By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 19 January 2007
The African continental renewal programme, popularly known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is tasked with eradicating poverty, placing African countries on a path of sustainable development and halting the marginalisation of the continent in the globalisation process.
However, the reality in the international scene is hostile for the realisation of this magnificent dream, partly because the NEPAD programme’s success is wholly dependent on the will of the major economic powers that offended many international protocols in their paths to economic growth.
In its pursuit of poverty eradication solutions at home and a more prominent role in the globalisation process, Africa is faced with some tough choices, such as following the footsteps of the major industrial powers (which would lead to disregard for international laws and regulations) or succumbing to external pressure.
The former option is unlikely to materialise, while the latter has seen mixed reactions, ranging from extreme radicalism by countries such as Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to a limited degree of consensus by the likes of Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal.
The World Economic Forum’s The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 ranks Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as “the world’s most competitive economies” above major traditional powers such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
The Group of 8 leading industrial nations, also known as the G8, has, after its 2006 annual meeting, announced that they will continue to work in partnership with Africa in order to settle conflicts and develop “African anti-crisis capabilities”, ensure “good and responsive governance”, invest in people, foster growth, provide financing for development and promote “mutual ownership and accountability”.
However, cynics such as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, writing in the article, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis, argue that: “The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans!”
If that is truly the main aim of the “debt relief initiatives”, then the success of NEPAD and other similar programmes on the African continent is tight up to what is clearly a new method of domination and control. Africa’s destiny won’t be decided by Africans as yet, it seems.
We poor Africans seem to have no other choice but to rely on our previous slave-masters to achieve the progress envisaged in programmes such as NEPAD.
When blamed for double-standards, the same countries that have denied the African people freedom for ages always have answers ready to defend themselves. The current Western leaders, we are told, were not there during the slave trade and should therefore not be held accountable for other people’s “mistakes”.
The fact that current Western leadership continues to remote-control the African continent through so-called “debt relief” initiatives is enough indication that Africa’s destiny is still far from being determined by Africans.
The African continental renewal programme, popularly known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is tasked with eradicating poverty, placing African countries on a path of sustainable development and halting the marginalisation of the continent in the globalisation process.
However, the reality in the international scene is hostile for the realisation of this magnificent dream, partly because the NEPAD programme’s success is wholly dependent on the will of the major economic powers that offended many international protocols in their paths to economic growth.
In its pursuit of poverty eradication solutions at home and a more prominent role in the globalisation process, Africa is faced with some tough choices, such as following the footsteps of the major industrial powers (which would lead to disregard for international laws and regulations) or succumbing to external pressure.
The former option is unlikely to materialise, while the latter has seen mixed reactions, ranging from extreme radicalism by countries such as Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to a limited degree of consensus by the likes of Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal.
The World Economic Forum’s The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 ranks Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as “the world’s most competitive economies” above major traditional powers such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
The Group of 8 leading industrial nations, also known as the G8, has, after its 2006 annual meeting, announced that they will continue to work in partnership with Africa in order to settle conflicts and develop “African anti-crisis capabilities”, ensure “good and responsive governance”, invest in people, foster growth, provide financing for development and promote “mutual ownership and accountability”.
However, cynics such as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, writing in the article, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis, argue that: “The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans!”
If that is truly the main aim of the “debt relief initiatives”, then the success of NEPAD and other similar programmes on the African continent is tight up to what is clearly a new method of domination and control. Africa’s destiny won’t be decided by Africans as yet, it seems.
We poor Africans seem to have no other choice but to rely on our previous slave-masters to achieve the progress envisaged in programmes such as NEPAD.
When blamed for double-standards, the same countries that have denied the African people freedom for ages always have answers ready to defend themselves. The current Western leaders, we are told, were not there during the slave trade and should therefore not be held accountable for other people’s “mistakes”.
The fact that current Western leadership continues to remote-control the African continent through so-called “debt relief” initiatives is enough indication that Africa’s destiny is still far from being determined by Africans.
No comments:
Post a Comment