[U184]

Any introduction, of foreign interests, that I am suggestion is:

Short term: Military, Support, Medical Aid, Food, Logistics, etc.
Mid term: Technology and experience that the African people do not have. These corporations will need to handle things while local people are trained.
Long term*: The parties offering the help, at minimal cost, are for the self sovereignty of Africa. This same parties will be the best bet for Africa when it comes to trade partners. They will need to create and keep long term relations to ensure the very same interests do not just come back in and do it all over again.

I am suggesting the organization of the African people at that the African Union be strengthened, purged from corruption and set squarely in the hands of the democratic people.

Africa does not, at the moment, have the supplies, experience, knowledge or money to help themselves, thus the need for International aid.

[Potemkin]

Men honestly your idea reminds good old practice of colonialism. What the hell makes us believe that "we "know better then "them " whats good for their countries?

Precisely. KFlint is a liberal imperialist, which seems to be a popular ideology among Western bourgeois liberals nowadays. Read some of Niall Ferguson's books for more information.

[Texpat]

European interests, mostly Belgium, France and the UK created these problems.
Please go in and clean up your mess. Is that too much to ask?

[U184]

Potemkin,

liberal imperialist is: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

So no, I am not.

Why would you think calling for Africa to be freed, of all foreign exploitation and providing International help to ensure Africa gains peace, health, and prosperity under its own rule, as being liberally imperialistic in nature?

[Potemkin]

Why would you think calling for Africa to be freed, of all foreign exploitation and providing International help to ensure Africa gains peace, health, and prosperity under its own rule, as being liberally imperialistic in nature?

Because the methods you have outlined for achieving this happy state of affairs are clearly imperialistic. Furthermore, these methods both require and facilitate the extraction of resources and the exploitation of the labour power of African nations. If this isn't imperialism (given a 'humanitarian' and liberal veneer), then I don't know what is.

[U184]

Furthermore, these methods both require and facilitate the extraction of resources and the exploitation of the labour power of African nations

You must have read something other than my post. Those resources were being secured from the foreign interests that subjugate the local populace. I suggested that corporations come in, who know how to run those operations and do so, so that money would be available to support the freedom effort. At the same time I suggested that the local people be trained and their operations brought to current technological levels.

As for the "exploitation of the labour power of African nations" if you think expecting the populace to fight for their own freedom is exploitation then fine.

You take a bit here and you take a bit there and twist it, so it can fit your nice little mental box. One should be extremely accurate when doing that.

[Zyx]

KFlint, I am just not understanding you. You're inviting 'experienced' corporations to take over 'experienced' corporations. Where's the liberation?

Is the liberation in training Africans to be slaves?

[U184]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? I keep repeating myself and doing so AFTER, it was in the OP. Last time.

I would pose those Corporations that are now in Africa, subjugate the people and governments of Africa in order to exploit African Resources. The companies that would come in, would do so as interim caretakers and educators, then when the People of Africa are ready, able and secure, those very same companies would LEAVE.

Is that so hard a concept to understand?

[Potemkin]

The companies that would come in, would do so as interim caretakers and educators, then when the People of Africa are ready, able and secure, those very same companies would LEAVE.

Why would they leave if they're making a profit? Because you ask them nicely?

[U184]

The ones in power now, because we ask them nice, with the back up to remove them. The new ones, as per agreement, or face the new laws that would be set in place to protect the African people. It would be harder to do slight of hand with a nice big international spotlight.