- why can a president be the president for 36 years in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it?
- why does French army go straight to Mali (not far from Cameroon BTW) if there's a terrorist threat?
- why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses?
- why is DR of Congo the materially richest country on Earth but has most of the conflicts and the poorest of the poorest population?
- why was Gaddafi chased and killed by non-African?
- why is China gifting huge buildings and communication systems to African Union (check out yesterday's HN)?
- or to put it more simply: who is profiting at the end? Is it really Paul Biya?
I've spent the last two and a half years driving around Africa. 30 countires so far, including over a year through West Africa.
You hit the nail on the head.
For anyone that doesn't get it - here's another great story. Gabon had just had an election before I got there. The people were angry at the result, so they rioted, burned cars, etc. Border closed. That's what the media told "us" about.
When I was there I dug into the details. So the incumbent president was losing by quite a bit during the counting, until his home state was counted. Miraculously, get got 99.9% of the vote in his home state, when in no other state did he get more than 60%. Also staggering, there were more votes cast and counted in his home state than there are people.
The really sick part?
The UN and other international observers declared this a free and fair election, and he remains president.
Ask yourself why the UN and other international Governments & observers would sanction what any 5 year old can see is blatant election rigging.
I don't doubt for a second that there are questionable forces at work, but it was pretty widely reported that there were significant irregularities in that election. The EU observers were quite indeed quite blunt about it. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gabon-election-election-i... for example.
I live in one of these resource-exporting exploited countries (non-Africa) and I can tell you that most everyone here and outside is oblivious to the fact that that our government, nor the ones outside are really protecting our interests as a populace, instead they are doing everything to just propagandize us and keep the status-quo intact.
Norway did well because its resources didn't exist, from a technological standpoint, for most of human history. The country was already highly developed and functioning as a cohesive culture for millennia before the North Sea oil had begun to be commercially exploited. This foundation allowed the population to assert some political influence in the development of the resource.
Africa, on the other hand, is a very different story. Tropical diseases, terrain, and other features of the continent have made it difficult to form stable, cohesive nations. Now you throw in the discovery of resources and only an elite have the power to exploit them.
Counter point: Australia, Canada, USA. All of which are rich in resources. In fact Australia's economy is built on resources. Canada to large degree too. Botswana has arguably only resources (diamonds) and proved that it can govern itself very well indeed.
Well, the natives in those three countries were pretty much wiped out. Their descendants are still not doing so well compared to the descendants of those who came to exploit the land.
Norway and their trillion dollar sovereign fund may be the greatest counter example to the supposed resource curse in history. If they continue to manage it properly, it's a conversion of oil (temporary resource) into immense, permanent national wealth.
I think the resource cure is a real thing, but it depends who gets their hands on the resources first, i.e. how political power works when the resource becomes available. Australia, Canada And the USA were all democracies before they becane resource rich and always had highly diversified economies.
The resource curse kicks in when you have a developing nation with autocratic political norms because the rulers keep the resources for themselves. Because democratic reform would mean giving up their exclusive grip on the resources, they use those resources to fight it. This can also lead to a slide to autocracy in democratic countries with weak institutions - see Venezuela.
Let's see how permanent the permanent wealth turns out to be. They seem to manage it better than other countries, but who knows, maybe on a long timeline, they are only spending it slower.
I hope not, but so far, there have been so few examples of long term great management, that it's more likely it will end badly.
They have a few benefits that imply it might work: culture of not showing off wealth; small population; well working justice system that should deal with corruption.
Let's see in 50 to 100 years :)
>- why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses?
FCFA is issued in Senegal. Is it physically printed somewhere else?
I'd bet he's worth more that ALL US Congress and Senate persons--combined. Want a license for mobile phone network? It's cost you $50 Million in cash and 33% of the company. Buying arms? 30% goes to me. Want permission to open factory...and so on. The entire economy is controlled by these types, pay up or go to jail /close down shop.
His $600K salary serves just as the seed to launder. Buy land in x place and surprise...2 years later land is valued 20x more as an airport will be there. Now he has 20x the money invested to try the same. Rinse repeat. They are also "lucky" with business etc
I agree, but the 3rd world countries would save a fortune if they paid their top leader $1Million a year and $100K to ministers provided they don't steal.
Road costs $1.2 Billion? $200 MILLION to me, make the road a little narrower and pour x cm less asphalt. Buying and selling electricity? 20% to the leader. They are shameless and they know how to keep power, they let those downstream wet their beak too.
But ultimately they know that they have to have clean cash. I make $600K and spend just $50k a year so $550K is invested year after year. No matter what, I can keep the $xx that derived from that. The stolen money is in secret accounts, companies, in other people's names etc. Not always easy to get a hold or keep the state away.
Not sure whether I prefer your description or the more elaborate scheme of "Road costs $1.2Billion? Have my brother-in-law build it and my cousin will build you a house for almost free on land you can buy for really cheap from a childhood friend of mine!"
It's not that the 1st world is less corrupt, it's just that some schemes are more evolved.
If you honestly think that the first world is no less corrupt you need to travel more. Switzerland is very different from Turkey, and Turkey’s very different from Eritrea.
I will try to do that, in between my permanent traveling that I have been doing for a few years now. Any hints who might provide a more correct picture than the employees of UN, GIZ, Red Cross, Medicines sans Frontieres etc give over and over again?
Try to find a normal priced taxi as a white person in Haiti: 5 minute drive = $100. Or "You give me $150, I give you a receipt over $300." This scam was brought to you by... drumroll the UN! (It's a nice way to make one or two additional salaries while on an "educational visit").
Forgive me for assuming someone with such odd views could only have come by them through lack of experience. Obviously highly biased experience works just as well.
Opportunity makes thieves, as the Germans say. You’re using an organisation with close to zero effective oversight, that is without exaggeration a law to itself, and which for political reasons has many staff from really corrupt countries as an example of corruption. The UN is not clean and no one who knows anything about it thinks it’s clean.
For similar reasons aid organisations are also not paragons of probity. They work in poor, corrupt countries and they have access to both budgets and people who are willing and eager to get some of that money by helping them defraud their employers.
What does this prove about corruption in more developed countries? Either very little or that systems are important.
In Sweden your political career can end for putting hundreds of dollars of private expenses on a ministerial card.
And petty corruption in either country is much less than anything aid workers deal with regularly, basically absent. Living in China has made me far more cynical and accepting of the fact that corruption happens all the time but I know perfectly well that petty corruption is very limited in Ireland, my home country.
Interference in civil service exams or school leaving exams is unremarkable in China and would bring down a government in Ireland.
The difference in corruption between developed, developing and undeveloped countries is so large that it’s not just a difference in quantity but in kind.
> The difference in corruption between developed, developing and undeveloped countries is so large that it’s not just a difference in quantity but in kind.
Uhm, yes. The more money at stake, the higher the "quantity"; I don't argue that because it is obvious and irrelevant. The ~"difference in kind" is what I was pointing out.
Nope, the real money is with %. States, even poorer one have billion dollar budgets. But even the favorite contractors, after dividing the money as per instructions, have to spend money on reelecting Dear Leader. They established autocracies get complacent and sloppy and don't care to launder the money. Who's gonna check? A smart way would be to bill for consulting /subcontracting work and pay taxes on that
Personally, I think $200 MILLION and the loss of your job is better than $1 million per year. I don't see how the savings you envision materialize under the circumstances you describe.
Yeah, I was making an extreme case. Not applicable to third world countries BUT established demos should pay millions to top leaders. Would USA feel a $200 million budget hit if they paid their top 500 leaders more? NOPE. It's nothing, and probably costs less since a US Senator that gets a subsidized apartment slips something in a bill favoring his benefactor.
(US should also build dorms for US Congress /Senate people and charge them for maintenance, say $300 a month. Pretty sure people /foundations would donate so the building would be built for free and the govt has land)
I think it does make a difference. Point is making market salaries the norm of everybody eventually makes more talented people come into the system hence this sort of thing would be much more difficult to pull off because there are other good people policing the system. Sso I guess its worth a shot if possible.
Singapore is the jurisdiction (not third world, obviously) which is famous for paying "market" salaries to leaders. From everything I've seen/read, they get value for money.
Presidential salary is about USD 3.5mm/yr. PM is similar, and other ministers are about half that, and there's variable performance-based pay as part of it.
When Cameroonian president does it, it sounds awful and worth reporting, however when US President spends $1-3 million for his Maro Lago visits almost every weekend - nobody seems to care. A similar headline can be written regarding the US president - "While his country grapples with gun violence, opioid crisis, homelessness, US president spends $1-3 million on weekend visits to his Maro Lago resort."
- why can a president be the president for 36 years in a country rich of natural resources while the people never profit from it?
- why does French army go straight to Mali (not far from Cameroon BTW) if there's a terrorist threat?
- why can't whole West Africa not print their own money (called FCFA) and why is a single European country however permitted to print their money for millions and billions in licenses?
- why is DR of Congo the materially richest country on Earth but has most of the conflicts and the poorest of the poorest population?
- why was Gaddafi chased and killed by non-African?
- why is China gifting huge buildings and communication systems to African Union (check out yesterday's HN)?
- or to put it more simply: who is profiting at the end? Is it really Paul Biya?