Why doesn’t the EU have a proper project to “rebuild” Africa and give better life prospects to people? In my opinion, accepting refugees over and over won’t solve the root of the problem, and at the end everybody is gonna lose. Isn’t it more viable to simply invest in schools, hospitals, healthcare, jobs in Africa?
Why do we keep accepting migrants and do absolutely nothing to fix the root of the problem?
22 comments
What would that look like? The EU and its members do send a lot of money to African aid programmes but a huge problem (in the areas that have problems) are political instability and corruption. Those are not solvable from the outside.
It is not Europe’s problem. Look how big Africa is. There are not enough resources to rebuild it. Africa is governed by corrupt officials who will take part of the investment to further enrich themselves. America tried to pour money into Afghanistan, and it reverted back to its natural state within months, with some of the wealth ending up with leaders of the new regime.
Migrants should not be accepted. They should be sent back where they came from and work in their own countries, create a revolution if necessary. Once the word got out that they can’t enter Europe, they would stop coming.
I don’t know the exact reason. But I think it was because the immigrants was in the different eu countries and people saw them in the street and wanted the government to do something to help them. And that made a dangerous downward circle the more tou help the immigrants the less money you can help the people in the home countries and the more the move out of the country to get Europe and the circle continues. And the bad circle was hard to stop because people that was not affected by the reality of this was in power and mostly called people that wanted it to stop racist and Muslim hater and so on.. so the money was never thar to rebuild when the eu saw the crises come. And most place hade civil war and eu didn’t want to interference directly in the conflict
Europe ***DO*** help Africa. Both with schools, hospitals, healthcare, jobs, etc…
But the largest problem are not money, but the will of local leaders and politicians to use that economic aid for human development.
To be crass – In contrast to Europe’s economy, which is based on income-tax; most of Africa’s economy is based on natural resources. You do not need an educated, healthy, nor happy population to harvest those natural resources. Africa’s economy works just fine with a suffering population.
So many local African leaders spend their profit on military and security instead, to protect those natural resources.
So while Europe gladly aid Africa’s human development – the ball currently lies in Africa’s court.
Basically because the continent is so messed up it’s pretty much impossible to sort it out properly. From historical colonialist mistakes to current infighting, even projects that would actually benefit both Europe and Africa are abandoned – let alone moonshot projects such as fixing an entire continent. Look up a YouTube video about a potential project to solve Europe’s energy problems by setting up fotovoltaic farms in Sahara desert for an example (and consider that would only require the cooperation of 1-2 countries).
Because if you give money to corrupt governments, it won’t go to the citizens. That’s a very naive way of thinking. Plus you will always have people who never intended to stay in the first place, for various reasons.
Because the money just goes to corruption if one tried that. Development aid doesnt work (different form short term aid in case of a natural disaster).
It creates the wrong incentives. For example america used to pay the pakistani government tons of money to finance the hunt for bin laden. Therefore they never found him. Because the generals knew that as soon as they did, the money would stop.
Even assuming those generals werent using the money on their own swimming pools and ferraris (which they certainly were). They would still have a legitimate interest in keeping the aid flowing to maintain the jobs of their men and the equipment of their army.
Same incentives apply in africa. I.e. if we promise to give them money so their schools, hospitals or infrastructure can reach a certain level, they would make sure to never reach that. So the money doesnt run out.
Also it allows corrupt governments to embezzle more money. If europe pays for their schools, that means the local government doesnt have to anymore. So they now have more money to cover all of the door handles in the defense ministers fourth mansion in gold.
The only ways to improve the way the money is spent is either the locals putting the right people in power. Or europeans taking over the government, which isnt very popular, because thats colonialism.
>Why doesn’t the EU have a proper project to “rebuild” Africa and give better life prospects to people?
Both the EU and Individual European nations *are* actually trying.
Emphasis on *trying*. Local leadership and local political stability greatly affect how much the European help projects actually manage to do.
And there isn’t really more that can be done, outside of outright re-colonizing and assuming direct control (which is not a solution anyone wants)
Because the root of the problem is political in the countries affected. Many European countries have invested millions in rebuilding infrastructure in foreign countries outside of EU, but those “projects” are either built and neglected, they get everything they need to build it and just don’t build it, or there’s a corrupt person ruining everything for everyone else.
You talk about “helping” Africa as it was something that could be simply done with some investments in some areas. Since the end of WWII, there have been a lot of funds and investments in order to “help” “underdeveloped” nations, this clearly has not worked.
In my opinion, the institutions that were left after the colonialism are a continuation of the extractive regimes that ruled the continent in the past, the difference is that now there’s a local class of corrupt leaders that profit from that while Europe profits from it too. So, not only we created the problem, but we’re also profiting from it right now with low cost raw materials. I don’t have a magic ball to predict how Africa will improve, but we shall probably let the own Africans build new non-corrupt institutions rather than just give money to corrupt politicians for schools and hospitals that will be underfunded.
And all of this not even taking into account the huge amount of identitarian conflicts that I have no idea how could be solved and force millions out of their homes.
Short answer, they wanted independence and they got what they asked for.
People oftern misunderstand late stage colonialism, it was for prestige and business but it also came with responsibility for the people and administrative and logistical experience and structure. They were relieved of that responsibility.
Now most African governments have failed over and over again in their responsibility, they start blaming the colonial era again. That’s not fair. The root problem is theirs to solve, Europe can’t do that for them. Immigration has nothing to do with that. There are billions of people who’s main problem is that they weren’t born in Europe, Europe can’t solve that without making Europe a place no one wants to live anymore, including the born Europeans. That’s a work in progress though, through the immigration…
> Why do we keep accepting migrants and do absolutely nothing to fix the root of the problem?
Why do you assume we keep taking migrants because it helps someone?
It happens because it benefits the EU elite in some way, citizens, migrants or host countries be damned. Politicians don’t care about you, especially not the unelected ones that run the EU.
Last time we sent alot of money, the president bought a plane with golden toilets.
(Uganda 25million$, source:
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/brukte-267-bistands–millioner-pa-privatfly/63705909 )
Tbf, sending monetary assistance to corrupt countries actually worsenes the situation. Norway has shifted from monetary assistance to investments straight to the small man through micro loans initiated by the Foreign Assistance fund.
I think a good example to look at is Senegal.
Senegal IS a huge recipient of EU aid and a common origin of migrants.
Senegal has some of the richest fish banks in the world and several countries and institutions (like the EU) have come to agreements with Senegal to exploit these banks.
These agreements are…not the best for senegal 🙄. Tbf the EU probably gives them the fairest agreements but in short the overfishing in the region has droven thousands of fishermen to ruin. These are the migrants that end up in Europe (woops 😅)
Ironically Senegal greatly supports them. Money sent back from Europe makes Up a significant chunk of their gdp. So It’s in their best interest that they stay in Europe. Some african countries might get pretty angry if the EU stops accepting migrants.
So. The answer to your question? Well the dynamics between the EU and Africa are, through standard diplomacy, unequal. The EU greatly benefits from africa’s resources, which might not be so easily accesible if the countries were better off and less dependant on EU aid. At the same time the competition for these resources IS fierce and often ends up being pandering to the encysted political class which is not all too keen on distributing their income. in turn they themselves facilitate the extraction of resources. So even though migrants are “a bother” to the EU, at large the union benefits from their “dubiously moral” practices in Africa by tapping into resources and extending their influence (hm France hm). This somewhat fucked up policy IS what has been turning african countries towards china, even though their practices are often even more predatory. But you know they already tried with us and look at them 😅
One of the reasons why EU aid is quite inefficient IS that It often comes with a shit ton of conditions. Basically we’re very bureaucratic. Meanwhile china takes a more Direct approach with fewer conditions but brutal repercusions, Such as “if you fail to pay us you’ll just have to give us the project”.
Tldr, neocolonialism at Its finest. The root of the problem is…US 😅 (well and china, US, Canada, Australia, etc, their political class, etc )
So Ive actually worked in Africa, and the general issue is that europeans cannot even imagine such a different business enviroment. Africans know very well that we are insanely fond of our schedules and know how to play it to their advantage.
So here is how it goes: a european company makes a deal to build say a hospital in Africa. They go through months of planning, negotiations and legal paperwork, and can finally begin construction. Job done, the european company thinks.
No, not at all. Youve just gone through the chit chat before actual business starts taking place. Equipment will “break”, and they can’t continue working unless you ship them new equipment on your expense. You say “no, in the contract it states that its your problem”, they don’t care and pretty much go radio silent unless progress is made on the equipment. So you are left with either abandoning a 1/4 built hospital and not getting a penny of invested money back, or send them equipment. Mind you this process will take a montj or so. Well just this once youll do it just so you dont have to deal with it anymore. Big mistake, now they know that youll give in.
Next the material you just sent them never actually arrive, though you have reciepts, confirmations, photographs and eye witnesses who tried to stop the delivery from driving off with your materials to god knows where. Well, cant build a hospital from thin air, so you buy them more mateirals.
Then they will just stop working when its 75% done, saying “No, what you paid us was just the first installment, we need the second half now”. And you are off for another 3 months of mexican standoffs negotiating how much over the price in the contract you have to go. Then some guy from the city will come with a forged document saying that you dont have permission to build the hospital there and need to pay for the paperwork to be redone or sieze operations.
Now to us its a clear case of contract fraud and an easy settlement in court right? Not in Africa. You can well try, but it will take years before your case has gone through that beurocracy and the legal process even begins, and even if you win it, who is going to enforce the ruling? The police? They will happily take some money to check the “wasnt home” box on their paperwork.
So youve gone through it all and finally have the hospital built after 40 times the stress it would cause in europe and costs far higher than agreed upon. Happy, you are ready to go home. Oh, right, the construction equipment, youll arrange having that taken home. “My friend, what do you mean? That is our equipment”
You wouldnt believe the amount of ruined 70% built buildings youll see around.
Not one response here has mentioned DEBT.
Foreign AID isn’t as much as you think it is, and it’s easy to write off the problem as poor management. (As if we don’t all think our own governments are efficient with their money. HS2 anyone?).
​
[https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/world-is-plundering-africa-wealth-billions-of-dollars-a-year](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/world-is-plundering-africa-wealth-billions-of-dollars-a-year)
>*It said African countries* ***received $162bn*** *in 2015, mainly in loans, aid and personal remittances. But in the same year,* ***$203bn was taken*** *from the continent, either directly through multinationals repatriating profits and illegally moving money into tax havens, or by costs imposed by the rest of the world through climate change adaptation and mitigation.*
*This led to an* ***annual financial deficit of $41.3bn****…*
​
Also, Africa’s riches are owned by foreign investments:
>*The report points out that Africa has considerable riches. South Africa’s potential mineral wealth is estimated to be around $2.5tn, while the mineral reserves of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are thought to be worth $24tn.*
*However, the continent’s natural resources are owned and exploited by foreign, private corporations, the report said.*
​
Cancel the debt and stop pretending aid is helping.
Accepting refugees is the current solution for the demographic crisis facing most western countries.
Our populations are aging and we aren’t producing enough new humans to replace them as they age out of the work force, this is part of the reason we are all facing housing crises, cost of living crises, healthcare deficits, etc.
We need more warm bodies to fill the gaps in our economies. Lo and behold, here comes a ready supply of desperate people ready and willing to work just about any job.
Let’s be honest, Any nation is not going to spend money that doesn’t bring them anything other than competition in future. It is better for an EU country to exploit African nations (probably old colonies) with corruption than fixing that country. Mainly looking at France. Europeans who are old colonisers would create negative effect than positive. Also, people complain about we can’t fix it from outside while no-one is stopping them to fix it from inside. But it is all about one or two building schools or repairing village houses. It is always because of lack of funding.
This is not Europe’s duty to rebuilt Africa from ashes. There is not enough money on earth and on moon to build a new working society for like several billion people.
It’s not about money. We in Europe don’t sit on a pile of gold like Smaug to rebuild a whole continent.
Right so it’s an incredibly complex issue but here’s the main points i want to make clear.
The EU already gives 20 billion Euros a year as financial aid to Africa. (The EU itself, not including the aid given by individual member states and private donations to charity)
The EU has no moral responsibility to give Africa anything. Excluding those member states with colonial history or modern day exploitation. And more aid as reparation for colonialism would be kinda stupid, as much of Africa’s issues are at best barely the fault of Europeans.
What do you think the Africans, and most certainly their governments will think if the EU or it’s member states comes in and tells Africa what to do? They will say it’s colonialism and the reaction to it will cause even more problems in Africa, and most likely a new wave of terrorism in Europe.
And lastly, the aid we already give is horribly misused so giving more would likely not do anything except deepen the pockets of African officials. And here we get back to the previous argument, if we try to tell them what to do with it, they will just get pissed.
There is simply nothing the EU can do to properly help Africa, without aggressively intervening as a colonialism 2.0, or giving so much money it compromises the economics of Europe itself.
TLDR; We already help, their problems are barely our fault or problem, and we can’t realistically do more.
Why the West can’t just pay 50$ to everyone who passes the knowledge exam about cognitive biases, logical fallacies, defense mechanisms?
And 200$ for exam about academic logic, psychology, sociology, anthropology, culturology?
> Sub-Saharan Africa alone receives more EU aid than the rest of Europe and the Middle East combined (OECD, 2020). At around EUR 20 billion a year, this makes the EU’s nominal assistance to Africa the most important single aid flow globally.
https://www.iir.cz/en/a-comprehensive-eu-strategy-for-africa-development-humanitarian-aid-and-climate-change-1
I don’t know what you are talking about.