Sorry, I didn't read the thread, but I wrote the following on PM for someone. Whilst it doesn't cover all the issues which the OP asks about (and there will be those who disagree), it certainly touches on what I consider to be the more pressing ones (the legacy of slavery and the on-going Cold War struggles excluded).
----
There are many idiots on CFC who will tell you that the mention of the Colonial legacy in Africa is nothing but another case of 'the white man is responsible for all the ills in the world'. Those guys are not exactly in tune with Africa's woes. The colonial legacy reaches deep and far into Africa's problems with integrating into the global economy.
When powers like Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal etc pulled out of Africa in the post-WW2 wave of independence, they left infrastructure poorly lacking and the economies of these countries directed towards export (of materials such as rubber for their military uses in Europe's World Wars for example) but there was very little in the way of subsistence oriented economic models, meaning that land and technology was not being used for simple things like growing crops to feed the population. This was not the case in South East Asia. That's one massive difference which very much dictates both how African leaders can react to the global economy and market around them (go for export to find a niche in the world market, or try and feed the people?) and also how they play political games which devastate their countries yet further. This somewhat touches on why people like Mugabe are such bastards and why farming is such a political hot potato (read up on the work of Hernan De Soto for more on land rights in this context).
By 'infrastructure' I don't just mean roads, power stations, telephone lines etc. I also mean the instutions that allow a democratic form of government to work effectively; things like a free press, justice mechanisms, constitutional checks and balances, tertiary industries that create a middle class (typically service industries) and other such crucial socio-economic elements. In the absence of these infrastructure elements, it is very hard for an economy and government to meet the demands being made by the Washington Consensus, which pre-supposes the existence of all the above. The policies of the Washington Consensus that tend to dominate the IMF and World Bank are, to put it bluntly and metaphorcially, 'putting the cart before the horse'.
The reasons why the IMF and World Bank pursue these policies are not lost on someone like Stiglitz. It is very much in the (selfish) interests of the First World to have a middle class populated, democratic, low abiding Third World. Why? Cos those states tend to contain lots of consumers to sell our products to, tend to be safe investment havens for First World corporate interests and nevermind the more nation wrenching issues those African guys need to deal with when there's all that to consider. (Latin America is also subject to such problems, albeit in subtly different ways).
Alongside all of these issues is the ghoul of Africa's national borders. If you look into your history books, you will find that Otto Von Bismark held two conferences in Berlin round about 1888. Those saw Europeans deciding how they would split up Africa between them. It was quite simply agreed that whoever got there first could draw up borders in a distant map room and the rest would have to be happy with it, notwithstanding a little wrangling over it (a veritable 'finders keepers' policy). And crucially - not a single African nation was present at those conferences. So, Africa's current political boundaries were decided on the back of what was basically 'A Thieves Charter', drawn up in those distant map rooms, and not paying a single bit of notice to Africa's highly sensitive ethnic mix. You have groups with deep histories locked into nations together at someone else's bidding. This, along with the issues above and its vast resource and mineral potential, is why Africa is awash with conflict even today.
It's hard to be brief about all this!
----
Also.....
When I read about Americans whinging over high gas prices before the driving season, I simply couldn't give a damn, given that there are folk elsewhere in the world who cannot reasonably expect to be alive come the driving season, owing to disease, poverty and conflict mainly. Some might say that we are slushy, gushy, emotional folk who just love to have our hearts bleeding over someone less fortunate than us. But I'm of the view that poverty is a troublesome matter for world peace and stability and that means we need to take an interest, for our own good if nothing else. The recent Nobel Peace Prize winner is most interesting in this regard. We live in an increasingly interconnected world and Africa's problems are also our problems in so many ways. To take a more mercenary view of things, China can only be the world's cheap labour haven for so long. Soon enough, they will get too rich and lazy to provide us with cheap products. So, who is going to do it when that happens? South East Asia is commonly pointed to. But, at some point, Africa will have to step forward and play that role if we continue along these lines - and they are a million miles off being able to do so right now (David Ricardo's work is relevant here). There's another element to all of this. I consider myself to be a human being firstly, and a British citizen secondly. So I do care for other humans in distress, because I value the Declaration of Human Rights and all that jazz. In terms more suited to your environment and upbringing, one might say that I pledge allegiance to humanity before pledging allegiance to a flag.
but also benefit the Africans because the Muslims introduce a common religion, education, currency etc. Had the Africans been more sensible during the times of early European imperialism and fought back instead of enslaving and selling each other off to plantations of the Americas they may have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world.
) to your satisfaction.
