Comments on: Africans already got the idea: “Africa does not need strong men, it needs strong institutions”

By: SS

SS — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:07:37 +0000

WHY IS THIS BEING REMOVED?

Posted on July 17, 2009 13:22

Posted on July 17, 2009 14:03

SS:

Speaking about deposed African leaders of some stature and promise like Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso recently with a Rwandan friend she told me that France had tried to assassinate Kagame because of his pro-anglophone position. I have no idea if this is credible but like the street-market understanding of the complex politics leading to Sankara’s death with Western complicity, I suspect it might well be. I do know that U.S. aid was probably involved in Rwandas invasion of the DRC.

Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.

Posted by SS | July 19, 2009 4:03 PM

By: SS

SS — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:51:08 +0000

Posted on July 17, 2009 13:22

SS:

Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.

By: SS

SS — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:03:13 +0000

Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.

By: Anne Mariel Peters

Anne Mariel Peters — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:31:51 +0000

American policymakers continually demand two results from developing countries: good institutions and “trade, not aid.” Although good institutions certainly facilitate trade, too often trade is portrayed as a sufficient condition for good institutions–hardly the case. I don’t think Obama’s speech made any improvements here.

For me, the central point of the speech was the acknowledgment that African leaders often lack the political agency to implement the policies that donors demand– purging the government of corruption, streamlining institutions, and providing public services to all. Policymakers would do well to study these conditions in depth, and formulate new types of aid that can provide political leverage and technical and financial resources to reform-oriented elites.

By: Anne Mariel Peters

Anne Mariel Peters — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:29:47 +0000

By: Michael Bernier

Michael Bernier — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:57:43 +0000

That isn’t a fair way to look at AGOA numbers. You are doing it in pure dollar terms, which is misleading. In 2007, there was 51.1 billion in AGOA trade, 3.4 of which was non-oil. (http://www.ustr.gov/report-shows-agoa-continues-grow-and-diversify-us-africa-trade) Fair enough, that is a big difference, but 1) oil is expensive and can’t just be compared with some kind of $/$ or gallon/square yard of fabric measurement, and 2) that oil would have been bought either way, now it is just more profitable to the sellers.

You might argue that America would have bought less oil at a higher price point, but that would be detrimental to the seller as well.

By: SS

SS — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:30:09 +0000

@ anonymous

Sounds like you know something, in that case anonymous is the only place to be.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:23:45 +0000

“America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way”

Here are our american hypocrites again, full of joy and oh so trade friendly. If you know that 98% of AGOA trade consists of african OIL , you learn that “to promote investment” means in a meaningful way in reality: “pump more oil for us, and you can do as you please”.

Have you recently heard any American criticism on those thieves in charge of Angola?

Of course not, americans “need” that angola oil, at a rate of 2 million barrels/day. And please invest more.

They got the message in west africa

Oh and by the way, even if you don’t have oil, please don’t take that Obama blabla seriously,

as long as you support the war on terror, you can do as you please, just like the old Sovjet days!

they got the message in East Africa.

By: SS

SS — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:22:12 +0000

What about the U.S. not meddling to further its own interests, not to mention the French, British World Bank and other ‘friends of Africa.’ I would expect a Professor of political science to know about that. Pay for a course where you only learn the ‘corrected’ version of history, ask for a rebate.

By: Michael Bernier

Michael Bernier — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:24:57 +0000

I would respond to Jim that speaking about averages doesn’t help–it ignores the only need for change. We aren’t looking for what generally works, we are looking for what works in the worst contexts–the ones that need to see the most improvement. It is not the countries that adhere most closely to the trend line, but the ones who diverge and could improve most easily that we should be paying attention to.

Also, he wasn’t speaking to the people as much as to the leaders. To criticize Obama for speaking truth to power is unfair, especially as moral persuasion can be a surprisingly effective tool–more effective at least than doing nothing, or only changing on our own side. You might say we don’t know what “strong institutions” means, or that strong men are the only ones who can instill good institutions effectively (meaning we need good, strong leaders) or even that we should give up because we can’t do anything with corrupt governments. But to argue that we shouldn’t suggest that good governance through good institutions is to abandon our responsibilities as world citizens.