europe is highly to blame for africas underdevelopment so why does it not fix the situation?

Answer 1

Your first statement is not true...

Answer 2

This is a tricky thing.

Right, when the europeans occupied Africa they did little or nothing to improve and develop their african territories. All they care were raw materials and an economic market for themselves.

They didn't develop Africa during their rule, right, but Africa was already underdeveloped, and when the African states acquired their independence, they really didn't improve at all. You can say that certainly the policy of blocking developed markets from cheap imports from Africa didn't help much, as well as the policy of Neocolonialism; converting their former colonies into economics extensions of the metropoli while politically the African state remains theoritically independent, as the French, most notorously, did with their colonies. But nowadays you have a situation of allowing most African products to enter Europe and NorthAmerica almost with no taxation, and the situation in Africa, still, hasn't improved much. The IMF and the World Bank
have been giving loads of money to this countries, and many ONG and private organisations and funds have been and still are supporting development projects in Africa. And still, things haven't changed that much.

At least, not for the majority of the population there, which is migrating massively to Europe, often risking their lives in small boats. Things have improved a lot for the ruling minority of african politicians, dictators, tribal leaders, big merchants and oligarchs, though. Yes, I'm being sarcastic now.
Donate 300M$ for developing projects in some sub-saharian african state and guess where is going to end up 299m$ of those 300M$.... , yes , some private account in some Swiss Bank.

I guess that if you really care about the people of Africa, the only way of solving this situation would be to get rid of the entire corrupt economical-political establishment there, and put those countries under international administration... sort of colonialism under U.N rule or other international institution.

But, again, that's not realistic, is it??

Answer 3

To Bebe : Nice analyse and for a part correct.
But about Ruanda, you are completly wrong. First the colony was German "property".
In WW 1 it was taken by the Belgians colonial troops and given as a protectorate to them. The Dutch have nothing to do with it.
The problem about the Hutus and Tutsis existed already before the colonisation. The Belgians let this structure as it was to avoid tribal wars. After Independence there have been a lot fighting between the tribes.
I think the leaders of African states are to blame for the underdevelopment by wanting every thing at once and so they drove out the know-how of the colonialist in stead of taking over at a slower pace. Greed and corruption was the biggest problem.
Europe tries to help but one dictator after another is taking over to fill its pockets. As long as their is no other mentality, Africa will never become prosperous.

Example : South Africa, good formed staff, no nationalisations so that the "white" aren't leaving. Good infrastructure and prosperous. (I don't speak about Apartheid, but simply economical it makes a difference)
Congo who had all it needed, good infrastructure, raw materials at Independace. But nationalisations to give important places to friends drove out the whites without that there where enough skilled Congolais. Still deep in the ****. And Belgium (as a little countrie) as since then spend millions onto it to develop his ancient colony. But it doesn't help.
Now American and Canadian companies have taken over major mining facilities without scrupless (profit is all that counts).
Where there was a kind of morale control by the people of the old colonisation countries on the old European companies there is none anymore. The morale control (feeling of we have to make good something), does not exist for this new companies because they do not have the historical background

Answer 4

The USA is highly to blame for Africa's underdevelopment so why does it not fix the situation?
Petroleum companies are highly to blame for Africa's underdevelopment so why do they not fix the situation?

Answer 5

I like Bebe's answer.

The Eurpoeans were too spent after the WW2 not able to maintained their empires.

They left Africa in a hurry, just like the Middle East too.

I dont thinkthe EC will want ot raise a finger to develop Africa today, there is more economic returns for them under the present situation.

Just another chapter of their dirty history under the carpet.

Answer 6

It is not in Europe's interest to "fix" Africa.

Africa is mostly to blame for it's own problems and not the Europeans or anyone else.

Answer 7

Reasons why Europe is partly to blame by the process of colonisation -
It extracted much of the raw materials in Africa and tied the region into particular trading treaties that fundamentally disadvanted the region and inhibited development of local industry.
It was a policy of colonisation to create and increase ethnic divisions to facilitate colonial administration and draw arbitrary country borders.
Rwanda being the most obvious example. It was the Dutch that divided Rwandans in Hutus and Tutsis ( they split people on basis of height and skin tone) such division did not occur before. They made one group a priviledged class and used them to govern the others. This set up a level of ethnic hostility and economic power divisions that had not happened before colonisation and was the basis of the genocide that took place.
The government structures that were set up by the colonizers encouraged corruption and unequal development and racism.
Whilst not being totally to blame for all ills. Colonialism created many of the structural impediments to development.


Well there are several factors here.

1) Many of the European countries and the World Bank/ IMF and other organizations have put large amounts of money or provided loans that got AFrican countries into debt - this was to implement what ever the latest theory of how to develop was.

Many African countries are in debt becuase they were advised that if they built large factories to produce industrial goods they would develop. This led to the development of unsustainable riduculous projects developing cars, various types of cooking oil etc that failed miserably, did not provide jobs money or development and left the country in debt.

It is not easy to know how to fix many of the structural problems that colonization caused.
Secondly many African countries do not want to have another "solution" imposed from externally, as so many have failed.

A further problem is that when foreign money helps provide technical assistance or training to improve the bureaucracy or infrastructure in certain countries with very poor living conditions such as Botswana - people with the extra skills want to leave - many to try and provide a better life for their family.

Throwing money at the situation has not proved to be effective. As it is difficult to deal with the rentseeking behaviour (corruption) that is present in many of the coutries.

A further issue is that Europe and America benefit enourmously from the lower levels of development if Africa, it provides cheap access to oil, diamonds, rare minerals and provides a massive market for the arms industry/private security businesses in the west.
Indeed, there are multinationals that have one company that builds land mines and another country that does land mine removal!
It will take a lot more awareness raising and consumer pressure to change the way that foreign govenrments and multinations (especially oil companies) behave to stop them profiting off underdevelopment and war economies in Africa.

In reply to Rik i accept that i got some of the historical factors about Germany/Belgium wrong ( i know in my head that dutch isn't belgium but Holland and Belgium merge in my brain) but it is incorrect to say that they left the Hutu Tutsi divisions the same to prevent ethnic war. The division was formalised in a way that had economic benefits for association with certain groups, inter marriage between groups ended, identities were fixed. This is a policy that increases ethnic tensions as when England left Iran and divided up power unequally between Sunny and Shi'ite muslims and when England colonised the Mosquito coast in Nicaragua and used one indian group to rule another.
Also i strongly dispute that a colonial infrastructure can provide suitable infrastructure for independence that is democratic. I would argue that when the vast majority of countries in Africa and Latin American had problems stemming from corruption, inefficiency, factionalism that there was something inherent in the construction of the state rather than arguing that there is something primitive in the nature of the people that makes them more corrupt, war like and violent.
South Africa is not a good example to use. It has serious structural problems because of the process of colonization that were later compounded by the apartheid system. It has the highest per capita murder rate in the World on a par with Colombia and Jamaica, It is one of the 10 most unequal countries in the World and it lacks the government and has a poor health care system. It is incredibly difficult to turn such a system into an effective, democratic prosperous country with high levels of development for all.

Answer 8

Europe is not to blame.
The rise of socialist and facist leaders who destroy their own nations for personal wealth is the problem.
(why would someone else be responsible at this stage of the game?)