Reuters Blogs

Africa News blog

African business, politics and lifestyle

July 10th, 2009

Is Obama Africa’s saviour?

Posted by: Mpho Majoro

Africa is rich in natural resources like oil, gold, diamonds, platinum and yet millions of African people live in abject poverty. The global economic and climate crisis have made life even harder.

At the recent G8 meeting in Italy, African leaders and members of civil society voiced concerns over the promises made in previous G8 meetings of aid and assistance that have yet to materialise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But should African leaders be taking greater responsibility for the plight of their people? Is the West to some extent being asked to bear the responsibilities of African governments that have failed their people through wars, rigged elections and spectacular self enrichment? Should Africans not be investing more in their own economies?

Many in the diaspora have stayed away from their countries of origin as a result of lack of progress, resources and infrastructure. But will that continue forever? Should Africans look to the West for handouts while some of its leaders live in luxury and some of their governments are ravaged by corruption?

The visit to Ghana by U.S. President Barack Obama is seen by many as an opportunity for a new era of engagement, respect and partnership with Africa.

But is Africa looking to the wrong man to be a saviour, simply because he has such a close connection to Africa through his Kenyan father?

Africa has clearly not been among his top priorities since he took office and that may be little surprise given the magnitude of the global financial crisis. There are certainly doubts over whether he will do much more to help Africa’s leaders get the aid and support they say the West should provide.

But should Africans in any case be looking to Obama - or anyone from outside - to solve the continent’s problems? Or is there more that Africans should be doing themselves to improve their lives?

June 13th, 2009

Confederations Cup shapes up well…except for the weather

Posted by: Mark Gleeson

For all their scepticism about South Africa’s potential to host the World Cup, the build-up to the test event, the Confederations Cup, has so far gone without any major hitches.

It is a dream scenario for the home nation and FIFA, still trying to temper the doubters and persuade the world all will be ready by 2010, has added to the chorus of congratulations.

Sepp Blatter devoted a good deal of his traditional pre-tournament news conference on Friday to pouring scorn on the doubters.

Admittedly, there is much last minute activity and privately officials have spoken of the frustration of a society where urgency is not always a priority.

But in a country desperate to prove it can put on an event of the magnitude of the World Cup, South Africa is ahead in the PR race.

The only setback, ironically, has been the weather. It might be winter but on the Highveld, where the four venues for the Confederation Cup are situated, the cold season is normally mildly pleasant.

The air is brisk and after hours it gets cold but the days are usually filled with sunshine. Except for this week. Teams arrived to frigid conditions and unseasonal rain and spent the first days bemused by the weather.

The Italians, in particular, made much of the wet. Their friendly win against New Zealand in Pretoria on Wednesday was played in a constant downpour and the non-playing staff and spectators were bundled up as if on an Artic expedition.

The television pictures beamed back to Italy would certainly have put off a few potential tourists, who had planned to come out for the 2010 tournament.

But on the eve of kick off of the first game, South Africa v Iraq on Sunday, the sunshine has come out. Now the pressure is back on the organisers.

PHOTO: South Africa's President Jacob Zuma reacts after being given a soccer jersey by the national soccer team before their training session at Orlando stadium in Soweto June 13, 2009. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

August 31st, 2008

Time for colonial masters to pay up?

Posted by: Matthew Tostevin

Italy's PM Berlusconi is greeted by Libya's leader Gaddafi in BenghaziItaly settled its colonial era dispute with Libya at the weekend with $5 billion in compensation for wrongs done during colonial rule. The money will be invested in a major new highway as well as used for clearing mines and other projects. Both sides say that will allow them to make a new start.

Relations between Libya and Italy had been especially difficult and this was a very specific dispute, but Italian colonialism did not last all that long in Africa - even if there were episodes of particular nastiness while it did.

What about the far more important colonial players in Africa: Britain, France and Portugal? Not only was their presence far longer lasting, but they were more heavily involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which sapped the strength of west and central Africa for centuries and forced millions of its people into death or slavery. Calls for reparations from some quarters have never died down.

slave-ship.JPG

The colonial powers later carved up the map of Africa for their own administrative convenience and with little regard for those living there. Independence movements were often suppressed with heavy force — including in Algeria, the former Portuguese colonies and Kenya.

Since independence, the former colonial powers have given billions of dollars in development aid and other assistance. They generally have far better relationships with former colonies than Italy had with Libya.

But is it time for other former colonial powers to apologise and pay up for misdeeds on the continent? Or should the past be left for the history books?