728x90_2 (1)
Published On: Thu, Jul 19th, 2012

How The IMF-World Bank and Structural Adjustment Program(SAP) Destroyed Africa

HerbertJauchmuok

Herbert Jauch , Labour Resource and Research Institute, Namibia

Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) have been implemented in many ‘developing’ countries since the 1980s. They were designed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and imposed as a condition for

further loans. Below is a brief background of the events that led many countries to accept SAPs. It describes how SAPs are being implemented and what results they have produced over the past 20 years. This article also gives a short analysis of the roles of the World Bank, the IMF and the local political elites in this process.

Structural Adjustment and the Debt Crisis

SAPs were born as a result of a debt crisis that has hit especially developing countries since the 1980s.

This debt crisis has its origin in the early 1970s when oil-producing countries that had united in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) increased the oil price to gain additional revenue. Most of these profits were invested with banks in industrialised countries. These banks, in turn, were interested to lend this money to developing countries to finance the purchase of products from the industrialised countries. In this way, the loans given to ‘developing’ countries helped to stimulate production in the North (see Toussaint and Comanne 1995: 15). At that time. both private and public institutions encouraged the South to borrow. Even the World Bank ‘preached the doctrine of debt as the path towards accelerated development’. As a result, huge amounts were borrowed by the political elites, often wasted on luxuries, ‘white elephant’ projects or stolen by corrupt officials  (Usually stooges, selected by the exiting colonial powers to lead these failed African states). Very little was invested productively with a view of achieving sustainable economic growth (see George 1995: 21).

Related: NewsRescue 01/01/2012- IMF Forces African Nations to Remove Fuel Subsidies

During the 1970s loans were given freely at very low interest rates but this situation changed dramatically in the early 1980s. The USA pushed up interest rates drastically in an attempt to stop inflation. ‘Developing’ countries that had taken out loans with US banks now had to pay huge interests. The major lending banks in Europe followed suit and the debt crisis was born (see George 1995: 21). ‘Developing’ countries were unable to repay their loans and were forced to take up new loans to pay the interest.

In 1980 the total debt of developing countries stood at US$ 567 billion. Between 1980 and 1992 these countries paid back US$ 1662 billion. However, because of the high interest rates, the debt increased to US$ 1419 billion in 1992 – despite the repayments! The rising interest rates forced developing countries to take out new loans to avoid bankruptcy.

Debt repayments drain about US$ 160 billion each year from ‘developing’ countries. This is about 2.5 times the total development aid that these countries receive!

Since the 1980s, debt repayments are a major mechanism of transferring wealth from the South to the North. The former French President Francois Mitterand admitted this when he said in 1994:

‘Despite the considerable sums spent on bilateral and multilateral aid, the flow of capital from Africa toward the industrial countries is greater than the flow of capital from the industrial countries to the developing countries’ (see Touissaint and Comanne 1995: 10-12).

Despite the fact that ‘developing’ countries have long paid back their initial loans, they are still highly indebted and are dependent on new loans. This paved the way for the IMF and World Bank to come ‘to the rescue’. They were given the task to make sure that ‘developing’ countries will continue paying their debt by offering new loans – to countries who accept certain conditions: structural adjustment.

Related: NewsRescue- Summary of Nigeria IMF-SAP debt progression

The role of the IMF and World Bank

Initially the idea behind the World Bank and IMF, also called the Bretton Woods institutions, was widely supported. The Bank was given the task to rebuild first Europe and then other countries after the Second World War. The IMF was supposed to facilitate trade and to make short-term loans available to countries with temporary balance of payment problems (see George 1995: 19).

Today the IMF and the World Bank are much more powerful than its founders could have imagined. Both have over 170 member countries whose power is determined by the amount they pay in subscriptions. This system of ‘one dollar – one vote’ has meant that the rich industrialised countries control these institutions today (see the description of the IMF and World Bank attached). The IMF and World Bank are far from democratic and their policies are shaped by their principal shareholders – the powerful industrialised countries.

The IMF and World Bank today have a strong influence over economic policies in many countries. The inability of many countries to repay their debt has made them dependent on new loans. The IMF has the power to declare countries credit worthy – or not. To get the seal of approval countries have to accept the conditions of structural adjustment programmes. They have to restructure their economies according to IMF/World Bank guidelines – otherwise they will have virtually no chance to get loans from private or public creditors anywhere (see George 1995:19-21).

Herbert Jauch; LARRI, Namibia

The Implementation of Structural Adjustment Programmes

SAPs are built on the fundamental condition that debtor countries have to repay their debt in hard currency. This leads to a policy of ‘exports at all costs’ because exports are the only way for ‘developing’ countries to obtain such currencies.

A first feature of SAPs is therefore a switch in production from what local people eat, wear or use towards goods that can be sold in the industrialised countries. Since the 1980s dozens of countries have followed these policies simultaneously. They often exported the same primary commodities, competed with each other and then suffered because of declining world market prices for their commodities. Between 1980 and 1992, ‘developing’ countries lost 52% of their export income due to deteriorating prices (see Touissant and Comanne 1995: 12; George 1995:22; Bournay 1995: 51).

SAPs have 4 fundamental objectives according to which they are shaped:

  1. Liberalisation: promoting the free movement of capital; opening of national markets to international competition.
  2. Privatisation of public services and companies.
  3. De-regulations of labour relations and cutting social safety nets.
  4. Improving competitiveness (see Toissant and Comanne 1995:14)

Based on these objectives, SAPs prescribe nearly always the same measures as a condition for new loans. These are:

  • reduction of government deficit through cuts in public spending (cost recovery programmes);
  • higher interest rates
  • liberalisation of foreign exchange rules and trade (deregulation);
  • rationalisation and privatisation of public and parastatal companies;
  • deregulation of the economy, for example:

- liberalisation of foreign investment regulations

- deregulation of the labour market, e.g. wage ‘flexibility’

- abolishing price controls and food subsidies

  • shift from import substitution to export production (see Isaacs 1997: 135)
Poverty in Africa {Img: sfgate.com}

Poverty in Africa {Img: sfgate.com}

These measures forced countries on a path of deregulated free market economies. The IMF/World bank basically determine countries’ macro-economic policies, they take control over central bank policies and over public expenditure through the so-called ‘Public Expenditure Review’. SAPs promote the principal of cost-recovery for social services and the gradual withdrawal of the state from basic health and educational services. Under its ‘Public Investment Programme’ the IMF even decides what type of infrastructure should be built while an imposed system of international tender ensures that public-works projects are carried out by international construction and engineering firms (see Chossudovsky 1995: 59).

Although several countries were skeptical about such neo-liberal policies (designed along the ideas of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations) they were forced to abandon socialist or even social democratic ideas. In this way, the debt crisis has provided the IMF and World Bank with a very effective instrument of disciplining rebellious countries. Debtor countries are kept in a ‘strait-jacket’ which prevents them from implementing their own economic policies (SEE George 1995:21; Chossudovsky 1995:57).

The Results of Structural Adjustment Programmes

Despite the IMF and World Bank claims of SAP successes, it is widely acknowledged that SAPs have failed to achieve their goals. They have not created wealth and economic development as unregulated markets did not benefit the poor and failed to protect the delivery of social services. The IMF/World Bank believe that the elimination of protective tariffs will make domestic industries more competitive. In reality, domestic manufacturing often collapsed and imported consumer goods replaced domestic production. Other results of SAPs were:

  • Privatisation allows international capital to buy state enterprises at very low costs.
  • Tax reforms under SAPs (like VAT) place a greater tax burden on middle and low-income groups while foreign capital receives generous tax holidays.
  • Deregulation of the banking system leads to very high interest rates which makes most goods unaffordable to the majority.
  • Elimination of subsidies and prize controls, covered with devaluation lead to price increases and reduce real earnings in the formal and informal sectors.
  • Free movement of foreign exchange allows foreign companies to repatriate their profits. It also allows the ‘laundering’ of ‘dirty money’ from offshore banking accounts.
  • Cost-recovery programmes in the health sector increased the inequality in health care delivery, reduced health coverage and increased the number of people without access to health care. Diseases like cholera, malaria and yellow fever are on the increase again.
  • Various NGOs funded by international aid agencies have gradually taken over government functions in the social sector.
  • Cuts in public sector employment (for example 300 000 civil servants were retrenched in Zaire – now DRC – in 1995), coupled with bankruptcies of local companies has led to large increases in unemployment.
  • Liberalisation of the labour market leads to the elimination of cost of living adjustment clauses in collective agreements and to the phasing out of minimum wage legislation.
  • Export orientation in agriculture is eliminating subsistence crops and accelerates the exodus of the unemployed towards the cities. (See Touissant and Comanne 1995: 9; Chossudovsky 1995:58-64)

Even in those countries that are singled out as success stories, SAPs imposed severe hardships on the poor. In Uganda, for example, the government obediently followed the World Bank/IMF policies and implemented far-reaching liberalisation such as:

  • Privatisation of government institutions
  • Reducing the size of the civil service and the army
  • Liberalisation of foreign exchange
  • Decentralisation of services to local authorities
  • Cuts in government spending on social services

Despite some (statistical) economic growth, these policies resulted in:

  • Drop in formal sector employment to less than 14% of the economically active population
  • Retrenchment of more than half the civil service (170 000)
  • Lack of equipment and medication in government health facilities
  • Collapse of small enterprises
  • Declining co-operative movement
  • Trade Unions lost 60% of their members since 1990

SAPs had a detrimental effect on social services. In the education sector, for example, they led to:

  • Increasing class size (student-teacher ratios)
  • Increasing school fees as part of cost-recovery programmes
  • Reduction in the number of teachers and/or wage freezes
  • Introduction of ‘double shifts’
  • Drop in the standard of public education due to deteriorating facilities
  • Increase in private schools for the wealthy
  • Increasing inequalities in the standard of education between poor and rich communities
  • Lower enrolment at schools as the poor have to choose between feeding their children and paying for school uniforms, stationery and school fees.
  • Finance-driven education reforms under SAPs often reversed the gains made by African countries after independence.

SAPs meant that most countries had to make major cuts in their education budgets and the world-wide rate of illiteracy began to grow again after a long period of decline (see Bournay 1995: 51). The poor and vulnerable groups in society are always the hardest hit by the SAP measures. SAPs have had a particularly negative effect on women because:

    • Privatisation of social services like health and education makes these services unaffordable for the poor. As a result, women are often forced to take on these responsibilities, for example tacking care of the sick.
    • Cuts in education services lead to an increase in illiteracy among women and girls. Under SAPs, the drop-out rate for girls is increasing.
    • Reduced spending on health leads to an increase in maternal deaths.
    • The elimination of food subsidies coupled with falling (real) wages reduces women’s buying power.
    • Unemployment is increasing as a result of public sector ‘restructuring’
    • ‘Labour flexibility’ may result in more jobs for women at the expense of men. These jobs, however, are usually poorly paid and insecure.
    • The reduction of formal sector jobs drives women into the informal sector.
    • In Zambia, the hardships caused by SAPs led to an increase in divorces. Men left their homes because they were unable to look after their families. As a result, more women were forced to look after their children on their own.

Picture representation


SAPs in Southern Africa

The results of SAPs in Southern Africa were similar to those of the programmes elsewhere. The effects of these policies are visible in all countries of Southern Africa, although the manifestations are different. In Angola, the war sponsored by the CIA and South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s has devastated the country. Virtually the entire industrial production base was destroyed and Angolans have to fight a daily battle for survival. In the late 1980s the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) enforced SAPs resulting in what was described as “wild capitalism” (Brittain: 3-7). These policies have done nothing but exacerbate the already devastated economic and social structures of Angola.

In Zimbabwe and Zambia, SAPs placed severe hardships on the population while failing to lead to the promised economic recovery and reduced unemployment. ESAP, the abbreviation for ‘Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes’ is now seen as the abbreviation for ‘Ever Suffering African People’, as these programmes resulted in popular protests and food riots after subsidies for basic food items were withdrawn. The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) has pointed out that ESAPs worsened poverty and that export orientation further disadvantages small-scale communal farmers who still have no adequate access to suitable land (Goncalves: 6)

After 5 years of SAPs, Zimbabwe’s external debts had increased dramatically due to heavy SAP-related borrowing. It now stands at more than 100% of the GDP and the domestic debt is even higher. Due to currency devaluations the real foreign exchange value of exports in Zimbabwe declined by 2,7% a year while it had grown by 9% before SAPs were introduced. Economic growth was slow and 60 000 workers were retrenched (Saunders: 9; Goncalves:70).

In 1995 the IMF suspended the lending programme and called for even bigger sacrifices to be imposed on the population. SAPs forced the government to concentrate on budget deficits at the expense of creating employment and improving social services. Unemployment stands at 50% in some sectors and only 16 000 jobs are created per year for 220 000 school leavers. Since the early 1990s 130 companies were liquidated and a process of de-industrialisation is underway in a country that once had a relatively self-contained and integrated economy (Saunders: 8-11).

Zambia took the most dramatic steps to fully implement ESAPs and has seen whole industries disappear as protective measures were dropped. External debts are strangulating the country and between 1990 and 1993 the Zambian government spent 35 times more on debt repayment than on primary school education! (Goncalves: 7)

Mozambique is often regarded as one of the poorest countries in the world with foreign assistance accounting for two-thirds of its GDP. After 20 years of South African sponsored war, the state has virtually been destroyed and is presently trying to establish some kind of political stability.

During the 1980s the Mozambiquen leadership tried to find a way of protecting social achievements when dealing with external financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. This did not last long and a process of ‘recolonisation’ unfolded. Privatisation hit every sphere of the country’s social and economic life: banking, cotton industry, agriculture, health and education.

Today Mozambique is dominated ” not by the agents of a colonial power, but by the technically sophisticated and politically disinterested economists of the IMF , the World Bank and of bilateral aid agencies whose prescriptions are determined by economic analysis” (Plank).

They portray Mozambique’s subordination as a natural consequence of global economic trends. A Mozambiquen MP admitted that “our budget is really set by donors at the annual Paris conference” (Saul: 12-17). Privatisation which was meant to improve efficiency and reduce budget deficits often results in massive retrenchments. According to Mozambique’s trade union federation OTM, of the 502 companies which were privatised since 1989 only 25% are still operational and 37 000 workers have been retrenched (Goncalves: 6).

Under pressure form international donors, the Malawi government removed fertiliser subsidies in 1995. As a result, small-scale farmers could no longer afford fertilisers or were forced to sell their food stocks. This poses a serious threat for the country’s food self-sufficiency.

Although Namibia and South Africa are not heavily indebted and were not forced to implement SAPs, there are indications that these countries are following similar policies. After decades of sanctions and partial isolation, South Africa is re-integrating into the global economy. This is changing its domestic economy which had been characterised by protective tariffs and import substitution. It now has to face global competition. As a signatory to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), South Africa has started to dismantle tariff barriers. The government sees this as a necessary step to make domestic industries internationally competitive. The macro-economic plan known as “Growth, Employment and Redistribution” (GEAR) shows many similarities with the structural adjustment policies of other countries.

So far, the harshest effects of trade liberalisation are experienced by workers in South Africa’s clothing and textiles industry. 80% of workers in the clothing sector and 50% of those in the textile sector are women. Between 1991 and 1997, 50 000 out of a total of 200 000 workers have lost their jobs. South African companies were unable to produce goods as cheaply or at the same quality as competitors from South-East Asia and had to close down. The industry proposed a more “flexible” labour force (i.e. wage cuts) to tackle the crisis, and some companies have initiated plant-level restructuring accompanied by retrenchments, casualisation and decentralisation of production (Macquene). Another prominent feature in South Africa is the privatisation of state assets similar to what has happened in other African countries as part of SAPs. Despite opposition from the labour movement, the South African government seems to follow the demands of national and international capital to speed up the process of privatisation.

In Namibia, the government is still spending a large portion of the national budget on social services like education and health, but there are signs that cuts are imminent. The Ministry of Education, for example, has already cut down on expenditure for school hostels by reducing and sometimes even abolishing the subsidies. Several hostels were privatised and the Ministry now wants to implement a programme known as “staffing norms’. This programme aims to achieve a uniform teacher-student ratio across the country and claims to achieve the following: financial sustainability; enhanced educational quality; and equity among regions and schools. The Ministry targets teacher learner ratios of 1:40 for primary schools and 1:36 for secondary schools by the year 2002 (NANTU 1997:13).

Other signs of structural adjustment policies are the government’s commitment to sweeping privatisation which is justified as a means of making state-run and state-owned companies more efficient. ‘Commercialisation’ is mentioned almost daily in the media and has become the ‘religion’ of economic policy. The Namibian government is also determined to reduce the size of the civil service and believes that economic development can only be achieved through foreign investments and export-led growth. These are definite signs that structural adjustment has arrived.

SAPs and Globalisation

SAP destroyed Africas Hopes

Cheated! SAP destroyed Africa’s Hopes

Overall, SAPs have reversed some of the gains made by ‘developing’ countries in their attempt to find an autonomous development process that would suit local conditions. The rolled back some of the achievements made by African states in the post-colonial era (see Goncalves: 6-8). Countries like India, Mexico, Algeria and Brazil are now returning to their former dependency on and subordination to the industrialised world (see Toussaint and Comanne 1995: 17). Chipeta points out that this is no accident as ESAPs were not designed to promote genuine economic development. “Each policy is designed to fail so that the implementing country can enter into another programme”. In other words, an implementing country becomes permanently locked into ESAPs which are designed by the industrialised blocks to shape developing countries according to their needs (Chipeta: 11).

SAPs as a part of the broader process of globalisation have increased the manoeuvring space for Transnational Corporations to an unprecedented level. They could utilise the opportunities created through privatisation and the general economic liberalisation. However, it is important to point out that the political and economic elite of ‘developing’ countries has also played a crucial role in the adjustment process. These elites often used the initial loans for their own benefits. They continued a life in luxury while telling their people to tighten their belts. Even under structural adjustment they were hardly the ones who suffered and sometimes even benefited from SAPs. When public services deteriorate or disappear they can afford private schools and hospitals. They often benefited from privatisation by obtaining functioning enterprises at give-away prices and they benefit from low labour costs as a result of labour flexibility. Susan George has accurately summed up the results of SAPs and globalisation when she wrote about the global apartheid economy:

‘The Bretton Woods twins have become the managers of a global apartheid economy in which the transnational elite from both “North” and “South” plays the role of the “whites”; a shrinking and anxious middle class the role of the “coloureds”; and finally, at the bottom, the vast sea of wretchedness made up of “blacks”, whatever their literal skin colour’ (1995:23).

The failure of SAPs have often led to violent protests that were often repressed with great brutality. The IMF/WB have ignored all critics for years and even today continue to argue that the situation would have been worse without SAPs. In recent years, they tried to respond to public criticism by moving towards adjustment ‘with a human face’. They are now prepared to look at a very basic safety net and have allowed some countries (e.g. Egypt) to maintain some subsidies on essential food products. However, the basic philosophy and the believe in the unregulated free market have remained unchanged (see Bournay 1995: 52).

Conclusion

Although the relative share of the ‘developing’ countries’ debt in the world’s debt has declined, the people of those countries still have to suffer under structural adjustment programmes. They still have to pay a heavy price to ensure that the debt is paid. The same is now happening in the former countries of the Soviet bloc that are also forced to undergo structural adjustment. Debt is even becoming an issue in the rich industrialised countries as people there are now also experiencing austerity measures that are similar to structural adjustment. Industrial countries justify cuts in social spending as necessary to reduce the public debt. Toussaint and Commanne pointed out that: ‘While austerity measures imposed in the North do not have tragic consequences equal to those in the South and East, the results are nonetheless destructive’ (1995:18).

Ads

The World Bank and the IMF have repeatedly come under sharp criticism over the failure of their SAPs. Under mounting pressure, Social Dimension Funds (SDFs) were introduced in recent years to cushion the blows and hardships of ESAPs. However, they have been ineffective and insufficient to offset the damages caused. ‘Adjustment with a human face’ did not address the fundamental flaws of SAPs but the Bank and the Fund still believe that the solution to the world’s problem lies in continued liberalisation of economies. They still believe that SAPs short term pain will lead to long term gain. Rhetorical commitment to ‘poverty alleviation’ did not change the SAP principle of systematically withdrawing the state from delivering social services. According to the IMF and World Bank, these services are meant to be cost effectively managed by ‘civil society’(see Chossudovsky 1995: 64). During a seminar in Namibia in 1998, IMF officials confirmed that:

‘Structural Adjustment programmes have become the main vehicle for the IMF’s support in Africa.’ Reinhold van Til, IMF

Under structural adjustment, Ghana and Uganda ‘experienced a sharp improvement in competitiveness, trade, investment, and economic performance.’

‘The ‘right’ economic policies will automatically lead to economic growth and prosperity. Investors will reward countries with good economic policies and punish those with bad ones.’

‘Liberalisation of the trade system is a key element of reform if Africa is to take advantage of increasingly global patterns of production and trade….this must be accompanied by a liberalisation of exchange rates.’ Robert Sharer, IMF

Government intervention must be limited to ‘areas of market failure and to the provision of the necessary social and economic infrastructure’ Alassane D. Quattare, IMF

In theory, SAPS are meant to assist countries to return to economic recovery. In practice the opposite has happened. SAPs have destroyed any chance to achieve sustainable economic development that would meet national priorities. Chossudovsky pointed out that the ‘…IMF-World bank reform package constitutes a coherent programme for economic and social collapse…They destroy the entire fabric of the domestic economy’ (1995: 66).

Whenever SAPs fail, the IMF and World Bank blame the host government which they accuse of incompetence or insufficient motivation. ‘IMF riots’ have happened in more than 30 countries, sometimes in the form of violent protests against the hardships caused by SAPs. The host country’s governments were always left to deal with the uprisings that were often brutally suppressed. However, initial protests against SAPs were hardly followed by a systematic initiative to build the political capacity to replace SAPs with a different development strategy. Even the political leaders of ‘developing’ countries have become quiet on the debt issue and are no longer campaigning for the cancellation of the debt. In most cases they have become a corrupt elite that is no longer interested in establishing a new and more just world order. It will therefore be left to those organisations that represent the increasingly impoverished majority to actively campaign against structural adjustment policies and to develop alternative policies that will be able to solve our problems.

It must also be mentioned that the wars and conflicts in Africa only started after the seventies, and after the impacts of the enforced adjustments discussed above.

As they say in Nigeria- ‘Monkey dey work, Baboon dey chop’.

Article source

Herbert Jauch has been with the labour movement in Southern Africa for over 20 years. He served as executive member of the Namibia National Teachers Union (NANTU) as well as on various committees of the National Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW). For the past 15 years Herbert worked as labour researcher, carrying out research projects for the Southern African Trade Union Co-ordination Council (SATUCC) as well as Namibian and South African trade unions. Herbert was instrumental in developing a labour diploma course for Namibian trade unions and served as director of the Labour Resource and Research Institute (LARRI) in Katutura from 1998 until 2007. He was LaRRI’s
senior researcher until January 2010 and now works as freelance labour
researcher and educator with various organisations in Southern Africa. -IFWEA.org

Published, May 19th, 2009

Comments

comments

  • Tayo

    I remember a a young man when I heard about SAP. My dad told us- it's time to fasten our belts as hard times are coming. It is just unfair that this was done to us. We were developing just fine and did not need the loans, they forced these loans un the dumb leaders they planted on us at and after independence and then this money corrupted us, and then we got in debt, then they stopped us from producing what we need, our agriculture and other industries died, trade unions died, and we were basically screwed. I believe we can revolt against this. Isn't there some sort of international-inter-national criminal court where we can take these larger than life IMF and world bank associations?

    • barry

      R.I.P those who plan to destroy African economy by collaborating with stupid leaders that combat corruption.

  • Dr P.

    Great article. Talking about what I call- 'Africa's Credit Crunch'. Yes it's easy to understand when you compare with the US current credit crunch. They gave these excessive loans to juvenile new states, just like the US banks were giving out credit to all and sundry. And then shoot up the interest making the loans un repayable, as the article says- worse loans to pay loans. Once again just like the current US financial crises.

    The difference is- whereas with the US financial crises, the banks are being given money to alleviate their suffering. In the case of Africa, the Nations were now punished for the loans.

    How about US implements a SAP on their financial structures right now? How about the US masses demand a SAP instead of mortgaging their futures in giving these banks money? And to think it's the same banks and financial institutions that destroyed Africa. Such Irony.

  • Timmy Daniel

    This math is not adding up-

    *Africa pays on Riba/Usury loans interest of double what it receives in so called aid/year.

    *Yet, Africa had to and has to abandon any future development and freedom in SAP restrictions to pay double the aid it gets in interest.

    *USA just keeps selling bonds and borrowing. US debt is now well over a trillion.

    So since Africa already allowed itself violate the tenets of faith, receiving Usury/Riba loans from the evil colonialist. Africa should just say- f it, and never repay the loans, making non-repayment it's single sin, and just like US does and will do with its loan, let the numbers pile up.

    There must be justice in this world. African produce are sold at slave labor costs, cheaply to fulfill SAP requirements yet they still paying this fake,absurd interest rate on debt?????

  • http://www.ghanaweb.com Ghanaman

    This is is a sorry excuse to shove aside our own greed and failiure in leadership and rather blame the bretton woods insitutions which are capitalist and not charity.

    Look at the way africans steal from africa and tell me we are even ready to point fingers. Look at how big men drive posh cars in a sea of potholes and little children chasing these cars for a daily meal without blinking and wondering about our dear future.

    Do we think such attitudes can help us even if bretton woods was the best of the best with free monies and good advice? If we cannot do the right things for our masses, how then do we expect others to do same?

    NiiAddotey

    • http://www.proudnigerian.com Dr P

      It may be a sorry excuse, but it IS THE TRUTH. I wonder whether that means any thing to you NiiAddotey.

      'Truth'?

  • abidemi shittu- bond

    i became a member of this group less than 30 minutes ago so, pardon me for commenting on the article this late.

    id like to thank ghanaman for his frankness and inward way of looking at the writeup.

    good enough, we were convinced by the oyinbos that there cant be any development without taking loans with very low and attractive interest rates and we did take the loans. has anyone bothered to ask what and what projects the the loans were taken for were and were they partially or fully implemented as such. has anyone thought it judicious to ask the people in government that took the loan to account for their stewardship? has anyone taken it upon himself to believe that greed, ole, ijekuje, wobia, jegudu jera attitude and belief of most african leaders is responsible mainly of the debt crisis the continent is in today. reference: check out the magnanemous wealth former naija leaders has and how they flaunt it before efcc came on board. was these wealth their father' or our's collectively/ think about it. me i will not blame oyinbo o. africa would have done the same to them if she was in their shoes. most former african leaders are typical brazillian monkeys. ("the paw in the bottle" by james hadley chase).

    • Kay

      God bless you!

  • admin

    Obama's Africa Speech: Lies, Hypocrisy, and a Prescription for Continued African Dependence

    Q. Is Obama better than Bush?

    A. It depends how you like your imperialism – with a white face or a black one.

    By Stephen Gowans

    July 19, 2009 – gowans.wordpress.com

    US president Barack Obama's speech at Accra, Ghana on July 11, 2009 was equal parts jaw dropping hypocrisy, outright fiction, sound advice for Africans if taken literally, and advocacy for institutions ideally suited to capital accumulation in Africa by Western investors. Africans should heed the US president's call to embrace the idea that Africa's future is up to Africans (and Africans alone) and to build their own nations, but the path Obama proposes, if followed, would condemn Africa to continued underdevelopment and perpetual dependence on the West.

    It should come as a surprise to no one but the weakly naïve and politically untutored that the role of the US president in Africa is to promote and defend the interests of the United States, not Africans. This is so, even if the US president shares the skin color of Africa's majority. What may not be so apparent, but which is true nevertheless, is that Obama represents the interests of his country's hereditary capitalist families, banks, corporations and wealthy investors whose resources and backing have brought him to power, and in whose interests the logic of imperialism compels him to act. It is Obama's goal as representative of US capital to open, and keep open, Africa's vast resources to exploitation by Western, and particularly US, capital without impediments of corruption, war and pan-African, nationalist or socialist projects of independent development getting in the way. His color and African heritage give Obama a leg up on a white president, allowing him to immediately connect with an African audience. But his message is no less racist, imperialist and informed by the interests of Wall Street than that of his white predecessors.

    Outright fiction

    Obama used his speech to sell two fictions: (1) that Africa's underdevelopment has nothing to do with colonialism and neo-colonialism, but is rooted in corruption, tribalism and Africans' blaming others for their poverty; and (2) that Africa's development depends on adopting institutions that allow foreign capital unfettered access to African markets and resources.

    "It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for (Africa's) problems on others," said Obama, explaining that,

    “Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my (Kenyan) father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.”

    During the years of its rapid economic growth, south Korea did not follow the development path Obama prescribes for Africa today. Instead, it built five-year industrial plans that singled out industries the government would nurture through tariff protection, subsidies and government support. Foreign currencies necessary for importing machinery and industrial inputs were accumulated through foreign exchange controls, whose violation was punishable by death. [1]

    The government completely regulated foreign investment, welcoming it in some areas but banning it in others. Attitudes toward intellectual property were lax, with south Korean businesses encouraged to reverse engineer Western technology and pirate the West's patented products.

    This approach to development was the rule, not the exception. Virtually every developed country has followed the same path, using tariffs, subsidies and discrimination against foreign investors, to industrialize.

    The first countries to adopt free trade, apart from Britain, where weak countries on whom free trade was imposed by colonial masters. The free trade was typically one-way. Countries in Asia and Africa barely grew economically during the period of colonial rule, while Western Europe – the beneficiary of one-way free trade — grew rapidly. Latin America also grew strongly, but at the time, followed an import-substitution model, not the open markets model industrial powerhouses favored because it favored them.

    Under the rule of Britain, the United States was treated much as African countries are today. It was denied the use of tariffs to protect its fledgling industry. It was barred from exporting products that competed with British products. And it was encouraged, through subsides, to concentrate on agriculture. Manufacturing industry was to be left to the British.

    Alexander Hamilton rejected this model, creating an infant industry program that allowed the United States to industrialize rapidly. Hamilton's program — which remained the basis of US economic policy up to World War II — created the highest tariff barriers in the world. US federal mining laws restricted ownership of mines to US citizens and businesses incorporated in the United States. (When Zimbabwe's government developed legislation to require majority Zimbabwean ownership of the country's resources, along the lines of earlier US policy, it was denounced for grossly mismanaging the economy.)

    Other developed countries also used foreign ownership restrictions to help them industrialize. Prior to 1962, Japan restricted foreign ownership to 49 percent and banned it altogether in certain industries.

    In his speech, Obama created the impression that south Korea developed rapidly because it followed policies the World Bank endorses, while at the same time Africa stagnated, because it didn't. This is doubly false. Not only did south Korea not follow World Bank policies – in fact, it did the very opposite – Africa has been practically run by the IMF and World Bank since the 1980s. Under their guidance, African living standards have worsened, not improved. Over the same period, the Western world's financial elite – which exercises enormous influence over the World Bank and IMF – saw its wealth expand greatly.

    Corruption, Obama argues, and not the legacy of colonialism, has also held Africa back. There must, he insists, be "concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability."

    These measures are desirable. But spectacular corruption in Indonesia, Italy, Japan, south Korea, Taiwan and China didn't hold these countries back. The critical issue in development isn't whether corruption happens, but whether the dirty money stays in the country. Mobutu took stolen money out of Zaire, wrecking the Zairian economy. But massive corruption and economic growth can co-exist, if the dirty money is invested in the expansion of the country's productive assets.

    Moreover, corruption is more a consequence, and less a cause, of underdevelopment. Poor countries, because they're poor, pay meager salaries to government officials. This increases the likelihood officials will stoop to corruption to pad their paltry incomes. And limited government budgets mean there are few resources to prevent graft.

    But Obama's concern about corruption has little to do with its role in hindering development, and everything to do with safeguarding the investments of US banks, corporations and wealthy US citizens. US investors don't want to invest their capital in countries where the returns can be stolen by corrupt government officials, any more than they want to invest in countries in which there is a high risk of expropriation by nationalist or socialist governments following paths of independent development. A major foreign policy function of the US president is to create safe and stable overseas environments in which US businesses and investment can thrive. Corruption is inimical to that goal.

    On top of corruption, conflict based on religious, ethnic and tribal differences is also keeping Africa poor, according to Obama.

    "We all have many identities, of tribe and ethnicity, of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century."

    It has long been a practice of imperialist countries to foment ethnic and religious tension as a means of keeping oppressed people fighting each other rather than their oppressor. The ancient Romans called it divide and conquer. The British elevated it to an art form, and used it to undergird their empire. It has always served to: (1) disrupt and disorganize a united front of the oppressed against the oppressor; and (2) to provide a humanitarian justification for imperialist countries to continue their domination of subordinate countries.

    The imperialist country must maintain a guiding hand, it's said, otherwise the ethnic and religious tensions that roil beneath the surface will spill over into open warfare. The massacres in Rwanda have served the useful purpose for the West of reinforcing the imperialist idea that Africans are ready on the flimsiest pretext to go on bloody rampages out of atavistic tribal bloodlust. Exploitation, oppression, unequal access to critical resources, and foreign meddling: none of these causes of conflicts in Africa figure in Western accounts. Instead, the causes of war are to be understood to originate in irrational hatred. And irrational hatred, the narrative goes, is best held in check by Western powers.

    While Obama attributed Africa's poverty to corruption and tribalism, he also, indirectly, and unintentionally, pointed to one of the true reasons for Africa's underdevelopment: one-way free trade. "Wealthy nations," he said "must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way," which says the doors of wealthy nations are not open in a meaningful way today. And they're not, and never have been. Despite African doors being pried open, usually by force, threat or economic coercion by wealthy nations, the doors of Western countries have only ever been open to Africa on terms that benefit the West. And that's because there has never really been anything Africa could do about the unfair bargain the West has forced upon it, except to unite and pursue a path of self-reliant development, drawing upon its own immense resources and seeking out critical machine and industrial inputs from sympathetic countries. It didn't have the military power to force the doors of Western Europe and North America open, as the West forced its doors open. Nor could it use the tools of economic coercion to exact concessions from wealthy countries, for African economies, having been adapted to the requirements of their colonial masters in the period of colonial rule, and never having escaped this legacy, have typically been based on agricultural monoculture. What could African countries do — stop all exports of groundnuts, tobacco or bananas to force the West to open its doors? Doing so would hardly hurt the West, but would deprive Africa of the foreign exchange it uses to import a multitude of goods it depends on the West to provide. To put it succinctly: the West has always had Africa over a barrel.

    There are two other egregious misconceptions that Obama articulated in his Accra speech: (1) That "the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade…" and (2) that "African-Americans…have thrived in every sector of (US) society."

    The decline in Zimbabwe's economy since 2000 is attributed by US officials to Robert Mugabe's mismanagement, an explanation amplified by the Western media and treated by both the media and Western publics as indisputable. The year 2000 marked the beginning of Zimbabwe's fast track land redistribution program. The goal of the program was to reclaim prized agricultural land stolen by force by European settlers. The land was to be redistributed to indigenous farmers. And it has been. Zimbabwe has democratized land ownership patterns, distributing land previously owned by 4,000 farmers, mostly of British origin, to 300,000 previously landless families, of African origin.

    In more sophisticated analyses, the root cause of Zimbabwe's economic difficulties is understood to lie in the disruption of agriculture caused by land reform. According to this analysis, had the Mugabe government not pressed ahead with its aggressive land reform program and settled for the sedate, glacial affair that characterized land redistribution prior to 2000 — and which has marked agrarian reform elsewhere on the continent — Zimbabwe would not be in the straitened circumstances it finds itself today.

    Until 2000, land reform moved at a snail's pace. As part of a negotiated settlement with Britain, the independence movement agreed to a willing buyer-willing seller arrangement, whereby land could only be acquired for redistribution if the owner wanted to sell. This restriction was to remain in effect for the first 10 years of independence. Since most farmers of European origin were unwilling to sell, little land was available to redistribute.

    Eventually Harare was free to expropriate land from farmers who didn't want to sell. Britain had agreed to help compensate expropriated farmers but renounced the agreement, denying it was ever under any obligation to fund land reform. Since Harare didn't have the funds to pay for the land it needed for redistribution, it had two choices: Carry on as is, with land redistribution proceeding at a glacial pace, or expropriate the land and demand that expropriated farmers seek compensation from London, which after all, was ultimately responsible for the theft of the land and had promised to underwrite the land reform program. The Mugabe government chose the later course, setting off alarm bells in Western capitals. Mugabe couldn't be allowed to get away with uncompensated expropriation of productive property.

    Analyses that attributed Zimbabwe's economic disaster to mismanagement overlooked the reaction of Washington to the Mugabe government's lese majesty against private property. For not only did the turn of the century mark the beginning of fast-track land reform, it also marked the passage of the US Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA.)

    ZDERA is not a regime of targeted sanctions against individuals, as many believe. Sanctions against individuals do exist, but ZDERA is something altogether different. ZDERA has two aspects. First, it authorizes the US president to "support an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe" and "provide for democracy and governance programs in Zimbabwe." This is code for doing openly what the CIA used to do covertly: destabilize foreign governments. Second, it instructs the United States executive director to each international financial institution (the World Bank and IMF, for example) to oppose and vote against:

    (1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe; or

    (2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.

    Since ZDERA was passed in 2001, Washington has blocked all lines of credit, development assistance and balance of payment support from international lending institutions to Zimbabwe.

    When the act was passed, then US president George W. Bush declared his hope that "the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law." [2]

    Since effecting peaceful democratic change meant ousting the Zanu-PF government and restoring the rule of law meant forbidding the uncompensated expropriation of white farm land, what Bush was really saying was that he hoped the legislation would help overthrow the government and put an end to fast-track land reform.

    ZDERA was co-drafted by one of the opposition MDC’s white parliamentarians, and introduced as a bill in the US Congress in March of 2001 by the Republican senator, William Frist. The legislation was co-sponsored by the Republican rightwing senator, Jesse Helms, and the Democratic senators Hilary Clinton (now Secretary of State), Joseph Biden (now Vice-President) and Russell Feingold.

    Helms died in early July, 2008. He denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was a spokesman for the tobacco industry and was a slum landlord. He opposed school bussing, compensation for Japanese Americans and Communists. He complained that public schools were being used "to teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior." [3] Helms was also fond of sanctions. He co-authored the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which tightened the blockade on Cuba.

    The MDC had always been reluctant to admit that sanctions had crippled Zimbabwe's economy, and more reluctant still to call for their removal. This is to be expected. In opposition, the MDC's goal was to blame the government for the country's economic difficulties. If it could do so convincingly, and at the same time persuade voters it could do a better job, it chances of prevailing at the polls would increase accordingly. Likewise, if it refused to add to the pressure on Western governments to lift sanctions, and even encouraged Western governments to maintain or escalate them, the government would remain burdened with the political liability of an ailing economy. But times have changed. The MDC has formed a coalition government with Zanu-PF, and the MDC controls the finance ministry. Sanctions are no longer in the party's interest, and the MDC has, as a consequence, changed its tune. Not only does it now acknowledge ZDERA, the finance minister, Tendai Biti, complains about it bitterly.

    "The World Bank has right now billions and billions of dollars that we have access to but we can't access those dollars unless we have dealt with and normalized our relations with the IMF. We cannot normalize our relations with the IMF because of the voting power, it's a blocking voting power of America and people who represent America on that board cannot vote differently because of ZDERA." [4]

    As bad as ZDERA is, it's not the only sanctions regime the United States has used to sabotage Zimbabwe's economy. Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee, Jendaya Frazer, who was George W. Bush's top diplomat in Africa, noted that the United States had imposed financial and travel restrictions on 135 individuals and 30 businesses. US citizens and corporations who violate the sanctions face penalties ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. "We are looking to expand the category of Zimbabweans who are covered. We are also looking at sanctions on government entities as well, not just individuals." She added that the US Treasury Department was looking into ways to target sectors of Zimbabwe's critical mining industry. [5]

    On July 25, 2008 Bush announced that sanctions on Zimbabwe would be stepped up. He outlawed US financial transactions with a number of key Zimbabwe companies and froze their US assets. The enterprises included: the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (which controls all mineral exports); the Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company; Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe; Osleg, or Operation Sovereign Legitimacy, the commercial arm of Zimbabwe's army; Industrial Development Corporation; the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe; ZB Financial Holdings; and the Agriculture Development Bank of Zimbabwe. [6]

    In early March 2009, Obama extended sanctions for another year, announcing that,

    "The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved. These actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States." [7]

    It would be more accurate to say that US sanctions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the economy of Zimbabwe.

    Topping off the falsehoods in Obama's speech was his assurance to Africans that "African-Americans…have thrived in every sector of (US) society." This is nonsense. Income, employment, education and opportunity are profoundly unequal in the United States, and inequality is inextricably bound up with race. The per capita income of blacks in the United States is 40 percent lower than that of whites. One in four blacks live in poverty, compared to eight percent of whites. The proportion of blacks without health insurance is twice that of whites. [8] And the official seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for blacks in June 2009 was almost twice as high as the jobless rate for whites. [9]

    The degree to which blacks haven't thrived is evident in who languishes in the country's jails. While the United States has only five percent of the world's population, it has one-quarter of the world's prisoner population, and US prisoners are disproportionately black. One-third of black males born in 2001 are expected to be imprisoned at some point in their lifetime, compared to six percent of white males. [10] Poor, unemployed, without health insurance and in prison. That's hardly thriving.

    Jaw dropping hypocrisy

    As leader of a country currently engaged in three wars of aggression (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan) and which threatens to escalate its aggressions against Iran and north Korea, one might think Obama would be ashamed to lecture anyone on the importance of resolving conflicts peacefully. But US presidents know no shame. Boldly, Obama told Africans that "for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources." Africans, he continued, must learn the "peaceful resolution of conflict."

    Indeed, there are wars over land and wars over resources, and this, the United States knows well, for over the course of its history it has initiated many of them, and most of the wars over land and resources over the past 60 years have been planned at the Pentagon. The United States' vast military, which Washington methodically nurtures through the misappropriated tax dollars of ordinary US citizens, allows the country to dominate and plunder much of the world, while at the same time piling up profits for US corporations engaged in "defense" industry work.

    Particularly galling is the reality that the United States had a hand in the bloodiest and deadliest war on the continent.

    "In early May 1997, when it became apparent to western observers that the broad coalition of rebel forces in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) headed by veteran freedom fighter, Laurent Kabila, would eventually topple the Mobutu kleptocracy and establish ‘a popular government, linking all sectors of our society,' the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and others in the corporate media slowly began to criticize the ‘excesses' of the CIA-installed Mobutu regime, in power since 1965. But at the same time they began a relentless campaign against Kabila and the rebel coalition.

    “The Wall Street Journal spoke of Kabila as an ‘ideological throwback' to the politics of the 1960s. It decried his relationship with Che Guevara, who had gone to the Congo in the early l960s to work with a progressive coalition (including Kabila) to support the Patrice Lumumba forces and to oust another CIA-installed regime, which had been installed in the diamond-rich region of Katanga. The Journal warned that ‘western interests' would now be in jeopardy under Kabila.

    "For thirteen months, Kabila sought to consolidate a broad coalition to democratize and develop the Congo. But by August 1998, two neighboring states, Rwanda and Uganda, aligned with ethnic forces inside the Congo, (and backed by Washington) invaded several towns and cities. Both invading countries charged Kabila with ‘corruption' and human rights violations, and with being ‘undemocratic.'

    "Both Rwanda and Uganda are governed by de facto military regimes. Both governments are hosts to U.S. military training facilities and U.S. military personnel. The Congo has been regarded by leading scientists and economists as one of the most mineral-rich countries in the world. It contains roughly 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. More than half of the U.S. military’s cobalt comes from the Congo. It is the second largest producer of diamonds in the world and is known for large deposits of gold, manganese, and copper. The Congo’s peculiar type of high-grade uranium was used by the U.S. to make the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan in WWII. And the U.S. dominates mining in that area even today." [11]

    An estimated five million died in the war from 1998 to 2003. The conflict continues, with 45,000 people dying each month from war-related causes, primarily hunger and disease. [12] And yet war in the DRCongo is barely mentioned in the Western media. Instead, attention is focused on Darfur, home to vast oil reserves the United States does not control, but would like to lay its hands on. Raising public alarm over Darfur is a way of manufacturing consent for Western intervention in Sudan. The outcome – and unstated goal – of such an intervention would be to bring another oil-rich country under Washington's domination.

    “The United Nations has estimated some 300,000 may have died in total as a result of the years of conflict in Darfur; the same number die from the Congo conflict every six and a half months. And yet, in the New York Times, which covers the Congo more than most U.S. outlets, Darfur has consistently received more coverage since it emerged as a media story in 2004. The Times gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, while Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly 10 times the rate of those in Darfur. “[13]

    Washington also orchestrated a recent war in Somalia. In 2006, the US-backed, UN-recognized government of Somalia was limited to the inland town of Baidoa. Mogadishu, the capital, had fallen to Islamic militias, who had formed a de facto government in June of that year. The militias' power wasn't based on their military strength, which consisted only of a few hundred armed pickup trucks and a few thousand fighters, but in their popular support. In the capital Mogadishu, the Islamists organized neighborhood cleanups, delivered food to the needy and brought dormant national institutions like the Supreme Court back to life.

    According to Ted Dagne, the African analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, the de facto government provided "a sense of stability in Somalia, education and other services, while the warlords maimed and killed innocent civilians." What's more, "instead of acting like the Taliban and ruthlessly imposing a harsh religious orthodoxy" the Islamists delivered social services and pushed for democratic elections.

    That's when General John P. Abizaid of the United States Central Command, or Centcom, flew to neighboring Ethiopia to meet Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who told the US proconsul that he could cripple the Islamist forces in one to two weeks. Abizaid gave the Ethiopian prime minister the go ahead, and soon Ethiopian soldiers — trained by US military advisors — were flooding over the border into Somalia. [14] The United States supplied battlefield intelligence, the US Fifth Fleet enforced a naval blockade, US Marines deployed along Somalia's border with Kenya, and US AC-130 gunships, operating out of Djibouti, struck targets within Somalia. [15]

    The invasion was a brazen affront to the United Nations Charter. Somalia hadn't threatened Ethiopia, and indeed, couldn't. With a few hundred armed pickup trucks, Somali forces posed no danger to surrounding countries. And yet there wasn't a peep a protest from the "international community".

    The war created what has been called Africa's largest and most ignored catastrophe. One million Somalis were displaced. Some 10,000 were killed. [16] And the United States, whose president counsels Africans to learn to resolve conflicts peacefully, started it.

    To discourage what Obama views as Africa's addiction to war, the US president pledged to "stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable." What he didn't say was that he meant African war criminals, and only the ones who aren't puppets of the West. Obama has no intention of holding accountable either Meles Zenawi or Western war criminals (his predecessor, former British prime minister Tony Blair, or himself) or CIA operatives who used torture and those who authorized their crimes. Instead, he says, he would rather look forward, not backward. White war criminals are to be forgiven; black war criminals, who fail to toe the imperialist line, are to be held accountable.

    The body through which most African war criminals are to be held accountable is the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court the United States itself refuses to join, on grounds its soldiers and officials would face frivolous prosecutions. If the United States would face frivolous prosecutions, why not other countries? The ICC has received

    "2,889 communications about alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in at least 139 countries, and yet by March 2009, the prosecutor had opened investigations into just four cases: Uganda, DRCongo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan/Darfur. All of them in Africa. Thirteen public warrants of arrest have been issued, all against Africans." [17]

    Conspicuously absent from the list of opened investigations are the perpetrators of the world's most blatant recent war crimes: the US, Britain and Israel.

    Yes, but "there cannot be an African exception to (the Nuremberg) principles," argues David Crane, who was chief prosecutor for the special court on Sierra Leone (which is trying former Liberian president, Charles Taylor, for doing what practically every US president since World War II has done: support rebel troops in another country.) Crane's "no African exceptions" cry is taken up by the Western media. Referring to Taylor's trial, Guardian columnist Phil Clark, wrote that "for many, the trial represents another victory for international justice and another signal for the end of impunity for the likes of Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Alberto Fujimori." [18] He might have added, but not for George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, P.W. Botha, and Ian Smith. The Western media and state officials don't seem to be concerned about the impunity of these war criminals. The reality that there have been many African exceptions to humanitarian law – where whites are concerned – seems to have escaped the notice of Crane, a white US citizen, who indicted Taylor, a black African.

    Martin Kargbo wonders why the West insists that black Africans be held accountable, while celebrating the truth and reconciliation commissions which have granted impunity to white war criminals.

    "Impunity has not been an issue in DRCongo where the wars waged by Rwanda and Uganda between 1996 and 2003 on behalf of America and Western interests have led to an estimated five million deaths in Congo…

    "Impunity, again, was not an issue when South Africa decided in 1994, in the interest of national peace and stability to forgive the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – people who had terrorized and killed black Africans for 50 long years during the apartheid era. And no human rights group said it was wrong to forgive P.W. Botha & Co.

    "Impunity was also not an issue when Zimbabwe decided in 1980 in the interest of national peace and stability to forgive the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – people who had terrorized and killed black Africans for decades before independence. And no human rights group said it was wrong to forgive Ian Smith and Co.

    "Impunity was again not an issue when Namibia did the same thing in 1990 — to forgive the atrocities committed against black people during the pre-independence era. And no human rights group spoke against Namibia's act of forgiveness." [19]

    Obama also promised to "support strong and sustainable democratic governments" while supporting the strong, but hardly democratic, Egyptian government, with $1 billion per year in military aid. Washington has also been instrumental in undermining the popularly elected Hamas government. These two examples – and only two of many – show that Washington has no commitment to democracy abroad. It's all rhetoric. Washington supports governments which enlarge the interests of the US ruling class, whether democratic or not, and opposes foreign governments which don't, whether democratic or not. US democracy promotion, a multi-million dollar per year industry that does what the CIA used to do covertly, is simply a cover for regime change carried out by non-military means in countries that are open enough to allow US agents and fifth columns sufficient room to maneuver. Obama's administration will continue to run "democracy promotion" programs, working to ensure that foreign governments that pursue independent paths of development, including those in Africa, are overthrown.

    Promoting the profit interests of US capital

    Washington wants Africa to be a profitable place in which US corporations, banks and investors can do business. Africans want foreign investment to help Africa develop. It seems like a win-win situation. If Africa does what's necessary to help foreign investors reap handsome profits, corporate America gets profits and Africans get investment.

    But the history of Africa's engagement with the world economy hasn't been the win-win situation US politicians and the West's mass media promise. Instead, foreign capital has profited and Africans have remained deeply mired in poverty.

    That's because foreign capital can win bigger if it doesn't have to share the economic surplus it expropriates with the people who produce it. So, it goes for the big prize.

    And why wouldn't it? Foreign capital, like all capital, wants to maximize profits. So it demands a low wage environment, unburdened by corporate taxes or stringent environmental regulations, in which profits can be taken out of the country, and in which governments abjure efforts to meet social goals by making demands on corporations and investors. Those with capital to invest don't want to pay high taxes (or any taxes at all if they can get away with it), comply with expensive environmental regulations, pay high wages, or be forced to take on local partners. They don't want to have to invest any of their profits in the host country if a higher return on investment can be obtained elsewhere. Neither do foreign corporations and investors want local governments to give local businesses a hand up by offering subsidies and tariff protections. And they don't want profitable areas of investment – like energy, telecommunication and banking – placed off limits. In short, all of the measures a local government might implement to satisfy local development needs – mandated re-investment of profits, state-controlled enterprises, foreign investment restrictions, price controls and meaningful minimum wage laws, a heavily graduated tax, and so on — are anathema to foreign capital.

    In addition, foreign corporations, banks and investors want a business environment that is free from the threat of disruption by war, strikes and insurrections, and in which private productive property is protected from corruption and expropriation. Delivering what businesses want is called good governance.

    As Obama explained,

    "No country is going to create wealth (Obama means: for investors) if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt."

    In Washington's view, good governance is created when societies are sufficiently open to domination by those who own the most wealth – that is, by those who own and control the world economy. For example, multi-party electoral democracy is lauded because it allows those who assume a leadership role in representing the interests of capital, to have the best chance of being elected. They're able to attract the funding that allows them to run effective campaigns. And what, as a consequence, ends up being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, has enormous apparent legitimacy because it is based on an electoral exercise.

    Likewise, a "free" society in which "anyone" can open a newspaper can seem to legitimately have independent journalists, even though the only people in a position to open their own newspaper and command a mass audience are members of the class that owns the society's productive property. An open society with a vibrant civil society which participates in the society's governance is also one in which the wealthy can pursue their interests by furnishing the funding on which civil society depends. This allows capital to influence the agenda of civil society through its funding decisions. In short, any government trying to achieve authentically democratic goals can be more readily opposed if it provides sufficient space for foreign capital to operate through strong parliaments, independent journalists and a vibrant civil society.

    Accordingly, Obama speaks glowingly of institutions that open up space for foreign money to operate.

    "In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success – strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives."

    In point of fact, what matters in peoples' lives — that is, in the lives of ordinary people, and not the bankers, corporate lawyers and CEOs that Obama cares about — is having enough to eat, a job, shelter, clothing, health care, recreation, time with friends and family, dignity and social justice. Strong parliaments, journalists employed by the capitalist press, and a strong private sector, create environments adapted to capital accumulation; they have little to do with restoring stolen land to its rightful owners; investing the economic surplus created at home in local development; and using state-owned enterprises and fiscal and monetary policy to satisfy social welfare goals.

    Sound advice, if taken literally

    "Just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation," observed Obama, "it is even more important to build one's own." And yet most African countries remain economic colonies of the West, their independence limited to political forms (their own flag, parliaments and political leaders) but whose economies are dominated by Western banks, foreign corporations, and the descendants of European settlers; whose militaries are trained and funded by the United States, Britain and France; and who rely on aid from Western governments, and receive it, in return for political and economic concessions. African countries that have followed Obama's advice to build their own countries have been harassed, undermined, destabilized, sanctioned and in many cases have seen their governments overthrown by the US and former colonial masters who pay lip service to independent development, but are deeply hostile to it. US presidents don't want Africans to build their own countries. They want them to turn their countries over to the US business elite, and to continue to do so indefinitely.

    Under the leadership of Zanu-PF, Zimbabweans have tried to build their own country according to their own needs, expropriating land confiscated by European settlers when the former colonial master, Britain, reneged on its promise to fund land reform. Zanu-PF has also led efforts to bring Zimbabwe's resources and economy under the control of indigenous Zimbabweans, following methods reminiscent of the ones south Korea used to industrialize. But while south Korea's subsidies, tariff protections and foreign ownership restrictions were tolerated by Washington as a necessary evil of the Cold War –- south Korea needed to be given space to develop into a capitalist showpiece on the Cold War's frontlines – Washington has been unwilling to tolerate Zimbabwe's efforts to follow the same path.

    Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana, the first African country to achieve independence, argued that the less developed world would not become developed through the goodwill and generosity of the developed world. Instead, it would only become developed by struggle against the external forces – foreign corporations, banks and investors — that had a vested interest in keeping it underdeveloped. [20] Nkrumah would have agreed with Obama that "Africa's future is up to Africans." He would surely have disagreed with Obama's prescription for how Africa ought to arrive at its future.

    NOTES

    1. Discussion of south Korea's development strategy, free trade, and corruption based on Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2008.

    2. "President Signs Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, December 21, 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011122...
    3. The Guardian (UK), July 4, 2008.

    4. The Herald (Zimbabwe) May 5, 2009.

    5. TalkZimbabwe.com, July 16, 2008.

    6. The New York Times, July 26, 2008; The Washington Post, July 26, 2008; The Sunday Mail (Zimbabwe), July 27, 2008.

    7. "Obama extends Zimbabwe sanctions," TalkZimbabwe.com, March 8, 2009.

    8. US Census Bureau Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, August 2008.

    9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.

    10. US Bureau of Justice Statistics, cited in Hannah Holleman, Robert W. McChesney, John Bellamy Foster and R. Jamil Jonna, "The Penal State in an Age of Crisis," Monthly Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, June, 2009.

    11. Elombe Brath and Samori Marksman, "Conflict in the Congo: An Interview with President Laurent Kabila," Covert Action Quarterly, Winter, 1999, Issue 66.

    12. Julie Hollar, "Congo Ignored, Not Forgotten,"

    Extra, Magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, May 2009.

    13. Ibid.

    14. Stephen Gowans, "US fomenting war in Somalia," What's Left, December 15, 2006, http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-fomenting-w
    15. Stephen Gowans, "Another US military intervention," What's Left, January 11, 2007, http://gowans.blogspot.com/2007/01/another-us-mil
    16. Stephanie McCrummen, "With Ethiopian pullout, Islamists rise again in Somalia," The Washington Post, January 22, 2009; Stephen Gowans, "Spielberg: Chauvinist in humanitarian drag," What's Left, February 13, 2008. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/spielberg-
    17. "Selective Justice," The New African, No. 484, May 2009.

    18. Phil Clark, "Can Africa trust international justice?" The Guardian (UK) July 16, 2009.

    19. Martin Kargbo, "The case against the ICC," New African, July, 2009.

    20. Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London, 1965. http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colon...

    Source: gowans.wordpress.com

  • http://www.warriorforum.com/blogs/rayray7/8778-history-ways-avoid-nigerian-419-scam.html Odell Shamsiddeen

    First Of All, let me commend your pellucidity on this subject. I am not an expert on this matter, but after studying your article, my understanding has developed considerably. Please permit me to grab your rss feed to stay in touch with any upcoming updates. Authentic job and will pass it on to acquaintances and my web site fans.

  • http://schuheonline.weebly.com/ Karlyn Magalski

    i read a lot just about that in the last few month and i consider it might be true. Eventhough i believe everyone is responsible for himself. No Offense, Just my

  • http://www.bsu.ac.ug TUGUME DIDUS

    Although Africa escaped colonialism, it failed to escape neo-colonialism. The policies of the World Bank and IMF have made Africans "rats" I can say. It remained exploited by "cats"/big powers such as America $ others. but really African leaders need to come up $ hear the cries of their people and work together to close the door over the so called "cats".

  • jonh fresfy

    lets not blame the doctor and his prescription to the patient the IMF and world bank but lets blame the patient Africa who fails to use the money wisely due to their corrupt leaders .

  • eduard

    tnx to dat which help u in concieving such brilliant ideas..

  • Supo Adedokun

    It is quite strange that numerous atrocities being committed by IMF and widely analyzed by objectice scholars have not made sense for the capitalist running dogs leaders in Africa and other undeveloped countries around the world. Until well informed leaders mount the thrones, IMF, World Bank would continue deter development and progress in
    the areas.The latest strategy of maintaining status quo between the capitalist advanced countries and weakened nations is by sending women IMF and World workers to their countries to manage the affairs of nation with IMF and World Bank. Regardless of continued IMF and World Bank domination of weakened countries, good objective articles should continue against these global promoters of poverty for the west’s capitalist well=being.

  • http://www.socialstrategy.co.uk/ Terence Milbourn

    Developing countries need help but not aid, which needs to be repaid. The sums are
    too vast, the interest too great, the periods to long and too much changes which they cannot control, so they end up becoming permanently indebted nations and from that point on, the World Bank, IMF etc, simpy rapes them ~ for World Bank and IMF read you and me.

    I have started something called Ubunt-Pesa which very different from development aid and is a practical hand up, not a hand out.

    Ubuntu-Pesa1 is a community based funding source for small businesses and social projects that do not usually qualify for traditional loans and otherwise would not have access to banking or to capital.

    Its purpose is to encourage members of each country’s migrant population to put small amounts of capital at the disposal of friends and family back home, keep the money circulating within their community ~ thereby building local commerce and employment ~ and at the same time provide these micro-investors with additional income and investment potential.

    Ubuntu-Pesa has these goals

    1. Within a three-year period, to enable one million small (BOP) enterprises to start or expand their businesses, create jobs and help transform their local economy while building self-reliance through partnerships with their fellow countrymen/women, and

    2. From year-four onwards, to support with loans, grants and investment valuable education, community improvement and sustainable development projects through an ethical investment fund (UPF), owned by diaspora investors and funded with U-Pesa.

    3. Ultimately, for U-Pesa to become to mobile-based investment in the least developed countries, what M-Pesa is to mobile money in Kenya.

    That’s the vision.

    If you take a look at Kiva or MyC4 you will get the general idea of how funds are to be raised, but even there with our by Africans for Africans approach, CrowdVC software, interest free loans, daily newspapers and social media marketing model there are substantial differences. At the moment, Sir Richard Branson’s new B-Team group and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have expressed interest, but well have to see. If its not them then it will be somebody else. Who ever, and how ever ~ it will get done!

  • ser526

    This is an interesting read and what I can conclude is that these results suggest is that SAP’s have as the title states ‘Destroyed Africa’, however I think it is important to note that SAPs were revised and replaced by Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) in 1999 which according to the IMF are ‘prepared by the member countries through a participatory process involving domestic stakeholders as well as external development partners…’. The arrangements involving IMF and World Bank coupled with United Nations ‘Millennium Development Goals’ have seen a major improvements in these developing economies, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf.

    Although there is much controversy surrounding the topic of whether the IMF and World Bank are to neo-liberal and constrictive in some of their approaches, the role of the IMF and World Bank goes further than providing financial aid, it is these organisation that help these struggling countries achieve macroeconomic stability which is so desperately needed.
    To attempt to quantity the effects of IMF and the World Bank supported programs and truly understand the significance in this context is very challenging as there is no datum to use as a bench mark or as a comparison to what would have happened without the assistance of such organisations in these countries.

  • chris

    where are the sources?

Get our toolbar!
Powered by alexa, with the button at right corner. Get to know the traffic rank of websites you visit for your browsing security, confidence and trust.

Hot