I've just come off reading yet another sorry spectacle in a Nigerian newspaper, lamenting the ''sorry state of Nigeria'' and how US president Obama ''snubbed'' Nigeria, and decided to visit Ghana instead, owing to the latter's ''democratic credentials'', ''good governance'', and ''functioning society'' etc etc.

These lamentations are normal fare these days from newspaper columnists whom most Nigerians take seriously - characters like Levi Obijiofor of the Guardian, Reuben Abati, Obi Nwakanma among others.

As I was reading through their relentless, self-flagellating dross, I couldn't help thinking to myself, ''are Nigerians really this dumb and naive or are these guys being paid to write this illiterate rubbish?''

Are the likes of Abati paid agents for neo-colonialism? Or are they really as ignorant as they sound?

How can a grown man with brains like Abati in this day and age, with information so widely available, still operate under the crazy illusion that the USA and Obama are some sort of benevolent entities who base their visits to Africa on a desire to see ''progressive, democratic societies'' emerge from the shackles of her past and present?

After a while, I simply concluded that NO. These chaps MUST indeed be paid agents of colonialists and economic saboteurs of the continent. IF I can see through the mist of imperialist deception, and if OTHERS can see it, surely our most esteemed and highly paid columnists ought to be able to see it.



Obama’s neocolonial mission in Africa


By Ann Talbot

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j16.shtml

16 July 2009

Last week, President Barack Obama flew from the G8 summit in Italy to Accra, the capital of Ghana in West Africa, for his first visit to Sub-Saharan Africa since becoming president. “I have the blood of Africa within me,” he told his Ghanaian audience, “and my family’s history reflects the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.”

The value of Obama’s family background was recognised early in his bid for the presidency by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter and a key figure in the formulation of Obama’s foreign policy. In August 2007, Brzezinski declared that Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.”

Brzezinski was among major figures in the US foreign policy establishment who saw in Obama a means of giving the United States a “new face” to the rest of the world, something they deemed critical after the blunders and setbacks to American imperialism under Bush.

Obama lived up to expectations in Ghana. He played on his African ancestry, just as he had emphasised his Muslim heritage the previous month in Cairo.

The image of the two Obama children walking out into the sunlight from the “door of no return” at Cape Coast Castle, from which so many Africans did not return, was a carefully crafted photo op. Leaving this scene of so much human suffering, Obama said, “It reminds us that as bad as history can be, it's always possible to overcome.”

This was meant to imply that no matter what Africa has suffered in the past, and no matter what the continent continues to suffer at the hands of the banks, corporations and Western governments, the responsibility—and the fault—rests with the African people themselves.

Obama brought an uncompromising message, spelling out in a more open way than George Bush dared to do during his visit to Ghana last year that aid would be made available only in return for the implementation of policies that serve the interests of the US government and corporations--and that there would be less of it in future.

“Development,” Obama told parliamentarians, “depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.”

“Africa's future is up to Africans,” he repeated.

The lecture also carried a threat. “We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do,” Obama declared.

The BBC’s correspondent, Andrew Harding, was struck by the bluntness with which the president felt able to speak to his hosts. He wrote: “It was a very broad-ranging speech, but Mr. Obama has an ability because of his heritage, his Kenyan father, to reach out and speak to Africans in a way that I think most foreign leaders would find very difficult.”

It was “a message no pink-faced Western leader could have delivered without arousing resentment in Africa and politically correct abuse from hand-wringers at home,” Libby Purves, a columnist for the London Times noted.

Purves’ derogatory reference to politically correct hand-wringing is a significant one. It is incontrovertible that any possibility of Obama presenting himself as a progressive alternative to the “pink-faced” Bush is largely thanks to the claims of his liberal and “left” apologists that an African-American in the White House represents a gain for black people everywhere and marks a new era in US and world politics.

Obama’s Ghana speech was warmly received by the Republican right. Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal under the headline “Obama Gets It Right on Africa,” described the speech as “by far the best of his presidency.”

Stephens continued: “Since British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave his ‘Wind of Change’ speech (also in Ghana) nearly 50 years ago [The speech was, in fact, delivered in South Africa] Western policy toward Africa has been a matter of throwing money at a guilty conscience (or a client of convenience), no questions asked,  Maybe it took a president unburdened by that kind of guilt to junk the policy.”

The provision of aid has always been a political mechanism to force semi-colonial countries to pursue policies that serve the interests of the imperialist donors. But whereas Bush was obliged to make some token gestures, such as setting up the Millennium Challenge Account and increasing funding for Aids and malaria, Obama has used the kudos he derives from his ancestry to insist point-blank that African governments toe the US line.

Obama’s insistence that Ghana and other African governments achieve “good governance” is a demand for more of the free-market measures that are already being imposed with disastrous results for the social conditions of the population. “Good governance” means privatising essential services such as telecommunications, water and power, as well as social services like health and education. It also means removing subsidies from small farmers and abolishing import controls.

Ghana has gone a long way down that route, which is why it has been favoured with visits from two US presidents. It is far from being one of Africa’s poorest countries, but 70 percent of the population in its northern regions live on less than a dollar a day. Life expectancy is only 58 years. Women often have to walk more than 3 kilometres to find water, and it is seldom clean.

This situation is set to worsen dramatically. The recession has hit Africa hard. Ghana was among those countries granted debt relief in 2005, but with the value of its currency falling, it is rapidly sliding into debt once more. The government’s response has been to impose an austerity budget in an attempt to balance the books.

Obama has shifted the emphasis of the “war on terror” from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the place of Africa in US global strategy remains essentially the same. First, it is a vital source of strategic resources such as oil and gas, but also many key minerals. Second, a high proportion of the world’s shipping lanes run close to Africa’s shores. It follows that any American administration must make the establishment of US domination of Africa a priority.

Obama’s speech was directed to the ruling elites throughout Africa, and the same message will be delivered by other administration officials. He was unable to visit Kenya, his father’s homeland, because a year after the election and the intercommunal violence that followed, the country is still unstable. But Secretary of State Hilary Clinton will head a delegation for trade talks in Kenya later this summer.

Like Obama’s trip, the underlying aim will be to re-establish US hegemony in the face of increasing competition from Europe, India and China. The old colonial European powers are long-standing rivals in Africa. Both France and Britain have their interests in West Africa. China is a relative newcomer. Trade between Africa and China was worth $10 billion in 2001. By 2008 it had increased to $107 billion.

Ghana is a new oil producer. The first supplies came on tap this year. It is valuable both for its modest supply of oil and because it may offer a military staging post to give the US reach over the whole West African region.

With less aid forthcoming, Obama will have to rely more than ever on US military might to secure its control of Africa—both through the supply of military equipment to its clients and through direct intervention.

No African country has yet offered to host a base for the new US African command, Africom. Ghana may well be the first, judging from the attention it is getting from the White House. Obama has made much of the “war on drugs” and has given Ghana three new gunboats for patrolling its coastline.

The purpose of the Africom bases is to provide facilities that will allow the rapid deployment of highly mobile troops. Djibouti has provided a valuable base for this kind of action in Somalia. US special forces from Djibouti took part in the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 to support the Transitional Federal Government, plunging the country into another round of civil war. Obama has recently increased military aid to the US-backed regime in Somalia.

A network of such bases would enable the US to intervene at will under the cover of proxy forces, while cynically claiming that Africans are sorting out their own problems along the lines of Obama’s rhetoric in Ghana.

Ann Talbot


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j16.shtml







Is there any part of this that Nigerian columnists - blind, illiterate, or stupid as they are, are unable to grasp?

Kow-towing to the USA will only make things TEN TIMES WORSE in the long run for Nigeria.


What the rent boys of colonialism like Abati will never tell you is that the term "Good-governance" to the USA does not hold the same meaning it does to the Nigerian majority.

NOT BY ANY STRETCH.

In fact, they hold two diametrically opposed sets of meanings to both parties.

I am SO HAPPY Obama, the EVIL agent of imperialism and theft of African resources, omitted to visit Nigeria.

Nigeria has been slower than other nations like Ghana to privatize and sell off national assets, and is resistant to AFRICOM.

THAT is why Obama ''snubbed'' Nigeria - NOT because Obama or the USA were ''put off'' by Nigeria's ''undemocratic credentials''.

In fact, the USA right now think Nigerians still have too much of a say in how the country is run.

They just want a ''cleaner'' electoral system (like theirs) in which a certified agent of imperialism is ''legitimately elected'' to quicken the pace of national self immolation,

In fact the VERY LAST THING they want is a truly democratic Nigeria in which the people had a voice to say NO to their imperialist designs, and death-dealing prescriptions for ''good governance''

Unfortunately the Abatis and Levi Obijiofors of this world are firmly tucked into the enemy's camp, feeding fat on our latent emasculation.

Yes indeed Nigerians are toooooo bloooody naive.

Everyone is praising ghana but at the same time ghana is dancing to americas tune and becoming more indebted then when under jj rawlings.

The whole Goal of America is to have all countries under its wing or "allies" making those countries dependent on USAID in return for trade. Ghana has become dependent of all types  of Foreign aid, the country is in high debt. Ghana is considered a Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and Nigeria isnt, Though Nigerian government are full of crooks Nigerian govt hasnt been agreeing with America plans economically like Ghana has. America isnt happy with Nigeria because of Nigerian govts dealing with the Chinese and Russians, not because of any damn Democracy.

The USAID,IMF and World bank give money to Highly Indebted Poor Countries based on credit to governments and doesnt promote privatization of industry. Meaning the aid given to government only causes further poverty because Leading Developed countries dont want thirld world countries to have industrialized private sectors that create jobs. One of the reasons their is high unemployment rate throughout africa, we are too busy importing and not producing for ourselves.

But Nigerians are in the spot of picking between the lesser if the Evils America or China

sjeezy8:

Yes indeed Nigerians are toooooo bloooody naive.

Everyone is praising ghana but at the same time ghana is dancing to americas tune and becoming more indebted then when under jj rawlings.

The whole Goal of America is to have all countries under its wing or "allies" making those countries dependent on USAID in return for trade. Ghana has become dependent of all types of Foreign aid, the country is in high debt. Ghana is considered a Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and Nigeria isnt, Though Nigerian government are full of crooks Nigerian govt hasnt been agreeing with America plans economically like Ghana has. America isnt happy with Nigeria because of Nigerian govts dealing with the Chinese and Russians, not because of any damn Democracy.

The USAID,IMF and World bank give money to Highly Indebted Poor Countries based on credit to governments and doesnt promote privatization of industry. Meaning the aid given to government only causes further poverty because Leading Developed countries dont want thirld world countries to have industrialized private sectors that create jobs. One of the reasons their is high unemployment rate throughout africa, we are too busy importing and not producing for ourselves.

But Nigerians are in the spot of picking between the lesser if the Evils America or China

beautiful!!
imma print this out and hang it on my wall.
hmmm. . .
me like.

But @Amaka, isn't it better to educate oneself rather than subscribe to any mesh of nonsense out there just because? China is also a developing country and itself still recieves aid to date. Why is china not indebted to the so call EVIL POWERS? By the way, when did China make the list of EVIL countries? Let me guess, because the chinese have managed themselves to get where they are now, they are now AUTOMATICALLY evil even though they are doing exactly what they have been doing for the past 30 or so years?

Ignorance is NOT bliss!!

I suggest you think of something else because China unlike other countries is a newly industrialized, and it became so on the back of African countries.

Incase you didnt know how that made china one of the Evils

i agree with his post, damn it!
do you think everyone has to have a rebuttle?

roflmao, the hunt for the most evil of them all.

Evil not literally but philosophically neither of the country actually has Africas interest in mind.

lesser of the two evils - a common saying

not per say but look at the Democratic republic of congo

the US supported congos president Mobutu Sese Seko because he said he fighting communism in Africa, and they were interested in Congos natural recources. With support from the US govenment he ruled congo from 1965 – 1997, Robbed that coutry blind even obj wasnt that bad. he was close friends with US presidents,

The west loves the Weak Corrupt leaders like OBJ who SAY Democracy, and hate socialist leaders that actually perform like Chavez. The US has tried many attempts to assassinate Chavez of venzuela because of its oil and because it doesnt ally its self with the US or UK.

Mind you the national opinion of America is different then what the American CIA does

sjeezy8:

not per say but look at the Democratic republic of congo

the US supported congos president Mobutu Sese Seko because he said he fighting communism in Africa, and they were interested in Congos natural recources. With support from the US govenment he ruled congo from 1965 – 1997, Robbed that coutry blind even obj wasnt that bad. he was close friends with US presidents,

The west loves the Weak Corrupt leaders like OBJ who SAY Democracy, and hate socialist leaders that actually perform like Chavez. The US has tried many attempts to assassinate Chavez of venzuela because of its oil and because it doesnt ally its self with the US or UK.

Mind you the national opinion of America is different then what the American CIA does

Well,that depends on which venezuelan you ask as some do feel he has done nothing to aid them.

only those who are greedy lol
and believe in capitalism over the greater good of humanity - America/UK way of thinking


Venezualan GDP - Per Capita (PPP): $12,800  sounds great, compared to the US supported Ghana who is significantly lower at GDP - Per Capita:$ 1,400

AaaarrrgghH!! The wonderful argument where the one claims that higher GDP implies belief in the greater good of humanity. Roflmao!!

@sjeezy

Why should China have to bend over backwards for Africa's interest?? What nation, specifically a world power looks out for the interest of another nation?

If you haven't noticed, most African nations have have a beggar mentality. We're happy to suit China's interests while at the same still getting a nice chunk of the pie.

What do you want or need from them besides business, a back massage? Let me remind you, China has done more good for Africa in less than a decade than Europe can do in a century.

The vast majority of Nigerians are rather naive, not only the writers you mentioned.

Th above is the reason why we are an under-developed country made up mainly of under-developed minds.

We  are under neo-colonialism for sure from politics to sports (i.e the craze for European football to the detriment of local football).

Kobojunkie:

AaaarrrgghH!! The wonderful argument where the one claims that higher GDP implies belief in the greater good of humanity. Roflmao!!

Obviously you cant read, higher gdp per capita, spread of wealth in socialist countries is better for the common good of the nations citizens. Which is why there is funding for free health.

blackspade:

@sjeezy

Why should China have to bend over backwards for Africa's interest?? What nation, specifically a world power looks out for the interest of another nation?

If you haven't noticed, most African nations have have a beggar mentality. We're happy to suit China's interests while at the same still getting a nice chunk of the pie.

What do you want or need from them besides business, a back massage? Let me remind you, China has done more good for Africa in less than a decade than Europe can do in a century.

lol you think soo, the  Chinese think long term, not short term. Before you know it they will have price control as they did in America. dont be soo naive
They have been far from generous but have invested more in africa for their future, not ours. They have done the same with America. Which made the US try and build a better relationship with the Chinese now that america is heavily indebted to them.

Yes African nations do have that beggar mentality- which can be stopped
Right now Africa produces what it does not consume and consumes what it does not produce

It can change by private industrial and manufacturing companies by Africans not foreign investors.  We are too dependent
on foreign goods.

sjeezy8:

It can change by private industrial and manufacturing companies by Africans not foreign investors.  We are too dependent
on foreign goods.

The west and arabs and even china would never want that to happen.

Thus the only way forward is to have a national leader willing to sacrifise his or her life to make it happen.

I can guarantee you that the west or china or arabs or others would do their best to sabotage it and make sure it does not work.

China got to where it is today partly because of the dictatorial effect of communism that allowed them to kick out the west and stop their agents from infiltrating china.

Most African leaders are merely western pawns hence nothing of concrete in terms of development would ever happen, whether we like it or not . . . Africa would not move forward until we adopt the initial chinese policy of consuming only what we produce . . . so as to restrict the flow of cash to within the african continent.

The poster has a point. . . but like all such issues its usually much more complicated than that. .

Is America's planned 'domination' the reason we don't have electricity? Or is that the cause of the rampant corruption or inept police?

Lets stop deceiving ourselves. . . .there's always one conspiracy theory or the other out there. . .the fact remains that PDP alone ^{if they are really serious about these things} have the power to change things. . .don't waste time thinking aboout conspiracies. . . .

so last year obama was jesus in carnate and now he s satan in carnate? fickle

Never understood the brouhahaha of obama not visiting Nigeria myself, It is a bit of common knowledge that USA only do things that they can benefit in some way.
but at the same time, it will be totally wrong to think USA does not want Nigeria to succeed. I mean how? My dear, we are not really helping matters ourselves you know.
Police corruption? Strikes? Bloody thieves hiding under the Politicians nametag to name a few.

illusion2 said:

The poster has a point. . . but like all such issues its usually much more complicated than that. .

Is America's planned 'domination' the reason we don't have electricity? Or is that the cause of the rampant corruption or inept police?

Lets stop deceiving ourselves. . . .there's always one conspiracy theory or the other out there. .  .the fact remains that PDP alone if they are really serious about these things have the power to change things. .  .don't waste time thinking aboout conspiracies. . . .

This is the sort of dismissive NAIVETY I keep talking about - an inability to see the filial linkage between social/economic collapse on the home front and the alignment of our ''pro-western'' ruling classes to an international system geared to rendering Africa a permanent source of raw materials as opposed to a competitive industrial force. You cannot treat this situation in any other way but holistically. The very same ruling class forces who submitted to the Washington Consensus (the philosophy which holds inter alia, that developing nations must cut public spending, cut import controls, privatize social services like education and health, ''liberalise'' their trade by opening their markets to western imports wholesale, devalue their currency, and ban subsidies for small farmers etc etc), are the SAME forces rendering the country unable to substantially increase her power generation ability to anything more than subsistence level.

Until you make these linkages, you will forever be in a spin as to ''why'' ''our leaders'' ''cannot'' increase power supply, or ''refuse'' to seriously invest in rail transport, ''refuse'' to seriously invest in public education, ''allow'' corruption to persist, ''neglect'' our major roads, and are ''unable'' to raise industrial productivity.


Until Nigerians begin to ask of intending national leaders this core question ie:

''Where do you stand with regard to the Washington Consensus?''


we, the majority will continue to run from pillar to post, clueless pawns in an international game whose rules, raison det're, and modus operandi, are utterly alien to us, with the likes of Abati and other  pro-western columnists tightening the blindfolds on our collective faces.

Too bad Nigerian newspapers are owned by corrupt ex governors and fronts for the ones still in government.

Babarossi:

illusion2 said:
This is the sort of dismissive NAIVETY I keep talking about - an inability to see the filial linkage between social/economic collapse on the home front and the alignment of our ''pro-western'' ruling classes to an international system geared to rendering Africa a permanent source of raw materials as opposed to a competitive industrial force. You cannot treat this situation in any other way but holistically. The very same ruling class forces who submitted to the Washington Consensus (the philosophy which holds inter alia, that developing nations must cut public spending, cut import controls, privatize social services like education and health, ''liberalise'' their trade by opening their markets to western imports wholesale, devalue their currency, and ban subsidies for small farmers etc etc), are the SAME forces rendering the country unable to substantially increase her power generation ability to anything more than subsistence level.
Until you make these linkages, you will forever be in a spin as to ''why'' ''our leaders'' ''cannot'' increase power supply, or ''refuse'' to seriously invest in rail transport, ''refuse'' to seriously invest in public education, ''allow'' corruption to persist, ''neglect'' our major roads, and are ''unable'' to raise industrial productivity.
Until Nigerians begin to ask of intending national leaders this core question ie:
''Where do you stand with regard to the Washington Consensus?''

we, the majority will continue to run from pillar to post, clueless pawns in an international game whose rules, raison detre, and modus operandi, are utterly alien to us, with the likes of Abati and other pro western ''columnists'' tightening the blindfolds on our collective face.

You are the one being naive my friend . . .is it the same conspiracy that has gotten Botswana into the league of serious nations or that has powered Brazil,India & China ,yes china into international reckoning??

As Obama pointed out South korea had a lower GDP than Kenya when he was born,but today you can't even compare the 2. . . . the simple reason is that some responsible peeople whether democratic or not made up their minds to sacrifice for their country while some others don't. . . .your assertions seems to want to confirm that black people are less intelligent. . . or is that your point?

Or is it America's fault that you spend billions to fix electricity w/out any success or that you import petrol while exporting crude oil?

The question is why Africa?. . . nobody's going to bring your country down(or make you a pawn) if you don't let them. . .blaming the west for all your problems is just that . . . NAIVE

@Poster


I beleive you more that Nigerians are so bloody naive, not just by reading your entire post, but by reading the comments that follows which makes no meaning and renders your conclusion absolutely correct. Not only are they naive, they are brainless as well.

illusion2:

You are the one being naive my friend . . .is it the same conspiracy that has gotten Botswana into the league of serious nations or that has powered Brazil,India & China ,yes china into international reckoning??

As Obama pointed out South korea had a lower GDP than Kenya when he was born,but today you can't even compare the 2. . . . the simple reason is that some responsible peeople whether democratic or not made up their minds to sacrifice for their country while some others don't. . . .[size=14pt]your assertions seems to want to confirm that black people are less intelligent[/size]. . . or is that your point?

Or is it America's fault that you spend billions to fix electricity w/out any success or that you import petrol while exporting crude oil?

The question is why Africa?. . . nobody's going to bring your country down(or make you a pawn) if you don't let them. . .blaming the west for all your problems is just that . . . NAIVE

roflmao!!!! This whole thread seems to support that assertion from post one!! Roflmao!!!

Kobojunkie:

roflmao!!!! This whole thread seems to support that assertion from post one!! Roflmao!!!

No mind them jare, lol!

black people arent less intelligent but Africans in the continent of Africa are dumb ass hell. Very stupid even Americans can see the hypocrisy that the US exudes. Brazil, China, Mexico, Venezuela are all starting to distance themselves from America in terms of trade. Developng countries are now cutting America out of deals.

link=topic=332451.msg4665844#msg4665844 date=1254679353:

Cotton: Brazil plays hardball on illegal US subsidies to farmers–lessons for Pakitan

For the past seven years Brazil has chafed at the $3 billion in U.S. subsidies handed out to American cotton farmers, subsidies that undercut Brazilian trade and violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. In 2005 the WTO ruled that the subsidies did indeed distort the international price of cotton and contravened trade agreements.

For more than three years Brazil tried to negotiate the issue with Washington, reluctant to pick a fight with its number one trading partner. But this past March China became Brazil’s and Latin America’s number one trading partner, and suddenly north-south chemistry changed.

Brazilian exports to China jumped 65 percent in 2008 to reach $5.6 billion, and both countries just negotiated a $800 million credit loan between Brazil’s National Bank for Social Development and China’s Development Bank.

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/09/cotton-brazil-plays-hardball-on-illegal-us-subsidies-to-farmers-lessons-for-pakitan/

I'm taking my time to respond. . . . so please hold on. . . . .

But try to keep it short next time,ok?

Babarossi:

babarossi

where did all your long post go again?

Sorry for the error: Call me Rossike. 


illusion2 said:

You are the one being naive my friend . . .is it the same conspiracy that has gotten Botswana into the league of serious nations

Oh dear. Botswana, in the league of ''serious nations''? How so?

Serious nations in what sense? How many cars or airplanes or new technologies are being released in Botswana? How many factories or industries are in Botswana? Look,  I'll tell you a few things about Botswana, and how this ties in perfectly with what is being said here.

In the 80s and 90s, Botswana was the fastest growing economy not just in Africa, but in the entire world. A small country with less than 20 million people, they had vast quantities of diamonds and other minerals. A stable system of govt provided a high standard of education, and public infrastructure. All that was left was for investors from across the world to pour in and turn that nation into Africa's first Tiger economy.

But what happened?

Nothing.

No one came.

Those who came were interested primarily in extractive industries, mining diamonds and other minerals for export, NOT TO ADD VALUE to those primary products WITHIN BOTSWANA. (which of course is what transforms nations into Tiger Economies)

Now, a comparable nation to Botswana is Vietnam. Over the last two decades, Vietnam has been a war-torn place crippled by broken infrastructure, poor education and corrupt rulers.

In the same time period under consideration, Vietnam received TEN TIMES MORE foreign INDUSTRIAL investment than Botswana, despite all the latters' entreaties and concessions and incentives offered to western investors.

Today, I understand Vietnam is about to start producing CARS for export, no doubt to places like Botswana, whose clueless nationals would, like you, sit around wringing their hands as to how Vietnam came to be an industrial ''Tiger'' while they remain in the doldrums.

Until people like you get it into your heads that development is rarely ever something that happens to a nation IN ISOLATION, but rather is a compendium of various INTERNATIONAL FORCES ACTING IN CONCERT, you will never get it.

Africa South of the Sahara has been ''designated'' as a permanent source of raw materials by those who do not wish the continent to emerge as the industrial power it ought to be. Such powerful forces would smother a Botswana simply by neglecting her, investment-wise (since she is far too small to rise on her own), while actively working to cultivate ''PRO-WESTERN LEADERS'' in the bigger, viable, resource rich nations like Nigeria, DR Congo, etc, to ensure that such nations do not step above their designated limits.

or that has powered Brazil

Brazil? Brazil was (and is) a Portuguese colony, whose wealth, much like America's, was built, not on any economic ''wizardry'', but rather on the free labour of captured African slaves, and is a country that has been independent since 1822!! She has few resources apart from Sugar, so is not a designated ''permanent source of raw materials'' and thus has little or no problem attracting western investors.

India

India is almost identical to Nigeria in terms of the levels of corruption and poverty. In fact in many cases it's far worse. over 500 million Indians are illiterate. India still suffers from power cuts, corrupt police, and such other ills. Their leaders  practice the Washington Consensus, and the people have grossly suffered as a result, much as this is rarely highlighted by the Western Media.

Certainly they have a longer history of modern education than Nigeria, which accounts for their more diverse industrial heritage. The British colonisers built the first universities there in the 1800s,  while ''delaying'' to do same in their African territories. In fact by the time the British left Nigeria in 1960, they'd built not a single University, and literacy was at an appalling 5%. Meanwhile South Africa, Egypt,  etc, had several established universities built by the British as early as the 1820s! So we are playing catch-up against the rest of the world in many ways, make no mistake about that.

China

China? I'm really glad you mentioned China. First of all China has one thing Africa lacks, that is a unified centralised administration. China's population is twice that of Africa's, yet they have ONE central govt while Africa has 57!

Now the first thing about that situation is that Africa will have divergent policies on a variety of issues and interests, and thus will be far more easily manipulable by powerful external forces than unified China could ever be.

Take Zimbabwe for example. Zimbabwe is one of the richest places on earth in terms of natural resources, but a country like Britain, WITH NO RESOURCES, can impose ''economic sanctions'' on Zimbabwe for the ''sin'' of Zimbabwe insisting that her land belongs to the people and not to a a tiny group of white settlers from Europe!

How do you think that is possible?

It is because African states are fragmented. Not unified. Lacking a central authority, it is very easy for foreign powers to play us off against one another. And isolate individual segments of the continent from international commerce.  It's really that simple.

This is why the mantra AFRICA UNITE, is not just an empty chant worthy of derision, but an ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL COUNTERMAND to the vast, ancient, international CONSPIRACY to divide and plunder the continent.

As Obama pointed out South korea had a lower GDP than Kenya when he was born,but today you can't even compare the 2. . . . the simple reason is that some responsible peeople whether democratic or not made up their minds to sacrifice for their country while some others don't

I have told you to stop listening to Obama. He is an imperialist front-man with not the slightest interest in African development.

What Obama did not tell you about South Korea is that unlike Kenya, South Korea, from the 1950s, received billions of dollars in annual western industrial investment (remember the Vietnam/Botswana example), and virtually unrestricted access to western markets for her finished goods, of the type Kenya can only dream of.

Why?

Because after WW2 the western powers needed powerful capitalist outposts in Asia to check the communist encroachment of Russia, North Korea and other communist states. They thus deliberately created the conditions that would give rise to ''tiger economies'' using a variery of capitalist instruments that I won't bother to outline here, , and massive western investment in those regions.

So please learn to look ''under the hood'' rather than this superficial appraisal of events and circumstances.

Now if Africa must develop as we ought to, 5 ESSSENTIAL THINGS MUST HAPPEN.

1) We must realise that we have no ''friends'' in the international realm. We are on our own. All those whom we think are our ''friends'' are only there to exploit and divide us.

The likes of Abati and other ''columnists'' are the first who need to imbibe this message.

This realisation would, in natural consequence lead ultimately to the following ESSENTIAL transformative events:


1) Continental Unification, ie centralisation of political and economic decision making power.

a) Where this is problematic, we could split the continent into NO MORE THAN THREE STATES, NORTH, CENTRAL, AND SOUTH.

2) We must develop as a matter of urgency, internal, INTRA-continental  trade systems and mechanisms which succeed in keeping the labours and productivities of the continent WITHIN the continent in order to build its wealth and allow it to permeate the African population.

3) EXTRICATE the continent from the global financial/commodity pricing systems in which the prices of African natural resources are determined in resource-poor regions like France and Belgium, rather than in Africa.

4) Develop a powerful, integrated African MILITARY and intelligence forces to counter all  foreign attempts at sabotaging African independence.

5) Engage in INTENSE and SUSTAINED re-orientation of the African collective (similar to the rise of Confucianism in China) to create a New African Personality (as propounded by Nkrumah), in which the African sees himself and his continent as the FULCRUM of his existence, shedding the externalisation of the African consciousness.

Kobojunkie:

But @Amaka, isn't it better to educate oneself rather than subscribe to any mesh of nonsense out there just because? China is also a developing country and itself still recieves aid to date. Why is china not indebted to the so call EVIL POWERS? By the way, when did China make the list of EVIL countries? Let me guess, because the chinese have managed themselves to get where they are now, they are now AUTOMATICALLY evil even though they are doing exactly what they have been doing for the past 30 or so years?

Ignorance is NOT bliss!!

Uhm________are you refering to the same China that lends the United States billions of dollars, and purchases the later debts and dollar bonds? The same China that has the highest economic growth rate in the world while western economies stagnate?

You're right, ignorance is definitely bliss. `just that you're the one swimming in it.