Why Africa Is Poor
George B.N. Ayittey
***********
old man, the only thing you are proposing is western solutions for african
problems. you have already exposed yourself as the quintessential uncle tom
so i see no reason to continue haggling with an apologist for western
imperialism (except for the entertainment value).
if you think my actions are similar to the “antics of the barbarous despots
who have ruined africa”, then i guess you will dedicate your next book to
me, no?
the fact that you would write something as ridiculous as you “fervently
believe that ideology is irrelevant to the analysis of africa's woes” shows
more of your intellectual dishonesty than your political ignorance.
despite what you write, you make it relevant where it suits you – like when
you attempt to demonize dos santos for his “marxist-leninist” policies in a
pitiful attempt draw parallels with savimbi, and in the process try to
rationalize your support for savimbi.
ayittey, you are a joke.
mesfin
************
AYITTEY: Mesfin, the more you put out such posts, the more convince people that you
have little upstairs. Attack the MESSAGE and table your own ideas. Is this too
difficult for you to comprehend?
Let us assume that Ayittey is a joke. He is a CIA agent, the son of Idi Amin and a
member of the KKK. I sleep with prostitutres. Happy now?
OK, find below Ayittey's position. Critique this and table your own position. I think
this is what most people at this forum want to read about -- not the sex life of
Ayittey. I have changed the header to "Why Africa Is Poor"?
Let's have your take on this topic.
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC
___________________
WHY AFRICA IS POOR
George B.N. Ayittey,
___________________
" The turmoil in Africa today – famine, military coups and so on – is partly the
result of African leaders who fought for independence but then enjoyed the fruits of
their power and forgot about the people.
-- Tony Yengeni, chief whip of the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa,
The Washington Times, May 6, 1999, A14).
_________________________________________
Nigeria, the comatose giant of Africa, may go down in history as the biggest country
ever to go directly from colonial subjugation to complete collapse, without an
intervening period of successful self-rule. So much promise, so much waste; such a
disappointment. Such a shame. Makes you sick.
-- Linus U. J. Thomas-Ogboji, African News Weekly (26 May 1995, 6).
_________________________________________
Africa’s untapped mineral wealth is immense: 40 percent of the world's potential
hydroelectric power supply; the bulk of the world's diamonds and chromium; 30 percent
of the uranium in the non-communist world; 50 percent of the world's gold; 90 percent
of its cobalt; 50 percent of its phosphates; 40 percent of its platinum; 7.5 percent
of its coal; 8 percent of its known petroleum reserves; 12 percent of its natural gas;
3 per cent of its iron ore; and millions upon millions of acres of untilled farmland.
In addition, Africa has 64 percent of the world's manganese, 13 percent of its copper,
and vast bauxite, nickel and lead resources. It also accounts for 70 percent of cocoa,
60 percent of coffee, 50 percent of palm oil, and 20 percent of the total petroleum
traded in the world market, excluding the United States and Russia. The tourism
potential of Africa is enormous. Unrivaled wildlife, scenic grandeur and pristine
ecology constitute Africa's third great natural resource after agriculture and mineral
wealth. Yet, paradoxically, a continent with such abundance and potential is
inexorably mired in senseless civil wars, wanton destruction, steaming squalor,
misery, deprivation, and chaos. Infrastructure has crumbled in many African countries;
telephones don’t work, roads are filled with gaping pot-holes and hospitals lack basic
medical supplies. Even eating has become a luxury for many Africans today.
INDEPENDENCE AND AFTERMATH
When Africa gained its independence from colonial rule in the 1960s, the euphoria that
swept across the continent was infectious. “Free at last,” echoed across the
continent. The nationalist leaders who won freedom for their respective countries were
hailed as heroes, swept into office with huge parliamentary majorities, and deified.
Currencies bore their portraits and statues were built to honor them. They heaped
vainglorious epithets upon themselves: “The Redeemer,” “The Teacher,” “Osagyefo,” etc.
and were transformed into semi-gods. Criticizing them became sacrilegious and, very
quickly, the freedom and development promised by these African nationalist leaders
never came to much of Africa after independence. This is the subject title of my book,
AFRICA BETRAYED.
TRUE FREEDOM never came to much of Africa. In fact, most Africans would affirm that
independence was in name only. All that changed was the color of the “masters” and the
oppression and exploitation of the African people continued unabated. In fact, in some
countries, the leaders were worse than the departing colonialists. And today, many
Africans are worse off economically than they were at independence. This is not a
justification for colonialism but a statement of fact.
Indices of Africa's development performance have not only been dismal but have also
lagged persistently behind those of other Third World regions. Economic growth rates
in Africa in the 1970s averaged only 4 to 5 percent while Latin America recorded a 6
and 7 percent growth rate. Average per capita gross national product (GNP) in 1981 was
$770 for Africa, $973 for Asia, and $2,044 for Latin America. From 1986 to 1993 the
continent's real GNP per capita declined 0.7 percent, while the average for the Third
World increased by 2.7 percent. For all of black Africa, real income per capita
dropped by 14.6 percent from its level in 1965, making most black Africans worse off
than they were at independence.
According to The African Observer (June 7 – 20, 1999): “Four out of 10 Africans live
in absolute poverty and recent evidence suggests that poverty is on the increase . . .
If Africa wants to reduce poverty by half over the next 15 years, it needs to attain
and sustain an average annual growth rate of 7 percent – an enormous task” (p.23).
Agriculture, which employs the bulk of Africa's population, has performed absymally.
Since 1970 agricultural output has been growing at less than 1.5 percent -- less than
the rate of population growth. Consequently, food production per capita declined by 7
percent in the 1960s, by 15 percent in the 1970s, and by 8 percent in the 1980s. Over
the postcolonial period 1961 to 1995, "per capita food production in Africa dropped by
12 percent, whereas it advanced by leaps and bounds in developing countries in Asia"
(The Economist, 7 September 1996). Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
exported food when it was the Belgian Congo. Today, it cannot feed itself, nor can
postcolonial Zambia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and even Nigeria. “One of every two
persons lives in absolute poverty, earning less than a dollar a day, deprived of
access to the basics of food, water and shelter” (The Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999;
p.A19). Back in the 1960s, 70 percent of Nigeria’s 110 million people lived on
agriculture and the country was a major exporter of food. Benue state was known as the
“food basket of the nation.” Today, Nigeria exports only cocoa, rubber and palm
products and imports rice, corn, wheat and sugar (The Washington Times, April 13,
2000; p.A17). In 1990, about 40 percent of black Africa's food was imported, despite
the assertion by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that the
Congo Basin alone could produce enough food to feed all of black Africa. The situation
has deteriorated so rapidly in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo that
many people eat once a day.
Increasingly, Africa has become unattractive to foreign investors and even to the
donor community which suffers "donor fatigue" after so many failures. Net foreign
direct investment in black Africa dropped dramatically from $1.22 billion in 1982 to
$498 million in 1987. Even the French have become disillusioned: "French direct
investment in sub-Saharan Africa ran at $1 billion a year in 1981-1983; by 1988 that
had translated into a net outflow of more than $800 million" (The Economist, 21 July
1990, 82).
Between 1990 and 1995 the net yearly flow of foreign direct investment into developing
countries quadrupuled, to over $90 billion; Africa's share of this fell to only 2.4
percent. According to the World Bank, in 1995 a record $231 billion in foreign
investment flowed into the Third World. Singapore by itself attracted $5.8 billion,
while Africa's share was a paltry 1 percent or $2 billion -- less than the sum
invested in Chile alone (The Economist, 9 November 1996, 95). "Even that meagre
proportion has been disputed by some analysts who believe the true figure to be less
than $1 billion," said The African Observer (11-24 April 1996, 20). It increased
dramatically in 1996 to $4.7 billion and stagnated at that level for 1997, leading
United Nation's Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to conclude that "Africa
has lost attractiveness as market for Foreign Direct Investment as compared to other
developing regions during the last two decades," (The African Observer, 30 November -
13 December 1998, 21). In 1998, FDI dropped to $3 billion, from $4.7 billion in 1997
(The African Observer, June 7 – June 20, 1999; 23).
To maintain income and investment, African governments borrowed heavily in the 1970s.
Total African foreign debt has risen 24-fold since 1970 to a staggering $400 billion
in 1996 which was equal to its yearly GNP), making the region the most heavily
indebted in the world. (Latin America's debt amounted to approximately 60 percent of
its GNP.) Though Africa’s debt dropped to $350 billion by 1998, the debt grew faster
than any other region in the Third World between 1980 and 1990.
Currently debt service obligations absorb about 40 percent of export revenue, but only
about half of the outstanding debts are actually being paid. On the other half,
arrearages are continually being rescheduled. “African nations pay more than $13
billion annually to their creditors in the North. The figure is more than double what
they spend on health and education. Since 1980, there have been 8,000 re-negotiations
over debt and new aid packages for the continent but no meaningful respite has been
achieved” (The African Observer, May 10-23, 1999; p.15). About 80 percent of Africa’s
total debt is owed to Western governments under foreign aid programs (official
concessional loans) and multi-lateral lending institutions such as the World Bank and
IMF. Private commercial loans, as a share of Africa’s total debt, have dropped from a
high of 36 percent in the 1980s to about 20 percent in the 1990s, reflecting a
declining private commercial lending interest in Africa.
For many Africans, the "paradise" promised them at independence turned out be a
starvation diet, unemployment, and a gun to the head. Disaffection and alienation set
in. A spate of coups quickly swept across Africa in the early 1960s. The first
occurred in the Belgian Congo on September 15, 1960, barely three months after
independence. In West Africa the first coup occurred in Togo on January 13, 1963.
Between 1963 and February 1966 there were 14 significant cases of military
intervention in government. By 1968 there had been 64 attempted and successful
interventions across Africa.
The first generation of coup leaders in the 1960s were professional soldiers who
brooked zero tolerance for corruption, inefficiency, government waste, and
mismanagement. They threw out the elite bazongas (raiders of the public treasury),
cleaned up the government house, instilled discipline in the civil service, and
returned to their barracks. They were hailed as "saviors" and idolized by the people.
The second generation of military rulers, who assumed control in the 1970s, emerged
from the dregs: They were more corrupt, incompetent, and brutal than the civilian
administrations they replaced. They ruined one African economy after another with
brutal efficiency and looted African treasuries with military discipline. Africans
watched helplessly as they experienced yet another betrayal. This second batch of
"military coconutheads," as Africans call them, came from the bottom of the pit and
left wanton destruction and carnage in their wake. Said Guinea's opposition leader,
Mamadou Ba, describing his country's head of state, General Lansana Conte: "He
wouldn't hurt a fly, but he has nothing upstairs" (The News & Observer, 4 January
1998, 18A).
The longer they stay in office, the less they have "upstairs," becoming "hardened
coconuts." One of them, V.I. Okafor, a retired Nigerian army Captain, confessed: "We
are perceived as a class of marauding mediocres, vast in wastefulness, corruption and
all sorts of vicious behavior - a class devoid of men of honor and integrity, a class
enveloped in infamy" (The Vanguard, 14 July 1998, 2).
In 1978 Edem Kodjo, then Secretary General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU),
echoed the sentiments of many Africans when he solemnly lamented before the African
heads of state gathered for an OAU summit that, "Our ancient continent is now on the
brink of disaster, hurtling towards the abyss of confrontation, caught in the grip of
violence, sinking into the dark night of bloodshed and death" (Lamb 1983, xi).
Since then, things have gotten progressively worse. By the beginning of the 1990s, it
was clear something had gone terribly wrong in Africa. The continent was wracked by a
never-ending cycle of civil wars, carnage, chaos, and instability. Economies had
collapsed. Poverty, in both absolute and relative terms, had increased. Malnutrition
was rife. In addition, censorship, persecution, detention, arbitrary seizures of
property, corruption, capital flight, and tyranny continuously plagued the continent.
One African country after another has imploded, scattering refugees in all directions:
Ethiopia (1985), Angola (1986), Mozambique (1987), Sudan (1991), Liberia (1992),
Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Zaire (1997), Sierra Leone 1998), Congo (Brazzaville)
and DRC (1999). The exceptions to this horrid picture of economic atrophy are
pitifully few: Botswana, Mauritius, Seychelles Islands, and possibly Uganda. One could
focus on these success stories, hoping that other African countries would emulate
their policies. This approach has the additional advantage that it presents a positive
image of Africa. The World Bank and other Western organizations are veterans in this
trade, peddling one African country after another as a success story only to abandon
it in search of another in a twinkle of an eye. But the World Bank's obsession with
"success stories" blurs its vision for Africa.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
To understand why things went so wrong in post-colonial Africa, look at the SYSTEMS
established by African leders – systems which STRIPPED their people of their basic
FREEDOMS. There are three types: (freedom of expression, of thought, and of the
media), political, and economic.
On each type, Africa scores worse than other regions in the Third World. Most African
nations are members of the United Nations, which, in 1948, promulgated the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19, in particular, asserts: "Freedom of
expression is not the product of any political system or ideology. It is a universal
human right, defined and guaranteed in international law. Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media regardless of boundaries."
African governments are supposed to observer 21 October each year as Africa Human
Rights Day. But do they? According to West Africa (1-7 March 1993): "Since the African
Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights came into force on October 21, 1986, after being
ratified by a majority of member states of the OAU including Ghana, it became
mandatory for OAU member states to observe the day as a way of sensitizing the people
on human rights issues. In Ghana, as in many other African countries, the day is not
observed" (327).
Actually, the day's purpose should sensitize the government, not the people. But trust
the Organization of African Unity to get even this mixed up. According to New
York-based Freedom House, of Africa's 54 countries, only seven have a free press. Of
the 20 countries throughout the world where the press is most shackled, nine are in
Africa: Algeria, Burundi, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan,
and Zaire. Countries in the "not-free" category include Angola, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia,
Mauritania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Togo, and Tunisia (The African Observer,
6-19 June 1996, 25).
A similar situation exists on political freedoms. Of the 54 African countries, only
14 are democratic: Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde Islands, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritius, Namibia, Mozambique, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles Islands,
South Africa and Zambia. Even then, if a strict definition of “democracy” is applied
(periodic elections, independent judiciary, independent central bank, free media,
etc.) fewer than 5 African countries would be classified as “democratic”
Economically, Africa is the most unfree continent in the world. The Heritage
Foundation of Washington, D.C., compiled an Index of Economic Freedom for the world
and concluded that: "Of the 38 sub-Saharan African countries graded, none received a
score of free. Only 10 received a score of mostly free, 22 scored mostly unfree, and
six were rated repressed. Of the 19 countries [worldwide] categorized as repressed,
the majority are in sub-Saharan Africa" (Holmes et. al., 1997, xv).
The key to Africa's long-term economic survival and prosperity lies in investment,
both domestic and foreign. Investment, however, does not take place in a vacuum but in
an "environment." Investors, both domestic and foreign, have not found Africa
attractive. The business climate that prevails over much of Africa is inimical to
investment and to development as well. This environment is characterized by weak
currencies, inflation, myriads of state controls, political instability, corruption,
rampaging civil wars, capital flight, absence of rule of law, accountability and good
governance, and a host of other problems. These "environmental defects," for want of a
better expression, are man-made or artificial and can be remedied through legislative
and political action. They must be distinguished from what may be called the
"structural obstacles" to development, such as low savings, low rates of literacy,
lack of capital and inadequate health care, among others. Real development cannot
occur until the "environmental defects" are rectified. The environmental defects
create crises whereas the structural obstacles retard economic development.
Indigenous Africa's economic system was characterized by private ownership of the
means of production, free enterprise, and free trade. Free village markets existed in
Africa centuries before Europeans set foot on the continent. Economic activity in
these village markets -- in West Africa for example -- was dominated by women and
prices were determined by bargaining. They were not fixed by African chiefs and
violaters were not arrested and jailed. Pervasive state controls and state enterprises
were the exception rather than the rule in traditional Africa.
Modern Africa's leaders and elites, however, spurned their own indigenous heritage,
went abroad, and copied all sorts of esoteric systems for transplantion into Africa.
These borrowed systems -- for example, the one-party state system -- never worked in
Africa and created enormous problems. This is perhaps the single and most spectacular
failure of African leaders and elites: Their failure to return Africa to its roots and
build on its own native institutions is largely responsible for the ruination of
Africa. See my book, Indigenous African Institutions.
After renouncing their heritage, the elites proceeded to establish economic and
political systems in which all power was concentrated in the hands of the state.
After independence, African nationalists did not dismantle the authoritarian colonial
state. Rather, they strengthened and expanded its scope. Various arcane arguments were
advanced to justify the concentration of enormous powers in the hands of the state.
Fragile and vulnerable African economies needed to be protected against foreign
exploitation. Further, the state needed the power to allocate resources and "spread"
development evenly throughout the country. Subsequently, however, the ruling elites
abused and misused the powers of the state to achieve their own selfish ends.
Gradually a "mafia state" evolved -- a state that has been hijacked by vampire elites,
hustlers, and gangsters, who operated with their own notorious ethic of
self-aggrandizement and self-perpetuation in power. The institutions of government
were debauched, the country became the personal property of the ruling elites, and the
meaning of such terms as "development" was perverted.
The centralization of power transformed the state into a prize for which all sorts of
groups compete. This competition can be ferocious and it often degenerates into civil
war because, in Africa, political power determines allocation of resources. Consider
the oil-producing delta area of Nigeria for instance. In Batan, several hundred people
were killed, scores of villages destroyed and tens of thousands made homeless by
fighting between the Ijaws and ethnic Ilajes and Itsekiri in October 1998 over land
and oil rights. "Around Warri, Ijaw youths and those from the Itsekiri group have
renewed the battle for control of the local government. Itsekiris ruled this area
before colonial times and, in modern Nigeria, have proved more adept than the Ijaws at
using the machinery of government" (The Washington Post, 11 November 1998, A28).
Political power is also the passport to great personal fortune. The richest persons in
Africa are heads of state and ministers. So the "educated" African will fight for the
presidency, even though it might be hazardous to his health -- literally. According to
Africa Insider (August 1995), "Kghoma Ali Malima, leader of Tanzania's main opposition
group, recently died of a heart attack at his son's home in London just months before
landmark multiparty elections. Tanzanian journalists compared his death to that of
Stephen Kambona, a would-be candidate who collapsed and died in Washington in 1994.
Both men lacked a history of illness or heart problems." (6).
Once captured, the instruments of state power are used by the ruling elites to advance
their own selfish ethnic or professional interests and to exclude everyone else -- the
politics of exclusion and discontent. Consider Nigeria, for example, where a cabal of
Hausa-Fulani has monopolized political power since independence in 1960. All oil
revenue is appropriated by the federal government, which allocates only 3 percent to
the oil-producing states in the east. Obviously, producing states are unhappy about
this. It is a sure-fire recipe for an upheaval. Those excluded from the gravy train
would either seek to overthrow the current beneficiaries or to secede as the Igbos
attempted in 1967.
Thus one word, power, explains why Africa is collapsing and breaking apart: the
struggle for it, the seizure of it and concentration of it in the hands of one
individual or group, and the subsequent refusal to relinquish or share it In fact,
most of Africa's problems emanate from this politics of exclusion, made possible by
two defective systems imposed on Africa after independence by its leaders and elites:
sultanism and statism. Both systems are marked by extreme concentration of political
and economic powers in the hands of the state -- and, ultimately, one individual.
These systems cannot be defended upon the basis of "African tradition."
The activities of the predatory state created enormous problems: corruption,
embezzlement, capital flight, repression, and others. These problems feed on one
another and eventually suck the country into a vortex of violence and implosion. This
is the subject matter of my book, Africa In Chaos.
For the long haul, Africa has no choice but to reform its abominable political and
economic systems by establishing democratic systems of government and market
economies. The object of such reform is dispersal of power; that is, the taking of
both political and economic power out of the hands of the state and giving it back to
the people, where it belongs. That is, give FREEDOM back to the African people. Not
surprisingly, the African record on reform has been dismal, since the ruling elites
have not been willing to implement meaningful reform that would reduce their power.
They take one step forward and three steps back (The “Babangida boogie”).
The adamant refusal of the ruling elite to reform is the source of many of Africa’s
woes. In fact, the destruction of an African country, regardless of the professed
ideology of its government, always begins with some dispute over the electoral
process. Blockage of the democratic process or the refusal to hold elections plunged
Angola, Chad, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Somalia, and Sudan into civil war. Hard-liner
manipulation of the electoral process destroyed Rwanda (1993), Sierra Leone (1992) and
Zaire (1990). Subversion of the electoral process in Liberia (1985) eventually set off
a civil war in 1989. The same type of subversion instigated civil strife in Cameroon
(1991), Congo (1992), Kenya (1992), Togo (1992) and Lesotho (1998). Finally, the
military's annulment of electoral results by the military started Algeria's civil war
(1992) and plunged Nigeria into political turmoil (1993). Since all this destruction
stemmed from the refusal of one individual or the ruling elites to relinquish or share
political power, MORE African countries will blow because the leadership refuse to
learn from their stupid mistakes. Countries likely to blow in the near future are
Cameroon, Chad, Kenya, Togo, and Zimbabwe.
Once started, the war creates its own hideous dynamic and logic. It escalates, sucks
in other African countries (Angolan, Liberian, and Congo conflicts) and completely
alters political discourse. As Alex de Waal observed, “The logic of war consumes
everything. It poisons normal political discourse and human rationality. The fear for
contemporary Africa is that the inflammable legacies of so many ongoing conflicts will
create more destructive conflicts in the decade to come” (Index on Censorship,
Sept/Oct 1999; p.99).
_____________
mesfin aman
idi amin and a member of the kkk.
mesfin: ayittey, i believe you are all these things whether you do it
wittingly or unwittingly. after all, one cannot serve two masters. and at
least, this would explain your admiration for savimbi.
i will critique your essay, not as a favour to you, but to encourage
dialogue between the rest of the participants (and for some personal
entertainment value of course). I have long realized that as one poster put
it, you are “never wrong”.
you should rename your essay from “why africa is poor” by george b.n.
ayittey to “why this essay is poor” by the nutty professor.
your selective quotes and figures do not buttress your argument (never mind
the use of sources like the ultra-conservative economist), they just show
your lack of objectivity, lack of intellectual honesty, and you political
shortcomings.
for example, in the first quote you use, tony yengeni of the anc criticizes
leadership in africa by stating that "the turmoil in africa today – famine,
military coups and so on – is partly the result of african leaders who
fought for independence but then enjoyed the fruits of their power and
forgot about the people”. does mr. Yengeni include the week-kneed positions
of his government led by mbeki, as they go begging cap in hand to their free
market oppressors around the world?
when quotes are used selectively by the author about the collapse of the
nigerian economy, is there an unwillingness to acknowledge that it is the
same free market policies being propagating for all of africa that have
caused irrefutable damage to the nigerian economy? who has more power in
nigeria, shell or obasanjo?
and if africa is so rich in resources, why do we need to rely so heavily on
foreign investment? is the silent implication here that we cannot develop
our own resources? do we have to industrialize as quickly as possible to
catch up to western skyscrapers?
And why are some africans worse off economically today than at independence?
is the crisis of neo-colonialism not the primary contradiction in africa
today? and if so, what role do africa tyrants play vis a vis their colonial
masters? What is the nature of the relationship? who are the hapless
bourgeoisie and who call the shots from washington, d.c., london, paris,
brussels, and tel aviv?
who are the players responsible for bankrupting african nations through
colonialism, neo-colonialism, structural adjustment programs, and the
devaluation of local currencies?
it is futile to blame the current leadership for all of africa’s woes as the
so-called professor does when:
1) the leaders are part and parcel of an institutionalized system of
oppression and act as mere conduits for the west
2) the leaders are instituted and financed by the west (see
http://www.covertaction.org/full_text_69_01.htm )
3) democratically elected and charismatic leadership that have the interests
of the african masses are silenced, neutralized, or eliminated (like
nkrumah, lumumba, sankara, nasser, machel, toure)
a more honest approach is to indict ALL parties, african and non-african. if
we say the problem is leadership alone, then the colonial apparatus that is
at the root of the problems today will go untouched. you can put the most
capable and well-meaning leader in place, but surely they will fail as well.
however, this approach to african development will put the nutty professor
in a tough bind because his conservative libertarian colleagues at the cato
institute (http://www.cato.org) will not approve of this.
ayittey: increasingly, africa has become unattractive to foreign investors
and even to the donor community which suffers "donor fatigue" after so many
failures.
mesfin: another lie! africa is very attractive to foreigners so long as they
are given free reign to plunder and exploit. but try and make the
relationship more equitable and all of a sudden – “it is not very
attractive” or “what about human rights and democracy?”.
did western governments question the human rights record of mobutu or the
apartheid regime? did debeers raise concerns about the health problems of
miners? was shell concerned about the environmental damage done to the ogoni
region?
and furthermore, how can a nation like america speak of human rights with
organized state-sponsored murders like diallo, police repression like rodney
king and abner louima, and political prisoners like mumia abu-jamal and
jamil al-amin?
someone should remind the professor that the interests of these
multinational corporations and the interests of the indigenous population
are in diametric opposition to each other. How then can the pure,
unadulterated private investment that he promotes be any good for africa?
Also, leaders do not operate in a vacuum. They are the products of the
political environment. I have no problem with holding our leaders
accountable, but have a major problem when a nutty professor tries to
pretend this is the only problem in order to be accepted as an honorary
white.
mesfin
>investment flowed into the Third World. Singapore by itself attracted $58
>etc.) fewer than 5 African countries would be classified as “democratic.”
>individual or group, and the subsequent refusal to relinquish or share it.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
George B.N. Ayittey
*****************
mesfin
**************
AYITTEY: Mesfin, like I have said numerous times. Any FOOL can criticize. Now, put
your own thesis on the table so that others can critique it too. Are you afraid?
Now, let's see if you have "something upstairs."
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC
George B.N. Ayittey
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000615193536.htm
Zimbabwe and
Africa's friends
George B.N. Ayittey
Hailed as an African model of reconciliation
among former white settlers and blacks, Zimbabwe
at independence in 1980 held much promise. Its
Marxist-Leninist leader, Robert Mugabe, who
waged a bitter 15-year guerrilla struggle against the
racist white minority regime of Ian Smith, was swept
into power as a hero. Today, it is teetering on the
brink of collapse and implosion.
Casting about for scapegoats, Mr. Mugabe has
angrily rejected the criticism of his government's
policies and blamed, instead and naturally, greedy
Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis
and white commercial farmers. But Zimbabweans
knew better. In a Feb. 15 referendum, they
resoundingly rejected Mr. Mugabe's request for
constitutional authority to seize white farmlands
without compensation and to extend his 20-year rule
by 10 more.
Stunned by his first political defeat in unchallenged
power, Mr. Mugabe vowed retribution, played the
race card and unleashed his thugs to occupy over
1,000 white farms. Ten such farms are owned by
black opposition leaders and in the ensuing violence,
more than 20 people have been killed: four white
farmers and 16 black opposition supporters. On
April 22, the office of The Daily News, which has
been critical of Mr. Mugabe's handling of the
economy, was firebombed. Two weeks earlier, the
black editor of the paper, William Saidi, received a
death threat, warning him to stop criticizing the
government. "I don't think race is the primary thing,"
said Mr. Saidi.
The general plan is to silence all opposition.
Indeed, scared of losing power, Mr. Mugabe
postponed parliamentary elections, slated for March,
to April, to May — and then to August. On May 6,
Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and two
lower-ranking party officials were arrested and jailed
for four hours, without charges. Now, anyone who
supports the opposition is targeted. The Amani Trust,
which offers medical and legal aid to victims of
torture and violence, estimates that there have been
more than 5,000 acts of violence, including rape,
murder, destruction of property and assault against
opponents of Mr. Mugabe's ruling party.
To be sure, there is basic inequity in the
distribution of land in Zimbabwe. Whites account for
only about 1 percent of Zimbabwe's population of
12.5 million, yet 4,500 white farmers continue to
own nearly a third of the country's most fertile
farmland. But the land redistribution program, set up
at independence, was so grotesquely mismanaged
and riddled with corruption that Britain withdrew
from the program in 1992, after contributing $60
million. The United States followed suit in 1998.
On March 28, Mr. Mugabe's own parliament
acknowledged government purchases of more than 2
million acres from white farmers under legal
compulsion since 1980. But some of the farms were
left idle or abandoned and over 1 million acres were
distributed to 400 wealthy Zimbabweans, mostly Mr.
Mugabe's cronies.
Back in 1994, 20 farms seized from white
farmers were immediately grabbed by high-ranking
government officials, and again in 1998, 24 farms of
the Marula Estate in Matabeleland, totaling 300
square miles, were divided among 47 government
officials while 40,000 impoverished Zimbabweans
remained crammed in the neighboring Semukwe
Communal Area. Mr. Mugabe's army chief, General
Solomon Majuru, is now the country's largest
landholder. "The whole land and race issue is a
classic diversion of attention from the real issues
which are facing this country: high unemployment,
inflation and poverty," said Professor John Makume,
a political scientist at the University of Zimbabwe.
But this diversionary tactic comes at a great cost.
Forcible seizures of farmlands have dealt a
devastating blow to Zimbabwe's tobacco crop, the
country's major hard-currency earner. Thousands of
bales of tobacco have been burned by Mr. Mugabe's
thugs and farmers face ruin. If they are unable to
service their bank debts, Zimbabwe's overextended
banks could collapse. Disgusted at the political
turmoil and violence, foreign investors are fleeing
Zimbabwe in droves. In the first quarter of 2000, as
much as $1.3 million fled Zimbabwe, adding to the
$11.4 million that left in 1999. And the ripple effects
on the economies of the entire southern Africa region
will be devastating.
Most disappointing and reprehensible has been
the silence of key administration officials, members of
the Congressional Black Caucus, and black
American civil rights leaders, who pompously portray
themselves as friends of Africa. Erroneously casting
the crisis as "black versus white" and therefore
racially sensitive, they have fled to the hills — chased
out of town by political correctness — as if the 16
black opposition supporters killed had anything to do
with inequitable distribution of land. The silence of
these so-called friends of Africa is telling; where do
they really stand — with the people and the rule of
law or with a despot desperately trying to hang on to
power? Those unwilling to uphold the rule of law in
Zimbabwe and respect the will of its people have no
business pontificating about freedom to Africa. A
definition of "freedom" that exonerates a black
despot, just because he fought against white
colonialists, only compounds Africa's woes.
George B.N. Ayittey, a native of Ghana, is an
associate professor of economics at American
University, and president of The Free Africa
Foundation. His new book, "Africa In Chaos," is
published by St. Martin's Press.
mesfin aman
ROBERT MUGABE AND ZANU-PF:
COMPLETING THE PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION
THE ISSUE
To defend the African liberation struggle at this moment in history is
To defend the sovereignty and independence of Zimbabwe, as Western forces
try to take it back to the subservient, colonial days when it was known as
Rhodesia.. It is to defend ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National
Union-Patriotic Front). President Robert Mugabe and the party he
represents, ZANU-PF, is under increasing daily attacks in the international
media. Although the headlines scream of "crisis," "dictatorship,"
"land-takeovers," "fuel shortages," "violence among the people." etc., the
critical observer will not be fooled. In fact, for African people, such
allegations should set off warning signals that something else is up. The US
and Great Britain governmental and media demonization of President Robert
Mugabe and ZANU-PF is part of a campaign to open up Zimbabwe to control by
the Western imperialist
powers.
ZANU-PF and President Mugabe are a problem to the West because they
persist in upholding their principles. They insist that the demands of
their liberation struggle, in particular "Land to the Tillers," be
fulfilled. ZANU-PF has become a pariah to the West because they are prepared
to take back the land that was stolen from them without paying compensation
to the thieves who stole it.
THE HISTORY
ZANU (led by Robert Mugabe) along with ZAPU (Zimbabwe African
People's Union, led by Joshua Nkomo) led the armed struggle for liberation
from the white racist settlers led by Ian Smith, Prime Minister of what was
then-called Rhodesia. In 1979, the imminent success of the liberation army
forced Ian Smith to the negotiating table. The negotiations held at
Lancaster House in Great Britain led to a transition period, a new
Constitution and elections which gave overwhelming support to ZANU. At a
later point, ZANU and ZAPU joined to form ZANU-PF (Patriotic Front).
But the Lancaster Constitution represented a compromise and thus was a
fundamentally flawed document. Brokered by Great Britain, with the US
behind the scenes, the Lancaster Agreement provided certain protections for
the defeated white racist settlers. For example, although they represented
only 2% of the population, whites were guaranteed 20% of the elected
representatives for the first 10 years after independence. More
importantly, whites were guaranteed compensation before any un or
under-utilized lands could be taken from them. And, of course, they had
already stolen the best farmlands and left the worst to the indigenous
people. The liberation forces agreed to this provision only because Great
Britain and the US (on the down low) promised that they would provide the
monies necessary to pay their thieves.
By 1999, 80% of the best land in Zimbabwe was still in the hands of
some 4000, largely expatriate, whites. Britain had provided a very small
portion of the monies it promised and the US had totally reneged. ZANU-PF
launched a campaign to write a new "home-grown" Constitution, an important
plank of which provided for reclaiming the land which is not being used,
without providing compensation. President Mugabe reiterated that demand at
ZANU-PF's Third Party Congress in December 1999.
THE OPPOSITION
The West and the defeated white racist settlers, led by former Prime
Minister Ian Smith, saw the handwriting on the wall and began a
many-sided assault on ZANU-PF. A new opposition group, the MDC (Movement for
Democratic Change), magically sprang up. Based in the urban areas, it led
a campaign which in January defeated the proposal for a new constitution.
With nation-wide Parliamentary elections scheduled for the spring of 2000,
the MDC postures itself as a voice for reasoned, democratic change. But a
closer look shows that they are not the independent, indigenous group they
claim to be. Its President is Morgan Tsvangirai, but in its shadow
leadership is Afrikaaner terrorist Terre Blanche and Tony Leon of the South
African Democratic Party. The MDC is closely aligned with and funded by the
Commercial (White) Farmers Association and the British Labor Party. It also
has people training with Jonas Savimbi, the notorious terrorist leader of
UNITA.
Both the UK and US have promised to grant concessions if the MDC
Defeats ZANU-PF in the upcoming Parliamentary elections. However they have
stressed that ZANU-PF cannot be defeated as long as Robert Mugabe is there.
Other forms of attack include: the artificial creation of a "fuel
shortage" through hoarding of fuel by white farmers; the fomenting of
discontent in the rural areas by telling immigrant rural workers that the
ZANU-PF plans to return them to their home countries. The assault through
economic destabilization is mounting. Zimbabwe is South Africa's largest
trading partner in the southern African region. Just last week, South
Africa's biggest business and trade organization, the South
African Chamber of Business, urged its 40,000 members to delay any new
investment in Zimbabwe. (NYT 4/15/2000, C2). Policies like this can only
worsen Zimbabwe's already dire economic situation.
THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
“The IMF and World Bank promised us that SAPs [Structural Adjustment
Programs] would stabilize our economy. Instead they have stabilized
poverty." (A head of state at last week's summit of the G-77 countries in
Havana, Cuba.).
Among the results of of IMF/World Bank policies in Zimbabwe:
* Jobs are difficult to find and those with jobs are losing them
through retrenchments.
* Real wages are declining, while inflation and interest rates are
too high.
* Annual inflation rate increased from under 20% in 1990 to 60% in
1999.
* Prices of basic food stuffs have increased by over 1000%.
* Balance of payments has deteriorated and value of Zimbabwe dollars has
fallen.
* Rate of economy's growth declined to 0.5% in 1999.
* 60% of population still classified as poor.
In the mid-1990s, the IMF and World Bank temporarily suspended financing
To Zimbabwe which caused a 2-year delay in the implementation of the five
year plan (1996-2000).
ZIMBABWE'S SUPPORT FOR THE DRC
Zimbabwe has further enraged the imperialist countries by its
Staunch support of the legitimate government of the Democratic Republic of
Congo, led by President Laurent Kabila. The DRC is a crown jewel of
potential Western exploitation. President Kabila presented an obstacle to
their intended rape of the DRC's resources and they therefore decided to
remove him. This is the real basis of the "invasions" of the DRC by Uganda
and Rwanda. Had it not been for the military aid provided by SADC (Southern
African Development Community) countries, led by Zimbabwe, the DRC would
have been effectively balkanized by now. As punishment for Zimbabwe's
refusal to renege on its commitment to the DRC, the IMF/World Bank have
refused to advance any additional aid to Zimbabwe.
THE ELECTION MANIFESTO OF ZANU-PF
In its Manifesto for the Parliamentary elections of 2000, ZANU-PF
Has identified the following critical issue areas to be addressed:
* The return of the land to the people. "Priority groups will
include communal peasants, war veterans and war collaborators, former
political prisoners and detainees and young agricultural graduates and other
professionals and indigenous business people who demonstrate the capacity to
be engaged in meaningful agriculture."
* Industrial and Agricultural Growth: includes "boosting the
industrial base of the economy; supporting the development and strengthening
of the small and medium scale enterprises, especially in rural areas;
Boosting tourism... by making Zimbabwe the distribution centre for all
tourism in Southern and Eastern Africa."
* Education
* Health
* HIV-AIDS: "is a national diaster and the challenge for the next
five years is how to control and stop this disease."
* Constitutional Reform
* Revitalizing Local Government
* Affirmative Action: "The government will continue to promote the
policy of equal representation for women in the public and private sectors
and the reform of law and the constitution to ensure gender equality. The
girl-child will continue to receive priority treatment so that girl-children
are brought to the same level as boy-children."
* The Youth: "The youth in Zimbabwe have become vulnerable to
merchants of confusion [like the MDC] who, because they have no solutions at
all, are taking advantage of the current temporary economic setbacks in the
economy to use money and lies to mislead the youth."
* Corruption: "This scourge is becoming a national disaster in both
the public and private sectors as well as in other sections of the
community. Most of the cases of corruption are a result of the behavior of
greedy people who are betraying public trust by enriching themselves at the
expense of the masses and others who are abusing their positions for the
sake of exercising power. The ZANU-PF government is committed to rid society
of corruption."
* Recognition of our Defense Forces: "ZANU-PF recognizes and
respects the patriotic and Pan African duty done by our defence forces in
our national interest and in the promotion of regional peace and security as
well as peacekeeping throughout the world."
FRIENDS OF ZANU-PF
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF represent the interests of an
independent, revolutionary Zimbabwe, fighting to defend its right to
development. ZANU-PF adheres to the maxim of the great PAIGC freedom fighter
Amilcar Cabral who said, "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." While
acknowledging its errors, ZANU-PF is committed to correcting them and
ensuring Zimbabwe's independence. The ZANU-PF government faces a formidable
opponent in international capital, in alliance with national sell-out,
self-proclaimed "leaders" and unrepentant white racist settlers.
By coming to the aid of ZANU-PF now we can help Zimbabwe avoid a
Repeat of the scenario - personal demonization, economic destabilization,
manipulated political dissent - which led to the overthrow of Ghanaian
President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah over 30 years ago.
Africans in the Diaspora, as well as the international community in
general, must rally in support of the voices for an independent Africa.
>From: "George B.N. Ayittey" <ayi...@american.edu>
>To: mesfin aman <mesfi...@hotmail.com>
>CC: pxa...@fresno.k12.ca.us, theafrica...@egroups.com,
>afric...@egroups.com, bsh...@juno.com, raf...@perryschool.org,
>Wick...@aol.com, aza...@egroups.com, naij...@egroups.com,
>igbo...@lists.cc.utexas.edu
> business pontificating about freedom to Africa A
> definition of "freedom" that exonerates a black
> despot, just because he fought against white
> colonialists, only compounds Africa's woes.
>
> George B.N. Ayittey, a native of Ghana, is an
> associate professor of economics at American
> University, and president of The Free Africa
> Foundation. His new book, "Africa In Chaos," is
> published by St. Martin's Press.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
The Millennium Librarian
Don't forget the role played by African Countries in Zimbabwean
independence, especially Nigeria that staked it's resources to force the
Lancaster House Summit by Nationalising British Investments in Nigeria
during Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo's regime in 1978.
Britain and United States of American NEVER wanted to see that country nor
South Africa nor Namibia receive their independence. They were FORCED to
come along by African Countries and Black-Americans.
Please don't forget to give credits to where credits are due.
All in all, thanx for the history lesssons so far....keep up the good work.
Thanx for listening!
-uzo
----Original Message Follows----
From: "mesfin aman" <mesfi...@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: mesfi...@hotmail.com
To: ayi...@american.edu, mesfi...@hotmail.com
CC: pxa...@fresno.k12.ca.us, theafrica...@egroups.com,
afric...@egroups.com, bsh...@juno.com, raf...@perryschool.org,
Wick...@aol.com, aza...@egroups.com, naij...@egroups.com,
igbo...@lists.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Zimbabwe And Africa's Friends (Fwd)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:11:32 EDT
THE ISSUE
THE HISTORY
THE OPPOSITION
THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
* Education
* Health
* Constitutional Reform
* Revitalizing Local Government
FRIENDS OF ZANU-PF
>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000615193536..htm
> will be devastating..
mesfin aman
movement out of new york.
forward,
mesfin
>>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000615193536.htm
>> business pontificating about freedom to Africa.
Byker
> >"George B.N. Ayittey" <ayi...@american.edu> wrote: <snip>
George Ayittey. The dude who dares to tell it like it REALLY is in the Dark
Continent. My do-rag is off to you, my man. Keep the books coming
out......
mesfin aman
don't put words in my mouth. i am not looking for your forgiveness. and
contrary to your beliefs, we have EVERY right to critique bad solutions
unless you are proposing a dictatorship.
i have realized that it is futile to continue arguing with you because
considering your ideological persuasion and your intellectual dogma, we have
two entirely different visions for africa. you want to ostracize and change
leaders, i am looking for fundamental and systematic changes that are bigger
than corrupt leaders.
there are hundreds of thousands of africans in america doing work to uplift
africa every single day. because they do not have the same visibilty as
those deemed by the establishment as "legitimate" does not negate their
importance or their work.
as a matter of fact, the less visible they are, the more worthiness they are
to us because in the final analysis, the liberation of africa is contrary to
the interests of the mainstream media. if this was not true, the
stereotypical, biased, and ahistorical reporting that takes place on africa
would not occur.
we know the type of african that they put on the evening news. we also know
what type they don't. this has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. i
consider kwame ture, leonard jeffries, angela davis, and patricia
hill-collins as worthy leaders and intellectuals, but i do not expect to see
them on cbs news and know precisley why.
stop patronizing us and stop personalizing ideogical differences. let us
stick to the ISSUES. because in the final instance, it is the people who are
always correct, not ayittey or mesfin.
if you want to believe you won, fine you won ....
but in the meantime, africa is still suffering.
mesfin
>From: "George B.N. Ayittey" <ayi...@american.edu>
>To: mesfin aman <mesfi...@hotmail.com>
>CC: pxa...@fresno.k12.ca.us, theafrica...@egroups.com,
>afric...@egroups.com, bsh...@juno.com, raf...@perryschool.org,
>Wick...@aol.com, aza...@egroups.com, naij...@egroups.com,
>igbo...@lists.cc.utexas.edu, kud...@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: Why Africa Is Poor
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:47:46 -0400
>
>mesfin aman wrote:
>
>**********
>
>oh, uncle george ... stop behaving so uptight. loosen up.
>
>like you have implied, some of us african "fools, bufoons, and coconut
>heads" don't have the intellectual capabilities like our european
>counterparts. after all, abc never calls us for our "views" on africa. so
>some are leaders, some are followers. leaders propose plans, followers
>follow the plans.
>
>i read your plan and ... well ... how can i say this politely - i really
>don't like it prof.
>
>but i really like cheddy's a lot. i am subscribing to it. i am a cheddyist.
>it is listed below.
>
>mesfin
>
>****************
>
>AYITTEY: Well, Mesfin, if you don't like my plan and you subscribe to
>Cheddy's
>that is FINE. There is NO one monolithic viewpoint on African issues and we
>must
>respect those who have viewpoints different from ours -- something African
>leaders and government must understand. If your viewpoint doesn't agree
>four-square with theirs, you are branded an "enemy" to be "eliminated."
>
>I have NEVER claimed that I alone have all the solutions for Africa's
>problems.
>What I do is to PROPOSE solutions. You may not like them, which is fair
>enough
>but at least George Ayittey is "doing something." Now, if you don't like
>what he
>is doing, please point us in the right direction or do something better.
>Please
>note that I am not saying this out of arrogance, spite or contempt. I keep
>saying that more of us African intellectuals should be doing this kind of
>"proposing." More of us must be writing, going on radio, television, etc.
>to
>propose our own African solutions to our problems. There are two reasons
>for
>this.
>
>First, if we Africans don't do it, others would do it for us. And if they
>do,
>then we have NO RIGHT to criticize them for proposing "bad" solutions for
>Africa. Second, it also demonstrates to the world that YES we are also
>thinking
>about our problems and devising solutions to for them. It is not always
>that we
>must run to the international community for solutions to our problems.
>
>Unfortunately, we don't do the "proposing." We have more than 300,000
>African
>professors and intellectuals in the U.S. for example. But how many of us do
>you
>see going on radio, television or writing in the newspapers to "teach"
>Americans
>about the true story about Africa? And why don't we do this? So the whites
>would
>write for us and, like The Economist, dismiss Africa as "The Hopeless
>Continent." Then, we are the very same group who would start to COMPLAIN.
>
>Look, enough of this. We must start writing about our own situation and
>condition, proposing solutions. If Ayittey does it and puts something on
>the
>table, either improve upon what he has placed on the table OR reject it and
>place something BETTER there. Our continent is sinking and we want
>SOLUTIONS,
>not just talk.
>
>Mesfin, you crossed the line when you started attacking, not the message or
>the
>solution but me personally. From what you posted at another forum, I
>believe you
>have realized your mistake. So you are FORGIVEN.
>
>George Ayittey,
>Washington, DC
George B.N. Ayittey
**********
george:
mesfin
****************
AYITTEY: Mesfin, I am desperately trying to get beyond this politics of personal
destruction and focus on the SOLUTIONS.
You say Africa is still suffering. Let us assume that what Ayittey preaches is
bunkum. Why don't you tell us what we must do? What do Kwame Ture, Leonard
Jeffries, Angela Davis, and Patricia Hill-Collins say we should do to ease
Africa's suffering? Would the suffering end if the Western media portrays Africa
in a more POSITIVE light, as you seem to imply in your write-up above?
Mesfin, we are looking for SOLUTIONS. If Leonard Jeffries has the solutions,
please tell us what type of solutions they are.
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC