Quote:
Originally Posted by kovacs
um... an empowered africa is completely contrary to western corporate interests in the region... so africa stays downtrodden. how is that difficult for you to understand?
take sudan for example... why is darfur genocide not an issue for the western world, whereas iraqi "insurgency" is? because sudan's oil is already comfortably in the west's pocket.
africa is going to be the big loser in the coming resource wars...
|
It's difficult for me to understand because there it is a ridiculous assertion you make with no evidence. Explain to me how China, India, Brazil, etc can all rise from relatively inept nations in the past few decades to booming economies yet Africa and Africans (yet again apparently) are still being kept down by the man? I suppose Western corporations voted in Robert Mugabe right? Or more recently the rapist, corrupt, AIDs ignorant, bankrupt Jacob Zuma in South Africa correct?
Look how difficult it has been for the entire US military to force a Government upon the people in Iraq, and question the sensibility of the claim that Western corporations have somehow managed to succeed in putting in corrupt and inept Governments in Africa. They can name their tribal factions whatever they like, the Fighters for Freedom, The Liberation Movement, whatever, it still doesn't change the fact that whoever gain power in whatever African nation is ultimately responsible for whether or not good governance results in that nation.
You can't claim the western nations shouldn't be interventionist powers but than suggest that we should limit the ability for western corporations from trading with governments we know are incapable of running a nation. What is it? And regardless of that, anyone with a brain can figure out who Robert Mugabe and co have mortgaged their mines off to - and it isn't the West - look East.