Germany says time for African 'Marshall Plan'

Bonaparted

Germany urged other developed countries on Friday to support a plan it is finalising to bolster the economies of Africa, create jobs and slow the flow of migrants from the continent to Europe.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and her officials, anxious to stop growing numbers of migrants risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea, are pushing for increased public and private investment in Africa.

Development Minister Gerd Mueller said Germany would in coming weeks release details of what he called a new "Marshall Plan with Africa" - drawing a direct parallel with the huge U.S. investment programme that kick-started the ravaged German economy after World War Two.

"We have to invest in these countries and give people perspectives for the future," he told a news conference.

"If the youth of Africa can't find work or a future in their own countries, it won't be hundreds of thousands, but millions that make their way to Europe."

The International Organization for Migration last week said nearly 160,000 people had crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Italy this year, while 4,220 had died trying.

Mueller noted that in addition to the migrants already looking to come to Europe, there were about 20 million displaced people in Africa.

He said these issues needed to be recognised by the international community, and Africa should have representation on the U.N. Security Council.

Mueller said his plan was aimed at developing joint solutions with African countries, with a big focus on programmes for youth, education and training and on strengthening economies and the rule of law.

Merkel raised similar issues during a visit to Africa last month, and during a meeting of the G20 industrialised countries in China.

Mueller said a significant share of his ministry's proposed budget increase of over 1 billion euros for 2017 would be earmarked for projects in Africa.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa-idUSKBN1361KN?il=0

Not only is it good for Africa, it's good for Europe as well. Sounds like a solid plan, but only if the organizations on the ground have sustainable solutions to build Africas capacity for self reliance. Let's hope sensible development will prevail.

Grayson

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

The flying mouse

Let's hope the different African governments/countries agree to it, plan Sounds good in theory.

Saipanne

Given the high levels of corruption on the continent, it naturally puts investors off as even a slight change to the political landscape can result in the entire investment and associated rights to property being wiped out.

So obviously institutions and the rule of law must be improved along with increased investment. Simply adding money to the equation won't work.

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

Given the high levels of corruption on the continent, it naturally puts investors off as even a slight change to the political landscape can result in the entire investment and associated rights to property being wiped out.

So obviously institutions and the rule of law must be improved along with increased investment. Simply adding money to the equation won't work.

No argument there. However even just doing it for a subset of countries where it's possible will not only set an example but also be somewhere else for migrants to go to.

Saipanne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No argument there. However even just doing it for a subset of countries where it's possible will not only set an example but also be somewhere else for migrants to go to.

Maybe by directing investment towards countries who sort out corruption might act as an incentive for others. It depends on how this plan is executed.

Grayson

Saipanne wrote: »

Given the high levels of corruption on the continent, it naturally puts investors off as even a slight change to the political landscape can result in the entire investment and associated rights to property being wiped out.

So obviously institutions and the rule of law must be improved along with increased investment. Simply adding money to the equation won't work.

To be fair, the EU has been very successful at that in Europe. It's the reasons so many people in Ukraine and Moldova want their countries to do it.

newacc2015

Africa doesnt need development, it needs for them to use birth control. Iran realised that birth control was going to be key for their economic wealth, so they encourage its citizens to use it heavily. Likewise China realised a lower birth rate would translate into higher economic growth. It doesnt make a difference how much money we throw at Africa if they are still having 6/7 children like places such as Uganda. Uganda has gone from about 7 million people in 1960 to around 40 million today. While the birth rate of Iran has gone from about 7 in 1960 to only about 1.9 today. While Uganda's birth rate has gone from 7 in 1960 to 5.9 today. You dont need a PhD in development economics to see what country is better off economically.

Aggressively funding and promoting birth control in Africa will be far more effective than funding corrupt politicans over there. What hope those Africa have if in 2016 you are considered to be a liberal and responsible women by only having 4 children? What good is Africa having the best roads/rail in the world if they are still tripling their population every generation or so?

PirateShampoo

Let's ignore the fact that why would you work in a country for literally peanuts and where your completely replaceable and viewed by your employer as nothing more than a ant, when you can take a risky journey and come to Europe and instantly claim benefits worth hundreds every week and have everything given to you on a platter.

They don't come here because there is no work in there native countries, they come here because we give them everything once they arrive.

Damien360

Saipanne wrote: »

Given the high levels of corruption on the continent, it naturally puts investors off as even a slight change to the political landscape can result in the entire investment and associated rights to property being wiped out.

So obviously institutions and the rule of law must be improved along with increased investment. Simply adding money to the equation won't work.

Completely agree but I don't think we will see Europe try to remove the many de facto dictators and their families in power in the whole African continent.

Unlike the 1945 plan we are not dealing with one or two countries with a vested interest in bettering their own country but many countries trying to out do each other for investment. Much like Europe in that political sense.

padd b1975

The flying mouse wrote: »

Let's hope the different African governments/countries agree to it, plan Sounds good in theory.

An African government turning down first world financial assistance??

That really would be a first.

MRnotlob606

They need democratic institutions first before money is handed out. Many African countries already squander aid money due to endemic corruption.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Let's ignore the fact that why would you work in a country for literally peanuts and where your completely replaceable and viewed by your employer as nothing more than a ant, when you can take a risky journey and come to Europe and instantly claim benefits worth hundreds every week and have everything given to you on a platter.

They don't come here because there is no work in there native countries, they come here because we give them everything once they arrive.

Change that last sentence to "if they arrive" and you put a whole new slant on things.

Richard Hillman

Grayson wrote: »

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

Very true. I am one of them.

Don't care. Not our responsibility. We have already given them a ****load of money. They don't spend the money we give them responsibly. Their adults are irresponsible in that they have massive families. They consistently elect despots. They didn't like being colonised. We cannot do anything for them.

Badly Drunk Boy

If I was in any position of power in an African country, I'd definitely want to stamp out corruption and would help to do so (so long as 'they' made it worth my while).

suicide_circus

I get the distinct impression that Africa can only be "fixed" from within. European tinkering hasn't worked and won't work.

PirateShampoo

Grayson wrote: »

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

How many trillions have been spent thrown at the African problem?

SEPT 23 1989

Another nail in Merkels coffin

Sand

There is no shortage of money or investment in Africa. The major issue Africa ( a continent with incredible natural resources) has is extremely poor and weak structures of governance, rule of law and democracy. Pouring more money into a corrupt system will not achieve results. And I don't think the idea of Europeans telling Africans how to run themselves will survive contact with a political backlash.

The solution for Africa ultimately has to come from African reformers and leaders. Europe can and should help where and when asked, and should not be afraid of representing its own interests on the migrant crisis - but its hubris to think Europe can solve Africa's problems when it struggles to solve its own.

lawlolawl

I don't think pouring yet more developed aid into some African nations is a great idea.

It'll buy warlords and tinpot dictators some new equipment i suppose.

Dr Jakub

Grayson wrote: »

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

I could get behind it, along as we can ensure it doesn't get spent on Migs and limos and a new palace for the dictator.

Dr Jakub

What Africa really needs is population control.

A Little Pony

The problem of a far right party rising to the power of government won't happen in the UK or the US but France or Germany. The environment exists in mainland Europe for another such government to come about.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

In theory, a good idea. In practice a lot of the money would disappear into some war Lords Bank account, and corruption would be rife. Just let them at it. They can't be governed the same way western states are, similar to the middle east.

The Wolverine

A very simple starter would actually be using European naval services to drop migrants to back Libya and the likes instead of being a ferry service.

Any migrant caught on European soil goes straight to an aid camp like in Greece where any medical needs are met and then are taken back to North Africa, I'm sure Libya and some others will be happy to work on a deal like it given enough financial incentive.

Any migrant who does the whole I'm not saying where I'm from/lost my passport will be expressly told they will then remain in said aid camp forever with very basic needs met.

All boats to scuttled once caught transporting migrants and Libyan/other North African military given resources to catch and scuttle people smuggleers bases of operations.

They need to be told in no circumstances have they a future in Europe.

The message will sink in eventually, just like the current it's a free for all message sunk in cause of Merkel and other EU dithering in the first place.

wakka12

Maybe a better plan would be to remove the war lords running, or more so threatening , many african countries into submission and hindering their development. Better solution than pumping more money into the countries and funding weapons and military force. but still, at least merkels starting to talk a bit more sense

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A Little Pony wrote: »

The problem of a far right party rising to the power of government won't happen in the UK or the US but France or Germany. The environment exists in mainland Europe for another such government to come about.

France, quite possibly, but not Germany. AfD don't have enough cross-country suppport and would probably struggle to pick up coalition partners.

Best bets would be smaller countries, like Switzerland, Austria and (maybe - not sure of the political situation there) Netherlands.

Grayson

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Very true. I am one of them.

Don't care. Not our responsibility. We have already given them a ****load of money. They don't spend the money we give them responsibly. Their adults are irresponsible in that they have massive families. They consistently elect despots. They didn't like being colonised. We cannot do anything for them.

They elect despots? They didn't like being colonised?

I'm having trouble telling if you're serious or being factious.

Capt'n Midnight

The flow of money is out of Africa.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/may/29/illicit-financial-flows-africa-creditor

But most African countries, with weak tax regimes, are by far the biggest losers. The joint report from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a US research organisation, says the continent has been a long-term net creditor to the rest of the world. Africa lost $597bn-1.4tn in net resource outflows between 1980 and 2009 after adjusting recorded transfers for illicit financial outflows.

EU and US make a lot of noise about linking aid to good governance but don't really enforce it, and the arms deals etc. Huge amounts of "African Aid" are spent in the sending country or sending country organisations. Irishaid does a lot better as it's better targeted.

The Chinese are cleaning up in Africa because their money doesn't come with "human rights" lip-service. Yes they are corrupt too , but at the end of the day the roads and railways get build.

Richard Hillman

Grayson wrote: »

They elect despots? They didn't like being colonised?

I'm having trouble telling if you're serious or being factious.

Zimbabwe.

Dr Jakub

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Zimbabwe.

Kick out all the whites!!

Oh wait, our country went to ****...

dissed doc

Grayson wrote: »

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

People have been sending money to charities in Africa for decades now.

The best chance of stability was Ghaddafi and Libya.

Clinton and her coven over the last decade destroyed the chance of an African union, and stable African-wide trade and economy.

This is a push to exploit a very dwindling tolerance for the excitations of a liberal elite. There is simply is not enough spare money to pay for another continent, and all its problems. Local governments in Europe run at a typical 40-50% income tax rate from the local people and cannot run local services.

Bonaparted

Grayson wrote: »

The same people who argue against taking in refugees are the same people who will argue against spending a penny in any type of development work.

The Africans arriving aren't refugees. Note that they even referred to them as migrants.

midnight city

The Wolverine wrote: »

A very simple starter would actually be using European naval services to drop migrants to back Libya and the likes instead of being a ferry service.

We need to be getting tough with the immigration from Africa and anywhere other than Syria. For better or for worse we have deemed Syria a country that needs help. That's fine and hopefully they can return to a safe Syria some day. But the people coming in illegally from African countries that don't even have wars really needs to stop. Bring them straight back to Libya.

As has been mentioned already population control is a major issue. The population of Ethopia was 40 million when Bob Geldof was there in 1984, now it is 102 million

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ethiopia-population/

Fleawuss

I've seen all the relief efforts and development initiatives for years. Small gains wiped out in coups, foreign interference, corruption, tribal societies unable to deal with democracy, religious extremism and famines. Past performance indicates future performance: Ms Markel should incinerate most of her aid for all the good itwill do.

A far better option would be to concentrate resources on the countries sharing the Med coastline. Develop this and step South from there. That is where the economic migrants need to be stopped.

Fleawuss

I've seen all the relief efforts and development initiatives for years. Small gains wiped out in coups, foreign interference, corruption, tribal societies unable to deal with democracy, religious extremism and famines. Past performance indicates future performance: Ms Markel should incinerate most of her aid for all the good itwill do.

A far better option would be to concentrate resources on the countries sharing the Med coastline. Develop this and step South from there. That is where the economic migrants need to be stopped.

darkpagandeath

Does Africa not belong to China now ?

Dick phelan

Africa is far too corrupt and politically unstable for a Marshall plan type deal to work. As i said on the thread about Aid to Africa what Africa really needs is population control, stable government and fair trade deals, without those this would fall flat on it's face.

Ulysses Gaze

Look at the natural resources available in Africa that could transform the continent. That's just mineral resources btw. There are a number of African nations that have oil industries worth billions.

http://answersafrica.com/top-10-african-nations-with-the-most-mineral-deposits.html

The problem is not lack of money it's 1) Western and now Chinese exploitation of African resources coupled with 2) Corrupt Governments running the shows there.

Throwing huge amounts of money will not solve the problems that exist in Africa.

A Little Pony

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The problem of a far right party rising to the power of government won't happen in the UK or the US but France or Germany. The environment exists in mainland Europe for another such government to come about.

France, quite possibly, but not Germany. AfD don't have enough cross-country suppport and would probably struggle to pick up coalition partners.

Best bets would be smaller countries, like Switzerland, Austria and (maybe - not sure of the political situation there) Netherlands.

Any party which advocates stemming the tide of Islamic immigration is fine by me. Not letting Islam spread in Europe is of most importance.

hannible the cannible

Dr Jakub wrote: »

What Africa really needs is population control.

Exactly ,as long as they breed unchecked like animals with no apparent independent thought process , they will always be poor and corrupt , keep money in Europe and let them sort their own house , European countries have long enough taken the burden of guilt over what their ancestors are perceived to have done , let them sink or swim on their own

Didas

hannible the cannible wrote: »

Exactly ,as long as they breed unchecked like animals with no apparent independent thought process they will always be poor and corrupt , keep money in Europe and let them sort their own house , European countries have long enough taken the burden of guilt over what their ancestors are perceived to have done , let them sink or swim on their own

Calm it now Dr Paisley...

Grayson

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Zimbabwe.

Elections in Zimbabwe are hardly fair. The opposition has been crippled for years. Still he was elected at one point. I guess that disproves my point and all the other despots must have been elected in fair free elections where the despot clearly outlined his despotic plans.



I'm in favour of a concerted effort to get Africa up and running. It needs to be clear and transparent. Money shouldn't go to to line the pockets of despots although there's no reason money couldn't help transparency groups in places like Zimbabwe.

Grayson

wakka12 wrote: »

Maybe a better plan would be to remove the war lords running, or more so threatening , many african countries into submission and hindering their development. Better solution than pumping more money into the countries and funding weapons and military force. but still, at least merkels starting to talk a bit more sense

There's a problem with removing these people. How is it done and who replaces them. The last thing anyone wants is load of Iraqs in Africa. It would be best to work with countries that have established or emerging democracies to hep them develop and stabilise.

SafeSurfer

No questioning of Europes immigration policy is tolerated. Take the coverage in the Irish media for example. Lots of coverage about the heroic work of the naval service ferrying migrants into Europe but no criticism of this policy entertained. To question the elite consensus is dismissed as fascism when fascism is actually the intolerance of dissent.