6 ms·

Ask yourself a few questions: - why can a president be the president for 36 years in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it?

Ask yourself a few questions: - why can a president be the president for 36 years in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it? - why does French army go straight to Mali (not far from Cameroon BTW) if there's a terrorist threat? - why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses? - why is DR of Congo the materially richest country on Earth but has most of the conflicts and the poorest of the poorest population? - why was Gaddafi chased and killed by non-African? - why is China gifting huge buildings and communication systems to African Union (check out yesterday's HN)? - or to put it more simply: who is profiting at the end? Is it really Paul Biya?

mpweiher 8y ago
> in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it? Exactly because of that. When a country is rich in resources, the population isn't needed. See: The Resource Curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
- blumomo 8y ago
  You're making a good point. However it's not "exactly because of that", the Wikipedia article also states: > Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions. It's not only the natural richness. So let's look into all of the conditions. And who establishes those conditions (see my questions above).
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    Alaska is a counterexample
    - bengaluru 8y ago
      Norway seems to have done fine
      - chongli 8y ago
        Norway did well because its resources didn't exist, from a technological standpoint, for most of human history. The country was already highly developed and functioning as a cohesive culture for millennia before the North Sea oil had begun to be commercially exploited. This foundation allowed the population to assert some political influence in the development of the resource. Africa, on the other hand, is a very different story. Tropical diseases, terrain, and other features of the continent have made it difficult to form stable, cohesive nations. Now you throw in the discovery of resources and only an elite have the power to exploit them.
- testrun 8y ago
  Counter point: Australia, Canada, USA. All of which are rich in resources. In fact Australia's economy is built on resources. Canada to large degree too. Botswana has arguably only resources (diamonds) and proved that it can govern itself very well indeed.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Norway and their trillion dollar sovereign fund may be the greatest counter example to the supposed resource curse in history. If they continue to manage it properly, it's a conversion of oil (temporary resource) into immense, permanent national wealth.
    - simonh 8y ago
      I think the resource cure is a real thing, but it depends who gets their hands on the resources first, i.e. how political power works when the resource becomes available. Australia, Canada And the USA were all democracies before they becane resource rich and always had highly diversified economies. The resource curse kicks in when you have a developing nation with autocratic political norms because the rulers keep the resources for themselves. Because democratic reform would mean giving up their exclusive grip on the resources, they use those resources to fight it. This can also lead to a slide to autocracy in democratic countries with weak institutions - see Venezuela.
    - muro 8y ago
      Let's see how permanent the permanent wealth turns out to be. They seem to manage it better than other countries, but who knows, maybe on a long timeline, they are only spending it slower. I hope not, but so far, there have been so few examples of long term great management, that it's more likely it will end badly. They have a few benefits that imply it might work: culture of not showing off wealth; small population; well working justice system that should deal with corruption. Let's see in 50 to 100 years :)
  - fiblye 8y ago
    Well, the natives in those three countries were pretty much wiped out. Their descendants are still not doing so well compared to the descendants of those who came to exploit the land.
grecy 8y ago
I've spent the last two and a half years driving around Africa. 30 countires so far, including over a year through West Africa. You hit the nail on the head. For anyone that doesn't get it - here's another great story. Gabon had just had an election before I got there. The people were angry at the result, so they rioted, burned cars, etc. Border closed. That's what the media told "us" about. When I was there I dug into the details. So the incumbent president was losing by quite a bit during the counting, until his home state was counted. Miraculously, get got 99.9% of the vote in his home state, when in no other state did he get more than 60%. Also staggering, there were more votes cast and counted in his home state than there are people. The really sick part? The UN and other international observers declared this a free and fair election, and he remains president. Ask yourself why the UN and other international Governments & observers would sanction what any 5 year old can see is blatant election rigging. Follow the money.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I don't doubt for a second that there are questionable forces at work, but it was pretty widely reported that there were significant irregularities in that election. The EU observers were quite indeed quite blunt about it. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gabon-election-election-idUSKCN11C112 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gabon-election-election-i... for example.
- simonh 8y ago
  >The UN and other international observers declared this a free and fair election... Er, no, they didn’t.
ReturnFrom 8y ago
It is called neo-colonialism. I live in one of these resource-exporting exploited countries (non-Africa) and I can tell you that most everyone here and outside is oblivious to the fact that that our government, nor the ones outside are really protecting our interests as a populace, instead they are doing everything to just propagandize us and keep the status-quo intact.
SSLy 8y ago
>- why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses? FCFA is issued in Senegal. Is it physically printed somewhere else?
- blumomo 8y ago
  https://www.quora.com/How-much-French-State-benefits-from-printing-Franc-CFA https://www.quora.com/How-much-French-State-benefits-from-pr...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mpweiher 8y ago

> in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it? Exactly because of that. When a country is rich in resources, the population isn't needed. See: The Resource Curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

blumomo 8y ago
You're making a good point. However it's not "exactly because of that", the Wikipedia article also states: > Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions. It's not only the natural richness. So let's look into all of the conditions. And who establishes those conditions (see my questions above).
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  Alaska is a counterexample
  - bengaluru 8y ago
    Norway seems to have done fine
    - chongli 8y ago
      Norway did well because its resources didn't exist, from a technological standpoint, for most of human history. The country was already highly developed and functioning as a cohesive culture for millennia before the North Sea oil had begun to be commercially exploited. This foundation allowed the population to assert some political influence in the development of the resource. Africa, on the other hand, is a very different story. Tropical diseases, terrain, and other features of the continent have made it difficult to form stable, cohesive nations. Now you throw in the discovery of resources and only an elite have the power to exploit them.
testrun 8y ago
Counter point: Australia, Canada, USA. All of which are rich in resources. In fact Australia's economy is built on resources. Canada to large degree too. Botswana has arguably only resources (diamonds) and proved that it can govern itself very well indeed.
- adventured 8y ago
  Norway and their trillion dollar sovereign fund may be the greatest counter example to the supposed resource curse in history. If they continue to manage it properly, it's a conversion of oil (temporary resource) into immense, permanent national wealth.
  - simonh 8y ago
    I think the resource cure is a real thing, but it depends who gets their hands on the resources first, i.e. how political power works when the resource becomes available. Australia, Canada And the USA were all democracies before they becane resource rich and always had highly diversified economies. The resource curse kicks in when you have a developing nation with autocratic political norms because the rulers keep the resources for themselves. Because democratic reform would mean giving up their exclusive grip on the resources, they use those resources to fight it. This can also lead to a slide to autocracy in democratic countries with weak institutions - see Venezuela.
  - muro 8y ago
    Let's see how permanent the permanent wealth turns out to be. They seem to manage it better than other countries, but who knows, maybe on a long timeline, they are only spending it slower. I hope not, but so far, there have been so few examples of long term great management, that it's more likely it will end badly. They have a few benefits that imply it might work: culture of not showing off wealth; small population; well working justice system that should deal with corruption. Let's see in 50 to 100 years :)
- fiblye 8y ago
  Well, the natives in those three countries were pretty much wiped out. Their descendants are still not doing so well compared to the descendants of those who came to exploit the land.

grecy 8y ago

I've spent the last two and a half years driving around Africa. 30 countires so far, including over a year through West Africa. You hit the nail on the head. For anyone that doesn't get it - here's another great story. Gabon had just had an election before I got there. The people were angry at the result, so they rioted, burned cars, etc. Border closed. That's what the media told "us" about. When I was there I dug into the details. So the incumbent president was losing by quite a bit during the counting, until his home state was counted. Miraculously, get got 99.9% of the vote in his home state, when in no other state did he get more than 60%. Also staggering, there were more votes cast and counted in his home state than there are people. The really sick part? The UN and other international observers declared this a free and fair election, and he remains president. Ask yourself why the UN and other international Governments & observers would sanction what any 5 year old can see is blatant election rigging. Follow the money.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
I don't doubt for a second that there are questionable forces at work, but it was pretty widely reported that there were significant irregularities in that election. The EU observers were quite indeed quite blunt about it. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gabon-election-election-idUSKCN11C112 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gabon-election-election-i... for example.
simonh 8y ago
>The UN and other international observers declared this a free and fair election... Er, no, they didn’t.

ReturnFrom 8y ago

It is called neo-colonialism. I live in one of these resource-exporting exploited countries (non-Africa) and I can tell you that most everyone here and outside is oblivious to the fact that that our government, nor the ones outside are really protecting our interests as a populace, instead they are doing everything to just propagandize us and keep the status-quo intact.

SSLy 8y ago

>- why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses? FCFA is issued in Senegal. Is it physically printed somewhere else?

blumomo 8y ago
https://www.quora.com/How-much-French-State-benefits-from-printing-Franc-CFA https://www.quora.com/How-much-French-State-benefits-from-pr...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]