years in 1985 to 33 years in 2005. A boy born in Zambia between 2000 and 2005 has a life expectancy of 32.7 years, which is 7 years less than he would have had if he had been born half a century earlier.

image001.jpg

Africa is the world’s economic basket case. Between 1975 and 2000 African GDP per capita fell .6% per year. While most of the world enjoys economic growth, African economic and political systems destroy wealth.

The world’s most impoverished continent exports legitimately saved and ill-gotten capital because capital in Europe and North America is generally safe, welcome and generates reasonable returns. Perhaps even more damaging, Africa also exports its human capital to developed countries.

Few African countries have solid money, which is a requisite but not sufficient condition for vibrant and healthy economies. Twelve of the 25 countries with the world’s highest inflation rates are African.

    Infl
ation r
ate (%)
CONGO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Africa 358.0
ANGOLA Africa 110.0
SOMALIA Africa 100.0
ZIMBABWE Africa 100.0
TURKEY Europe 69.0
IRAQ Middle East 60.0
SURINAME South America 59.0
BELARUS Europe 46.1
ROMANIA Europe 34.5
TAJIKISTAN Asia 33.0
MALAWI Africa 28.6
CYPRUS Europe 27.6
GHANA Africa 25.0
UZBEKISTAN Asia 23.0
ECUADOR South America 22.0
RUSSIA Asia 21.9
ZAMBIA Africa 21.5
MYANMAR Asia 20.0
SIERRA LEONE Africa 15.0
ERITREA Africa 15.0
NIGERIA Africa 14.9
SRI LANKA Asia 14.2
HAITI North America 14.0
BURUNDI Africa 14.0
LIBYA Africa 13.6

Even more destructive of individuals’ efforts to create wealth and better lives for themselves and their families is endemic corruption. In Africa it is pervasive. The Daily Telegraph reported Nigeria’s rulers plundered over $200 billion. Ghanaian economist George Ayittey testified to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September, 2004 that General Sani Abacha of Nigeria embezzled $20 billion; Ivory Coast President Felix Houphouet-Boigny $6 billion; Nigeria’s General Ibrahim Babangida $5 billion; Zaire’s President Mobutu Sese Seko $4 billion; and Mali’s President Mousa Traore $2 billion. The only thing exceptional about these government looters is the scale of their plunder. Most African leaders steal to the extent they can.

In the face of this continental-scale tragedy, the West indulges in feel-goodism calling for more billions collected from American and European tax payers to be poured down a continental rat hole. Since 1960 on an inflation adjusted basis Africa received more than $400 billion in aid, to no good effect.

Monetary aid is poison. It does not encourage more responsible government. Rather it enables dictatorial government elites to buy military and police support. Corrupt Africa elites enrich themselves and funnel Western tax money and charity into Swiss bank accounts and villas in southern France.

Democrats and Bush Republicans are all for more largesse for Africa, sometimes quibbling on the particulars of its putative use. Much like George Bush, Pat Robertson views the US government, which is to say the American taxpayer, as an enormous and bottomless piggybank with which to do good works. Robertson recently urged that the US to tithe 1% of total Federal spending to aid Africa. A deluge of aid will not fix what ails Africa.

Entertainment celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldoff organize hyper-publicized extravaganzas, which enhance their moral self-esteem and charitable reputations, but do little, if anything, lasting and system atic to help Africa. More rock concerts and aid are not a solution.

What can be done that will have a meaningful, sustainable and systematic positive impact?

Socialist and kleptocratic despotisms have dominated the African political landscape since the post WW2 decolonization wave. They must be eliminated. It bears mention: African dictators do not of their own volition turn over the keys to honest, reform-minded liberal governments.

The state as a night watchman is a useful conceptual framework. The night watchman guards his charge and their property from threats, theft and assault. In Africa states perform many functions they shouldn’t, but not this most basic and essential function.

Good government serves a vital role in enabling civil society, economic and political liberty, and wealth creation. Good government maintains a framework within which individuals can pursue their fortunes as they see fit.

Governments’ paramount function is to ensure physical security against internal and external threats. Africa is racked by low-level wars, internecine sectarian and tribal violence, and rampant criminal violence.

Government must provide an environment in which the citizenry is physically safe from criminal violence. South Africa, which remains Africa’s most prosperous economy, has the highest level of criminal violence on the planet. Its reported per capita murder rate is 114 per 100,000, versus 1.72 per 100,000 in Canada in 2003 and 5.6 per 100,000 in 2002 in the U.S.

The culture of corruption that infects African government at every level must be utterly rooted out.

Bad guy regimes and endemic corruption must be forcefully and relentlessly vilified by the West, whether the villains are black, brown, or blond with blue eyes, Christian or Muslim.

Africans desperately need genuinely free markets and the supporting legal infrastructure, which treat capital, labor and entrepreneurs well, indeed royally. The establishment of the rule of law, property rights, and impartial contract enforceability is critical.

Most African countries should outsource monetary policy. Adopting the dollar, euro or pound as a national currency, or a currency board, would provide stable money enabling individuals and firms to transact, save and invest with greater certainty, facilitating wealth creation.

Lack of access to Western markets for products in which African producers enjoy comparative advantage such as sugar, cotton and textiles is a huge problem. Western import restrictions and tariffs stymie wealth creation in Africa. Moreover, they punish Western consumers with higher prices and, in a perverse negative cycle, pressure for higher taxes to fund aid to help Africans impoverished by American and European trade barriers.

American and European markets should be unilaterally opened to Africa goods, with protective regimes for Western producers being discarded. This would benefit American and European consumers and African businesses, making Africa, America and Europe wealthier.

Regime change happens with regularity in Africa. For the lucky deposed despots, this means a life of luxury in exile in southern France, for the not so lucky, death. Normally the new gang overthrows the old to become the country’s new chief thieves. Meaningful regime change and reform inAfrica however is not likely absent outside intervention.

The San Francisco Bay Area, Boston and Vermont are full of bumper stickers with pious admonitions such as “War is never the answer.” Nonsense! Force and war are very often the most efficacious and morally correct answer. There are few African countries where five thousand British or American troops couldn’t quickly send the despots packing.

A couple small countries with egregiously revolting regimes could be forcibly transformed into Hong Kong style colonies. Beneficent intervention targets should be selected to maximize the chance of success and the political palatability in the U.S. They should be small enough to be manageable, ruling out countries such as Egypt and Nigeria. They should also be manifestly repugnant regimes. And, arguably, a significant portion of the population should not be fanatical Mohammedans, at least not without a native Atatürk type collaborating in the enterprise.

Several such beneficent interventions might trigger a freedom-and- prosperity-domino effect.

In 2000 Britain’s modest unilateral intervention in Sierra Leone with 1500 troops took control of the government. It organized combating rebels and in 2003 turned over control to the U.N., which in 2004, in turn, passed control to Sierra Leonean forces. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a basket case by any standard. Three to four million Zimbabweans have fled the country. Zimbabweans today are reaping the grim harvest sown a quarter of a century ago by progressive Western elites’ high-minded policies. The paper of record for America’s progressive elites the New York Times in an August 23, 1980 editorial gushed “Mr. Mugabe has quickly established himself as an African statesman of the first rank.” They further applauded Mugabe’s standing “firmly by the rule of law” and urged the US to pony up more aid “to assure Mr. Mugabe’s success.” In a January 20, 1981 editorial the New York Times hailed Zimbabwe as a model that “can still instruct most of its neighbors in the democratic norms.” Wishing it was so does not make it so. This horribly and patently false message relentlessly pounded home by elite Western media tom toms influenced British and American policy with horrendous, bloody and utterly tragic consequences for Africans.

Zimbabwe would be an eminently logical target for Western-imposed regime change. In 2007 former Zimbabwean archbishop Pius Ncube called for foreign intervention to overthrow Mugabe. A Zimbabwe with the pound as a currency, British troops, courts and civil servants, low flat taxes, and an open door to investment, trade and entrepreneurs, would be an economic dynamo and a lighthouse for the continent. African countries lucky enough to have Hong Kong style colonial regimes imposed would rather swiftly become oases of economic growth and freedom, and magnets for immigration, for Africans, Westerners, Asians, et al.

The usual suspects, the same sanctimonious elites who were Mugabe cheerleaders when he was in the bush and apologists for his regime for years, would howl in protest. Africans however would vote en masse with their feet and migrate to islands of liberty, political stability and opportunity, for their families, administered, at least for a while, by Western civil servants and soldiers.

The symptoms and underlying causes of Africa’s malaise are widely understood. Nevertheless for almost half a century, in addressing the African malaise the West has stubbornly indulged in counter productive feel-goodism. Now, acknowledging the worsening human tragedy Western leaders, myopically, and a bit piously, call for more of the same. This is deceptive feel-good fodder for the casually concerned. For political, media, religious and business leaders paying attention, this is a cynical hamster-wheel prescription. This Western folly consigns hundreds of millions of Africans to generations more of shortened, impoverished and less free lives, and unrealized dreams.

Africa needs tough love from the West, not more charity. Corrupt despotic regimes must be changed and the institutional plumbing of economic and political freedom installed, forcibly in at least a few of the worst cases. Does the West have the confidence, will and interest in pursuing such a course? Probably not.

Author :
Print

Comments

  1. Interesting article Eric. I’ve lived in Cote d’Ivoire since 1990. It is true there are many problems here. Many never believed that Cote d’Ivoire could have a coup d’etat. Even with the problems of the last 8 years, Cote d’Ivoire continues to be a leader in West Africa.

    It is possible to own the title deed for land in Cote d’Ivoire.

    It is true that all colonizers are not equal. However, the French have done well in some countries, like Cote d’Ivoire.

    You are correct that money can’t be given to governments in Africa or anywhere in the world without proper accountability.

  2. I predict that the short termism relationships between the west and Africa is going to boomerang and bite the hand that fed it. China has added its own mess to this mecca of mess which will bring forth a goulash of future horrors out of the rat hole.

  3. There are sucess stories in Africa. Botswana is one. It’s notable that it was never colonised to the extent of its neighbours but viewed by the British as a strategic Protectorate.

    Thus Botswana escaped the deculturisation and reeducation that took place in other European colonies in Africa. Botswana held (probably still do) the world record for most rapid real GDP growth 16% between 1970 and 1974 and enjoys a growth rate of 7.7 % per annum. See link below.

    http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Growth%20volume/Acemoglu-Botswana.pdf

    How many of you have heard of the Royal Bafokeng Nation an ethnic province in South Africa? Another interesting story in Africa.

  4. The continent of Africa is not a victim of it’s poverty, but on the contrary of it’s wealth.

    The wealth:
    The land is replete with petroleum, diamonds, gold, uranium, manganese, cobalt, zinc, iron oar, phosphates, copper, potash, bauxite, coal, titanium, chromium, asbestos, clay, tin, lead and coltan.

    The problem:
    There’s Africans living on it.

    How do you get your hands (or paws) on these resources.

    1. Pay a corrupt leader to allow your company to drill for petrol. (Nigeria) Shell (Dem Rebublic of Congo) Mobutu

    2. No 1 doesnt work. Assasinate him (Burkina Faso) Thomas Sankara, (Dem Republic of Congo) Patrice Lumumba

    3 Military Coup backed by western intelligence services in the name of protecting their countries ‘interests’ (Ghana) Kwame Nkrumah (Dem Republic of Congo ) Mobuto ..again

    4. Create a civil war over control of vital resources (finance and arm all 3 or 4 sides) Dem Rebublic of Congo, Darfur.

    5. Get your appointed friends at the World Bank to loan money to your target African country for some project like a railroad or highway. Give the contract to build the railroad to your other friends who own a contruction company and ensure that all materials are imported from your country. This way the Africans never see a cent of that loan since the funds from the loan never leave your country or bank. (Mali plus others 2 numerous to mention)

    6. After the railroad is finished get your other friends at the IMF to come in and ‘advise’ the target African country to restructure their economy by privatising the railways , airports, schools, hospitals to reduce civil servants salary expenses and then have your other friends put in bids to manage those institutions. Again the Africans countries end up paying twice for these services. (Mali plus others 2 numerous to mention)

    7. When public outcry becomes too loud and your ‘Aids’ policies are exposed, hold a G7 or 8 or 9 summit in Gleneagles or some random European city with a funny name. Proclaim to the world you will forgive Africa’s debt.

    8. Go home and do absolutely nothing of the sort.

    9. Make frequent trips to Africa, hold speeches telling them colonialism is not responsible for their misery and reassure them you’re here to help while ‘casing’ the area for business opportunities for your failing industries back home.

    10. Force Africa the Caribbean and Pacific countries to sign an Economic Partnership Agreement in response to the Chinese threats on your countries monopolies on Africa’s natural resources. So for the next 100 years they are locked into buying your overpriced goods in the name of free trade.

    There you go. 10 easy ways to plunge an entire continent into a vicious cycle of poverty war and desperation.

    Note: Coltan (columbium-tantalum) is used in computer and cell phone chips. The Democratic Rebublic of Congo has more than half the entire worlds supply making it a causualty of points 1, 2, 3 and 4

  5. Can the west afford to stay

    Out of Africa . . . ?

    Living as we do in Malta, with the continent of Africa literally trying to drive up our ass, (due to tectonic plate movement) I am often forced to stop and think about this annoying southern border of the Mediterranean Sea. Not only is the continent set to close the Mediterranean Sea and physically crush Malta out of existence over the millennia, but in the short-term, it is going to crush us out of economic existence if we do nothing to stem the ever-increasing deluge of illegal immigrants into Malta and the rest of Europe.

    The irony, of course is that we are paying the price for actions taken by our ex-colonial masters, who, along with (excuse my French) the French, used and exploited Africa to further themselves economically and politically.

    Be that as it may, (I won’t enter the merits, moral or other, of their expansionist policies here) the retreating former lords and masters left in their wake a payment for what they had taken; a blueprint for law and order and economic growth in their ex-colonies. It was a gift honed ‘in-house’, born at least partly out of their own experience as colonists; out of a need to administer, govern and trade with their foreign possessions.

    Most ex-colonies, after taking a few years for internal and external adjustment, seized the blue-print and settled down to the serious business of getting on with their own independent political and economic lives, thus putting to good use the lessons they had learnt in their days as colonies. Some had to start more or less from scratch, while others (like Malta and India) already had a firm foundation upon which to build.

    The same cannot be said for seething, virulent and violent Africa, though. Most African ex-colonies have consistently shown themselves to be incapable of making effective use of their political and economic legacy; the instruments which were entrusted to them in order that they continued to lift themselves out of a tribal, inward-looking, self-feeding mentality, to take a place on the world stage.

    The days of the ‘big men’, the charismatic leaders which tended to follow hot on the heels of decolonisation, are well and truly over. Any country which, so many years later, is still blaming its internal turmoil and corruption on its colonial and post-colonial experience, has nobody to blame but its own complacency and inertia.

    This travesty is made even greater when one bears in mind that most African countries are replete with mineral wealth which could easily change their status from night to day, if used effectively. Africa could become a continent of rich countries, if it wasn’t for the Africans living there.

    Now, I am a strict non-interventionist; I believe in regions and countries stewing in their own juice and deriving, from within the heat and discomfort of their own fermentation, the impetus to solve their own internal problems on their own.

    I make an exception with Africa, though.

    We need to intervene in Africa. Directly and physically. Today before tomorrow. My view is that the world needs to save Africa from itself. More importantly, however, is that this action would also save the world from Africa – from the constant immigration into our countries (with their limited natural resources) of people who should, by now, have stopped blaming the west for their ills, taken stock of the legacy which their ancestors had paid for with blood and labour and put it to good use by making better lives for themselves in their own countries.

    Direct intervention would also save the rest of the world from Africa because, by forcing Africa to change, we would, in the long run, be saving billions of pounds’ worth in humanitarian and economic help which goes out to Africa every year. Billions of pounds, moreover, which could be put to better use maintaining and upgrading our own welfare services and infrastructures; a bit of the ‘charity begins at home’ concept.

    Time has more than amply proven that the system of bottomless aid does not work. First of all, the amount of money needed to bail Africa grows exponentially every year. Secondly, the situation has degenerated into a case of throwing good money after bad; with the constant forgiving of Africa’s foreign debts and its obvious incapacity of making strides forward (with the attendant implication that one day it would start to repay some of those debts) there is little to show that this is ever going to change. There is no return (nor will there ever be) on our investment, even if that return (if it ever came) would be, for the most part, a simple interest-free repayment of debt.

    The only return we get, of course, is more immigration, lured here by the wealth and organised lifestyle; lured here by the very money the west gives to Africa. Every year more indigenous communities set up in third party countries, with the attendant secondary problems brought about by active non-assimilation and positive resistance to the acceptance of cultural norms and traditions of host countries.

    The audacity of it extends to the point where host countries are expected to change their traditions and culture to accommodate and not offend immigrant populations.
    For this deplorable state of affairs, Britain should get an international slap in the face for leading through bad example. More than any other country in the world, the UK has empowered the immigrant communities living in host countries, giving them the recognition, the arrogance, the attitude and the clout which they do not deserve. It has achieved this by caving to and generally acquiescing to even the most ridiculous of requests made by its immigrant communities.

    Enough is enough. The only way to save Africa and the world is to invade Africa, re-colonise it under the auspices of international bodies and establish proper infrastructures with up-and-running political, legal and economic systems.

    All this would easily be driven by the vast internal wealth that most of these countries have. Only when the economic and political systems would have been seen to be working for a number of years and when enough corruption-monitoring institutions are in place, should a long-drawn and carefully controlled pull-out be set in motion. I would venture to estimate that this process would take between seventy-five to a hundred years to accomplish for the whole continent.

    The sooner we start, the better . . .

  6. Eric, great minds think alike! This is what I wrote on my blog about this subject:

    Can the west afford to stay

    Out of Africa . . . ?

    Living as we do in Malta, with the continent of Africa literally trying to drive up our ass, (due to tectonic plate movement) I am often forced to stop and think about this annoying southern border of the Mediterranean Sea. Not only is the continent set to close the Mediterranean Sea and physically crush Malta out of existence over the millennia, but in the short-term, it is going to crush us out of economic existence if we do nothing to stem the ever-increasing deluge of illegal immigrants into Malta and the rest of Europe.

    The irony, of course is that we are paying the price for actions taken by our ex-colonial masters, who, along with (excuse my French) the French, used and exploited Africa to further themselves economically and politically.

    Be that as it may, (I won’t enter the merits, moral or other, of their expansionist policies here) the retreating former lords and masters left in their wake a payment for what they had taken; a blueprint for law and order and economic growth in their ex-colonies. It was a gift honed ‘in-house’, born at least partly out of their own experience as colonists; out of a need to administer, govern and trade with their foreign possessions.

    Most ex-colonies, after taking a few years for internal and external adjustment, seized the blue-print and settled down to the serious business of getting on with their own independent political and economic lives, thus putting to good use the lessons they had learnt in their days as colonies. Some had to start more or less from scratch, while others (like Malta and India) already had a firm foundation upon which to build.

    The same cannot be said for seething, virulent and violent Africa, though. Most African ex-colonies have consistently shown themselves to be incapable of making effective use of their political and economic legacy; the instruments which were entrusted to them in order that they continued to lift themselves out of a tribal, inward-looking, self-feeding mentality, to take a place on the world stage.

    The days of the ‘big men’, the charismatic leaders which tended to follow hot on the heels of decolonisation, are well and truly over. Any country which, so many years later, is still blaming its internal turmoil and corruption on its colonial and post-colonial experience, has nobody to blame but its own complacency and inertia.

    This travesty is made even greater when one bears in mind that most African countries are replete with mineral wealth which could easily change their status from night to day, if used effectively. Africa could become a continent of rich countries, if it wasn’t for the Africans living there.

    Now, I am a strict non-interventionist; I believe in regions and countries stewing in their own juice and deriving, from within the heat and discomfort of their own fermentation, the impetus to solve their own internal problems on their own.

    I make an exception with Africa, though.

    We need to intervene in Africa. Directly and physically. Today before tomorrow. My view is that the world needs to save Africa from itself. More importantly, however, is that this action would also save the world from Africa – from the constant immigration into our countries (with their limited natural resources) of people who should, by now, have stopped blaming the west for their ills, taken stock of the legacy which their ancestors had paid for with blood and labour and put it to good use by making better lives for themselves in their own countries.

    Direct intervention would also save the rest of the world from Africa because, by forcing Africa to change, we would, in the long run, be saving billions of pounds’ worth in humanitarian and economic help which goes out to Africa every year. Billions of pounds, moreover, which could be put to better use maintaining and upgrading our own welfare services and infrastructures; a bit of the ‘charity begins at home’ concept.

    Time has more than amply proven that the system of bottomless aid does not work. First of all, the amount of money needed to bail Africa grows exponentially every year. Secondly, the situation has degenerated into a case of throwing good money after bad; with the constant forgiving of Africa’s foreign debts and its obvious incapacity of making strides forward (with the attendant implication that one day it would start to repay some of those debts) there is little to show that this is ever going to change. There is no return (nor will there ever be) on our investment, even if that return (if it ever came) would be, for the most part, a simple interest-free repayment of debt.

    The only return we get, of course, is more immigration, lured here by the wealth and organised lifestyle; lured here by the very money the west gives to Africa. Every year more indigenous communities set up in third party countries, with the attendant secondary problems brought about by active non-assimilation and positive resistance to the acceptance of cultural norms and traditions of host countries.

    The audacity of it extends to the point where host countries are expected to change their traditions and culture to accommodate and not offend immigrant populations.
    For this deplorable state of affairs, Britain should get an international slap in the face for leading through bad example. More than any other country in the world, the UK has empowered the immigrant communities living in host countries, giving them the recognition, the arrogance, the attitude and the clout which they do not deserve. It has achieved this by caving to and generally acquiescing to even the most ridiculous of requests made by its immigrant communities.

    Enough is enough. The only way to save Africa and the world is to invade Africa, re-colonise it under the auspices of international bodies and establish proper infrastructures with up-and-running political, legal and economic systems.

    All this would easily be driven by the vast internal wealth that most of these countries have. Only when the economic and political systems would have been seen to be working for a number of years and when enough corruption-monitoring institutions are in place, should a long-drawn and carefully controlled pull-out be set in motion. I would venture to estimate that this process would take between seventy-five to a hundred years to accomplish for the whole continent.

    The sooner we start, the better . . .

Comments are closed.