cap28:

The best alternative for Greece and every other european nation that is under attack from IMF predators following this economic credit crunch is to reform the banking institutions by implementing harsh regulatory mechanisms to prevent the abuse that caused this problem - why should the ordinary man on the street  pay for the economic mismanagement caused by the irresponsible banking elite?
You love to talk about solutions and alternatives but i note that none of your own responses have proferred solutions but merely parrotted right wing views espoused by western govts with vested interests, when are you going to come up with YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT VIEWS without parrotting the views of CNN, BBC and other corporate media outlets?

Harsh regulatory measures eh? In what form? For what present benefit will that do in restoring a balance in the interim and the near future? how does this devise a stratgey in getting Greece out of its present predicament?

I on the other hand would support and advocate for an increase in excise and other forms of Taxation i.e. V.A.T proposed by the programme and several of the austerity measures the plan states in reducing public sector wages, cutting social welfare programmes deemed to be overreaching and exploited and in addition increasing direct taxation on most of the institutions that played a part in speculative practices that contributed to the crisis.  Call it right wing if you wish bro its economics 101. Cut spending/ Raise taxes,  adjust input-ouput in the short term.

Your narrow minded alarmist speeches on multinational entities doesn't allow you to think clear enough,  assuming that the economic problem of Greece's soverign debt is solely based on the manipulation of entities like Goldmach sachs and the likes in business speculation and nothing to do with bloated government spending programmes.

What you fail to mention to your audience is that these same govt borrow's money to fund their ever increasing social welfare programs as a means of maintaing the living standards of their societies knowing fuly well that they haven't invested in any worthwhile programs that are intended in the long term to increase global competiveness as a eventuality of generating additional revenue that would increase GDP and increase revenue into the government to service its debt obligations. Therefore if the people are aware of this fact and complacent they are likwise as guilty of the same crime in indulging in the same speculative measures as their private sector counter parts in hedging their bets on increasing revenue streams. on a speculative basis

Who is more likely to increase these streams. The Goldman sachs or the factory worker who earns at least minimum wage, has a social security, credit cards, a house on mortgage, credit cards, free health care and govt subsidies . Last time I checked Greece was a democracy. The people can vote in and vote out people who are supporting these measures. Why don't they? Its a government of the people isn't it.

These govts have been able to borrow cheaply because they have been viewed in the general market as being financial stable to pay their debts hence the capital transfer. The only reasonable solution to a problem like this would be to tackle the spending equation from both sides of, irrespective of what privileges the citizenry feel is too much or how businesses would percieve these restrictive policies.

There in lies the dilemma for any sensible government that is livig beyond its means. Of course you can't see that.

Oh by the way sorry to burst your bubble but I don't listen to CNN or BBC for anything other than political issues. Okay maybe BBC but only cause I like the way they pronouce their words neither do I side with a right wing,  left wing or any other flapping apparatus agenda.

cap28:


Yes africans must adopt the same stance and refuse to continue to allow the mass transfer of wealth into the hands of the IMF and the multinationals, there should be fair and equitable negotiations around debt rescheduling without the imposition of draconian SAP policies.   
Africans like yourself are so used to being abused and exploited that you accept without question the predatory and unfavourable conditions imposed on african economies without a second thought, this is why you are blindly advocating that the Ivorien people should back a man whose loyalties and allegiances lie with an imperial enemy - lets give you a standing ovation!!!!

I won't even dignify that statement

cap28:


There you go again parrotting right wing economic propaganda, who said there are no other alternatives other than to implement SAP?  Name me one country in the world where SAP policies were implemented which worked.
Your ignorance is mind blowing!!  Who told you that the greek people were responsible for their country's  national deficit? the greek govt in cahoots with Goldman Sachs were solely responsible for the economic mismanagement of Greece's economy and then fraudulently tried to cover up their debts,when that didnt work they resorted to shifting the burden of paying off those debts onto the Greek people, can you explain the bolded sentence because it makes absolutely no sense to me !!!!!

The variable here is the expense of debt not necessarily SAP programmes. You view these instruments as detrimental to a socieety but I contend that  only in as much as they do not produce their intended results of creating a favorable market perception that the said country can service its debts after the programme has been succesfully implemented. Ergo it can now borrow more money at substantially lower interests rates and without binding restrictions or obligations.

In 1945 post world war 2 the united states stood at debt ratio of 100% (some say even more) to its GDP. Yet immediately preceeded the largest expasionary growth the US economy had ever experienced in addition to just coming out of a massive recessionary period. SAP's were not officially implemented however the implicit effects were felt as far as austerity measures go.

cap28:


what do you mean by "broken down internal systematic structural proccesses" or are you merely using big words to make yourself sound intelligent?  It is apparent that your knowledge and understanding of SAPS is non existent, contrary to your erroneous view that SAPS have not been successfuly implemented in africa i would say that the reverse is the case - african leaders have been very successful in implementing them and this is why the average african lives on less than a dollar a day, suffers devalued currency, experieinces high levels of unemployment, poor or non existent health care, education and other social services, these are all indicators of cuts in govt spending - try and pay attention.

Those are not the objectives of an intended SAP p. While most African govts are good at initiating massive cuts to balance its budget it has not and does not take the necessary dual step of increasing revenue potentials because it lacks the ability to do this to increase taxes on anything is vitrual impossilbe cept the multi nationals who are not in the business of letting profits go so easily
The African story is complex because it as of yet cannot seem to revise policies to innovate, diversify and create indigenously grown sectors within its economies that will work as a catalyst to generate wealth and service the government vis a vis taxation. Stagnant on its investment side SAP will unfortunately have a harsh effect onthe lowest clas of society in terms of livin standards

Bro i am tired of arguing with you cause its taxing when you have nothing to offer me intellectually cept one sided red rederick and African history 101 lessons. You are not a critical thinker just an obvious angry inflammatory propagandist who can't seem to see past his own ideologies and paints every other person and  profit driven organization outside of his control as stooges and mind bending entities bent on dominating the world. Sorry you still remain a conspiracy theorist to me

[quote][/quote]

The only language African leaders understand is force, You dont need to invade the country. Bombard the freaken presidential palace and Army installations in Abidjan, thats it. End of discussion.

War is never the solution,ECOWAS can topple Ghagbo and install Quatarra but that does not gaurantee peace.It wont mean that Ghagbo people will stop fighting,this war could go on for years and could cripple economy of the rigion.And outbreak of a civilwar in Ivory Coast will distabilise the whole region.And with all the positives,stability and growth in the region war will overturn all this achivements.

ECOWAS leaders must not try to please the West,they should try to find the solution on this issue with the region stability in mind.South Africa and SADC nation did that with Zimbabwe,Zimbabwean situation could have been worse,if the right and calm decisions were not taken.Today things are getting back to normal in Zimbabwe,changes will come although slowy but without bloodshed atleast not war.

Ivory Coast situation needs calm heads.

Mbeki on Zimbabwe,which could still be relevent to Ivory Coast


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNRsoBADW90&feature=channel

RSA:

War is never the solution,ECOWAS can topple Ghagbo and install Quatarra but that does not gaurantee peace.It wont mean that Ghagbo people will stop fighting,this war could go on for years and could cripple economy of the rigion.And outbreak of a civilwar in Ivory Coast will distabilise the whole region.And with all the positives,stability and growth in the region war will overturn all this achivements.

ECOWAS leaders must not try to please the West,they should try to find the solution on this issue with the region stability in mind.South Africa and SADC nation did that with Zimbabwe,Zimbabwean situation could have been worse,if the right and calm decisions were not taken.Today things are getting back to normal in Zimbabwe,changes will come although slowy but without bloodshed atleast not war.

Ivory Coast situation needs calm heads.

@RSA

Gbagbo does not have enough troops and miltary power to survive a war against the UN backed ECOWAS and northern troops combined. He knows fully well he will not win. What ECOWAS is trying to avoid is ultimately the loss of lives of civilians who will be caught  in the cross fire and a destablization of the region in terms of economics activity and refugees. Allowing Gbagbo stay on only creates a precedence for what future West African leaders will copy when faced with loosing a grip on power. It will become a norm within that region as usual and will the politics of the day for decades to come.

Zimbabwe's situation is vastly disimilar to Ivory coast's problems in historical, military and economic contexts. Southern African politics contrasts to West African politics in many ways. the number of coup de tats and civil wars that have arisen within the West African region will clue you into the deeper ethnic and religious issues that plague it. A consequence of an incorrect balkanization of the region by colonial rule but for which the West AFricans can't seem to figure out how best to resolve and move forward

morpheus24:

@RSA

Gbagbo does not have enough troops and miltary power to survive a war against the UN backed ECOWAS and northern troops combined. He knows fully well he will not win. What ECOWAS is trying to avoid is ultimately the loss of lives of civilians who will be caught  in the cross fire and a destablization of the region in terms of economics activity and refugees. Allowing Gbagbo stay on only creates a precedence for what future West African leaders will copy when faced with loosing a grip on power. It will become a norm within that region as usual and will the politics of the day for decades to come.

Zimbabwe's situation is vastly disimilar to Ivory coast's problems in historical, military and economic contexts. Southern African politics contrasts to West African politics in many ways. the number of coup de tats and civil wars that have arisen within the West African region will clue you into the deeper ethnic and religious issues that plague it. A consequence of an incorrect balkanization of the region by colonial rule but for which the West AFricans can't seem to figure out how best to resolve and move forward

so how do you explain France's backing of Omar Bongo of Gabon for 42 years

France's backing of Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso since 1987 

France's backing of Paul Biya of Cameroun since 1982

Belgium and  the united states backing of Mobutu of Zaire for 38 years??

the "international community's" failure to intervene following IBB's annulment of June 12 1993 elections in nigeria??

er almost forgot - how about France's backing of former president of Ivory Coast - Houphouet Boigny for 33 years

cap28:

so how do you explain France's backing of Omar Bongo of Gabon for 42 years

France's backing of Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso since 1987  

France's backing of Paul Biya of Cameroun since 1982

Belgium and  the united states backing of Mobutu of Zaire for 38 years??

the "international community's" failure to intervene following IBB's annulment of June 12 1993 elections in nigeria??

I am speaking strictly in terms of West African politics without reference to What the "French" do in their former Francafrique coalitions.

However if taking the former colonial power "France" into context. Its not a surprise that the underlying denominator is "Economics". Who is a more favorable candidate for them is who they will back. Thats no surprise again. Frustrating as that may be for the process and wanting the solution to be as easy as demanding the French to stay out of African affairs,  the job of these African leaders is to understand that the French haved assumed that these African leaders are corruptable because of the lure of power, wealth and control and will seek what ever means to cling unto it engaging in mindless conflicts for resources they don't know what to do with. They therefore will continue to have a strong hold on their colonies politics because of dependency on their former colonial masters in defining the confines of their powers.

What is necessary is that these African leaders fastforward themselves into the 21st century and inject new ideals, new sustainable frameworks into the political arena recognizing that the world is Global now, there's no going back, no continious pointing fingers at the French and no way they are going to avoid French interference by trying to isolate themselves from the international community on grounds of "soverign rights"( Zimbabwe is a case in point, lets see how Mugabe fairs)  but are able to use these same concepts to mitigate the problem by clearly and openly working within the definitions of theirs and the world community views of democracies which cannot be disputed by their colonials or the "international community".

The following countries are an example of the possibilites of this sort of shift to progress in Africa in terms of what I am alluding to and can be discussed in depth: Ghana, South Africa, Malawi, Botswana and Rwanda




A synposis of my view on the following countries:

France's backing of Paul Biya of Cameroun since 1982

Biya is not hostile to French interests in the country so I don't see a reason why he will not be supported by them. The French don't care much about the ethnic, religious or political issues of their former colonies in as far as it does not interfer with their mostly economic interests. Please note the use of "French" and not UN, US or International community.

There really isn't any strong oppostion in cameroon cept the Anglophone south westerners who are disatisfied with the mostly frenchified cameroonians.


Belgium and  the united states backing of Mobutu of Zaire for 38 years??
The cold war had a strong influence on African politics at that time and Patrice Lumumba was an emerging leader with a tight socialist agenda coupled with seeking ties with the russians because of his detest for belgium economic interests.  The US saw this as an ideological battle more so than an economic threat and got involved. The belgians understood the same and were more economically tied to their former colony therefore they sort a semi illiterte commander who had enough weapons and troop support to discredit and remove Lumumba asap.


France's backing of Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso since 1987

Sorry haven't studied anything about this particular country so can't speak to the French involvement however I would speculate that it is not so different from its neighbouring francophone nation politics

Gbagbo does not have enough troops and miltary power to survive a war against the UN backed ECOWAS and northern troops combined.

@morpheus24, If the UN and ECOWAS-Ghana support rebel troops(mind you they were suppose to have disarmed since) in disarming and fighting the country's legitimate Armed Forces, What moral ground would the UN have in telling Iran not to ARM or support Hizbollah in Gaza or Boko haram In Nigeria? Or why won't Russian or Chavez Arm Farca rebels in Colombia After this invasion? People are watching that why you see even the USA is getting cold feet and would soon leave the foolish(as usual) French to clean their Poo. If the French lose CIV the lost a whole lot of investment and Business, they should send their own troops to die not us.

superboi:

@morpheus24, If the UN and ECOWAS-Ghana support rebel troops(mind you they were suppose to have disarmed since) in disarming and fighting the country's legitimate Armed Forces, What moral ground would the UN have in telling Iran not to ARM or support Hizbollah in Gaza or Boko haram In Nigeria? Or why won't Russian or Chavez Arm Farca rebels in Colombia After this invasion? People are watching that why you see even the USA is getting cold feet and would soon leave the foolish(as usual) French to clean their Poo. If the French lose CIV the lost a whole lot of investment and Business, they should send their own troops to die not us.

Don't understand the correlation with Ivory coast and the rest of the situations you mention. Are you arguing for or against the rebel side in Ivory Coast? Clarify. The UN is not supporting a rebel troop but the outcome of a said democratic election. Two different things.

Gbagbo is playing the wait and see game in hopes that a power sharing deal at the most will be brokered. Fair enough from his perspective but extremely bad for West African politics and African politics in general.

The French can't loose the IV if the IV is still heavily dependent on their former colonial masters. France is about the only powerful EU country that bear similarities to  their political institutions, language and economic structures. China may be an alternative but I doubt the IV's have enough negotiation skills to get good deals out of that partnership.

Ecomog (Nigeria in particular) is trying to assert itself again post the liberia-Sierra leone conflict resolutions. These high marks gave them a lot of leverage power in dealing with the international community and I believe the government feels this is an opportunity for them. French don't need to send in their troops if they have a proxy to fight that battle. Would you?

Ok morpheus24, let me clarify abit from my point of view. I feel if you sincerely want to look into this matter you would have to go back to 2002(some may go further, depending of how much of CIV history you know) when Gbagbo first won the election the same Quattara said he would make the state ungoverable for Gbagbo and that year the rebellion took place. After a while the GOV started getting a better of the rebels then France came and acted as a buffer, If Ecowas was serious about precedence it was then they should have intervened and insisted that the rebels be disarmed and allow Gbagbo hand over in 2005.
But instead they watched the rebels cut a power sharing deal as SORO was made prime minister , and they never agreed to disarm. A lot of people say Gbagbo has ruled for 10 years but they forget that it was because the Rebels refused to disarm as per the power sharing agreement(People like T.Mbeki was even against the election taking place with the rebels armed). I think we should ask our selves why didn't the Rebels want to disarm?
1. They were minning diamonds and cocoa.
2. delay tactics getting stronger arming to unseat Gbagbo
3. They knew they could manipulate election in their halve of the country.
4. They had strong backers and instructions.

I think the precedence we should have set was in 2002 by telling the rebels that as long as they are armed no elections would take place in the country.

superboi:

Ok morpheus24, let me clarify abit from my point of view. I feel if you sincerely want to look into this matter you would have to go back to 2002(some may go further, depending of how much of CIV history you know) when Gbagbo first won the election the same Quattara said he would make the state ungoverable for Gbagbo and that year the rebellion took place. After a while the GOV started getting a better of the rebels then France came and acted as a buffer, If Ecowas was serious about precedence it was then they should have intervened and insisted that the rebels be disarmed and allow Gbagbo hand over in 2005.
But instead they watched the rebels cut a power sharing deal as SORO was made prime minister , and they never agreed to disarm. A lot of people say Gbagbo has ruled for 10 years but they forget that it was because the Rebels refused to disarm as per the power sharing agreement(People like T.Mbeki was even against the election taking place with the rebels armed). I think we should ask our selves why didn't the Rebels want to disarm?
1. They were minning diamonds and cocoa.
2. delay tactics getting stronger arming to unseat Gbagbo
3. They knew they could manipulate election in their halve of the country.
4. They had strong backers and instructions.

I think the precedence we should have set was in 2002 by telling the rebels that as long as they are armed no elections would take place in the country.

Thank you for clarifying. You do have a valid arguement. My only interjection would be to go back further into the whole CIV calamity to find out why the rebels seceded in the first place. Some of these rebels were ex soldiers in the then formal army of the CIV and the disunity was premised on northern ethnic suspicions of their future faith in what was culminating to be a shift in power to the south to what was considered more ethnic Ivorians. They backed Alassane because he was seen as a representation of their struggle and indirectly became the military wing of his political party.

The precedence should have been set then by Ecowas but there were other conflicting situations in Africa that required more attention vis a vis Ecomog just coming out of a taxing war effort mission in sierra leone and the Liberian aftermath. Nigeria was also newly transitioned into Democratic rule and needed that "legitimacy" to move forward in any other regional activitities

superboi:

Ok morpheus24, let me clarify abit from my point of view. I feel if you sincerely want to look into this matter you would have to go back to 2002(some may go further, depending of how much of CIV history you know) when Gbagbo first won the election the same Quattara said he would make the state ungoverable for Gbagbo and that year the rebellion took place. After a while the GOV started getting a better of the rebels then France came and acted as a buffer, If Ecowas was serious about precedence it was then they should have intervened and insisted that the rebels be disarmed and allow Gbagbo hand over in 2005.
But instead they watched the rebels cut a power sharing deal as SORO was made prime minister , and they never agreed to disarm. A lot of people say Gbagbo has ruled for 10 years but they forget that it was because the Rebels refused to disarm as per the power sharing agreement(People like T.Mbeki was even against the election taking place with the rebels armed). I think we should ask our selves why didn't the Rebels want to disarm?
1. They were minning diamonds and cocoa.
2. delay tactics getting stronger arming to unseat Gbagbo
3. They knew they could manipulate election in their halve of the country.
4. They had strong backers and instructions.

I think the precedence we should have set was in 2002 by telling the rebels that as long as they are armed no elections would take place in the country.

Gbam!

morpheus24:

In the event that your above statment is targeted at me I suggest you present your own reasonable arguement on the reasons  IMF loans have not suceeded in various African countries rather than kissing someone elses a.z.z

You say i am kissing CAP28 azz and targeting my comments at you.

Dude, Dont get it twisted,

The only countries to have benefited from IMF/World Bank Loans
were Britain, France, Germany & Japan after the Second World War
when the Marshall Plan was implemented to revive these economies.

And the reason why they had to be revived was due to the destruction
of their Infrastruture during the war. USA was the only "Major Economic Power country" to come out of the War with its infrastructure "intact"

and they gave Loans to the Major Warring countries at "Low Interest Rates" to Build up
their economies and assimulate them into the USA Political, Financial, Economics
and Defense Security "Umbrella" Known as[b] "the Group of 7"(now G20), "O.E.C.D" & "NATO"
[/b]
The Core Founding members of these Groups are: USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan.

The other countries in these groups are linked to the Core founding members by vital mutual "Geo-Political"/Geo-Strategic Interests" ie "The scandinavians countries (Norway, Finland etc), the Benulux Countries(Beguim, Holland, Luxemburg etc) ,the South Continental Europe Countries (Spain, Italy,Portugal etc) Far East Countries(Japan,South korea etc)

The IMF/World Bank was founded in New Hampshire (USA) by USA Financial Elite with support from the British, French etc for the purposeof establishing a "New Financial World Architecture" with the USA as the leader.

The World Bank was Initially called "The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Developmet" which was tasked with the assignment of Building up
Western Europe after 1945.

The Americans knew that they had to rebuild Britain, France, Germany and Japan
becuase not to do so would breed resentment to the USA and due to the Former dynamism of these states they would pull themselves up econpmically collectively or othewise, so it was safer for the USA to help rebuild these countries and bring them to
their side in order to prevent further economic contention, chaos and war.

Your should also realise that these countries are major shareholders
in the IMF/WORLD BANK & BIS,

NO OTHER COUNTRIES ON ANY OTHER CONTINENT apart FROM EUROPE AND JAPAN IN ASIA HAVE DEVELOPED UNDER IMF/WORLD BANK POLICIES!, NOT ONE!!!

Dude i am not attacking you. Just stating the facts and truth of the matter,

DeeJay20:

You say i am kissing CAP28 azz and targeting my comments at you.

Dude, Dont get it twisted,

The only countries to have benefited from IMF/World Bank Loans
were Britain, France, Germany & Japan after the Second World War
when the Marshall Plan was implemented to revive these economies.

And the reason why they had to be revived was due to the destruction
of their Infrastruture during the war. USA was the only "Major Economic Power country" to come out of the War with its infrastructure "intact"

and they gave Loans to the Major Warring countries at "Low Interest Rates" to Build up
their economies and assimulate them into the USA Political, Financial, Economics
and Defense Security "Umbrella" Known as[b] "the Group of 7"(now G20), "O.E.C.D" & "NATO"
[/b]
The Core Founding members of these Groups are: USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan.

The other countries in these groups are linked to the Core founding members by vital mutual "Geo-Political"/Geo-Strategic Interests" ie "The scandinavians countries (Norway, Finland etc), the Benulux Countries(Beguim, Holland, Luxemburg etc) ,the South Continental Europe Countries (Spain, Italy,Portugal etc) Far East Countries(Japan,South korea etc)

The IMF/World Bank was founded in New Hampshire (USA) by USA Financial Elite with support from the British, French etc for the purposeof establishing a "New Financial World Architecture" with the USA as the leader.

The World Bank was Initially called "The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Developmet" which was tasked with the assignment of Building up
Western Europe after 1945.

The Americans knew that they had to rebuild Britain, France, Germany and Japan
becuase not to do so would breed resentment to the USA and due to the Former dynamism of these states they would pull themselves up econpmically collectively or othewise, so it was safer for the USA to help rebuild these countries and bring them to
their side in order to prevent further economic contention, chaos and war.

Your should also realise that these countries are major shareholders
in the IMF/WORLD BANK & BIS,

[Dude i am not attacking you. Just stating the facts and truth of the matter,

So what  implications does the above have for African countries in terms of IMF loans?

The only thing I am getting from above is the same "imperialist" redrick. The economic world order" reference. US is the largest shareholder ergo this is a scheme to wield overwhelming power over other countries. Since the cat is out of the bag now what?

What you failed to include in your analysis is to mention the underlying reason most of  these "other" nations were successful in implementing and successfully rebuilding their economies post World War two affairs. Factors that are lacking in most African countries involved in IMF/World bank economics that presents the problem of not being able to follow guidelines that would bring their economies out of stagnation. Here are a few pointers:

1. They already had diversified industries and developed institutions in faciliating the monitoring of fiscal policies and implementation procedures compared to unaccountable fiscal mismanagement and syphoning of fund practices which occur is rampant in most African countries i.e How did Mobutu simply walk away with millinos of dollars leaving his nation with a balloning 175 billion dollar debt. Is that the IMF's fault or responsibility?

2. Comparative advantage in reference to industrilized sectors of their pre world war II economies which again faciliated  speedy recovery and shielded them from world economic crisis situations  incomparison to most African countries who cannot boast for more than 2 to 3 industrial sectors in their economies and are affected majorly by global economic shifts

3. Lack of the ability to syphone large amounts funds out of the system and the continious beggar status African contries show The continious dependency on the IMF is what is killing African nations. They have a choice of not taking the money and finding alternative means of building capital and increasing revenue streams.

Problem is they can't . African countries are stagnated by their own doing. They do not know how to implement macro economic policies, invest in innovative technics or generate multiples of money in an effective and efficient manner. They keep relying on the IMF to tell them what to do, borrowing without investing in sustainable growth sectors vis a vis the new legal methodology of syphoning money out of government. They have been relieved of tons of debt amounts yet still stagnated.

South Africa is about the only  good example of a country that engages in strong internal debates interms of how these loans will affect their regional and global standing before they go on taking on IMF loan obligations. The rest of Africa is indeed a sad story.

DeeJay20:


b]NO OTHER COUNTRIES ON ANY OTHER CONTINENT apart FROM EUROPE AND JAPAN IN ASIA HAVE DEVELOPED UNDER IMF/WORLD BANK POLICIES!, NOT ONE!!![/b]

Thats a false statment otherwise give specific examples. The IMF/World Bank doesn't only deal in funding loans to distressed countries. Their tasks include but are not limited to partnering, consulting, providing implementation strategies for and in conjuction with their member countries in the logistical use of monetary loans and  policy decision making.  The failure of the IMF in any country is not soley based on the IMF but on the country itself.

Therefore it is incorrect to conclude the above by only looking at what they do in terms of loan bailouts and funding issues countries face,  The UN's  millenium development goals was accepted by each country that signed on to its accord and in order to achieve its outlined objectives you need funding.

Where are they going to get it from. They can't sell any worthwhile bonds to generate debt financing, They don't create environments in which innovation thrives, they don't have steady tax policies to generate incoming govt revenue, Even basic power and infrastructure is absent to facilitate a massive influx of FDI. Yet people like Govt fashola believes that sanctioning projects like the Eko Atlantic city project is a sustainable development goal for lagos to embark on? Is that the IMF's decision? Where are the priorities?

African governments have no plan and have no direction, just running around in circles acting like they know what they are doing.

It is not the IMF's job to continue to oversee and device solutions to African problems and before any one signed up with them I don't think they ever forgot to mention that they are profit driven entities that require a return on the money they loan out to people.

If you don't want to be a slave to bankers n loan officers its either "YOU" understand what you are signing up for, if you don't then don't sign up, find drastics ways to repay your loans low enough to renegotiate terms with your creditor,device strategies to live within your means or default completely and take the hits of being branded a "no go are"a with the long term plas of rebuilding your finances from within by creating value in every aspect of your society. 500 BILLION DOLLAR total African debt and a further 93 BILLION per year needed to develop is irresponsible. We need to start taking responsibility of our future!

Shikena!

morpheus24:

So what  implications does the above have for African countries in terms of IMF loans?

The only thing I am getting from above is the same "imperialist" redrick. The economic world order" reference. US is the largest shareholder ergo this is a scheme to wield overwhelming power over other countries. Since the cat is out of the bag now what?

What you failed to include in your analysis is to mention the underlying reason most of  these "other" nations were successful in implementing and successfully rebuilding their economies post World War two affairs. Factors that are lacking in most African countries involved in IMF/World bank economics that presents the problem of not being able to follow guidelines that would bring their economies out of stagnation. Here are a few pointers:

1. They already had diversified industries and developed institutions in faciliating the monitoring of fiscal policies and implementation procedures compared to unaccountable fiscal mismanagement and syphoning of fund practices which occur is rampant in most African countries i.e How did Mobutu simply walk away with millinos of dollars leaving his nation with a balloning 175 billion dollar debt. Is that the IMF's fault or responsibility?

2. Comparative advantage in reference to industrilized sectors of their pre world war II economies which again faciliated  speedy recovery and shielded them from world economic crisis situations  incomparison to most African countries who cannot boast for more than 2 to 3 industrial sectors in their economies and are affected majorly by global economic shifts

3. Lack of the ability to syphone large amounts funds out of the system and the continious beggar status African contries show The continious dependency on the IMF is what is killing African nations. They have a choice of not taking the money and finding alternative means of building capital and increasing revenue streams.

Problem is they can't . African countries are stagnated by their own doing. They do not know how to implement macro economic policies, invest in innovative technics or generate multiples of money in an effective and efficient manner. They keep relying on the IMF to tell them what to do, borrowing without investing in sustainable growth sectors vis a vis the new legal methodology of syphoning money out of government. They have been relieved of tons of debt amounts yet still stagnated.

South Africa is about the only  good example of a country that engages in strong internal debates interms of how these loans will affect their regional and global standing before they go on taking on IMF loan obligations. The rest of Africa is indeed a sad story.

Thats a false statment otherwise give specific examples. The IMF/World Bank doesn't only deal in funding loans to distressed countries. Their tasks include but are not limited to partnering, consulting, providing implementation strategies for and in conjuction with their member countries in the logistical use of monetary loans and  policy decision making.  The failure of the IMF in any country is not soley based on the IMF but on the country itself.

Therefore it is incorrect to conclude the above by only looking at what they do in terms of loan bailouts and funding issues countries face,  The UN's  millenium development goals was accepted by each country that signed on to its accord and in order to achieve its outlined objectives you need funding.

Where are they going to get it from. They can't sell any worthwhile bonds to generate debt financing, They don't create environments in which innovation thrives, they don't have steady tax policies to generate incoming govt revenue, Even basic power and infrastructure is absent to facilitate a massive influx of FDI. Yet people like Govt fashola believes that sanctioning projects like the Eko Atlantic city project is a sustainable development goal for lagos to embark on? Is that the IMF's decision? Where are the priorities?

African governments have no plan and have no direction, just running around in circles acting like they know what they are doing.

It is not the IMF's job to continue to oversee and device solutions to African problems and before any one signed up with them I don't think they ever forgot to mention that they are profit driven entities that require a return on the money they loan out to people.

If you don't want to be a slave to bankers n loan officers its either "YOU" understand what you are signing up for, if you don't then don't sign up, find drastics ways to repay your loans low enough to renegotiate terms with your creditor,device strategies to live within your means or default completely and take the hits of being branded a "no go are"a with the long term plas of rebuilding your finances from within by creating value in every aspect of your society. 500 BILLION DOLLAR total African debt and a further 93 BILLION per year needed to develop is irresponsible. We need to start taking responsibility of our future!

Shikena!

Morpheus once again you totally exonerate the culpability of the west in africa's economic staganation - perhaps you might want to consider that in  1980 nigerian technocrats created an economic plan aimed at redressing the problems created by the economic mismanagement of the 70s - it was  known as the Lagos plan of action and was  backed by the OAU  its sole objective wass to increase africa's economic self sufficiency. It was Africa's collective response and solution to the damaging effects of IMF imposed SAP programmes -  here were some of its objectives:

change Africa's total reliance on the export of raw materials.

ensure that development and growth is  based on a combination of Africa's considerable natural
resources, her entrepreneurial, managerial and technical resources and her markets
(restructured and expanded), to serve her people.

map out a strategy for development and implementation;

cultivate self-reliance.

mobilise her entire human and material resources for  development;

pursue all-embracing economic, social and cultural activities
which will mobilise the strength of the country as a whole and ensure that both the efforts
put into and the benefits derived from development are equitably shared;

pursue efforts towards African economic integration in order to create a continent-wide framework for the much needed economic co-operation for development based on collective self-reliance.

Also africa's economy was growing steadily up until the mid 70s when commodity prices crashed and many african economies fell into bankruptcy, economic mismanagement and corruption did not help and the problems were exacerbated.
As a result many african nations were forced to go to the IMF to borrow money - in 1985 nigeria accepted loans from the IMF on the condition that we "restructure" our economy - nations who refused to implement these draconian policies were threatened with economic sanctions, export market closure and military intervention, african nations have since been plunged into economic crisis 


1989 - african countries responded by coming up with an alternative to the IMF imposed SAP known as the african alternative framework to SAP for socio economic transformation - this programme highlighted the fact that SAP programmes were weakening african economies and making them subject to economic control and dominance by western economies,

1989 - the african alternative was condemned and rejected by the IMF/world bank and never implemented.

throughout the 1980s africa has been  plunged into economic and social crisis, wars have been  fomented all over the continent - all funded by the west

the western nations have also embarked on a relentless smear campaign in which they brand african govts as inept, corrupt and incapable of self governance

from the 1980s onwards african nations have continued to try to implement the recommendations fo the Lagos Plan of 1980 but are continuously met with opposition from the west and the reiteration for the need to carry on with SAP.

Since 1985 right up until 2002 - african nations have continued to try to get western nations to authorise the implementation of a more humane economic programme aimed at alleviating the suffering and deprivation created following the devastating impact of SAP but all to no avail

In 2002 a new organisation known as NEPAD was formed promising to succeed where previous economic action plans had failed  - unfortunately instead of implementing the recommendations of the lagos plan it has decided to adopt the neo liberal economic policies of the IMF and the world bank totally overlooking the disasters that these policies have created for the african continent.

@cap28

Great you've convinced me. I guess they are soley responsible for all our problems. Those bastards they got us hook, line and sinker. There's no way out now!

We still taking those handouts though post 1980, 1990, 2000 +. Still dependent on their technologies and expertise, still have insatiable appetites for their goods and services.

Eh here's a thought how come there's no visible vicarous discourse on what alternatives are necassary and feasible by the powers that be, the politicians or academia within countries in Africa cept a handfull excluding the likes of the IV and Nigeria. Gbagbo who is a so called academic lacks this insight does he now? THe best he can come up with is accusing his former colonialist of interference onthe one hande while still relying on the same Loans and handouts the french are heavily involved with. Are they that s.t.u.pi.d? Maybe they are as incompetent as the "imperialist" proclaim.

The annual World economic forum provides and opportunity for African states to examine and reassess their economies in terms of what is working for them and what is not, Not one African leader espoused any such notions of breaking its dependence on the World bank of IMF,no mentioned of alternative avenues, nothing close, Maybe they know something you don't ?

Who is brave enough to roll the dice and see where the chips fall eh?  Gbagbo?. Mugabe is the only one who is playing a dangerous hand right now and I am closely watching the outcome of his gamble

If you don't understand all the intrincacies of the system, how can you seek to transform it. Revolution is just substituting one silly system for another if the PEOPLE are not truly informed. Doesn't matter how many riots or pitch fork hanging sessions they perform. Evolution is the key.

morpheus24

Great you've convinced me. I guess they are soley responsible for all our problems. Those bastards they got us hook, line and sinker. There's no way out now!

Gbagbo who is a so called academic lacks this insight does he now? THe best he can come up with is accusing his former colonialist of interference onthe one hande while still relying on the same Loans and handouts the french are heavily involved with. Are they that s.t.u.pi.d? Maybe they are as incompetent as the "imperialist" proclaim.

Today marks exactly 50 years since patrice Lumuba was killed. Then some people with similar Ideology with you would have though it was conspiracist yarns when people said he was killed By The CIA and The Belgians. But today those two parties have admitted their complicity in the matter of Lumumba death. Nobody is calling Gbagbo a saint but sit for a moment and think, if Gbagbo Goverment had given france access to what Quattara gave them access to at the time he was president do you think they would have allowed a armed group run against him in an election? If Gbagbo was a bad guy he would just have called out a result from Abidjan!!!! opps! I forgot over 1/2 of the electoral commission was Quattara men.

The picture above shows how Africans are bound by the impremalist. A word you hate but truly exsist

superboi:

morpheus24
Today marks exactly 50 years since patrice Lumuba was killed. Then some people with similar Ideology with you would have though it was conspiracist yarns when people said he was killed By The CIA and The Belgians. But today those two parties have admitted their complicity in the matter of Lumumba death. Nobody is calling Gbagbo a saint but sit for a moment and think, if Gbagbo Goverment had given france access to what Quattara gave them access to at the time he was president do you think they would have allowed a armed group run against him in an election? If Gbagbo was a bad guy he would just have called out a result from Abidjan!!!! opps! I forgot over 1/2 of the electoral commission was Quattara men.

The picture above shows how Africans are bound by the impremalist. A word you hate but truly exsist

Stop staring up emotional sentimentality by drawing our attentions to pictures of bound up policital activists. Its a deceptive tactic aimed at swaying the viewers or the readers viewpoint to concentrate and sympathize with your agenda (which is of course to continue to aspouse to this idea of the Imperialist political and economic subjucation of Africa post the colonial era) .
It might be prudent on your part to put that picture in context of the economic and political climate of the times.  The real lesson to be taken out of the immediate tragic events of the post independence era is that we need to establish transparent political avenues in discourse and erring grieviances without resorting to barbaric and medievel ethnically driven ways of quieting opposition voices as is prevalent in African politics. Again your propaganda  might work on other simple minded folk but not on me, SORRY!.

Like I told Cap28 in the beginnings of our little spat, I continue to encounter supposed intellectuals who continue to perpetuate this view point mostly based on inflammatory emotionally charged statements, backroom dealings, marriage allliances' and a naustalgia of past atrocities. Yet when I ask the simple question of what they feel needs to be done, continued, discontinued, proposed, argued e.t.c  as to the solution to issues, they fall short of a simple few empty generalized statements and continue to give me history lessons on subject matters I can easily Wiki to get a brief sense of.

Living in the past is detrimental to human or societal progress and simply being a part of the problem instead of part of the solution is not a game I wish to endulge in.

I am and will continue to be for certain agendas I view as progressive to African societies and will argue those points basedon their merits anytime anywhere. I am not for or aginst any Imperial powers nor am I a PROPANGADIST.

Now back to the discourse: Since yo oppose Quattare based on your assertion that he is an imperialist puppet , what policies has Gbagbo since being in office implemented that has changed the economic landscape of his country in terms of facilitating the general economic climate i.e infrastructure, government policies in IV and improving the lives of his citizenry that requires your support or does he require the control of resources as his only bargaining cheap.

If you don't support him then are you jsut blowing steam up our a.z.z.e.s for the sake of it. What is your point that I didn't get the first time around?


Please answer?
Now lets

morpheus24:

Stop staring up emotional sentimentality by drawing our attentions to pictures of bound up policital activists. Its a deceptive tactic aimed at swaying the viewers or the readers viewpoint to concentrate and sympathize with your agenda (which is of course to continue to aspouse to this idea of the Imperialist political and economic subjucation of Africa post the colonial era) .

I now understand why we are in such a dire state as a people, so Patrice Lumumba was   "a political activist" *shakes head*   what next? I suppose  Mandela to you is probably a former terrorist - I dont blame you - i blame our educational system that has failed many of us and totally brainwashed the rest.

It might be prudent on your part to put that picture in context of the economic and political climate of the times.  The real lesson to be taken out of the immediate tragic events of the post independence era is that we need to establish transparent political avenues in discourse and erring grieviances without resorting to barbaric and medievel ethnically driven ways of quieting opposition voices as is prevalent in African politics.

Why do you keep on trying to hide behind the use of meaningless big words ?

Lumumba nationalised the mines in the eastern region of Congo which were being run by the  belgian and american multinationals and for this he ended up being beaten, tortured and eventually murdered by a joint belgian and CIA operation - is it that you are incapable of understanding the most basic facts and accepting them as the truth?

Again your propaganda  might work on other simple minded folk but not on me, SORRY!.

What on earth are you on about?  which propaganda? - you must be the only person on the face of the planet that does not know that Lumumba was murdered by the Belgians and the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba

I told Cap28 in the beginnings of our little spat, I continue to encounter supposed intellectuals who continue to perpetuate this view point mostly based on inflammatory emotionally charged statements, backroom dealings, marriage allliances' and a naustalgia of past atrocities. Yet when I ask the simple question of what they feel needs to be done, continued, discontinued, proposed, argued e.t.c  as to the solution to issues, they fall short of a simple few empty generalized statements and continue to give me history lessons on subject matters I can easily Wiki to get a brief sense of.

Did  you not read my last  post?, did you not read that in the last 27 YEARS the west have REFUSED AND REJECTED ALL ATTEMPTS BY AFRICAN TECHNOCRATS TO IMPLEMENT AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC PROGRAMME to their Structural adjustment programmes  - what part of that do you not understand? Have you read the Lagos Plan of 1980 at all? Have you read subsequent economic plans for action by african economists who despite never seeing the Lagos Plan of 1980 HAVE STILL COME UP WITH THE SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DISENGAGE FROM SAP?

Living in the past is detrimental to human or societal progress and simply being a part of the problem instead of part of the solution is not a game I wish to endulge in.

Blissful ignorance is equally damaging to one's health and should be avoided at all costs, it appears that you prefer to exist in that state.  Like i said in a previous post  - a man who refuses to learn from the mistakes of his past is doomed to repeat them over and over again until he learns.

I am and will continue to be for certain agendas I view as progressive to African societies and will argue those points basedon their merits anytime anywhere. I am not for or aginst any Imperial powers nor am I a PROPANGADIST.

And what exactly are those agendas if i may ask?

Now back to the discourse: Since yo oppose Quattare based on your assertion that he is an imperialist puppet , what policies has Gbagbo since being in office implemented that has changed the economic landscape of his country in terms of facilitating the general economic climate i.e infrastructure, government policies in IV and improving the lives of his citizenry that requires your support or does he require the control of resources as his only bargaining cheap.

Have you not been paying attention?  Gbagbo HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING IMF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT POLICIES SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE - he has been following the neo liberal economic policies of france the IMF, the EU and the US - these policies involve cutting of public expenditure, currency devaluation, privatisation of public industries and subsequent sale to foreign businesses at rock  bottom prices - all these things Gbagbo has done - now correct me if im wrong but if you cut public spending doesnt that equate to job losses, underfunded schools, substandard healthcare, rise in food prices and overall INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING??

If you don't support him then are you jsut blowing steam up our a.z.z.e.s for the sake of it. What is your point that I didn't get the first time around?

I would ask the same of you but i have a feeling im not going to get a straight answer

Mors man my let me put my question on Gbagbo to you in the most simple format
1. Do you support the precedence set by Quattara and his people, that held the country hostage for 8 year with violence.
2. Do you believe the UN/USA/France is fair by willing to enter a country to fight a legitimate Armed force, but eight years earlier not supporting that armed force appropriatly to ouster the same rebel movement it is now willing to enpower?
3. Don't you think if Quattara feels he won he should go to the Ivorian courts( If he loses or win this will enpower the ivorian people to believe more in their system and their selves, something you seem to desire in every African?) or street and look for support and not planning to the UN?
4. Don't you think the UN made a blunder by Quickly Congratulating a winner before the issues surrounding the elections were cleared?
5. Can't you by anychance fathom that the election was rigged by the illiterate rebel soldiers in the north or in the south and any agrieved candidate should be given the chance to appeal?.
See my guys the issue plenty,

cap28:

I now understand why we are in such a dire state as a people, so Patrice Lumumba was   "a political activist" *shakes head*   what next? I suppose  Mandela to you is probably a former terrorist - I dont blame you - i blame our educational system that has failed many of us and totally brainwashed the rest.

I kinda suspected you were going to jump on the use of the word Political activist which is why I intentionally selected that adjective. In my perspective which is obviously braoder than yours, an activist is not limited to engaging in street marches or boycotts  but in the general sense of the word encompasses someone who  actively seeks to drive change using what ever platform he or she wields to dissent or promote a certain agenda.  Lumuba is not outside of the scope of reference.



However I do understand your limited definition of the workd "activism" as  a synonym for protests, marches, sit ins and the likes. Its okay the adjective was used in a broader sense of the word. Maybe you would be more comfortable with my addressing him as the former prime minister. lol

cap28:


Why do you keep on trying to hide behind the use of meaningless big words ?

Does this bother you? Mmmmmm

cap28:


Lumumba nationalised the mines in the eastern region of Congo which were being run by the  belgian and american multinationals and for this he ended up being beaten, tortured and eventually murdered by a joint belgian and CIA operation - is it that you are incapable of understanding the most basic facts and accepting them as the truth?

If your tactic is to discredit me by attacking my knowledge of African political history then you will fail miserably. I have already mentioned the socialist/communist leanings of Lumumba in relation to the Belgians, the US and Mobutu in my past post, that should key you into my ability to analyze that particular event in history. Don't reiterate with sentimental words like "torture", I don't need the moral lecture.

cap28:


Did  you not read my last  post?, did you not read that in the last 27 YEARS the west have REFUSED AND REJECTED ALL ATTEMPTS BY AFRICAN TECHNOCRATS TO IMPLEMENT AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC PROGRAMME to their Structural adjustment programmes  - what part of that do you not understand? Have you read the Lagos Plan of 1980 at all? Have you read subsequent economic plans for action by african economists who despite never seeing the Lagos Plan of 1980 HAVE STILL COME UP WITH THE SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DISENGAGE FROM SAP?

How does a monetary entity stop a government of a soverign country from the ability to run its economic affairs if that govnerment is not complacent. Do you think these IMF policies are made by a group of "commanders" sitting in a corner room schemeing and dictating how african economies should run their affairs . How S.T.U.P.I.D are you to the PROCESS. African economies bring the SAP programmes on themselves when they have no where else to get funding or mismanage the initial loans given to them. Like credit card fiends they are hooked on the easy access to capital. 

No wonder you call people like Okonjo Iweala Puppets. You have no idea what she does? If these countries continue to advertise S.C.R.E.W. me (for lack of a better word) on their foreheads then they gonna get it right up the behind.

For your information There is continous discourse going on in many southern African nations South Africa, namibia and Zimbabwe included who are are moving away from dependency on IMF funded projects by focusing on their core advantages of partnering with horizontally aligned economic partners in terms of emerging market status, maintainig and continued development of their infrastructural bases to facilitate a stable condusive environment to attract capital inflow into their markets primarily from the capital markets and debt financing. Resolving political grievances despite the fact that there exists parties that aspouse t capitalist, socialist, populist and communist ideologies.

This has given them leverage agains tight IMF tactics when seeking alternative funding and they are now positioned as the region in Africa to experienced long term sustained growth. It is doable and is being done. Simply screaming at the IMF, the UN and the US aint gonna help Ivory coast much.

cap28:


Have you not been paying attention?  Gbagbo HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING IMF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT POLICIES SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE - he has been following the neo liberal economic policies of france the IMF, the EU and the US - these policies involve cutting of public expenditure, currency devaluation, privatisation of public industries and subsequent sale to foreign businesses at rock  bottom prices - all these things Gbagbo has done - now correct me if im wrong but if you cut public spending doesnt that equate to job losses, underfunded schools, substandard healthcare, rise in food prices and overall INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING??

We can keep playing this cat and mouse game on what agenda's I support. I have listed them for you before. You are stuck on the elements of "SAP programmes

Please enumerate your alternatives. Oh sorry you already did the history lesson 101 on 1980 and 1990 Technocrat alternate plans which are highly irrelevant for the present times?

superboi:

Mors man my let me put my question on Gbagbo to you in the most simple format

1. Do you support the precedence set by Quattara and his people, that held the country hostage for 8 year with violence.

No I do not condone it. I however do understand the reason for the stale mate bases on economic and historical contexts. And?

superboi:


2. Do you believe the UN/USA/France is fair by willing to enter a country to fight a legitimate Armed force, but eight years earlier not supporting that armed force appropriatly to ouster the same rebel movement it is now willing to enpower?

What the UN/USA/France does is in their own interest. "Fair' is a relative term. This does not exonerate the buffons who run these governments in their stagnated thought processes and sentimental attachments to historical matters.

superboi:


Don't you think if Quattara feels he won he should go to the Ivorian courts( If he loses or win this will enpower the ivorian people to believe more in their system and their selves, something you seem to desire in every African?) or street and look for support and not planning to the UN?

last time I checked the UN was a body instituted to negotiate in such matters outside the soverignty of most nations when there exists a dispute or a dissent. Didn't the Ivory coast sign on as a member state. Or were they also coerced into doing this based on their moronic ignorant brains?

superboi:

4. Don't you think the UN made a blunder by Quickly Congratulating a winner before the issues surrounding the elections were cleared?

What congratulations. They based their decision on the reports they recieved from independent bodies attached to the UN and by their observers.

superboi:


5. Can't you by anychance fathom that the election was rigged by the illiterate rebel soldiers in the north or in the south and any agrieved candidate should be given the chance to appeal?.
See my guys the issue plenty,

It is very possible the elections in the North were rigged (and I said possible not definite.) I cannot make that assertion and base my acceptance ofthe results on independent third party bodies who have no reason to subvert the true results. There are agencies out there who do that you know. Not every one is a puppet of the UN. I have seen them in action.

That being the case in a response by manipulating consitutional powers to negate results one side sees as not favorable to them is not doing the country any good. The speed at which the other party was crowned winner is suspect itself don't you think?

Switzerland says it has frozen all the assets held there by Ivory Coast's disputed leader Laurent Gbagbo.

The foreign minister said the move would prevent Switzerland's financial centre from serving as a refuge for any possible "illegally-obtained assets own by Gbagbo and his entourage".

Mr Gbagbo is refusing to hand over power to Alassane Ouattara, widely seen as the winner of November's elections.

Latest mediation efforts ended with no breakthrough, Kenya's PM said.

. . .

Shouldn't his asserts be in Ivory Coast?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12229788

The only solution remaining in this country is: to disqualify Gbagbo and Ouattara IMHO. Alassane Ouattara is at the ORIGIN of what's happening. He armed the rebels with the help of the French government in 2002 (there are videos by the rebels confirming it, thanking Alassan for everythin and that their fight is for HIM). In 2001 after Gbagbo took power Alassan said: "without me being president, this country will never have peace" , he also said "I will hit this government and he will fall", all in his own newspaper. People who has been directly affected by the war in 2002, will never be for Alassane cause they saw the rebels killing innocent people (children, women, men) mostly because they were not northen Ivorian and muslim, using them in rituals, drinking their blood, despoiling women, children sometimes men, and mutilating them, every evil thing you can imagine on behalf of Alassan. If Alassan would have let Gbagbo finish his 5 years mandate, there would had been elections since 2005 cause the man said he did not want to leave power because Alassan and his rebels did not allow him to govern in peace, if not the people would have probably rise together to kick him out. With a country divided in 2, the UN shouldn't have press elections in this country. Fraud happened in Gbagbo regions, forcing people not indigenous of western Cote d'Ivoire to vote Gbagbo and persecuting them, in the north the same thing happen too but in favor of Alassan (with people beaten to death by the rebels).
      Gbagbo is a dictator, favoring only people who support him. He is a criminal and took advantage of the war to enrich his family, his people and destroy those who do not support him (surprising for somebody who is at the origin of multi-party in CIV). The army will support Gbagbo cause they cannot imagine pairing with the rebels, worst have them take the head of the army, because this is what will happen if Alassan become president. If people rise together saying they are fed up with Alassan and Gbagbo, we never know maybe then the army won't attack them and maybe this army won't feel oblige to support Gbagbo anymore and will rebel against him, cause not many support what he does but they favoured him compared to Alassane. The army (part of it, cause not all of them are for Gbagbo, some are neutral) are killing pro-Alassan and favouring pro-Gbagbo when striking or protesting which is unforgivable. However, many northern want Alassan cause they think he will be there for their interest and because he is Muslim (but if Alassan is supported by France since even 1993, the death of the 1st president, it is because they are expecting smthg from him). If somebody from the North should be president it is fine who cares, but he should not be Alassan, cause he ain't fighting for the Ivorian people, and many Ivorian think that way. Many don't want him not because he is from the north but because he is bloodthirsty, a cold murderer and a liar who denied his own origin for the sake to be president; and Gbagbo is the same. The media shows only one part of the story, Gbagbo evilness, and exhibit Alassan as an angel, a victim.
      But people be aware that those 2 are the worst thing which could happen to CIV, and I hope people will realize it before it is too late.

(NB: also it is difficult to characterize this war of being tribalist cause even though many from the North support Alassan (mostly uneducated people basing themselve on tribal and religious affiliation), many also do not support him, same as Western Ivorian with Gbagbo. It seems like it is more a question of personal interest, many followers of Gbagbo are the brainwashed thinking he is fighting neocolonialism, and also those who had been corrupted with money, who will go back to poverty if Gbagbo falls, and some of pro-Ouattara are people discouraged by Gbagbo's behaviour, unfairness, who see everyday life getting more degrading, unsupportable and getting poorer, and qualified youth who can't find a job because they are not culturally and ideologically compatible with Gbagbo and because they have no network, seeing unqualified and uneducated people taking the place they deserve because they are pro Gbagbo, and think anybody replacing Gbagbo will allow the country to rise and go back to normal.

And about the northern rebellion, it started because of the unfairness in the country. Many of them are descendants of immigrants (usually 1st, 2nd generation Ivorians) from northern countries (Burkina, Mali, Guinee), and some of them are indigenous northern Ivorian, and a few are not even from the north (south, center and west). They were fighting for a fair cause, because they have it harder than others to get identity papers. (they were a lot of fraud though for getting those, cause i have heard that in the law, even if you are born on the territory and your parents are not from there they have to apply for their citizenship as well as for their kids, and many did not do so. Some used underground ways to get it. It is hard but people should actually try at least to respect the law until it changes or strike i don't know, instead of frauding. And I hope they will change this law soon, cause a big part of the population are second generation Ivorian. (however people married to ivorians get automatically the citizenship if they ask for it i think).
It's true the rebels fought for the just cause, but they cannot use it to justify all their murders, and the fact that they mistreated people with who they do not have religious and cultural affiliation, and this, put a question mark on their fight for justice. They were fathered by Alassan of course who has always hiden in the dark to operate. It's true the concept of Ivoirity launched by the second president could have been discriminatory, but Alassan further split Ivorians by saying at the end of the 90's: people do not want me to be president because I am from the North and Muslim. And this sentence as small as it is has strongly brainwashed many people from the north. And himself knows really well that it is a lie, he just applied the tactic of "divide et impera" or "divide and conquer" and apparently it worked, he gathered more people to support him this way. However many of those who did not support him were suspicious about:

- his nationality (proof confirmed that he study as a Burkinabe in the US, director or something at BECEAO as a Burkinabe in 1983, prime minister in CIV. I have seen some comments saying when he was prime minister, people did not call him a foreigner so why now. However this does not justify his nationality since in CIV, above all in the 70's-80's  some from other nationalities (senegal, guinee, burkina) held position as ministers in the Gov, because what matter after all is the advantages you can bring to the country through hard work and not the place you stem from. However for the position of president, the law requires that the president's parents be citizens, and the president to be born there). Some people have also judge this of being xenophobic, but this is just being hypocritical cause in some western countries to get a students' loan for example (which is a way simpler matter), you have to be residents, or citizen, same to get some job positions I believe, so why criticizing when it is in another country?
He was not disqualified this time like in 1995 and 2000, because Gbagbo as allowed him in 2007 to present himself as a candidate in order that the rebels disarm so that the country will be reunified. The rebels made the people believe they ll do so, but once Alassan was granted the right to be eligible to run for presidency, the rebel kept their positions and did not respect the deal, and this wasn't for the first time, always under the sight of the UN and the international community which seemed careless.

- his ideologies and his did when he was prime minister. He privatized almost all the public companies and I remember people complaining about the devaluation of the currency and the increasing rate of poverty. When the president died, the president of the assembly is supposed to take over, but Alassan who were prime minister  was getting ready to take control (backed by the French Gov) but failed to do so ,

- His great ambition to make of CIV and Burkina one entire country, which make him even more suspicious.

Thus people started wondering about his real objectives.
He used to yell on every roof that Ivorians are Xenophobic, but in his last debate with Gbagbo around November, Gbagbo reminded him of it. And surprisingly what Alassane said "I cannot qualified Ivorians to be xenophobic considering the cultural mosaic of the country and the blending of the population (high number of inter-ethnic couples, above all those of indigenous-non indigenous which could widely exceed those of same ethnic couple). What a surprise cause he said so like he never said the contrary before. Why if you love your country will you be spoiling its name beyond its borders? Why if you love your country will you be wishing it misfortune and no peace unless you are president?Ever he is Ivorian or not this is not the matter, (for some people it might be a problem because ever some maybe racist, and others think if Gbagbo their own brother is treating them that bad and care less about the country, they can't expect better if not worst from somebody they do not know, or somebody who is not from there), but the main concern is does he even care about the country and his compatriots? What are his objectives and what did he promised to the French in order that they back him this way? Anyway all I wish is for CIV to be freed of those devils: Gbagbo and Alassane.

,