>No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. Those two types tend to be at best relationships with new "enterpreneurs" i

>No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. Those two types tend to be at best relationships with new "enterpreneurs" in the areas. >There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Well, I wouldn't be so sure. See Shell and Nigeria, Congo and blood diamonds, C.A.R, etc. Things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-secret-war-396062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france... And the West might not get much utility of some particular African states being poor, but it gets much utility of them not being richer and stronger: it gets to keep the nearby states at the status quo it wants. A stronger sub-saharan state might alter the power status in the region for states the west _does_ get utility from. It's for that very reason that the West would never allow some "pan-african" federation to operate freely.