perhaps its because its behind closed doors with no media allowed? for a democratic convention its disgraceful

If Tony Blair has no idea why people are protesting the G8, this article may give him some pointers. Send it Downing Street!


THIS column can confirm that the war for Africa is everything but over. Evidence is aplenty and should not be withheld, as it will shed light on this war and the marginalisation of Africa as a whole.

Former US Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, declared during her term of office, "the whole world knows that Uganda and Rwanda are allies of the United States and that they have been given a carte blanche for whatever reason to wreak havoc in the Congo". She was quoted in the New African news magazine.

American investigative journalist specializing in intelligence and privacy matters, Wayne Madsen, testified before the Congressional Sub-Committee on International Operations and Human Rights Committee on International Relations, having written the book "Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993 - 1999". Wayne Madsen based his book on three years of research and interviews in countries with a criminal colonial record such as Britain, the United States of America, Canada, France, Belgium and the Netherlands and some of their stooges in Africa, such as Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.

Madsen describes for the record, how US Special Operations Command (SOC) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) are running the Congo war since 1996 as "destabilisation for profit". In his report Madsen further reveals that US Special Operations personnel were deeply involved in training troops on both sides of the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - on the one side the "rebels" (the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie - RCD factions) under the warlords of Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda and on the other, the central government of the late Laurent Kabila and eventually his son Joseph, and the official alliance with Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

According to Madsen's findings, various sources in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa repeatedly point to the presence of an American-built military base on the border with the DRC near Cyangugu, Rwanda. In fact, the British daily newspaper, The Independent, reported some time ago on secretly CIA funded military operations of Rwanda in the DRC which were well above the means of Rwanda as that country had at one stage some 10 000 troops in the Congo.

There is systematic pillaging of Congo's most valuable natural resources, as observed by the United Nations' "Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC".

That UN panel also reported that the "leading military commanders from various countries needed and continue to need this conflict for its lucrative nature and for temporarily solving some internal problems in those countries as well as allowing access to wealth".
It further seems that the US Department of Defense relies to a great extent on so-called Private Military Contractors (PMCs). Those PMCs were previously known as "mercenaries", when they were deployed from time to time as foreign policy instruments by the colonial powers of Belgium, France, Portugal and South Africa and have close links with some of the leading mining and oil companies involved in Africa.

The privately owned "army" of the defunct 'Executive Outcomes' is a prime example.
The above report further points to the findings of a commission headed by the Canadian UN ambassador, Robert Fowler, which inform that Rwanda has violated the international embargo against Angola's former UNITA bandits by allowing them to operate seemingly freely, selling conflict diamonds and dealing with arms traders in its capital, Kigali.
According to that report, the late Jonas Savimbi openly traded rough diamonds for arms in Kigali.

The war casualties (deaths) of Africans in the DRC are estimated by the author, Wayne Madsen, at a total of some two million since the first invasion from Rwanda in 1996. This is based on his three years of research in that region.

During Belgium's King Leopold II's conquest of the Congo, some 10 million Congolese were killed between 1890 and 1910. It seems that the break-up of the DRC into various federal states, all of them becoming members of the SADC, is the final aim of the neo-colonial structures for which they are seemingly prepared to keep that war going at any price.
This would explain the role of the vicious sell-out, Moise Tshombe, who once attempted to rule the mineral-rich Katanga province from its capital, Lubumbashi. The DRC war is not the only one in Africa.

Whenever one watches television, images of peace and wealth come up when focused on Europe, Britain and the US. However, as one sees reports from Africa, war and destruction, abject poverty and diseases seem to be the order of the day.
"Africa, the hopeless continent", as the British magazine, The Economist gave its opinion, has so far been successfully pillaged and bled in order to build the wealth of its former colonial masters. Strange, how white Europe makes good news and black Africa only bad news.

Destructive images of Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Zimbabwe and even South Africa continue to make headlines. It is interesting to note that all of the above-mentioned countries have a wide range of highly profitable natural resources of strategic minerals. Yet, Africans have no access to those strategic resources, whether it is diamonds, gold, platinum, gem stones, crude oil, copper, uranium, cobalt and columbite-tantalite (or coltan), a primary component of computer microchips and printed circuit boards, high-quality timber and agricultural produce - a large range of quality and quantity of natural resources nowhere to be found in the industrialized G-7 countries, particularly not for the low prices as only African resources are being traded at.

In essence, this seems to be the real reason why it is that resource-wealthy African countries have to be reduced to so-called civil and ethnic wars without any functional infrastructure and ridiculously irrelevant currencies.

South Africa has paid a dear price for its "negotiated" British Parliamentary Democracy. "Bullied into submission" would be a more appropriate description.
In the four years of violence since the release of its true leaders to the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as president, that is, from July 1990 to April 1994, 48 000 political deaths and 22 000 injured were counted, all of them Africans. Despite sophisticated mining, financial and manufacturing industries, South Africa's former colonial-apartheid robber-barons are able to retain their exclusive hold on the economy, successfully shutting African South Africans out, reducing them to almost permanent unemployment, abject poverty, prostitution, disease and starvation, simply put, margi-nalizing them into crime.

In an exclusive oligo-polistic, cartellised, warehouse and rent-seeking economy with its 'BEE-Uncle Tomism', an almost equally cruel 'free market economy' (new age capitalism) has little space. As reported in previous columns, up to 20 million African South Africans out of a population of about 43 million are starving on a daily basis and only four out of 100 school-leavers annually have a mere hope for formal employment.
The economic war is as much a reality in South Africa, as are the wars in other wealthy African countries. The current debate between the trade union umbrella body, COSATU, the South African Communist party (SACP) and the Presidency, whether or not the country's unemployment rate is as high as between 40% and 50%, or below 26%, is daily reflected in the media.

In essence, Africa needs to determine its own future and has no option, but to pool its resources in order to establish its place firmly in an economically competitive world with its brutal capitalism and powerful judiciary under the cloak of 'neo-liberal democracy'. As the Nigerian Prof Adebayo Adedeji warned explicitly in his position as head of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, any economic policy that marginalizes people is clearly destined for failure.

Udo W. Froese
Johannesburg

Thanks for all this stuff, that's great! I've been looking info 'n' arguments...

I know why protesters are protesting against the G8 summit. It is because despite the summit being to tackle global problems and problems many of the protesters agree should be tackled. The protesters simply hate all western governments! They believe the west is responsible for everything wrong in the world and that nothing the West ever does can ever be right! Quite simply they are so full for the west that they will jump at any chance to attack it!

i presume tom has read everything listed above, and came to his deep insight on that basis?

try again mr - you can do better than that!

Thanks for that "explanation", Tom.

A simple explanation.

An explanation as simple as you clearly are, you moron.

Blind prejudice might be all *you* need to form an argument, but us anti-G8 types tend to need a little more thought to form an opinion.

Dear Tom,

Try actually READING the articles before saying things like that.

There's A LOT to protest against. I DARE you read it all and actually think it before dismissing everyone as "self hating westerners".



'i know what causes crime - CRIMINALS!!' the ever thoughtful michael howard ;-)

The G8 summit is NOT about how to help Africa. It's about how to CONTINUE plundering it, whilst paying a little lip service and if we're lucky perhaps even throwing a few crumbs.

Look at the REALITY not the RHETORIC.

Judge them on their actions not their words.

Sorry Tom but your simple prejudice doesn't wash here. The good thing about all these links is that it shows a broad range of views all pulling in the same direction. Well done.

Britain 'plunder' from Africa? In the present, that is, not the past.

oil
gas
metals
coltan
diamonds
other minerals
wood
flowers
cash crops
genes
other vegetables
doctors
nurses
scientists
rare and exotic species
other animals
knowledge
music
dignity
this is getting boring
indymedia meant as a news service not an education
would suggest using a library?
and/or regular reading of znet, new internationalist, africa confidential, many many more
talking to informed africans
etc etc etc

BP, for instance, makes colossal profits from Nigeria's oil.

Is BP a Nigerian company? No, it is British and gained its incongruous position in Africa thanks to the legacy of British imperialism.

You'll just have to find out the plethora of other British companies that drain Africa's wealth out for yourself, septic, as I'm too busy to waste more time on a know-nothing troublemaker like yourself.

Plunder:

To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: plunder a village.
To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.

Take BP in Nigeria, but you can generalise the argument as far as you like.

Why is it there? To extract oil.
Why do the Nigerians allow it there? Because the Nigerian government makes money from it.

The agreement is consensual. If they want, the Nigerians can remove BP's licence, and extract the oil themselves if they wanted to, and were capable of so doing.

The Nigerians could also simply take over BP's assets in Nigeria, which is what some governments have done. Unless compensation were paid, this would indeed be plunder - see above.

Metals, diamonds, wood - whatever. The same arguments apply. Africa has them, we want to buy them. We offer a price. They accept or don't accept. It's called supply and demand.

Africans also buy things from other countries - oil from the Middle East. for example. Africa is not self sufficient in oil. Are they 'plundering' Iran?

We have things Africa wants - cars, computers, whatever. We offer the goods at whatever price. They buy, or don't buy. Supply and demand.

What do you suggest they do with the gold they mine? Offer it at double the price? And what happens when we say - no, thanks. We can do without.

Or is the argument that the firms involved in the extractions are foreign firms? Exploitation by 'corporate giants'? In that case, is Britain being 'exploited' by Japan [Honda, Toyota, etc]? Are the Japanese 'plundering' Britain?

You really do have your head up your arse. If this simplistic drivel is the best that you can come up with then you should really change your nickname to something more suitable like 'naive non-enquirer' because a sceptic you aint. Your just interested in creating a bit of a fuss to massage your ego. A real sceptical enquirer would be able to come up with a far more rational arguments for the positions you are propunding than the simplistic, schoolyard nonsense you regulalrly post on here.

And no you aren't stimulating debate just looking like an arse.

tom, sceptic, you really need to do some serious reading.
sorry, but we are not here to be your tutors.
there are still some decent free libraries around
the internet has plenty info seeing as you have time to waste online spouting ill educated opinions and questions on here
cheers

It's like a scout Jamboree but for activists, which is okay of course. When you think about it the paralells are amusing. No offense meant, and I will probably go with my camera stuff to try to cover events from the perspective of participants.

resort to the ad hominem attack.

Interesting to see that neither of you took up any of the points.

last night before to to sleep i look on my little table close to my bed and i saw a banana

OK Sceptic, to try and explain it as simply as possible, although really you should read the various links, the situation as I understand is this. The colonial legacy left a leadership in these various countries, often western educated, that profited, and still profit, from the Western Companies exploitation of their resources. But in many cases the people did not. Take, for example, the middle east. We created most of those countries by drawing lines on a map, when before it was one Arabia, and put token kings in charge. They sell us oil. The elite become millionaires. We sold them weapons so they can maintain their unpopular rule over an impoverished population. And when they move to take national control of their assets, we interfere militarily.

Classic example...Iran. Iran tried to nationalise it's oil from the British oil company that became BP. We didn't like this, and persuaded the US that we could not allow this to happen. The CIA organised a coup, and overthrew the democratic prime minister of Iran, replacing him with the Shah ( later creating the backlash known as the Iranian revolution ).

We want complete access to foreign markets. We often bribe corrupt national leaderships in various ways to permit this to happen. I am in Venezuela now. Some years ago it was very tempting for a corrupt leadership with close ties to the US to sell off the national oil company. They would walk off as millionaires. The Venezuelans would get very little in return. But now the oil is nationalised, and the money from the oil is going on social projects and to the people. As a result, the US tried to overthrow the democratically elected President in a coup a few years ago, but failed.

So yes, it's not a one way street. Often it is Western companies acting in concert with corrupt regimes. But if these regimes change, and you get a regime that considers acting against the interests of the multi-nationals, the West uses militiary intervention, covert or otherwise. This has pretty much been the history of globalisation.

Your point about Japan doesn't hold, because if we do something against the interests of Japanese companies, for our own national interest, the Japanese are not going to invade, or orchestrate a coup in England. And Tony Blair is not pocketing millions of dollars for himself to allow Japanese companies access to our resources.

Luckily, Latin America is waking up, and has a generation of leaders firmly against the neo-liberal Washington consensus. The Middle-East is simply ravaged by war and unrest, largely brought about from continual western intervention. Africa continues to be ruled by corrupt leaders, who become millionaires allowing Western companies access to the resources of their countries, while the people live in dire poverty.

OK, I tried to explain it as simply as possible.

"Metals, diamonds, wood - whatever. The same arguments apply. Africa has them, we want to buy them. We offer a price. They accept or don't accept. It's called supply and demand. "

And if their government refuses, they get 'destabalised' by a rival faction at the bidding of the western power. And if they start getting too 'communist' (or opt out of the 'free market' (which doesn't even exist), then they'll probably be invaded or at the very least have sanctions levied against them

So yeh - why isn't anyone arguing with you? Because you're arguments are facile, boring. They're what someone who reads the Sun for an 'unbiased' view might spout as fact.

Like someones already said, go to the library if you're really so keen! I recommend some Chomsky for starters, you can go into Borders and read some of his books in a couple of hours for free. Let us know what you think.

If I have a gun and I say that I want you to supply me with whatever I demand, is that not plunder?
just because colonial dynamics are dressed up in smart suits and profit reports, is that not plunder?
just because some africans have joined in for the sake of a share in the profits, is that not plunder?
just because some people know next to nothing aboput the daily reality for people whose children's bellies are swollen, who can no longer fish or farm due to pollution, who are shot dead at the rate of three a day when they struggle for a share of oil wealth,
does that mean they can can speak with credibility about oil companies in the niger delta?
bah humbug.
one last time, please just go read bookss, talk to impoverished africans, and try just a little to break out of the corporate shaped headspace
cheers

For sceptic;


Do you really believe - arguing this BP case as an example of non-plundering activities - that the people Nigerian who benefit from BP are the masses of civilians? Do you really believe that the money, has, and is mainly poured into public infrastructure? And if not do you really believe the masses of people are powerfully positioned enough to request that money directly? And if so do you really believe that their request would be met from those few who do benefit the oil money with flowers?

And if the masses of peoples deem BP investment destructive and unnecessary to their survival do you really think that BP will heed their voice over the government-favoured officials who do benefit from the money just because they are in the position that claims to serve its people?

Like earlier posts have advised read the links provided above. Liberate yourself and all that.

Leyman

For sceptic;


Do you really believe - arguing this BP case as an example of non-plundering activities - that the people Nigerian who benefit from BP are the masses of civilians? Do you really believe that the money, has, and is mainly poured into public infrastructure? And if not do you really believe the masses of people are powerfully positioned enough to request that money directly? And if so do you really believe that their request would be met from those few who do benefit the oil money with flowers?

And if the masses of peoples deem BP investment destructive and unnecessary to their survival do you really think that BP will heed their voice over the government-favoured officials who do benefit from the money just because they are in the position that claims to serve its people?

Like earlier posts have advised read the links provided above. Liberate yourself and all that.

Leyman

If you pay your £2+ for a latte in your local starbucks. How much of that money goes to the coffee growers? Can they afford to keep their kids at school? What happens if they get sick?

Africans give us stuff that is valuable to us, in return we give them a very very very small sum of money.

We're taking their stuff and giving them almost nothing in return.

They're working fucking for us. And yet they're living in poverty.

If that's supply and demand, if that's the market then that sounds to me like a very good reason not to like the market.

It is plunder. We're extracting all kinds of valuable stuff from Africa and putting back in almost nothing. We're taking their stuff, we're plundering them.

We're taking their natural resources, their cash crops, and paying them a pittance. Why's the market so unfair? Because it's rigged. It's rigged in a number of ways. The corporations which run the markets have so much bargaining power that they can artificially depress prices and they do so all the time. But also, there's too much mange tout, coffee ect being grown - this is because the WORLD BANK (and others) told all the countries in Africa that the way to prosper was to quit subsistance farming and starting growing all these cash crops for export to the west. So now, they all took that advice (because they had no choice, given the world bank's power over them) and now hey presto there's WAY too much of this stuff being grown and that makes prices low.

That's all I can be arsed to say. Good points have been raised already. And Tom and Sceptic really should go and read some books because it's all in there.

Chomsky's good.

So's William Blum's book Rogue State about the USA (I challenge anyone to read that book and then deny that the US is a rogue state). (Oh no sorry I forgot, it's only poor countries that are allowed to be called rogue states).

Znet is good.

New Internationalist covers a lot of issues.

Mark Curtis is excellent.

Go and read the facts.

For sceptic;


Do we really believe - if arguing this BP case as an example of non-plundering UK unofficial activities - that people of Nigeria who benefit from BP are the mass of civilians? Do we really believe that the money, has, and is mainly poured into public infrastructure? And if not do you really believe the masses of people are powerfully positioned enough to request that money directly? And if so, do you really believe that their request for finance would be met from those few who do benefit the oil money with flowers?

If the masses of Nigerian peoples deem BP investment destructive and unnecessary to their survival do you really think that BP will heed their voice over the government officials who do benefit from the money just because they are in the position that claims to serve its people?

Like earlier posts have advised read the links provided above. Liberate yourself and all that.

Leyman

you're coming to the point - which is that too many of the people in Africa do not benefit from the wealth their country gains. And why? As you yourself point out, the Governments that run most African countries are not their for their people but for themselves and their cronies.

How much of the aid that will be raised will make it to the people on the ground. The answer is not enough. But I imagine many Swiss bank accounts will benefit.

You won't get rid of poverty in Africa until the corruption is brought under control.

We've just told you: the governments are corrupt because they have been FOISTED on African countries by the West. If the West stopped meddling in other countries affairs and enforcing trade rules and prohibitions and social rules on African people then they might have governments that were not corrupt. They might not even want a system based on governance itself. But because of colonialism and now 'development' they have no choice; much like us, except we reap their hard work while they have to put up with tyrannical dictators who are the result of 100 years of rape and pillage.

Now if you want to talk about corrupt systems, how about starting with the UK and US electoral systems?

Try:

neo-liberalism

neo-colonialism

Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes

European and American agricultural policies for starters.

And then come back and tell us that eveything is the fault of the corrupt African leaders.

Just so that we understand that you're not a fool, but a racist right-wing idealogue.

Okey dokey?

Why are we demonstrating at the g8?

Africa is only a sympton, a metaphor for what we are disatisfied about.

African exposes the lack of integrety that is has driven global behavior for thousands of years both in the macro of global trade and in the micro of our individual relationships with each other.

When I look in the mirror, I can see all the shit of this world operating within me and how I conduct my life in the daily scramble to survive another day on this spinning lump of rock.

How do I interact with my neibours and friends? - global peace beginS right here and then spills out radiating throughout the global culture.

The beauty of these times is that there is no escape from this reality anymore. Extinction is the only way out. Either we face our issues individually and globally or our civilisation will cease to exist.

Live 8 @ the G8 is the heart of the people crying out for something different, a new way of operating. This has been building for a long time since the first wave in the sixties, it now comes of age.

It is important that we operate in this situation with the consciousness of "the journey is the destination"

The issues that we are adressing are ignorance - fear, selfishness, and the resulting dishonesty. What is important is that we understand that this is an evolutionary moment, it is in innocence, that the human race is where it is.

Down from the trees, but not yet walking upright. Monkeys barely out of the jungle squeezing this amazing civilisation out of the rocks.

We must move beyond fingerpointing, blame, demonisation. Move beyond "protesting against" to "demonstrating FOR"
Say Yes2Peace
 http://www.infinitepossibility.org/yes1/index.html

We must leave the "Them and Us" paradigm back in the second millenium where it has already created too much havoc. The time has come for us to move together in partnership for

"Our world working for all of us without exception"

In my opinion, this is what we are demonstrating about

Bring chalk to Edinburgh - Chalk4Peace
 http://www.infinitepossibility.org/chalk/index.html

message in a bottle
 http://www.infinitepossibility.org/chalk/message/index.html

Bring musical instruments lets create the biggest band ever
 http://www.infinitepossibility.org/magic/index.html

"WHEN WE THE PEOPLE LEAD, OUR LEADERS WILL FOLLOW"

I would have accepted the government foisted on countries argument 50 years ago, but it's wearing a little thin now. How many African govermnents today have been put there by the West [concrete examples please].

Yes, the economic power tends to be one way, but not in all areas. It might be true of coffee but not gold or diamonds. The bigger problem is that large sums of money tend to corrupt, and without a transparent system of government, corruption happens. That is not a problem confined to Africa.

Saying countries should stick to subsistence farming is all very well, but if any form of modern infrastructure is to be developed, you have to find some way to pay for it. Not everyone wants to spend their life scraping the soil.

Yes, I've read it all - just find it unconvincing.

Diamonds and Gold? Oh yeah Africans get an absolute BARGAIN for those don't they? ;-) (not!!)

Ever heard of de-beers?

Surely you must know that millions of diamonds on the market are washed in the blood of indigenous people.


Even if the last foisting on of corrupt governments happened 50 years ago, that would still have ramifications today. The kind of damage we did back in the colonial era doesn't mend itself overnight. Look at all the black communities in the USA which are still struggling with poverty and deprivation. Is that not the legacy of slavery? You'd probably think it's because blank people are intrinsically inferior and just can't help themselves. But then that's because you're a racist right wing ideologue.

About corruption, it takes two to tango. Who are all the western corporations paying all these bribes to government ministers? Also, bribery of civil servants by local people (small bribes) is the norm because civil servants need those bribes to live, because they're not getting paid, because the government's got no money because so much of its expenditure is going on unfair unpayable debts to the west.

BUT HELPING DICTATORS INTO POWER AND PROPPING THEM UP DID **NOT** STOP 50 YEARS AGO!

You want concrete examples?

1) Saddam Hussein
2) The Taliban
3) not exactly a dictator but Osama Bin Laden was given massive help by the CIA
4) Pinochet
5) Suharto (both mass murderers and torturers)

The CIA provided a hit list of about half a million people for Suharto's people to murder to help Suharto come to power.

6) Any number of human rights abusing regimes in Latin America. Social movements trying to represent the interests of ordinary people rather than the elites were brutally crushed, with the full support of the west, especially the US.

7) The US gives overwhelming support to the Saudi royal family which tortures and kills rather like Saddam Hussein did. Without that support, who knows - people might have had a better chance to fight back.

Who else... oh yeah, the Khmer Rouge. Remember Pol Pot and his Cambodian holocaust. He was supported by the US.

But come on guys and gals, "sceptic" wants African examples. I'm sure people must know of loads of them.

It's also worth noting that there's a move to control countries through more subtle means. Who needs to overthrow a regime when you can place overwhelming constraints on their freedom to govern using STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT and TRADE AGREEMENTS.
Better still, have those countries ACTIVELY COMPETING to reduce labour standards to attract 'investment'. In "export processing zones" workers are treated almost as slaves, in order to benefit the corporations - all in return for a few crumbs for the national economy.

Nevertheless, the helping to power and propping up of bad governments is still going on.

On a slightly different note, what are all those American military bases doing ALL OVER THE WORLD? Could it have anything to do with Full Spectrum Dominance? FSD is official US policy and it means exactly what it says on the tin: full military dominance over land, sea, air and space.

Here's a quote from Miltron Friedman, right wing New York Times collumnist:

"The hidden hand of the global market would never work without the hidden fist. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps"

Yeah well none of that matters 'cos the darkies want tv's an' the interweb an' we got it so they better just go an work in a coltan mine for the sake of progress.

Why do you hate George Bush so much?

the South African govt and the Namibian govt do get a fortune from gold and diamonds [even if they have been washed in the blood of indigeous people - nothing like a nice bit of rhetoric]. So why don't these governments insist on proper health and safety regs as we have in Britain?

Yes, people in Third World countries do get less for their labour - a phenomenon which results in 'out-sourcing', in modern jargon. Why do they take the jobs? Because they can't get better ones.

Is that exploitation? Depends on your point of view. Go for a job and ask for a salary of £100k. You're likely to be disappointed. Are you then being exploited if you have to work for less?

Sceptic, I gave you one very significant example, which was the situation in Iran. When Iran moved to nationalised it's oil, the US and UK took out the democratic prime minister, and installed the Shah, a friendly dictator who sold us cheap oil. As a consequence, we had the Iranian revolution as a backlash against us.

For very many years the US has treated Latin America as it's back yard. In the 60's, they took out Allende in Chile, democratically elected, who was moving to nationalise the resources. In his place was put Pinochet. This happened all over Latin America...Nicaragua, El Salvador. Latin America is the classic example, go read some history.

Recently, the US got rid of Aristide in Haiti, with the help of France, and now a ruthless government that abuses human rights has replaced it, and civil war blights the country. And it tried to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela. The blatant interventions are of course Afghanistan and Iraq, in which Western friendly governments were put in place over Western unfriendly governments, but who certainly abused human rights. But it remains to be seen if these governments will behave any better than those they replaced.

Sadly, my knowledge of Latin America and the Middle-East is greater than my knowledge about Africa. Africa seems always to be forgotten. But a lot of African interference is actually perpetrated by the French, more so than the US or UK. Therefore, there is a strong French critique of neo-colonialism.

I found this page. You can put the mouse over different African countries and see how France and other colonial powers have intervened in the affairs of these countries. You need to be able to speak French to understand it.
 http://www.stop-francafrique.com/


Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Neo-colonialism
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonialism

"They portray the choice to grant or to refuse granting loans, especially by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as a decisive form of control. They argue that in order to qualify for these loans (as well as other forms of economic aid), weaker nations are forced to take steps favourable (structural adjustments) to the financial interests of the IMF/WB, but detrimental to their own economies, increasing rather than alleviating their poverty.

Critics of neocolonialism also attempt to demonstrate that investment by multinational corporations enriches few in underdeveloped countries, and causes humanitarian (as well as environmental and ecological) devastation to the populations which inhabit 'neocolonies.' This, it is argued, results in unsustainable development and perpetual underdevelopment; a dependency which cultivates those countries as reservoirs of cheap labor and raw materials, while restricting their access to advanced production techniques to develop their own economies."


Sceptic, the situation with many of these African countries is that they are paying back debts to the IMF more than they receive in humanitarian aid. This is the case in Latin America as well. We make a big show of giving so much money to the Third World, but in reality it is the Third World which is paying us.

It seems you are sceptical about everything but the system within which you live. That's not really scepticism. Scepticism implies looking at your own beliefs and pushing them to the limits to see if they really hold water. Instead, you try and find any excuse, and argument, NOT to be sceptical of the system.

"the South African govt and the Namibian govt do get a fortune from gold and diamonds [even if they have been washed in the blood of indigeous people - nothing like a nice bit of rhetoric]. So why don't these governments insist on proper health and safety regs as we have in Britain?"

Sceptic, I have no sympathies or loyalties towards the South African government. Quite frankly, they SUCK arse. The truth is, they're not letting their people get any share of that. Everyone in this movement knows that the ANC, since coming to power have utterly sold out to global capital and decided to serve its interests rather than undertaking any kind of redistribution. And it would have been hard for them not to, given the power and influence of global capital. Witness their privatisation of the water supply (with encouragement and pressure from western governments and businesses), selling it off to profiteering corporations, resulting in the poor losing access to safe water and many dying of cholera as a result.

If your expecting us to defend governments, especially governments such as the ANC, which Talk Left and Walk Right, then you are mistaken. Most people on this board are against all forms of centralised hierarhical authoritarian power. We are true libertarians. That doesn't mean we want freedom for the rich elite. It means we want freedom for ordinary people. Freedom from corporate exploitation, freedom from oppressive government, and freedom from government which promotes or appeases corporate exploitation.

Why don't African governments insist on high health and safety standards? BECAUSE, dear Sceptic, they are under ENORMOUS pressure from the corporatoins NOT to have such standards. Corporations don't want health and safety standards, they want a fast buck. In the long term, if you treat your workers you'll make more money but if you want to turn over a fast buck, especially in a country when the workforce is unskilled therefore human beings are seen as expendable pawns, there's high incentive for the greedy to exploit people treating virtually as slaves.

The only reason we do have better health and safety standards in the west (although it's still the case that companies invariably still get away with corporate man-slaughter), is that UNIONS have fought long and hard for such rights. Governments are under enormous pressure from business not to have such "legislative burden and red tape".

As for "nice rhetoric", why don't we hear you saying that to Gordon Brown when he talks left and walks right on Africa, climate change and all the rest of it. The idea that the G8 is trying to help Africa - THAT is rhetoric. To say that diamonds are washed in blood of indigenous people - that's TRUE. I didn't just make that up.


"Yes, people in Third World countries do get less for their labour - a phenomenon which results in 'out-sourcing', in modern jargon. Why do they take the jobs? Because they can't get better ones. Is that exploitation? Depends on your point of view. Go for a job and ask for a salary of £100k. You're likely to be disappointed. Are you then being exploited if you have to work for less?"


You absolute twat. There's NO parallel there at all. If I want £100k and I'm given £30k that makes me a spoil brat rich kid.

But if I want enough money to send my kids to school and keep them there, if I want to be able to afford medical care if I get ill (no free healthcare because the IMF forced the government to abandon it), if I perhaps want to even take a couple of days off work PER YEAR, if I aspire to live (albeit frugally) rather than just exist, but I'm not being paid enough for my work to do any of those things, then that's a totally different situation.

You try telling those people that they're getting ideas above their station, I'm sure they'd love you for that.



Look at the 3rd world. Look what's going in. And look what's coming out. It's NOT equal. It's NOT fair trade. I think plunder is a good description of what it is. But to be honest, that's arguing over semantics. The point is, whatever we want to call it, it's unjust and it's unfair and it's not the kind of world I want to live in. I don't want to be an apologist for this kind of barbarism, you do. You're offended that we want to place any blame at all on the west. But I'm not blaming ordinary people in the west, I'm blaming our ruling classes. You clearly feel a certain loyalty towards our ruling classes. Why's that? Were you the kind of kid at school who liked to suck up to the headmaster? Where's your sense of rebellion. Authority is to be rebelled against, NOT sucked up to. Governance should be done my consensus, not dictation. Direct participatory democracy and all that...

Yeah, exactly. Rather the being sceptical about received wisdom, he's being sceptical about attempts to challenge that received wisdom.

He's choosing NOT to be sceptical about the status quo, NOT to be sceptical about authority, NOT to be sceptical about the vested interests. The only thing he's sceptical about is social justice.

'sceptic', may I consider you change your name to 'conservative'. I think that would be more apt.

are many of the views expressed here.

You talk about the World Bank and the IMF. Now, these are organisations that lend money to countries that ask for it. They are loans and not grants. If you are making a loan to someone, then you do expect it to be repaid. And you do pay interest (try getting an interest free overdraft). The question whether the interest rates are exhorbitant - what are the World Bank rates?

The countries concerned don't have to borrow from the World Bank. They can say: am I going to be better off by borrowing this money, building whatever, and paying back the loan and interest, or they can say: we are better off not borrowing the money in the first place.

No one is forcing a country to borrow money. It is their decision. They may make the wrong decision - whichever it is. But you can't say the World Bank is at fault by asking for money which they have lent.

As for conditions: you think your bank manager will lend you money without asking what it's for?

What I am further sceptical about is the perpetual attempt to portray the World Bank and the IMF as villians. Banks have no money of their own. All they have is the money which people deposit. WHat they have on deposit, they can lend. But it is not their money to give away. It is still other people's money, and - surprise, surprise - they want it back. So what does the World Bank do? Say 'Sorry, we can't repay you, because we lent it to country X and it would be very mean of us to ask them to pay it back'?

 http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

No doubt this is all the fault of the West:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4072978.stm

"Banks have no money of their own. All they have is the money which people deposit."

Banks *create* money. This is known as fractional reserve banking. Notes and coins are minted by governments, but where does the electronic money which makes up over 95% of the money stock come from?

It is created by banks as loans - which must be repayed, and as you point out, with interest. Thus more electronic money must be destroyed than created - this means if the total outstanding debt does not grow year-on-year the money stock will collapse and there will be a depression, which with today's global capital markets would probably be worldwide. Thus in aggregate, debts can only be repayed by more people/countries going into a larger debt.

Africa's debts are mathematically unrepayable - and it was designed this way to ensure US hegemony at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. Read Michael Rowbotham's 'Goodbye America' and 'The Grip of Death' which explain this key element of capitalist economics in clear terms.

The forced-growth economy based on debt-finance dovetails perfectly with the annual increases in fossil fuel consumption on which economic growth under capitalism has been based. Its the logic of a tumour.

You talk about the World Bank and the IMF. Now, these are organisations that lend money to countries that ask for it. They are loans and not grants. If you are making a loan to someone, then you do expect it to be repaid. And you do pay interest (try getting an interest free overdraft). The question whether the interest rates are exhorbitant - what are the World Bank rates?

With individuals who can't pay money back, they are declared bankrupt. They are not expected to sell their kidneys. Pressuring a country to slash health and education services in order to pay you back is analogous to getting someone to sell their kidneys.
These debts are quite simply unpayable. In fact, many of these countries have already paid back what they owe many times over but are expected to pay interest. They've been getting more and more in debt because they cannot keep up with the interest. Governments are stuck in a spiral of debt and this is resulting in starvation amongst the poor majority of the people, not to mention catastrophic economic stagnation. After WWII, Germany's debts were written off. It was recognised they were unpayable.

The global economy can actually benefit from writing off debts. Under-developed countries will be in far better position to actually develop, and as their citizens grow richer, they will provide new markets for western exports. Thus everyone benefits. So the economic case is strong. But the moral case is easily strong enough too: when the poor are up to their eye-balls in debt and are suffering as a result, it is surely immoral to claim that money back from them when they are in no reasonable position to pay it back. Unpayable debts should be written off. We area very rich, they are very poor, we don't NEED that money, we don't need to make them starve, we should have more compassion. I value not letting people starve as a higher priority than principles of debt and credit - and like I say, even notwithstanding principles of debt and credit, the case still stands because unpayable debts are within our own economies written off under the bankruptcy laws, preventing people having to starve for their financial mistakes.

There area COUNTLESS other arguments which you should consider.

For example, the World Bank ADMITS that much of its debt was lent knowingly to corrupt dictators who siphoned the money off into swiss bank accounts. You KNOW about this, you're always banging on about the culpability of these corrupt dictators. But if the World Bank knowingly lent this money, it's EXTREMELY unfair to expect the CITIZENS of these countries to suffer and forego their health and education and chances of increased prosperity.

We can go into the democratic deficit more generally - did the ruling classes of these countries have the PERMISSION of the ordinary citizens to borrow this money? Were they held accountable to these citizens. It can be argued that the borrowing was not done legitimately and therefore the citizens must not be made to suffer as they are.

It can also be argued that the responsibily for loans should rest at least partially with the creditor. If you make an irresponsible loan, and your debtor then fails to pay it back it is partly their fault but also partly yours. IMF loans have not helped countries to prosper, therefore it was not only bad borrowing, it was bad lending to. The fact is that Africa can never prosper until these strangling loans are gone. Is it right that it should suffer for hundreds of years because of incompetence and corruption (on both sides) during the 1970s? Surely that can't be right. We can do just fine without having loans paid back. Meanwhile Africans are starving. It's not right, it's really not right.

Another point. 'Sceptic', do you know what a "loan shark" is? Enough said!!

And I haven't even touched on Structural Adjustment. Many of these loans, which countries only felt impelled to borrow because they were already in such a vulnerable position, came attached with conditions of economic reforms based on an extreme form of market-fundamentalism - SLASH PUBLIC SPENDING, PRIVATISE SERVICES AND UTILITIES, REDUCE LABOUR STANDARDS. These have had catastrophic effects on the economy and the lives of ordinary people. If the IMF is in a positition to dictate policy (and it is in this position when it has the privilege of 'lender of last resort' to governments which are already in a highly desperate vulnerable skint situation) then it should not be inflicted such damaging policies, which clearly work in the interests of profit-hungry western businesses but not at all in the interests of the health, safety, security and quality of life of the people of the countries themselves.


"The countries concerned don't have to borrow from the World Bank. They can say: am I going to be better off by borrowing this money, building whatever, and paying back the loan and interest, or they can say: we are better off not borrowing the money in the first place."

They're in a desperate situation. Also, the countries concerned are governed by ruling classes whose interests don't entirely coincide with the ordinary people. To some extent they are co-opted by the ideology of the world bank and IMF and to some extent go along with such policies. Where there IS democracy, it is not genuine democracy. People have the choice of various ruling class groups to rule over them. For ordinary people to govern themselves would take a revolution (of some sort).


"No one is forcing a country to borrow money. It is their decision. They may make the wrong decision - whichever it is. But you can't say the World Bank is at fault by asking for money which they have lent."

The reality of the situation is that it's extremely difficult to say no. It's not a happy smiley market place where people are free to happily trade with one another. There's as lot of desperation and a lot of coercion that goes on. If governments don't do what the IMF wants, global capital threatens to pull out of the country - capital which has become dependendant upon and can wreck the economy almost instantly by fleeing.

"As for conditions: you think your bank manager will lend you money without asking what it's for?"

IMF loans should be contingent on good-governance conditions which make the countries richer. Instead, they are contingent on bad-governance conditions which make the countries poorer. Read up on criticism of structural adjustment.


"What I am further sceptical about is the perpetual attempt to portray the World Bank and the IMF as villians."

They're causing a lot of damage. They represent the interests of western capital, at the expense of the health, education, culture and means of living of the majority of people living in the two thirds world. That's just telling it like it is, if you'd rather that wasn't true, well so do I, but it is, and anyone concerned with justice needs to fight against this.

Personally, I'm sceptical about trade unions being portrayed as villains. I'm sceptical about single mothers being portrayed as villains. I'm sceptical about asylum seekers being portrayed as villains. I'm sceptical about the rich and powerful being seen as good guys and the poor, oppressed and marginalised being seen as the bad guys. Blame the victim, worship the elite, that's always the way with the Right.

"Banks have no money of their own. All they have is the money which people deposit. WHat they have on deposit, they can lend. But it is not their money to give away. It is still other people's money, and - surprise, surprise - they want it back"

Like I say, if I'd lent money to you and you were starving, I wouldn't want it back.

Your analysis is massively simplistic. You describe a bank as essentially a credit union, with no mention of the enormous power and influence of the people who run the bank. Your analysis is also false. A bank does have money of its own. Banks make a profit. They have shareholders. Depositors have rights to their money but so do the shareholders. And the bank managers in addition to being large shareholders also get paid large salaries. But we're talking about banks in general here. The IMF and World Bank are not banks in the sense of Barlcays or Natwest.

"So what does the World Bank do? Say 'Sorry, we can't repay you, because we lent it to country X and it would be very mean of us to ask them to pay it back'?"

They can say: sorry we lost that money you deposited but if it's any consolation we're being sacked and a new management team are being installed. That would be a **start**.

Where do your priorities lie - the right of depositors to get their money back, or the right of Africans not to starve?

The fact that the IMF and World Bank have already wreaked such havoc upon poor countries that reparations FROM these institutions would be more just than debt repayment to them. Indeed arguably, the real debt is the debt that the west owes to Africa for the ravages of colonialism from which Africa has still to recover. Or rather, it is our ruling classes who owe this, as they have benefited.

Sceptic doesn't really seem to understand what we're protesting against.

Which is a shame because at the top of this page there's a ruddy great long list of links which explain in great detail - if he'd actually read those links...

Anyway, here's an article from today's mainstream press. I think 'Sceptic' should read this.

Here we go...






Meet the Nicaraguan DJ tipped for top media award
By Ciar Byrne, Media Correspondent
08 June 2005


She peppers her radio baseball broadcasts with anti-domestic violence messages, is campaigning against the building of a hydro-electric dam, and has revolutionised the Nicaraguan airwaves.

Yamileth Mendieta, the director of Radio Palabra de Mujer, or Woman's Word Radio, has had to adopt extreme measures in rural Central America to get her voice heard. But even she is surprised at how far it has travelled. Tomorrow night she is tipped to take one of the top honours at One World Media Awards, recognising those who highlight international issues.

Mendieta, who has travelled to Britain for the first time this week, still cannot believe that her community radio station which broadcasts to 40,000 people in the rural district of Paiwas, has been short-listed for an international prize.

Mendieta was just 14 when her mother, Carmen, an activist and founder of the first women's co-operative in the area, was killed by US-backed Contras.

Now 32, she has been carrying on her mother's work with the co-operative La Casa de la Mujer [The House of the Woman] and the radio station that was born out of its work. News, music and programmes about civil rights, gender issues, sexual and reproductive health and education are broadcast for 12 hours a day over a radius of 60km.

In a country where the print media is highly partisan, most Nicaraguans rely on radio and television broadcasts for information.

Mendieta and her colleagues turned to radio when local women wrote to the co-operative to explain that they were unable to attend workshops there because they had to look after their children and their husbands did not approve.

She said: "Through radio we can reach them. With the information we broadcast and messages we send out we can empower women."

The radio station's main campaign is against a proposed dam which would flood large tracts of the region, including the town where the station is based. The dam, in the basin of the Rio Grande de Matagalpa in Nicaragua, is part of the Plan Puebla Panama - a series of hydro-electric dams across Central America.

The station has a regular programme protesting against the project and providing the 20,000 people who will be displaced as a result of the dam with information that Mendieta says is not forthcoming from the government.

She said: "We don't want to see any more damage to the environment. We would like to continue having our own way of life. We don't want foreigners to come one more time to plunder."

Another issue which the radio station campaigns on is the "maquilas" - assembly plants run by overseas companies where Nicaraguan men and women work for a pittance. According to Mendieta, there are factories where people work in dangerous conditions, making clothes labelled "Made In China".

Although the US-sponsored counter-revolution in Nicaragua is in the past, Mendieta believes the country's troubles are far from over. "An armed war has ended, but an economic war remains of extreme poverty," she said.

...does know what we're protesting against. I wrote to tell him. So when he says he doesn't know what we're protesting against... HE'S LYING. He may not AGREE, but to say he doesn't know, is plainly false.

"Africa's debts are mathematically unrepayable - and it was designed this way to ensure US hegemony at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944."

interesting since in 1944, almost all of Africa was under colonial rule, and would remain so for the forseeable future.

Mathematically unrepayable - really? Anyone any fgures for interest rates charged by the world bank?

And I am amused by the idea that banks create money.

"I am amused by the idea that banks create money."

Then I suspect you don't understand the capitalist status quo you so resolutely refuse to be sceptical about ;-)

"interesting since in 1944, almost all of Africa was under colonial rule, and would remain so for the forseeable future."

At Bretton Woods there was a clash between the colonial camp (led by Britain) and the US. The US threatened to withhold the war loan to Britain and got their way, and the IMF and World Bank were created. The explicit purpose expressed at the conference was to guarantee US hegemony and supremacy of the dollar - Global capital (i.e. mostly US interests) inherited the colonies via hidden mechanisms of debt slavery, a much more efficient empire than the expensive business of military occupation. Read Michael Rowbotham's 'Goodbye America' for the exact quotes/references.

"Mathematically unrepayable - really?"

Its not due to the interest *rate*, but the existence of interest in a system where money is created as loans. As you know, when taking a loan you must repay more than is borrowed. Thus more electronic money must be repayed than issued. Therefore the only way debts, in aggregate, can be repayed is by further debts being undertaken by other economic actors. This results in ever-growing mortgages, credit card debts etc until a crash. Its a bit of a paradigm shift for most people's understanding of banking, but thats how it works, and it screws all of us.

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1897766564/qid=1118300100/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-9597668-5583807

Well of course banks CREATE money. They pluck it out of thin air. Where do bank notes come from?? (for example).

Now they can't just create as much as they want. If you flood the market with newly invented money you get hyperinflation and industry collapses, and that's not in their interest.

So they create as much as they can get away with.

But what is a bank note? It says "I promise to pay the bearer x pounds". It's an IOU from the bank. All money is bank credit. People trade the right to be paid a certain amount of wealth by a bank. If everyone asked for the bank to give them their money the bank would collapse because the bank doesn't have enough stuff to give out. IF people want notes for their electronic money, the bank doesn't have enough, if people want gold for their notes, the bank can't manage that either.


Now the issue isn't that the world bank's and imf's interest rates are extortionately high. The issue is that countries are in a situation where they're unable to keep up with payments because they have become impoverished, or because their dictators have squandered loans (which the world bank KNEW they were going to squander, like I said before) or because the economies have been wrecked by the very conditions attached to previous loans.

If you were unable to keep up with your payments, you'd pay what you've got and then you'd be declared bankrupt. OK your credit rating would be fucked but at least your wouldn't starve. Africans right now are STARVING. The debts are unpayable because the level of debt keeps going up. NOT because the interest rates are so high but because those countries are so skint that they couldn't even keep up with discounted interest rates.

I see you've totally ignored almost all the points I've raised in earlier emails.

It really is the situation that the debts are unpayable. And it really is the situation that if they are allowed a fresh start LIKE GERMANY WAS then their economies could recover and we'd actually stand to gain from the increased opportunities to trade with them as they grow richer, and it really is the case that the moral case is strong enough without that economic case - if the poor owe the rich money and the poor are starving, the rich shouldn't be so fucking greedy - let them live, that's more important than getting our money back. And it really is the case that most of that lending was irresponsible lending. If you lend to someone who is in a vulnerable situation and you know (or should know) that they won't be able to pay it back but you decide to milk them for all they're worth until you've totally bled them dry, that's just fucking immoral that is. It's disgusting.

You should read up on the history of the Bretton Woods conference. Keynes (no anti-capitalist but a thoughtful and talented economist who wanted at least a reasonably humane system) was arguing for an international financial architecture which would make creditors assume as much responsibilities for runaway debts as debtors, designed to prevent debts spiraling out of control. But the American administration recognised that they stood to gain from countries becoming indebted to them because they would get to tell them what to do (eg open their markets up prematurely and have their economies totally taken over by US corporations, like a virus) and demanding their military allegience, and so on. So the American negotiating team made sure that Keynes plans didn't happen. Instead we got the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Keynes is often described as the architect of those organisations but this is utterly false. He wanted a radically different system.

Now sceptic, how about climate change. Do you honestly believe that Bush and Blair are doing anything like enough. Blair's got the rhetoric but will he actually DO anything?? Bush on the other hand is openly hostile to signing any treaty to reduce emissions. There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change is real and that if we don't make serious changes soon effects will be catastrophic.

How about Iran. Bush would LOVE to attack Iran? Wouldn't he?

That's something worth protesting about.

How about the G8's continued support for regimes such as the one in Uzbekistan... let's protest against that. The British ambassador was complaining to Jack Straw that the Uzbek regime boils people alive. What did Jack straw do? He sacked the ambassador! Straw would rather keep his cosy relationship with dictators than actually challenge them. Who's side are our governments on??? If you look at their actions (rather than their rhetoric), it rather looks like 90% of the time, they're batting for the wrong team.

It's the whole system we're against. Our leaders are deeply implicated in maintaining poverty, inequality, exploitation, torture, war, environmental degredation and all kinds of injustice. And even more so are the corporations. We're against all this. I want to tear down the whole rotten edifice.

It's not about demonising human beings as far as I'm concerned. There's the capacity for good and evil in all of us. If Bush wasn't running America someone else would, and they'd be doing just about as much damage as he does. I'm not saying that the world is run by bad people and we need to replace them with nice people. I'm saying that the systems, the power structures, the hierarchies, the economic machines, these things are all inherently flawed in their design. We need a new world that works in a completely different way. We need a revolution. Not the kind where we march in the streets and storm the barricades, but a revolution from below, based on true autonomy for communities and individuals, where all aspects of society are transformed and the old authoritarian power structures are made redundant.

"first they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they persecute you
then you win"

Sceptic seems out of his league here. Suddenly the hosts of merchant bankers descend to open our eyes with intelligent arguments, and he finds himself desperately clutching to some flimsy ideas, which, if he were truly sceptical, he would discard.

Sceptic, I suggest you read 'Globalisation and it's discontents' by Joseph Stiglitz as well. Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank, and economic advisor to Bill Clinton. He paints an insiders picture of the IMF and the World Bank that not surprisingly conforms with what we are all trying to tell you. He is still trying to justify global capitalism, which is why I suggest it to you, because perhaps you will accept a capitalist's condemnation of the IMF, rather than our own.

By the way, I did some research. One of the most recent interventions in Africa was in Congo-Brazzaville, where the French Oil industry helped put a dictator back into power.

 http://the-spark.net/cs/19003.html

'The war for power in Congo-Brazzaville began early in June 1997, coming up to the presidential election, in which President Lissouba was hoping to win a second term. The war went on for more than four months, without any of the rival militias getting on top. The turning point was the intervention of Angolan troops which suddenly shifted the balance of power. On October 15, the Angolans handed victory to Nguesso and his "Cobras" militia, both in the capital Brazzaville and, equally importantly, in Pointe-Noire, the country's oil capital.
At the price of some 4,000 lives (according to official figures), Denis Sassou Nguesso regained the dictatorial power he had seized in 1979 and held until the 1992 elections. Lissouba, the winner of the 1992 election, was ousted by force of arms, with the go-ahead if not the outright backing of the French oil industry. Lissouba himself had tried to win the favors of Elf's directors, but there was a longstanding relationship between Sassou Nguesso and Elf, and Elf chose Nguesso. If there is a winner in this case, apart from Sassou Nguesso, it certainly is Elf-Aquitaine.'

Check out
 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/08/140254

You can see this interview with Realplayer

" Well, and it requires explanation, because African countries owe some $300 billion in debt, primarily to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the I.M.F., as well as some of the rich country creditors. Now, this debt is based largely on loans that were made to African governments during the Cold War years. Most of this debt essentially is illegitimate. It’s what’s known as odious debt. These loans were made to unrepresentative governments, in many cases military dictators, in some cases dictators that the U.S. C.I.A. helped put in power, like Mobutu Sese Seko in the former Zaire. The money went to these individuals. It was not used for the benefit of the citizens of these countries, and it’s continued to accumulate because of compounded interest over the years, even though African governments have continued to service this debt. In fact, they’ve paid it off several times over, but it keeps growing because of the interest.

Now, odious debt in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration wants creditors to cancel Iraq’s debt. Iraq has some $120 billion in foreign debt. The Bush administration appointed former Secretary of State, James Baker, to travel around the world and get creditors to agree to cancel Iraq's debt. And he has succeeded, at least with some $70 billion. The argument about odious debt has not been applied to Africa as it should be. Certainly, African governments and African civil society argues that we don't owe, we shouldn't pay. But the rich countries continue to stall any final plan on debt cancellation.

Now, what they're talking about right now, what's on the table, certainly represents progress, but we have to bear in mind this is progress that has come as a result of the actions of activists in Africa, African government demands and activists around the world, including here in the United States, that have been campaigning for debt cancellation, in many cases for decades. It’s illegitimate debt. African governments are spending more money on this debt than they spend on health care or education for their own children. These debts suck some $15 billion out of Africa each year. And that’s more money that’s going – than is going into Africa in the form of new loans or new official assistance or foreign direct investment. So you have this tragic irony where the poorest region of the world is in effect subsidizing some of the wealthiest institutions and economies in the world. "

Here's some more links:

G8 Report: Africa Pays Price of G8 Climate Blindspot (Updated 'up in smoke' report)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314528.html

New Amnesty Report on Detention Centres (20th june)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314388.html

AUDIO - Interview with Glasgow Cre8 Summit Permaculture Activist
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314353.html

2nd Leaked G8 Climate Declaration Draft going Backwards (download here)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314231.html

Make Poverty History Wristbands + Corporate Branding Scandal
 http://www.redpepper.org.uk/global/x-jun05-wristbands.htm

What is the G8?
 http://www.redpepper.org.uk/global/x-jun05-hodkinson.htm

So going round wrecking someone's country and attacking innocent people's property like we see today in Stirling is putting will make the G8 "sit up and take notice" will it?

If that's what it's all about then be nice chaps and go off home. Did you see Tony Blair and the Wife come off that helicopter this morning with the wide sparkling grins? He obviously feels that you lot wrecking Scotland is ok. You won't change much wrecking Scotland, apart from maybe the world famous Scottish hospitality telling you all to go away and grow up.

If you don't like what the leaders do then quietly leave my country be, go home and wreck your own countries!

Tony was smiling!?

Damn! Looks like the people of Scotland are adversely affected by a UK leader that simply doesn't care. That must be bad enough on it's own, but to have 8 world leaders screwing over the world on your doorstep!? It's an awful lot to put up with. Somebody should say something to them maybe.

for an african example look at mobutu (former zaire) .... propped up by america for years with the help of apartheid south africa .... his cut: a large swiss bank account

What I am further sceptical about is the perpetual attempt to portray the World Bank and the IMF as villians. Banks have no money of their own. All they have is the money which people deposit. WHat they have on deposit, they can lend.

Banks make money in all sorts of different ways. Merchant banks such as the defunkt barings bank for instance buy and sell on the stock market. Banks make charges for wire transfers, overdrafts, arrangement fees, credit cards you name it. If everyone was to withdraw their money today from their accounts the globe would be in economic meltdown.
If you started up a banking company today you would have only what people had put in.
When you hear of HSBC making X billion net profit per year that ALL goes to shareholders as it is floated on the stock exchange meaning that the bank doesn't have its own money technically.
In that respect Sceptic you are right but its a shame that your other comments on here are so poorly thought out and misguided. The majority of your arguments have little substance and sound like the repetoire of somebody defending something they know little about.