Quote:
Originally Posted by KLB
Q. Do you think Africa is better off now than it was 60 years ago?
I think that depends largely on who you ask. For example, the indigenous South African population would say they’re better off because apartheid is over, at any cost; even though South Africa is in worse shape economically now than it was before, and 20 million people are mired in poverty. But generally speaking it’s an easy question to answer. Without a doubt, Sub Saharan Africa is better off today than it was in 1940. And African demographics are rapidly changing. Demographic change is what fueled the Asian economic explosion. Africa’s population has eclipsed the 1 billion mark and will reach 2 billion by 2050. That will make it the most populous continent on earth. It’s a question of who is positioned to capitalize on this growth. As Africa’s economic significance increases, its strategic importance will increase also. A better question might be: Can the United States afford to ignore Africa? What happens if China establishes a multi-faceted command on the African continent, or the Russians? I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and the stakes are enormous.
In terms of infrastructure alone, in spite of daunting funding gaps that hinder growth and very real problems with the four crucial sectors – water, energy, transportation, and ICT; Africa is still better off today than it was in 1940. For example, between 1992 and 2005, private sector investment in ICT infrastructure exceeded $20 billion. The number of African cell phone users increased from around 10 million in 2000 to more than 180 million in 2007. This doesn’t mean there aren’t extensively primitive conditions which hinder future growth, there are. Nevertheless, the urban growth is still significantly more advanced than it was in 1940. I think too often that the world visualizes Africans as tribal and primitive. And while this is true in some cases, much of Africa’s population is urban, and many of the cities are modern and progressive. The picture that comes to the minds of many Americans is misleading. Corrupt countries and humanitarian disasters, e.g. entire countries starving, mass genocide, etc. These don’t reflect the true picture. Africa is a big, big place. It comprises approximately 20% of the earth’s land surface. For example, just because there are primitive conditions in some parts of Mexico and Central America doesn’t mean that the United States is equally primitive by comparison; but this sort of stereotyping of Africans is prevalent in North America and in many parts of Europe.
Another example are the death rates in Africa which have fallen dramatically since 1940. Africa has also shaken off many of the reigns of colonialism, a shift which actually worked to Europe’s economic advantage until recently because the renegotiation of independence treaties in the 1950’s left newly independent African nations indebted to the point of being economically controlled by European powers for all practical intent and purpose.
Q. Do you think Africa is doing a better job feeding its people now than it did 60 years ago?
Absolutely, and with a billion mouths to feed it’s a daunting challenge. But advances in farming technologies and food packaging have helped greatly. Alternatively, if you had asked me if Africa was doing a better job feeding its people today than it was 25 years ago, I would have said no. But conditions are slowly changing. Rogue governments, while actually reflecting the minority, have a disproportionate effect on Africa as a whole. But this is one area where AFRICOM has already made a measurable impact. There’s no question that Africa has the natural resources to feed its people. African countries first need to be committed to good governance which is one of the primary AFRICOM missions. Some sources feel that Africa is on track to meet a MDG goal of eradicating hunger and poverty by 2025. I think this is a bit optimistic, but according to Dr Fitigu Tadesse, Vice President of The Hunger Project (THP), Africa could produce enough food to feed its people and even export some to other parts of the world, and could also meet the 2015 MDG timeline objectives to feed its people in spite of the global financial crisis. But the question was specific to 1940 and so I’ll limit the scope of my answer. But I’ll qualify it by saying there are fortunes to be made in Africa and a US presence is vital to the stability of the continent, the success of democratization efforts, and the establishment of the good governance needed to sustainably feed the African people.
Q. But we can change all that?
I’m not sure what “all that” is. But I think our mission is to steer the change where we can, and to be a positive influence. I think a stable Africa is of vital importance to the United States and I believe that AFRICOM is a step in the right direction. While there are no easy answers, I personally like the idea of having a staging ground to fight terrorists and pirates. I cringe when I read about a country paying a ransom for the return of one of their own ships and cargo. The main point of this thread was to suggest that AFRICOM’s mission should formally be expanded to include combating Somalia-based piracy. I took advantage of the opportunity to voice my support for AFRICOM and to recognize some of its first accomplishments. Africa has huge problems, but not hopeless problems. The stakes are high, the rewards are great, and I’d like to beat some of the competition to the punch.
|
KLB:
This is a very thought provoking thread. You clearly are an optimist and I hope your long term views pan out.
I will not argue that Africa is better off now versus 60 years ago. However Africa with a population of 2 billion people is an upcoming disaster of epic proportions. True, population growth has played a large role in Asia’s rise to economic power. However to draw the same conclusions with Africa would be a mistake. China has taken many draconian measures to achieve their economic prominence. A top down process, this was only possible due to centralized government mandates. Africa is light years away from having the sort of sovereign cohesion and stability needed to implement these types of strategies. And if they did, I do not believe the average African possesses the required attitude of sacrificing everything personal for the foreseeable future so the nation can benefit.
Africa has large reserves of natural resources. Without these, imagine what our African foreign policy would be. As it is, area instability has been very advantages to the industrialized world. What is the economic driver that will change the current system of exploitation? Even you state that the real worry is whether Russia or China beats us to the punch. In these economic times it would be a tough sell for Washington to make meaningful investments in Africa. Unfortunately, in Washington, the short term view usually wins. That leaves large corporations to drive change on the ground. Greed versus ethical responsibility, good luck with that.
With that in mind the real question is:
If your company was planning an expansion in the next 5 years, would you seriously consider locating to Sub Sahara Africa? Do the labor and other cost savings really outweigh the risk of investment? Risks that include local corruption, changing regimes, an uneducated workforce, religious turmoil and piracy. Until the answer is yes sustainable change will not arrive.
Self sufficiently feeding 1 billion Africans by 2025 is a noble goal. Maybe even achievable. But what about the additional 1 billion souls you mention coming online. Lack of potable water is already a nightmare in many African countries. Add another 1 billion thirsty people? Ouch!
I foresee an ever increasing role for the SF soldier on the African continent.
JMO
LHC