Analyst: Contentious Issues Likely Will Persist as Sudan Splits Voice of America
This comes as South Sudan prepares for its independence from the north Saturday. IGAD leaders expressed concern about what they called unresolved issues between the north and the south, including the disputed Abyei region.
Fouad Hikmat, Horn of Africa Project Director for the International Crisis Group, said the issues of Abyei and the call for a delay in carrying out the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir will continue to be contentious.
“These two areas are going to remain the contentious areas giving that the other issues, the financial and physical issues, the oil issues, the two parties will be able to reach an agreement on how to share and how to resolve those issues after South Sudan becomes independent. However, the boundary, specifically Abyei, will continue to remain contentious,” he says.
Hikmat said the African Union High Level Implementation Panel headed by former South African President Thabo Mbeki will have to do more to make sure that north and south Sudan do not resort to war. He said it would be in interest of both sides to reach a settlement.
Gerald LeMelle - Cancel African Debt
On Day One, Africa Action is asking the President to implement comprehensive debt cancellation to the African continent. Right now, the African ...
African Debt Relief - Receivership?
There is a lot that has been said about debt relief for African countries. I appreciate that these countries can not progress while saddled with so much debt, but I also appreciate we can not just write off the debt. First, most of that money belongs to the tax payers of developed nations, and second the African nations may get in the habit of just borrowing more, have corrupt leaders steal it, and then plead poverty again.
When a company goes bankrupt, it can go into chapter 11. It submits a restructuring plan for the future and a neutral part is appointed to oversee its affairs until the plan is executed.
Maybe the same thing should be done here. They can have debt relief, but they must submit a plan. Administrators from the lending nations will be appointed. All government borrowing and spending must be approved and or managed by these administrators. When the plan is executed, then the country gets control of its affairs again.
Some would cry "colonialism" or "imperialism". I won't argue. It is a form of that, but really, should be give something for nothing.
I guess to to reiterate. This is a choice like bankruptcy. A company can choose not to accept bankruptcy protection but it must face the consequences. An African country may resent a having foreigners intervene in their affairs, and if they don't want it, they must face the consequences. No debt relief. No more credit. The word sovereignty for nations is like the word liberty for people. It's not a free pass. It means you have to live with results of your decisions.
Hey again man, keep seein your questions in my friends list so I guess I'll answer eh. I reckon it's a good idea the problem is acceptance from the African countries. As we both know a lot of them are corrupt and easily bribed, I honestly don't believe many African politicans care about their country's development or progress. They're all in it for the money, which brings me to another point, so is every politician. Don't you hate it when they promise everything they can't give?
Anyway, suppose you got an African leader who's aim was to bring his nation out of poverty and into the age of modern technology (which is rare, as they all strive to keep themselves financially secure and starve the country). Is he going to want his plans monitored or "managed" by foreign people? I think not. Imagine the commotion if Australian residents needed confirmation to build say, a dam. People in general don't want to be controlled, it's bad enough with their own government, let alone an international one. While I understand they have the choice to request construction on whatever they want, it still has to be approved by the lender. Something that could cause diplomatic relations between the two to boiling point. The countries involved could quite easily become unfriendly over building disputes, money required for the job and of course the whole fact that they can't just build what they want without someone overseeing them. It is a good idea though, but one that could have equal disadvantages to the advantages. If it worked you'd also have to make sure the people who took it, could pay it back. You don't want an unreliable government who takes when it's needed and doesn't repay. What repercussions could happen then? War threats? Surely not, but maybe economic sanctions? That would bring the situation back to where it was previously. A ban on borrowing in the future? Possible. But, if all went well then you have a system that works - I have no doubt though that there will be some sort of minor issues along the way. Everyone always have some type of problem to bring up. Nothing is ever right.
At the end of the day though it is all about change and with the laws and unwilling politicians the lifestyle or economy of Africa will never alter. May I suggest American or Australian representatives to take power temporarily during the re-building of the nation. Then we could assure all aid sent would be used appropriately and effectively. They would remain in their positions until the country had turned itself around and re-paid all debt, at which point the African people would vote for successors. But no, they'd be riots for having "whites" controlling their precious land. If Africa can mend it's dodgy reputation and it's corrupt officials then it can establish a partially stable government body that can draw out a plan. Until then the offer of debt relief using this method would be knocked back everytime.
Edit: Reiterate? Sounds rude, I might be wrong, but I get the impression that your complaining about repeating yourself? Because I understood the question originally. Or you don't mean that?
Edit: That's right, they can choose to not accept debt relief but isnt your plan ineffective then? What your suggesting is that the country choose what they need to build and have administrators confirm that and watch over the construction. What I'm suggesting is that we have the African government leaders temporarily removed and replaced by Westerners that won't "steal" the funds that the administators will give. For example, Ethiopia can send in a "plan" on infrastructure. If it's approved they will be granted the money right? What's to stop them taking off on a plane as soon as they get their hands on it? Even if administrators organise the workers needed to build the project agreed upon and they make sure everything needed is ready, they still can't assure the African government is going to use the money for the right purpose. It's all to do with the type of people and the situation they are in. The whole country is disease ridden and poor, why wouldn't they take all the cash they can. It is cruel but that's the harsh reality.
Anyway, that's my opinion on it and one I hope helps answer your question bro. I'm off, cya later.
Should countries give debt relief to African nations?
After all this is what the singer Bono (from the group U2) wants. Isn't it funny, however, that Bono moves his assets and business out of Ireland, to Holland, specifically to avoid taxes? In other words he wants us, the taxpayers, to forgive our loans to African nations, but doesn't want to do his part. Playing a song at a benefits concert doesn't count since it doesn't hit his pocket book.
Western countries has exploited Africa in divers ways, has encouraged dictatorship and civil wars over years. The lobby groups keeps selling weapons and supporting civil wars. A country such as Congo , formerly Zaire, would have been as rich as US if Belgian, French and American governments did not abusely supported Mobutu, Kabila father and Kabila son in their destructive wave of Congolese economy.
Zaire is only one of many other examples. The world Bank and Global Monetary Fund have servered as tools for western countries to endebt Africa in order to maintain this continent under political and economical dependance.
Now, should countries give debt relief to African nations? My answer is NO. Western countries would better help Africa to impliment democratic regimes, control their own economy, stop encouraging dictatorship and civil wars. Afterward, African nations should become more responsible and pay their debts with no interest.
It is just insane to wound someone and promise relief at the same time. Africa must stand alone. Nelson Mandela gave the best example to all the nations and South Africa is now showing the path.
Debt Directory
BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: African debt relief
BBC News looks at the progress of international debt reduction efforts, and the sticking points which continue to hamper the process.
Online NewsHour: Leaders at G8 Agree to Cancel $40 Million in ...
British Prime Minister Tony Blair requested U.S. help with debt relief for Africa. ... The fact of the matter is that this kind of debt relief has worked. ...
Articles about Debt Relief - CNN
Debt Relief News. Find breaking news, commentary, and archival information about Debt Relief from CNN
Debt Relief Initiatives - African Development Bank
Debt Relief Initiatives. The Bank Group is a key participant in the internationally ... 100 percent relief on eligible debts to the African Development Fund (ADF) ...
African Debt Relief - Receivership? | The Wealthy Review
There is a lot that has been said about debt relief for African countries. I appreciate that these countries can not progress while saddled with so ...
