Fekadu Bekele, Ph D

On 25^th January of this year  the Greek people have elected a new parliament and a new government which is led by the SYRIZA party which is  opposing the economic and social policies of the past two previous governments, the PASOK, which is a socialist party by name,  and  the New Democracy party, a center-right wing party. Both the parties, namely PASOK and the New Democracy party  had in the past pursued a neo-liberal economic policy which was dictated and imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF),  the European Commission and the European Central Bank.  Because of the severe economic and social crises which the two past governments have inflicted upon the country the Greek people have lost confidence in them. The two parties have proved time and again that they were not in a position to tackle the economic and social crises of their people. The saving measure, as the three institutions call it, which is a belt tightening program, did not improve the Greek economy and the lives of the  people, but further worsened it. Therefore it was practically impossible for the coalition government, namely the  PASOK and the New Democracy  party  to administer the country effectively. Since the parliament has failed to elect a new president in 2014, and therefore the coalition government was compelled to call for a new general election, with the hope of getting a new mandate which will enable it to elect a new president and continue with the austerity program.  However, this time the Greek people did not want to give them a new mandate to continue with their draconian economic policies, which will undoubtedly deepen the existing economic and social crises.

The SYRIZA party, a coalition of left wing parties which has tried several times to get the majority became the strongest party in the parliament, but didn’t  receive enough votes  to rule alone. The party therefore is compelled to create a coalition government with a right wing party which  also opposes the neo-liberal economic policy of the past two governments.  For many people who are not familiar with the Greek politics  and do not understand the social structure of the Greek society, it  seems unnatural  that a left wing party makes a coalition with a right wing party which is hostile to foreigners to form a government and take  the country out of the economic and social crises. However,  the two parties  formed a coalition government and created facts.  Whether the coalition will last long, one cannot predict now.  It seems that irrespective of the ideological differences, both parties wanted to pursue a more nationalistic agenda by putting the interests of their country and their people  first.  I think it is a pragmatic approach which compels the two parties to look beyond the existing  ideological differences.  Whether the two parties are strong and pragmatic enough to cope with the existing deep economic and social crises,  and at the same time withstand the pressure that comes from the Troika,  the coming months will show us.

Greek entrance into the euro and the contradictions within the euro zone!

First of all the creation of a common currency is one step forward to fasten the development of a European common market which ultimately leads to a political union. However, when measures were taken to create new rules that pave the way for a European economic and monetary union in 1992 in Maastricht the preconditions that must be accepted for each country which wants to become the member of the currency zone were narrow. Secondly, the economic structures within the Member States diverge dramatically. The development gap between those highly developed capitalist countries and those peripheral countries which do not have the necessary technological and scientific foundations, and at the same time  do not possess oligopolistic market structures is clear for everybody.  Countries like Germany and France do not only have integrated market structures from within, some of their companies, like the banking sector, insurance companies and other highly developed manufacturing activities, including the car industries operate not only on  regional level, but are also active globally, and part of the value-added of some of the car industries are produced in countries where wages are low. As such  they  compete with other highly developed capitalist countries on a global scale and have great market shares. With this the organizational structures in these countries, their sophistication and efficiency is far away from those peripheral economies, like that of the Greece and the Portuguese economies.  The economic and organizational power  of the big companies in the highly developed capitalist countries is so high that they could dictate the course of the economic policy of the governments. Most of the economic research institutions are being financed by big and medium-size companies, and as such these institutions could exercise greater influences on the policy formulation of the governments in Germany and France.

From this vantage point countries like Greek, Portugal, Spain, and other new member countries from the east-bloc and the Baltic are in many aspects lag behind and could not withstand the competition and the pressure that comes from developed capitalist countries. To think that currency has only to do with monetary and fiscal aspects, and to neglect its foundation, namely the production structure of any given country, the degree of the division of labor, the size of the market and its sophistication, and the technological and scientific foundation,  and at the same time the degree of the social organization is just misleading.  The role of money,  its strength  and its velocity must be seen within the entire commodity forms of production which operates in a chained form and in circular movements. Therefore it is clear from the outset that countries like Portugal and Greece which do not possess sophisticated capitalistic forms of production will be facing difficulties if they become members of the currency zone.  Although formally they will have equal voices, the economic realities in different countries dictate their roles in the Euro Zone. Likewise,  whether these countries could benefit by simply becoming  members of the EU and the Euro Zone depends on many other factors.  Since the political institutions in Greece, Portugal, Spain and other former East Bloc countries are very weak and the governments do not feel accountable for their people, even though the EU has transferred billions of euros, most of them could not invest the money productively and wisely to develop a big market structure with all its attributes.

When the move to create a European Economic and Monetary union(EMU) was undertaken the criteria for the  common currency  were, the inflation rate must not exceed 1.5%,  the yearly net budget deficit must not be above  3% of the GDP, and the total debt must not exceed  60% of GDP.  Though these are important preconditions that allow member countries to operate within  specified rules, but on the other side it will limit their scope of activities to only fiscal and monetary discipline. The role of the State in creating suitable situations for investment and organizing other production activities to create job opportunities and through that develop wide and sophisticated market structures which also generate income for the State will be limited. Governments will automatically be compelled to struggle year after year to accomplish the Maastricht criteria instead of delivering their societies with the necessary goods and services, or create suitable atmosphere so that the basic needs of their people could be fulfilled. The European Union has a social Charta,  however the economic realities and political power relationships dictate the activity of the Union, and as such social aspects in different countries will be undermined. Instead of putting politics as the prime motor for social stability, and mechanisms of distributing the existing wealth to different classes  and social groups so that social order could be maintained, everything is seen through the mirror of monetary and fiscal discipline. Since neo-liberal thinking and ideology has become the main policy orientation, the distribution mechanisms that governments pursue favors more and more the well-to-do class. That is why we witness that especially in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even in France youth unemployment is over proportionally high. These governments do not have the necessary mechanisms and vocational training systems like that of Germany to mitigate youth unemployment, and have difficulties to give feasible opportunities for the youth.  From this it is clear that the political and social consciousness, and the social awareness among certain countries, especially that of  Germany  is highly developed, while in countries like France, though it has one of the longest political history in terms of political freedom, in a country where for the first time the slogans,  liberty, equality and fraternity were declared, the political elite is not socially aware.  Even if  in member countries parliamentary democracy is the rule of the system, the political, economic and social consciousness in all member countries are not the same. In short, the degree of economic organization, the political structure in different countries, the forms of party organization and their interactions with the people, the efficiency of the state bureaucracy in different countries in handling economic and social problems determine whether each country becomes competent within the euro zone and the European Union. Countries which do not fulfill the above mentioned criteria will be compelled year after year to practice the same kind of economic policy which cannot create wealth for their societies. Whenever they have difficulties, they will inevitably be compelled to pursue the dictates of international institutions which aggravate the existing situations.

When  Greek  becomes the member of the euro zone in 2001, and effectively adopt the euro in 2002,  some experts say that the then governing party had presented false statistics. According to the Eurostat which is responsible for data computation and calculation of the EU Member States, and its trade relation with other countries, the Greek government had that time presented at least 11 false statistical “evidences” to become member of the Euro zone. According to the New York Times of 13.2.2010, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgen had helped the then ruling party to manipulate statistics  to show that the government could fulfill the criteria as it was spelled out in Maastricht in 1992. That means for the present debt and economic crises that Greece  has to face is,  the past two governments are mainly responsible and not the new government which wants to pursue a different course in order to stabilize the situation and slowly create an atmosphere for investment. According to the logic of the new government led by Mr. Alexis Tsipras the government can pay its debt back when it invests and generate income.  It insists time and again that austerity program which is dictated by the Troika could not stimulate growth and does not generate income. The austerity program of the IMF has strangulated the economy and inflicted incalculable social and economic damages which will be very difficult to correct it in the near future.  Even if the past two governments and the austerity program of the Troika  are mainly responsible for the present debt and economic crises, this is not to say that these alone are responsible  for the economic and social crises that prevail in Greece.

Though Greek is the origin and mother of the European civilization, and by all accounts it could become one of the leading nations in science and technology, many factors might have contributed this not to happen. First of all the  social structure was not conducive to introduce a technological revolution. Secondly, the unique land scape it possess, and the scattered population were not favorable for social transformation.  Thirdly it was attacked by foreign forces many times that had disturbed the evolutionary process of political and social developments. Its occupation under the Ottoman empire for almost 500 years had negatively affected its development. In order to save the Hellenic civilization many intellectuals had fled out of Greece. In the 20^th century, form 1941-1945 Greece had to suffer a lot under Nazi occupation and had lost many thousand people. During these time many patriotic forces had lost their lives. From 1942 onwards first the British, and after 1947 the Americans could massively influence the political and military events in Greece. Their main aim was to prevent communists and other patriotic forces from taking political power. Their involvement had undoubtedly paved the way for the formation and strengthening of anti-democratic and anti-republican forces.  Especially, the civil war of 1945-1949, and the defeat of the left, and later on the political development which outlawed progressive forces from political participation, and the role of the military in suppressing republican and progressive ideas could undermine the development of a middle class culture. Last but not least,  the military  coup d’état of 1967 which lasted until 1974,  and which was supported by the Americans had negatively affected the development of the political structure and the state system.   It is no wonder therefore not only in Greece, but also in Portugal and Spain, in countries where military dictators supported by the Americans ruled until 1974 if the political, economic and social developments could be undermined.

Coming to the debt crisis, when a new government led by PASOK was elected in 2009, prior or during the election process it had promised to normalize the economic situation and thereby increase the social benefits for those needy social groups. However the new socialist government was caught by the existing economic realities, and therefore it was clear that it could not materialize its promises. After 15 days of takeover of the political power the finance minister has declared that the budget deficit was not as anticipated  just 6% of GDP, but it was between 12-13% of GDP. That means this budget deficit surpasses the Maastricht criteria by fourfold. From this time on  it is clear that the new government as well as successive governments will not be the master of the economic and social situation of their country. Therefore the European Commission had announced that from now on it will control the budget situation of the government so that the  government  fulfills the Maastricht criteria. This must be clear for anybody. The Greek government must cut its budget for social benefits in order to “normalize” the situation and pay back its debt. However the situation could not ease, and as the situation becomes worse rating agents had downgraded the credit worthiness of the Greek state so that it cannot borrow money under normal market conditions. That means if the government wants to borrow money from the capital market it must pay more than what the market demands.

Incapable of drawing credits from the capital market, on May 2010 the Greek government had agreed with the European Commission, the European Central Bank(ECB) and the International Monetary Fund(IMF) to get credit worth of  € 110  billion. In order to borrow such an amount of money from lending countries and the IMF, the Greek government must fulfill a set of criteria, which first of all might bring the budget deficit to  3% of GDP.  That means the Greek governments and its people must abandon their sovereignty, and the budget situation will be controlled by the European Commission, by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The € 110 billion will not be given at once, but in three successive phases, according to how the government manages to abide by the rules it has agreed to do so.  It was believed by the Troika that if the government practices the austerity program as it is prescribed the economic situation will be normalized, and  market forces will be willing to invest, and as a matter of fact when the economy grows the living condition of the Greek people will be improved.

Since the first bailout loan could not ease the situation,  the Troika has offered the government another bailout loan  worth €130  billion on October 2011 with more harsh austerity program. However, the bailout loan and the related austerity program instead of improving the situation,   makes  the situation worse, and inevitably throw the people under dire conditions. Since the government cannot function autonomously and independently, it could not apply economic policies which can create wealth by focusing on strategic investments that could create job opportunities and widen the tax base of the government.  Instead,  the function of the State has been reduced to manage the debt problem rather than becoming accountable for its people.  Experiences prove that in many countries during the 80s and 90s  IMF led policies could not create favorable situations for expanded capital accumulation, and hence economic growth.  Instead countries will be compelled to canalize part of the GDP to pay back the debt, and by that they enrich foreign banks. The main aim of the IMF is not as such to deliver effective instruments for countries which are severely affected by economic and social crises, but to develop sophisticated instruments so that highly indebted countries become permanently dependent on the benevolence of foreign capital. Once a given country is under the grip of the IMF, it cannot develop an independent economic and social structure which is conducive for more creative activities. It cannot generate true wealth on its own, by applying flexible instruments which favor the mobilization of all the available resources. From the outset if certain countries apply the austerity program of the IMF, other alternative policies will be blocked, and those forces which have  better alternatives are not allowed to debate on the merit and practicability of such a rigid policy. The IMF led policies strangulate the economic and the social system of a given country further,  rather than creating favorable situation for dynamic economic growth.  In short, IMF led economic policies will only benefit  money lenders, while the position of a borrowing country will become worse. Growing debt and austerity program will create increasing dependency on foreign capital market, lending institutions and on governments while from within the gap between the rich and the poor will be widened. .

Since Greece  has begun applying the draconian economic policy,  the budget deficit has been reduced from 13% to 10%,  however the unemployment rate rose from 8.5% to 12%  and ultimately to 27%.  Though the IMF policy subscribers tell the Greek people that the economy will grow as a result of the draconian economic policy, the economy could not grow, rather it has been reduced by almost 4.5%.  As a result of such a draconian economic policy the buying power of the Greek people has also been reduced by almost 40%. That means the majority of the Greek people become poorer day by day, whereas youth unemployment has increased from 22% to 62%.

All in all,  after the implementation of the austerity program, a country with beautiful beaches, and booming economy, has been changed within five years to one of the poorest countries within the European Union. Almost over 33% of the Greek people are compelled to live below the poverty line, and many have committed suicide because of the unbearable situation. Instead of reducing the debt level, the policy has pushed the debt level to € 330 billion, which amounts to almost 175 % of GDP. Yet the policy makers which firmly believe in the miracle of the neo-liberal ideology  will not show any sign of regret and shame, instead they want to take more and more out of the broken country and destitute people. According to the belief of the IMF and other policy makers there is no another alternative policy other than implementing such a draconian austerity program. It seems that the Greek people must be punished for their “sin” of laying down the foundation for science and technology, drama and literature, architecture and every kinds of fine arts without which present day humanity would have remained in darkness.  At the end the economic policy of the IMF and the political elite from within have made Greece powerless, which is the birth democracy, philosophy and rational thinking.

From the experiences of many Latin American countries and of Sub-Saharan Africa, we also learn that these countries by simply applying the same kind of  policy and the so-called Structural Adjustment Program(SAPs) become the victim of such an aggressive policy. As a result of such kind of belt tightening program the governments of many Latin American and Sub-Saharan African countries become dysfunctional. The policy has created more a non-governable situation in all these countries, and as a result of the failed economic and social policies the criminality rate has increased dramatically. It is therefore legitimate to say that the policy of the IMF and other international institutions which dogmatically push weak nations to apply austerity programs will compel these countries to remain in a vicious circle of economic, social and cultural crises rather than building a science and technology driven system, and aesthetically designed cities. Rather, indebted countries will be compelled to focus on those sectors of the economy which can  be exported and generate hard currencies that enable them to pay the debt back. The more they purse a one sided economic policy, the more they will be compelled not to pursue a holistic economic policy which is capable of pulling the majority of the people out of poverty. The IMF led economic policy will force weak nations not to use their resources wisely which could possibly help them to create national wealth for the majority of the people. It rather compels poor countries which have weak institutions to use their scare resources lavishly and for debt payment. Usually the main aim of a genuine economic policy should be to create social and national wealth on the basis of manufacturing activities and expanded division of labor which can produce multiple products of all types. Manufacturing activities and expanded division of labor alone can create true social wealth for any country. The systematic infiltration of the IMF in the policy formulation of weak countries hinders this aspect of wealth creation.

The question that we arise:  why does the EU and the European Central Bank which have all the necessary expertise  and resources, and in a continent which by itself possess sophisticated technology and knowledge,  allow such an institution with bad reputation to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign country? Is it not in the interest of all member countries, and those leading countries like Germany to create in all member countries conditions so that the free movements of capital, goods and labor in all countries become possible ?  If with such kind of draconian economic policy some nations become economically and socially unable to perform well,  who will benefit ? Is it not in the interest of each member country to create a suitable atmosphere for economic growth and development in all countries so that social stability will be possible in all countries? Why does the EU and Member States look helpless as a result of such a rigid and not-wealth creating economic policy when thousands of educated people from Portugal and Spain are going away from their home land in search of jobs in other countries? Though some politicians tell us that the situation in Portugal and Spain have improved, fact is that thousands of Portuguese people are going to Angola, Mozambique and to Macao to search for job opportunities there. In Spain too, highly educated people, unable to find jobs are compelled to go out of their country and are working in Switzerland, Austria and Germany. It should have been clear by now for everybody that a strong and politically influential Europe will only be possible if all member countries will have strong and well-developed economic, social and institutional infrastructures from within. To pursue a neo-liberal economic agenda  time and again will do the opposite, and is beneficial for extremist forces which could destabilize the political atmosphere in Europe. I think the German classics and well-minded economists of the 18^th and 19^th century, like Friedrich List and Heinrich Pech, and those who have raised and stressed the need of solving social problems,(die Sozialefrage), like Max Weber and Gustave von Schmoller teach us that pure market economic policies which are detached from cultural and social aspects at the end lead many countries to chaotic conditions. The rise of fascism is partly due to the economic policy of the then governing chancellor Heinrich Brüning, who applied a draconian austerity program and which was responsible for the soaring unemployment and which was almost over 30% at the time.  Though this might not happen again, such an economic policy which peripheral European countries are compelled to adopt will favor discontent elements who make trouble and create unstable political atmosphere. Political instability in the peripheries will also affect those highly developed capitalist countries, and right-wing elements will get a chance to increase their activities in many European countries. This will undoubtedly poison the political atmosphere.

                        Neo-liberal economic policy can’t create national wealth !

The economic policy which the IMF prescribes for different countries contradicts the very foundation of scientific economic theory. It is devoid of any theoretical and scientific foundation, and it is simply assumed that all countries across the globe are alike, and therefore all countries  have to apply the same kind of  policy that ultimately leads them to the supposed market heaven. Since all the people have the same aspirations and wishes, since all have the same access to the given resources, everything must be left to market forces. There is no political, economic and social power relationships that dictate economic policies and processes in each country. The fact that resources are scare, the market will allocate the given resources according to the need of the market. Hence, governments should not intervene in the market processes of each country, and should not undertake measures which can correct social and economic imbalances in any given country. Therefore the concept politics, political power relationship, social and social relationship are not known in the realm of neo-classical and neo-liberal economists. Each country must and should be seen as an arena of pure market economic activities, where goods and services in exchange of money are taking place.  The aspect of production, division of labor, science and technology and the organization of all these aspects in order to develop a given country as a full-fledged nation-state is not known. All countries must be governed and dictated by one single formula, i.e. pure market economy. Each country should not organize its system according to the needs of its people. Therefore  weak countries must be abide not by their own constitutions and governments should not be  accountable for their own people but they must accept the “laws” of international institutions and market economy. Weak nations can only exist on the benevolence of capitalist countries and their institutions which cloth the name international.

Fortunately the economic theory and policy since the 15^th century until 1974 tells us a different story. As political economy has been developed as a scientific instrument, emerging mercantilist states must pursue conscious economic policy to lay the foundation for the development of  nation-states. Governments therefore had deliberately and actively supported those active forces to be engaged in economic activities. Such a deliberate and an inward looking economic policy in combination of intellectual activities which could enlighten the then emerging classes, paved the way for the development of capitalism. Even after the triumph of market ideology, which highlights the invisible hand as the motor of economic growth and economic development, only for a short period of time everything is left to market forces which at the end produced pauperism and chaotic conditions. Millions of people were overthrown into poverty and at the end they were compelled to perform everything that the government  ordered them to do so . This was especially the case in Great Britain, the source of free trade and free market doctrine, where for the first time a pure market economic policy was adopted.

After the Second World, and when many European economies were devastated, and when many countries did not have functioning systems to deal with the then existing all sorts of problems, like shortage of food, shelter, water and sanitation problems and transportation, governments were compelled to pursue direct measures to alleviate the people from where they are and build their societies slowly and slowly on firmer foundation. The fact that many Western European countries have organizational experiences, and the fact that they know that market forces alone could not solve the complicated problems that exist governments must tackle the problem with clear economic understanding and direct measures. Technocratic and mathematical models did  not have any place in those days when the people urgently needed food to feed their empty stomachs, clean water to satisfy their thrust, houses for shelter that prevent them from rain and cold weather, energy to cook their food and to warm their houses. To fulfill all these basic needs governments have undertaken specified measures which enabled them to  canalize and mobilize all the available resources, so that social wealth can be created. They have created institutions and credit mechanisms which can be allocated for productive activities, infrastructure and house construction for the millions of people who needed shelter. Therefore all European countries that were involved in the war, and especially countries like that of Germany could build their economies within 15 to 20 years by mobilizing all the available resources and knowledge what they had at their disposal. To build their countries, and  develop  science and technology all these countries  have never asked special permission from any international institution and governments. They believed in their knowledge and capacity so that when they come together and mobilize all the available resources they could build a proud nation within a short period of time.

This shows that until the triumph of neo-liberal ideology,  and since the oil and economic crises  of 1973/74 there were consensus among West European countries that without direct state intervention, and without conscious support of those active forces there cannot be genuine economic development. At the same time there was full understanding in respecting the constitution and take into account seriously  the voices of the people who elect different parties. That means whatever name various parties have, whether social democrats or Christian democratic party, they know that they have to solve the existing social and economic problems that the people expect from them.  On the other hand there were clear ideological differences in economic policy orientation and implementation. However the triumph of neo-liberal ideology and its institutionalization has wiped out the ideological differences that existed  among the different parties.  Theoretical debates that are essential to analyze a given situation are no more relevant, and what is needed  is to “solve” existing problems by simple technocratic approaches. As a matter of fact technocrats operate with numbers, which cannot solve complex social problems. Therefore there is nowadays a belief that there is only one economic theory and policy that must be applied everywhere irrespective of the social, economic and political difference that each nation possesses. In such a world where neo-liberalism becomes the only “economic science” and policy orientation  the satisfaction of human basic needs, like proper diet, clean water, shelter, energy, elementary education and medical treatments do not have any place. All these aspects which are essential for human needs and which are vital for maintaining a social order are irrelevant. What matters is simple economic growth that can be expressed in numbers and does not take into account the real social life. Everything can be solved by market forces, and as such everybody in any given society has equal access to the services and goods which are sold on the market.  Everything must be seen and calculated from the perspective of cost-benefit analysis and market performance. However, for those of us who have been living more than 30 years here in Germany and other highly developed European countries, the belief in pure market ideology could not improve the situation. This belief and the policy instruments which have been applied favor the few while they complicate the lives of the ordinary people.  Over the last 30 years neo-liberalism has proved time and again that it cannot serve as an analytical and scientific instrument to analyze social and economic conditions in different countries. Since neo-liberalism focuses on certain phenomenal aspects, like budget deficit, currency depreciation, liberalization and monetary aspects it cannot be used as a scientific and analytical tool to analyze a given socio-economic construction of a given country. Therefore the IMF,  and those which accept the advices of such an institution operate without any theory. As a matter of fact without theory there is no praxis.

I think the crisis that we see across the globe, and in those countries that have to swallow the bitter medicine of the IMF and neo-liberal economists, like the Greeks is the result of such an economic policy that doesn’t have scientific foundation. The IMF economic policy can’t take into account social and economic realities and political power relationship that exist in different countries. The sophistication of economic policy instruments which are far away from the social realities and needs of the people in each country, and which cannot take into account the political and social relationship, problems of resource controlling and property relationship could overshadow the mentality of many people in many countries.  Therefore the situation can be resolved when philosophically and socially minded people got the upper hand and advice politicians.  Since neo-liberal and neo-classical economic policies are against true human civilization, there is no any scientific logic to apply them everywhere as if there are no other alternatives.

The mechanism of debt and its power of destruction- the fate of Greece !

Usually if money that is borrowed properly invested productively it has the power of developing a given economy. There are different types of money mobilization that can be retrieved  from the people and given to investors and consumers in forms of credit.   Since the economies of weak nations are not developed as that of the capitalist economies it is very difficult for the banks to develop various instruments that enable them to mobilize  the money that is being held in the hands of the people and allocate it for productive investments. With this the low level of commodity production, and the existence of scattered economic activities hamper the velocity of money and its proper use for capital accumulation.  Therefore the power and velocity of money is very limited in many undeveloped countries.  The fact that the dollar and the euro are major trading and reserve currencies,  the currencies of weak nations are not taken seriously and are not seen as  sources of capital accumulation.  The dominating power of the dollar and the euro could therefore undermine the role of various currencies in different countries. Therefore many governments and banks are compelled to borrow money from international institutions, capital market and capitalist countries.  The capitalist countries and their institutions become therefore the sources of credits which determine the fate of weak economies.

The conditions of borrowing money from capital market and international institutions are not the same. However, at the end countries or private investors that borrow money for further investments must pay back at the agreed period.  Debt can be a problem if governments and private companies  do not invest it properly.  Usually governments borrow money if they do not collect enough taxes from the people due to various factors. Since most weak economies do not have well-developed market economies, and since the income base of the majority of the people are very weak governments could not generate enough money from taxes. In cases of financial problems either to cover existing deficits or invest in certain projects they are compelled to borrow either from capital market or international institutions. As a matter of fact capital market and international institutions are being controlled by capitalist countries, and the market and international institutions which lend money are part and parcel of the capitalist accumulation process on a worldwide scale.  Therefore the growing international debt since 1973/74 after the introduction of the flexible exchange rate system and after the decoupling of the dollar from Gold, one see growing capital market activities which are ready to lend the accumulated money for countries which are in need of capital.  Countries which borrow money with the hope of boosting their economy by investing in big projects, had at the end to face hard realities. Since governments did not invest them in productive investments which could generate profits, in order to pay the debt back, they have to rely on taxes which they collect from the people. Though many Latin American countries borrowed money from capital market, at the end they had to swallow the bitter medicine of the IMF which had ruined their economies and social systems.  On the other side we witness that, though some banks did have some problems from time to time at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s, the banking systems in capitalist countries, international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, and capitalist countries could accumulate vast amount of wealth and become stronger and still dictate the economies of many countries. For the growing of debt and strength of the banking sector in the capitalist countries the petro-dollar and capital flight which go out from undeveloped countries are responsible which unconsciously strengthened the position of the banking system in capitalist countries, and hence the position of the IMF. Since the IMF partly relies on the capital market in order to advance credits for peripheral economies, it is part and parcel of the capitalist accumulation process and defends the interests of those wealthy people and capitalist countries. The IMF by abandoning its original position of financing balance of payment deficits, since the beginning of the 80s, and since the declaration of the Washington Consensus, it formulates economic policies for weak countries which do not have strong intellectual and institutional foundation. Therefore the IMF intervenes and meddles in weak countries  without any legal foundation and is responsible for the economic, social, cultural and political crises of these countries

From this vantage point we have to see the debt problem and the economic crisis in Greece. Though the Greek society has a well cultivated and competent intellectual force as we see it today, because of its weak economic structure which mainly relies on tourism, ship industry, which mainly facilitates services,  and agriculture, and weak political institution which is mainly responsible for widespread corruption, are the main factors that have thrown the country and its people to such a situation as we see today.  This weak position in many areas, and the fact that it has a low density of population, and the corrupt political elite which ruled the country over  the last 40 or more years practically hampered an integrated economic system which is based on vast manufacturing activities. Since the political elite is integrated within the regional and international hierarchical system it does not feel that it is part and parcel of its society and therefore it does not feel that it is accountable to its people.. The international credit system that the government and the banking sector have relied upon has strengthened the alienation of the political elite from its people. In fact the debt mechanism could enrich the political and economic elite which controls  the main resources of the Greek society. It is not surprising therefore that when such socially and economically irresponsible political institution and political elite could through the Greek society into a vicious circle of economic, social and debt crises.

As it is stated above if governments borrow money from international institutions, capital market or other governments or regional banking system they must have a plan. They should  know in advance that they have to invest the money productively so that they could pay back the interest and part of the capital at agreed time. If they do not invest the money  properly and productively they have borrowed, and borrow again and again,  they will put themselves into a situation from which they can’t come out.  If there is no special law which limits the authority of governments not to borrow money from any source, and if there is no national debate whether it is  necessary to borrow money and for what purposes, governments which are elected think that they are authorized to do whatever they like.   The fact that there is no a specified law concerning  government̕ s debt and the way how debt must be allocated drive certain governments to pursue their instincts rather than following their constitution and scientific guidelines which dictate their activities. Because  the past two governments could not feel accountable and could not seriously question themselves why they must take credits from different sources, they have inflicted heavy damages upon their society.

Therefore the money that the two past governments have borrowed  must have been spent either lavishly or it was taken out of the country to enrich other banks. What one can say is, at the early period the Greek government and the banking sector could easily borrow from the capital market at lower interest rate. As of 2008 when the global financial crisis occurred, interest rate rose sharply and make the government unable to borrow money at lower rate and pay back its old debt. The 15% fall in  tourism and shipping industry has aggravated this situation. On the other hand, the money that is borrowed was partly allocated for the importation of weapons and luxury goods. That means the credit that the two past governments have borrowed went out again to support foreign industries. That means the Greek government and the banking sector did not allocate the money they have borrowed to import machines and other goods in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs for the people. When the country faced the debt crisis it has turned to the Troika. The experts from the Troika come to Greece  with full confidence to pull out the country out of crises. The bailout and the austerity program however proved ineffective, and could aggravate the situation. The bail out of the Troika was mainly designed to save foreign banks and the institution itself. The bailout program did not help the Greek economy, it has rather increased the debt. It is estimated that almost 75-80% of the money which is transferred to the Greek banks come out of the country in order to pay the debt of some European banks and the IMF. The help and saving instruments are not as such helps and savings, but just to help foreign banks so that they do not collapse or do not have liquidity problems.

While the bailout has increased the debt burden on the government, the saving measurers or the austerity program could not help the economy to grow. Since the government was compelled to reduce the minimum wage and the pension fund, expel some of the work force from the government bureaucracy, increase the value-added tax, and privatize some of state owned companies, these measures could not help the economy to grow.  Because of the reduction of the minimum wage from €700 to € 600,  the buying power of these people has been automatically reduced. This means that if people have less money in their pockets and buy what is only necessary to make them alive, many industries will be affected and will be compelled to produce with low capacity. Such a process will negatively affect the entire economy. Other reforms, like privatization and the so-called structural reforms that the Troika insist cannot be solution. Privatization will first of all enrich certain groups, while it dispossess the government and the people. Privatization has only a one time effect; i.e. once the government sells state properties the income from this will be allocated to pay the debt, while the government loses its continuous income base. Privatization can only be supported in those productive sectors, which produce tangible products. All in all the bailout loan  and the austerity programs have worsened the social and economic situation of the Greek people. Once a proud nation is compelled to become under the surveillance of the Troika.

In order to get out of this vicious circle,  at least 50% of the debt must be cancelled, and the Greek government and its people must be  given a chance of 20 to 30 years to reorganize their economy without paying the rest of the deb in that specified time. After they have reorganized the economy and make it productive they will have the chance of paying the debt back. The Government must be allowed to pursue an economic policy which it believes to be the right instrument and enables the creation of true national wealth. The new Greek government and the Greek people have everything at their disposal to develop their country and economy on new idea and foundation. According to the Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the source of true knowledge and hence true human civilization is idea. Only through human imagination and self-restriction human beings can become the masters of their own fate. In the world where money dominates our life, and suppresses our imagination, there is a widespread belief that without money there cannot be economic development. Though money is very important to facilitate the transaction of goods and services, and at the same time for investment,  as long as there are no control mechanisms so that it can serve its purpose and remain in the country concerned, it will have damaging effects. In this case capital control that the government has introduced is the right step, though we do not know how long this remains in action.  The second step that the government should and can do is to create an investment bank which finances small and medium size industries.  Such a banking facility can develop multiple mechanisms so that money which is in the hands of the people can find its way to this banking system and being forwarded as credits for investment. There are different ways how to control the importation of goods and the movements of capital.  In order to develop the Greek economy and society the whole people should stand together, and the division among the parties will not serve genuine development.

From this perspective the involvement of international institutions must be a past affair. The new Greece Government has demanded nothing else than rejecting the rigid austerity program of the IMF and the rest of the institutions.  The press and some institutions,  and big political parties in western capital cities have accused the new government as radical and unrealistic which opposes the spirit of the EU. On the other hand Tsipras’s  government has assured time and again that his government and all the groups which support it are not against the  EU, but they are standing for the realization of the EU Social Charta. Since the EU is a value-oriented community, and is responsible for the people of all the EU member countries, the EU must be abide by its own Charta. I think this is a rational and logical argument which the prime minster and the EX- Finance Minister have stressed again and again. That means they do not have any intention of leaving the EU and the euro. The referendum on the 5^th of July 2015 proves once again that the majority of the people will reject any further austerity programs. The voice of the people must be taken seriously. With their voice the people did not vote against the EU or to get out of the Euro, they simply demanded that they have the right to decide over their own fate. They firmly believe that this new government alone can solve their problem if it gets the necessary help from the EU member countries. It must be clear that it is not in the interest of the Greek people and this new government to go out of the EU and the Euro zone. It will be logically and strategically wrong if they do so.  The Greek people are part and parcel of Europe and the European Union, and are integrated in various forms. They are fully aware that they realize their dream when they stay in the EU and in the euro zone.

Fekadu Bekele is a political analyst and development economist and works as a consultant.

He can be reached at the following address: fekadubekele@gmx.de

July 29, 2015

Introduction

President Barack Obama praised Africa’s economic performance in his speech on the 2015 Global entrepreneurship summit which was held in Nairobi from July 25-26, 2015. He stressed that Africa is “on the move and the continent is one of the fastest growing region in the world.”  Further, he emphasized that  “the  people are being lifted out of poverty, and income is growing.” In his words, “the middle class is growing and young people are harnessing technology to change the way Africa is doing business.”  In his view such a growing economy “creates incredible possibility for Africa and the world in general.”

The  “Africa Rising”  narrative has been circulating for more than a decade.  The Economist, Time Magazine, and some international consulting firms time and again try to convince the world that the African economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. In their analysis, high GDP growth rates, growing mobile markets, expanding internet shops, the construction of new buildings which are mainly planned for hotels and offices, the flowing of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) which focuses mainly on extraction of mineral resources and plantation economy like flower, Pineapple and coffee plantation, growing middle class are signs of a growing economy which prove that the continent is on the right track.  However, others vehemently reject such a narrative and prove that high GDP growth rates and the flowing of FDI could not be translated into the improvement of the human life. Things on the ground have not that much changed. They convincingly argue that many African countries are still lagging behind in many ways compared to the East Asian Tigers which have solid economic foundations based on manufacturing activities. Therefore the Africa Rising narrative is a deliberate propaganda to divert the attitudes of the political elite and the masses away from real economic development which can create social and national wealth and expands in many directions. Real or genuine economic development must therefore fulfill a set of criteria which many African countries do lack. Before I analyze the set of criteria which are necessary for real economic development to take place we should look at why high GDP growth rates in many African countries and rising poverty and slum buildings are two sides of the same coin.

               Some  facts

Many African countries still rely on only one or two export commodities for their income. Most of the commodities which African countries are exporting are not being processed and  produced as finished products.  As a matter of fact the value-added chain of most of the commodities is being cut, and many African countries cannot create national wealth. Hence the price of the exporting commodities are fluctuating from time to time with adverse effects on the income of governments which most African governments rely to finance their budgets.  A World Bank Report on global economic prospects which was published in January 2015 shows that most sub-Saharan African countries have experienced continuous current balance deficits as a percentage of GDP. This proves that the high GDP growth rates that most African countries have experienced could not help them to transform their economies so that they become less dependent on raw material exports.

The new World Bank Report asserted that economic development has improved the lives of a billion of people and lifted them from extreme poverty in many countries across the globe, while this is not the case in most sub-Saharan African countries. Accordingly, the number of people which earn less than $ 1.25 a day has increased in most sub-Saharan African countries while in other countries the number of people which earn $1.25 a day has been reduced.  Especially, youth unemployment is very high in many African countries. Extreme poverty and the expansion of slum areas in the capital cities, like Nairobi, Addis Ababa and Johannesburg, and other big cities like Lagos have inevitably produced high criminality rates. In fact many citizens remain without jobs  and therefore have to beg, which is a widespread phenomenon in Addis Ababa for instance.  According to the World Bank report, Africa is the only continent which could not meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) as set by the United Nations 15 years ago. These and other hard facts prove once again that the supposed economic growth could not spill over to reduce the growing poverty rate. The growth rates mainly rely on the service and export sector. Economies that rely on such sub-sectors cannot create true national and social wealth, and as long as true national wealth cannot be created the reduction of poverty is impossible.

If one looks at the general performance of the economy, the service sector has profited enormously from globalization and free trade, while the manufacturing sector which is usually the backbone of any growing economy, could not grow at the same rate as the service sector. Again the World Bank report of October 2014 confirms that high GDP growth rates that many African countries are experiencing is a result of the growth of agricultural and the service sector. Especially, the service sector has grown proportionally high compared to the manufacturing sector. The expansion of the service sector and investment in this area could not expand the market size. Still the main economic activity concentrates in few big cities, especially in the capital cities. Globalization and free trade have therefore produced in many African countries unequal development and mismanagement of the scarce resources. The few wealthy people who are being engaged in the service sector are not investing their money on wealth creating sector, but repeatedly invest on the service sector and import luxury goods which consume the meagre hard currencies. The development of a middle class that is seen as one of the success stories of the economy is not as such innovative and wealth creating, it rather becomes a market for products which are produced somewhere.  Therefore the Africa Rising narrative does not have a solid foundation, and contradicts the realities on the ground.   Because of lack of opportunities at home, especially thousands of young Africans are fleeing  from their home countries in order to find job opportunities in Western Europe and other places where they can find better living conditions. As we can see in mainstream media,  they have to pay  high  prices. Most of them die without reaching into their destinations.

The flowing of FDI into Africa is one of the economic indicators which is seen as a sign of Africa’s Rising narrative. According to the study conducted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2013 alone $57 billion of FDI has flown into Africa, which is a rise of 4% compared to the previous year. However, other studies of the UNCTAD show that 50-70% of the FDI goes to the extraction and plantation sector.  As we know the extraction companies export the resources without processing them. This proves that the extraction companies that control much of the African wealth do not contribute for the development of the internal market. Since the resources are being simply exported, the creation of wealth and income for the continent are not within the calculation of the companies. The workers that are employed in this sector do not earn enough money to secure their livelihood and that of their families. Many of them are being handled as quasi slaves without having any right to protest and improve their lives. The extracting companies are not only responsible for the low level of the living standards of the working people, but they also inflict heavy damages on the environment. Since many African countries do not have social and ecological standards, extracting companies do whatever they want and harm the entire social fabric of the community where they are engaged. Reports from certain African countries like Tanzania and French speaking African countries where uranium is being extracted, radioactive elements are poisoning the water and the entire environment. Most of the areas are not habitable anymore. From this point of view FDI is not contributing to Africa’s economic development, it rather benefits Western capitalist countries where the companies have their main seat.

A Set of Criteria for genuine Economic Development

1. Industrialization – Historically seen a growing economy is associated with growing and expanding industrialization across a given country. The basis for real industrialization is steel and iron, which are again the foundation of machine industry. When industrialization which is based on a machine industry is growing rapidly, it can create jobs for the millions of people who seek employment. As the economy expands in every direction, the size of the market grows due to the linkage effects of this growing sector. Hence other sectors, like the agricultural and the service sector will inevitably depend on this sector. This inevitably increases the accumulation effect of the economy and hence rapid income growth will become the rule of such a system of economic process which is mainly dependent on vast industrialization and expanded division of labor.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in many sub-Saharan African countries, in countries which are repeatedly reported to have seen high GDP growth rates over the last five or six years. Most of the African economies do not have a real foundation and hence they cannot expand into different directions to create job and income opportunities for the people who are eagerly seeking job opportunities. As long as there is no industrialization that can spread into different directions the market size of a given country will remain very small. Many African economies still rely on the so-called import substitution industrialization, and this sector could not absorb the work force that come from the rural areas. The conditions in many African capital cities prove that as a result of such kind of not-well studied industrialization policy of the last 40-50 years, many scattered economic actives have sprung up whose accumulation base are very narrow and chaotic. Globalization and free trade have worsened this situation, and many capital cities become dumping grounds of second hand products.

2. Manufacturing – Consciously or unconsciously most studies and reports which insist that Africa is on the rise never mention the relevance of a manufacturing sector for a growing economy. Starting the 18^th century onwards prominent economists of that time, especially in England stressed that without a manufacturing sector there cannot be real economic development. In Germany, and later on in the United States of America and Japan the power of a manufacturing sector in creating national wealth is well-understood. Hence, latecomers like Germany, America and Japan have vehemently rejected the idea of a free trade doctrine and concentrated on the manufacturing sector. The leaders and intellectuals of these countries were convinced that for the development of an integrated internal market a growing manufacturing sector is crucial. They were convinced that productivity and income growth and hence a strong national economy without a manufacturing sector is inconceivable. Therefore national cohesion is only possible when a given country systematically develops an expanded division of labor that is based on a manufacturing sector.  According to the belief of some prominent philosophers and economists from Germany, countries that neglect this crucial sector sooner or later will have difficulties in maintaining a social order, and their countries and the people will never be respected.

The Africa Rising narrative does not take into account the importance of a manufacturing sector for economic growth and economic development. As studies show most African economies do not have a well-developed machine producing sector which is very important for the expansion of a manufacturing sector. Various departments of a given economy can only grow and expand with the existence a machine producing sector. In the absence of such a sector and very limited manufacturing activities, the power of money and its transformation into capital will  be very limited. Therefore the Africa Rising narrative does not have any scientific foundation. When some consulting companies and economists repeatedly speak that the African economy is growing, the political elite and the youth in Africa take this as scientific truism and associate themselves with such misguided information. They will never try to find out the intriguing propaganda behind such a narrative.  Consulting firms and economic experts only want to make business and earn huge amount of profit and not stand for real development that can benefit the African people.

3. Science and Technology – It is well known that without constant efforts and researches in science and technology there cannot be any new findings. Researches in science and technology are the basis of innovation. Only with new innovation one can produce instruments of productions which raise productivity. New innovation in technology saves production costs and resources. With given resources one can get better yields and qualitatively better products. New innovations give way for further innovation that can stimulate growth. In other words cumulative growth is only possible through constant innovation. The advance in manufacturing sector and the production of high quality goods depend on permanent scientific researches and the introduction of new technologies. Without major breakthrough in this field there cannot be any progress in many areas. Only with the advancement of science and technology any country is capable of producing many kinds of instruments, which can be used for the production of other goods. The production of durable and non-durable goods of various types is only possible when governments could allocate enough money for researches. Countries which do not focus on this particular aspect could not have a secured life, and could not create true national wealth, which guarantees a secure livelihood for the people in any given country. If we study the development of capitalism, especially after the Second World War, economic growth and development is directly associated with technological developments and new findings. Technological development can only possible when universities and other similar institutions are well equipped with all sorts of materials and laboratories, including books. When we see the various types of investments in different fields, all investments are directly associated with the introduction of new technology. Therefore in all capitalist societies what matters are not numbers, but qualitative transformations that are associated with science and technology.

In many African countries the relevance of science and technology is either not well-understood or not known to be a key driver of economic development. Many think that investments in few scattered areas which are not directly linked with the lives of the people and real development are being seen as the basis of economic growth. After almost 50 years of various types of economic policies, many African countries have not yet understood the relevance of science and technology. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and now China that have understood the role of science and technology are advancing in many areas, and have greater market shares on the world market. This is because they have followed the right catch-up strategy from the very beginning. All these countries have never taken the advices of foreign experts as the sources of their development strategy, but they have used their common sense and give continuous efforts to catch-up with the capitalist west. Therefore the Africa Rising narrative without science and technology does not have any substantial foundation. Only through technological breakthrough there can be real economic development and social transformation.

4. Institution – The existence of effective institutions across a given country are signs of a growing economy. Institutions are binding infrastructures of the different social groups in any given country. According to the division of labor of the different institutions in any given country, some institutions can mobilize human and natural resources for economic development and social and cultural activities. Countries that do not have effective and very strong institutions cannot become accountable for their own people. The history of Western capitalist societies proves that, many countries in Western Europe have begun building institutions in their respective countries. Municipalities, different departments which are essential for different services, like water management and other services, schools and vocational facilities of different types, churches and well-structured halls are some of the sites which are being built by the various institutions to bring people together in any given community. In such a way the valorization of money, products and capital will be fastened, and this in turn helps the economy to develop in leaps and bounds. In other words, without effective and well-developed institutions across a given country one cannot talk of economic development.

The Africa Rising narrative does not raise the relevance of effective and well-organized institutions for resource mobilization and community life. Those experts  who repeatedly tell us that Africa is on the rise have taken for granted that African countries do not need strong institutions for economic, social and cultural development. On the other hand it is understandable that multinational companies  and those economic experts can manipulate the political elite and steal the wealth of the continent if each African country does not have strong institutions and well-articulated intellectual force that is equipped with various types of knowledge. Therefore we do not have to wonder when those experts do not want to tell us the truth, and simply insist that economic growth can take place without certain fundamental aspects, like institutions and well-organized work force that can defend its right.

As we observe and studies show many African countries after 52 years of political independence do not have effective and well-organized institutions. They still do not  understand the importance of institutions for resources mobilization. By simply focusing on the bureaucratic machine, they believe that they can effectively administer their societies. As we all know bureaucratic apparatus are more or less repression machines that are organized to suppress the grievances of the masses and to maintain the status quo. State machines in many African countries consciously or  unconsciously hinder economic and social development. The state bureaucratic machines in many African countries are simply extensions of the global capitalist system. The security, the military and the police force are equipped with instruments that come from capitalist countries. In countries where political and social consciousness are very low, and in countries where civil society movements are not well-developed and firmly rooted it is easy for such a force to suppress democratic and republican movements. Therefore the bureaucratic machine by simply consuming the resources of many African countries without in turn delivering any tangible services to the people serves the interests of the political elite and foreign forces that are engaged in resource extraction.

5. Space – By space I mean the development and existence of well-organized cities, towns, villages and rural areas. Economic activities can effectively take place, grow ins scope and size when any given country has well-developed cities. Space is not only a place for economic activity, but also for cultural and social activities. Only within well-organized cities people can become creative and innovative. The history of city buildings in many western capitalist countries prove that cities become the basis and foundation of various types of economic activities. Without proper houses, sanitation systems, and other social and cultural infrastructures simple economic growth does not have any meaning.

The expansion of capitalism and hence globalization in many Third World countries, especially in Africa has totally distorted the relevance and meaning of well-organized space for human life. Because of the low level of social and political consciousness from the side of the political elite millions of people in many African countries are not seen as true human beings who need ordered spaces to live and become creative. Since economic growth is seen dissociated from ordered and well-organized cities, millions of people are compelled to build their spaces without proper planning systems. As a matter of fact such shanty towns become breeding grounds of all sorts of habits and criminalities which disturb the human imagination. The building of big apartments, hotels and villas for the well-to-do class create abnormal situations in many capital cities of African countries. Ordinary Africans are being seen as inferior by those wealthy people who become rich without invention and working very hard.

The size of the market in any country depends not only on the manufacturing activities, but also on the size of cities, towns and villages. In turn all these spaces must be interconnected with multiple types of transportation systems which transport goods, resources and human beings from one area to the other. Only in this way the economy of a given country can develop, and further technological innovation become possible. In the absence of well-organized spaces across a given country, the valorization of goods and capital is practically impossible. The Africa Rising narrative neglects the role of living space as organic structure for the development of a given economy. Since economic growth and development do not take place in vacuums or on air, genuine economic development is meaningless without aesthetically designed cities which have greater psychological impacts on the people of a particular country.

It is up to the African intellectuals to dismiss such kinds of narratives which do not have scientific foundation. The confusion that neo-liberal oriented economists and other experts spread and preach must be confronted from all sides, and African intellectuals must prove their social and political awareness by vehemently rejecting such a false narrative. We have to understand that the main intension of such kinds of propaganda is to fix into the minds of the Africans to particular things so that they have to accept this as if there is no another avenue of economic development. As we see Africa is a besieged continent, and foreign powers are competing to control the resources of the continent. In the name of fighting terrorism western governments and their companies create in strategic areas unstable situations so that they can have access to the resources.  In many African countries because of artificial differences and because of low level of political and social consciousness people of a given community and country are drawn into permanent wars. Those forces which think that they are clever and wise than others, for the sake of short term gain are exporting wars into our continent.  African governments are becoming indifferent to such kinds of foreign intervention into the affairs of their countries. Some of them like that of the Ethiopian government has changed itself to a vassal state and engaged into war in Somalia and elsewhere.  In such unstable situation when the people of a given country are being caught in permanent war and fear their cannot be entrepreneurship. The people of a given community and country cannot mobilize themselves and their resources to develop a strong economy that is based on science and technology. Therefore real economic development and a genuine middle class which is innovative can only occur and emerge when the political system is conducive and when social stability is secured. In an atmosphere of social instability, and chaotic conditions a middle class culture is inconceivable.

The Alternative

Innocent people may ask what kind of alternative there is other than the Africa Rising narrative. To the present African predicaments there is one solution. The pure market economy which has been propagated for more than 6 decades cannot bring any tangible solution to the many complicated problems that many African countries are facing.  Free trade doctrine and globalization have proved time and again that they can’t be effective methods of solving the African social, economic and cultural crises. Therefore African countries must follow another strategy if they want to become successful and build strong nation-states.

The only method to solve African problems is a holistic approach which is based on the Renaissance principle. For this the political elite and the people must change their mindset. Starting from the Greek civilization, to Renaissance, Reformation and then to Enlightenment there have been transformation in mindset of the people and the political order. That time intellectuals were compelled to ask themselves why they were condemned to live like that and governments behaved like that. After they found out the causes of war, diseases and hunger, they had to challenge the system from all sides. Through rigorous scientific research and intellectual activities they finally broke the rigid attitude of the ruling classes and the value system that was responsible for permanent war and mass dislocation. Confronted with such kinds of growing intellectual activities and debates on various issues, they ultimately found  one common denominator and idea through which they can solve all the problems step by step. In other words, without a coherent idea and a common agenda there is no forward movement and progress. If African countries want to become successful they have to agree on a common idea. Only in this way they could mobilize all the available resources and build a system which can accommodate the interests of all the people in each country.

For this, political reforms, democratizations of the given institutions and creating effective and dynamic institutions are essential aspects that must be taken urgently. Without bold political reforms and without organizations people in any given country could not build a dynamic social and economic system. Political reforms must be undertaken in such a way so that the political elite and the people in each country become socially, politically and culturally aware. The political elite must understand that the resources in each country belong to all the people who are the citizen of each particular country. Therefore the given resources must be exploited so as to develop national wealth which can benefit all the people in each country. Besides this the introduction of a holistic education system is necessary which can rationalize the minds of the people and the political elite and which is suitable for creative and innovative activities. Only in this way African countries could solve their existing problems and build a solid system based on science and technology.

Fekadu Bekele is a political analyst, a consultant, a development economist specialized in Renaissance and Cultural Economics.  He can be reached at the following address: fekadubekele@gmx.de

kal-sas/ser
France-Presse

US President Barack Obama’s visit to Ethiopia, which saw him speak out against democratic restrictions, was positive but Washington must maintain pressure on the government, an Ethiopian opposition figure said Wednesday.
“I was not in favour of his coming, but (the visit) exposed Ethiopia and its government,” said Merera Gudina, the vice-president of the opposition Medrek party, hailing the media and NGO interest generated by Obama’s remarks.
“I think the cause of democracy benefited from this,” Gudina said.
“But we have to wait for the follow-up. If the US really means business, they have a lot of leverage with the Ethiopian government. But the US needs Ethiopia on the war on terror. It’s a major ally in the Horn of Africa,” he said, adding that he feared Obama’s comments were “only for public relations.”
Advertising

Obama was in Ethiopia on Monday and Tuesday, making the first-ever visit to the country by a US president.
On Tuesday he became the first US leader to address the Addis Ababa-headquartered African Union.
Obama delivered a blunt appraisal of Ethiopia’s democracy deficit but said it would not scuttle the two countries’ close security and political relationship.
“There is still more work to do, and I think the prime minister is the first to admit there is still more to do,” Obama said during a joint news conference on Monday with Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, whose party won 100 percent of seats in parliament two months ago.
Rights groups had warned that Obama’s visit could add credibility to a government they accuse of suppressing democratic rights — including the jailing of journalists and critics — with anti-terrorism legislation said to be used to stifle peaceful dissent.
But Hailemariam pushed back against criticism his government has quashed opposition voices and suppressed press freedom.
“Our commitment to democracy is real and not skin deep,” he said, adding that Ethiopia is a “fledgling democracy, we are coming out of centuries of undemocratic practices”.

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS | July 29, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Barack Obama faces pressure to discuss human rights in his first official visit to Ethiopia this weekend, a unique lawsuit back home is challenging whether the African country can spy on an American by turning his computer into a giant recording device.

The federal case alleges Ethiopian government agents gobbled up months of a Maryland man’s Skype calls and his family’s Internet activities. But the man, born in Ethiopia and now a U.S. citizen, isn’t wanted for a crime. Instead, he helps out a political opposition group outlawed in his home country.

The alleged intrusion was investigated after the software left behind bread crumbs, underscoring a larger pattern: The use of commercial hacking software by foreign governments, sometimes with poor human-rights records, to electronically snoop on their adversaries.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said this past week that the U.S. “regularly conveyed to Ethiopia’s leadership our concerns in such areas as press freedom, transparency, space for civil society and the political opposition.”

Human Rights Watch and other organizations urged Obama, who arrived in Ethiopia on Sunday after visiting Kenya, to put the “pressing human rights concerns” in visits to Ethiopia and Kenya “at the forefront of your discussions.”

Ethiopia has sought hacking software from at least two separate companies, court records and emails show. The legality of such technology in other countries — and a U.S. federal judge’s pending decision on whether the Maryland man’s can proceed — could raise foreign-policy implications for governments worldwide.

The Obama administration has had to deal with other countries hacking into American computers and compromising private data. The Justice Department last year charged five Chinese military hackers for breaching major corporations’ systems and siphoning off business secrets.

Lawyers for the Maryland plaintiff, who goes by Kidane in court documents to protect him from retaliation, say software called FinSpy made secret audio recordings of his Skype calls, copied portions of his emails and logged Web searches done by his middle-school-age son for school.

“Just because governments around the world engage in spying doesn’t make it legal,” said Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing Kidane. “And when spies get caught, there are consequences.”

A federal judge in Washington asked the U.S. government this month if it wanted to weigh in on the case. Ethiopia wants it tossed, saying governments have immunity when conducting such activities. The EFF says the case is important for showing warrantless wiretapping is illegal and can be the basis of a U.S. lawsuit, regardless of who engages in it.

Offensive hacking software is used by investigators to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions or, at times, spy on foreign adversaries. The FBI in 2007, for instance, sent a bogus Associated Press story to a 15-year-old suspect in Washington state who was accused of making bomb threats; the story contained secret software that helped reveal his location.

Human rights and free press advocates have bristled in letting oppressive governments gain access to that technology. The nonprofit Freedom House ranks Ethiopia as being one of the worst countries for press freedoms, and said the country’s 2009 anti-terrorism law has been used extensively against reporters.

A lawyer for the Ethiopian government referred the AP’s questions about the case to the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington. An embassy representative said this past week that he had no further information and declined to provide names or telephone numbers for those inside the government who might.

Had FinSpy worked quietly behind the scenes as intended, Kidane may have never been to court. But when forensics experts examined Kidane’s computer, they uncovered left-behind fragments of data and instructions for the eavesdropping program to connect to an Ethiopian computer server.

After an opposition leader was sent into exile, the once-apolitical Kidane got involved in a pro-democracy group called Ginbot 7 by providing technical and administrative support. Ethiopia calls the group a terrorist organization, but Human Rights Watch says the country uses draconian laws to repress opposition activists and critics.

That is how Kidane believes his computer was commandeered — by mistake. Someone else was the original target of the email virus but forwarded it to Kidane and infected his own computer. Yet Ethiopian officials decided to activate a software license to continue monitoring his activities anyway.

Gamma Group, the company that made the FinSpy software before spinning it off into a separate company called FinFisher, has said it sold only to governments. Hackers in 2014 said they hacked Gamma and circulated its files, showing it also sold to nongovernments.

In 2013, researchers from Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs discovered that 25 countries host servers for FinSpy, which can dodge anti-virus protections to steal data, log keystrokes, eavesdrop on Skype calls and turn microphones and webcams into surveillance devices.

At the time, the group Reporters Without Borders named Gamma one of its five “corporate enemies of the Internet.” Neither Gamma nor its spinoff responded to several emails from the AP seeking comment since Thursday.

Ethiopia also paid Italian firm Hacking Team for similar software against unspecified targets, and executives there wanted to charge the country at least $330,000 for their services, according to leaked emails posted online earlier this month.

Earlier this year, Citizen Lab also said that hackers who attacked a U.S. employee of Ethiopian Satellite Television two years ago recently launched a new round of attacks using upgraded espionage software. Ethiopian officials previously denied such claims.

Shortly after the report, some inside the company became nervous. “Their reckless and clumsy usage of our solution caused us enough damage,” wrote Daniele Milan, Hacking Team’s operations manager.

But the relationship continued, further emails show, amid one proposal that would have limited their contract to a year for “evaluating their behavior.” Those emails were among more than 1 million leaked in early July, revealing Hacking Team worked with authoritarian governments in the Middle East and pitched their software to U.S. police departments.

A spokesman for Hacking Team confirmed in a statement the company sold software to that country as well as Sudan, Russia, South Korea and others. The company said those sales were “strictly within the law and regulation as it applied at the time any sale was made.”

___

Associated Press writer Raphael Satter in London contributed to this report.

US President Barack Obama (left) speaks with a farmer (second righ) participating in the Feed The Future programme as he tours the Faffa Food factory in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on July 28, 2015. Photo: Jonathan Ernst

July 30 2015 at 07:45am
By John Page

On his fourth trip to Africa, President Barack Obama celebrated a changing continent. A change that he did not see, however, was growing numbers of workers in jobs that pay good wages and offer some employment security. In fact, except for a few high-tech entrepreneurs in Kenya and the staff of a US-sponsored food supplement plant in Ethiopia it is unlikely he saw many Africans engaged in modern, high productivity jobs at all.

That is because, despite nearly 20 years of solid gross domestic product (GDP) growth, Africa’s economies are creating too few jobs in the sectors that count: those with output per worker high enough to offer decent wages and a path out of poverty. More worrying still, the fastest growers are creating the fewest jobs (see graph).

Ethiopia and Kenya, the two countries on this visit, are among the region’s least successful countries in converting economic growth into employment growth. This is not how economic transformation is supposed to work.

Structural transformation

One of the enduring “stylised facts” of economic development is that in poorer countries like Ethiopia and Kenya workers generally move from agriculture to higher productivity sectors.

This is good for growth and for the workers themselves. In Asia, where poverty has fallen most rapidly over the past quarter century, millions of households have been drawn out of poverty through the rapid expansion of industry.

In Africa, structural transformation of this type has contributed very little to growth and poverty reduction. As recently as the turn of the 21st century, a growing share of African workers found themselves trapped in low productivity, low-wage employment.

Since then, Africa’s economic structure has begun to change but in a worrisome way. Four out of five workers leaving agriculture are finding or creating jobs in services such as trade and distribution.

These jobs are not the high-tech service jobs celebrated during Obama’s visit to Kenya. This is movement from low-productivity to marginally higher-productivity employment in markets, on sidewalks and in food stalls. Most are “household enterprises” run by a single owner, sometimes with the help of family labour.

Employment

In sub-Saharan Africa, services workers are on average only about twice as productive as farmers, and both groups are less productive than workers in the economy as a whole. In 2011 more than 80 percent of workers in sub-Saharan Africa were classified by the International Labour Organisation as “working poor” – those engaged in full-time employment but still below the poverty line – compared with the global average of less than 40 percent. Not coincidentally, about 80 percent of Africa’s workers are employed in either agriculture or services.

In the rest of the world, the industrial sector is where workers have first moved in the course of structural transformation. It is a high-productivity sector capable of absorbing large numbers of moderately skilled workers.

For example, output per worker in manufacturing across Africa is more than six times that in agriculture. Despite the potential that industry offers, it has not been part of the African success story.

In 2012, the average share of manufacturing in GDP in sub-Saharan Africa was about 10 percent, unchanged from the 1970s. In east Asia manufacturing takes up a third of GDP.

In Cambodia and Vietnam – two emerging Asian economies that as recently as a decade ago were very similar to Ethiopia and Kenya in terms of income, infrastructure, and human capital – manufacturing has grown to 20 and 24 percent of GDP, respectively.

Africa on the move?

Whether from the perspective of job creation, poverty reduction, or the capacity to sustain economic growth outside of natural resources, this failure to industrialise is cause for concern, and it ought to have made it into Obama’s briefing book.

There is not much evidence from his published remarks that it did. Instead, once again we heard the familiar litany: “Africa is on the move. Africa is one of the fastest-growing regions of the world.

People are being lifted out of poverty. Incomes are up. The middle class is growing.” (Remarks at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, Nairobi, July 25). All true, but the region could be doing better.

Four years ago the African Development Bank, the Brookings Institution and UNU-WIDER (working with some of the region’s leading think tanks) jointly undertook a research project to understand why Africa has so little industry, why it matters and what to do about it.

Much of the technical research for this “Learning to Compete” project is available here. A summary of what we learned is due to appear at the end of the year in a forthcoming book called, “Learning to Compete: How Africa Can Industrialise” (Brookings Institution Press).

Not surprisingly, we find that more needs to be done than what Obama recommended while in Nairobi last week: “Creating the transparency, and the rule of law, and the ease of doing business, and the anti-corruption agenda that creates a platform for people to succeed”, these policy changes are certainly important.

Firm-level surveys across Africa document the burden that poor institutions and corruption place on business.

However, they are also the easy answers of the aid industry. They reflect the sad fact that donors – the US among them – have not been willing to address the more fundamental constraints to Africa’s industrial development: simple but costly things like infrastructure and skills or politically difficult things like expanding preferential market access.

For example, slow implementation of Power Africa, lack of progress in improving educational quality and the failure to extend the African Growth and Opportunity Act to most agricultural products were notably absent from the president’s published remarks.

Over the course of the next few months we will be posting a number of blogs on the nature of the constraints to Africa’s industrialisation and what can be done about them.

Here, we simply close with the reflection that Africans, especially the young seeking good jobs, deserve something more from the US president than cheerleading and conventional wisdom.

* John Page, formerly the chief economist for Africa and director of poverty reduction at the World Bank, is Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC on the global economy and development. This article is republished with permission from the Brookings Institution.

Follow on Twitter: @BrookingsInst

 

ጉዳያችን GUDAYACHN BLOG

(July 20/2015)

Reuters

LONDON—

India is set to overtake China and become the world’s most populous country in less than a decade, six years sooner than previously forecast, the United Nations said Wednesday.

Fast-growing Nigeria is on course to outstrip the United States by about 2050 to become the country with the third-largest population, the U.N. predicted.

The current global population of 7.3 billion is forecast to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, slightly above the last set of U.N. projections.

Most growth will happen in developing regions, particularly Africa, according to the report, World Population Prospects.

The demographic forecasts are crucial for designing and implementing the new global development goals being launched later this year to replace the Millennium Development Goals.

John Wilmoth, head of the U.N. population division, said the concentration of growth in the poorest countries would make it harder to eradicate poverty, combat hunger, and expand schooling and health systems.

The world’s two largest nations, China and India, have well over 1 billion people each and are likely to switch places by 2022, the report said.

Experts predict Africa will account for more than half the world’s population growth in the next 35 years. Ten African countries — Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia — are projected to increase their populations fivefold or more by 2100.

Future population growth is highly dependent on the path of  future fertility, as relatively small changes in fertility can, projected over decades, generate large differences in total population, the report said.

In recent years, fertility has declined in almost all parts of the world, while life expectancy has increased significantly in the poorest countries, rising from 56 to 62 since the beginning of the century.

Declining fertility and rising life expectancy mean the world is getting grayer, and most regions will have an aging population, starting with Europe. One-third of the population there is projected to be over 60 by 2050, the report said.

Globally, the number of people aged 80 or over — currently 125 million — is projected to more than triple by 2050 and to increase more than seven times by 2100.

But populations in many regions are still young. In Africa, children under 15 account for two-fifths of the population.

“The large number of young people [in Africa] who will reach adulthood in the coming years and have children of their own ensures that the region will play a central role in shaping the size and distribution of the world’s population over the coming decades,” the report said.

July 31, 2015

Resisting the temptation to take up arms against a dictator isn’t just the moral thing to do — it’s also the most effective way to win.

“Nonviolent Resistance Is Admirable but Ineffective.”

Ethiopia – Kinjit Demonstration 2005 election

Hardly. In the current geopolitical moment, it may seem hard to argue that a nonviolent uprising is a better tool for uprooting a dictator than the violent kind. Armed rebels, backed by NATO air power, are on the verge of ending four decades of despotic rule by Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya. Meanwhile to the east, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has killed with impunity more than 2,200 members of a mostly nonviolent resistance to his family’s long-lived rule.

Arguing in favor of the Syrians’ tactics, and against the Libyans’, would seem counterintuitive — but for the evidence. The truth is that, from 1900 to 2006, major nonviolent resistance campaigns seeking to overthrow dictatorships, throw out foreign occupations, or achieve self-determination were more than twice as successful as violent insurgencies seeking the same goals. The recent past alone suggests as much; even before the Arab Spring, nonviolent campaigns in Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Ukraine (2004), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006) succeeded in ousting regimes from power.

The reason for this is that nonviolent campaigns typically appeal to a much broader and diverse constituency than violent insurgencies. For one thing, the bar to action is lower: Potential recruits to the resistance need to overcome fear, but not their moral qualms about using violence against others. Civil resistance offers a variety of lower-risk tactics — stay-aways (where people vacate typically populated areas), boycotts, and go-slows (where people move at half-pace at work and in the streets) — that encourage people to participate without making enormous personal sacrifices. This year’s peaceful uprising in Egypt saw the mobilization of men, women, children, the elderly, students, laborers, Islamists, Christians, rich, and poor — a level of participation that none of Egypt’s armed militant organizations in recent memory could claim.

“Nonviolent Resistance and Pacifism Are the Same Thing.”

Not at all. When people hear the word “nonviolent,” they often think of “peaceful” or “passive” resistance. For some, the word brings to mind pacifist groups or individuals, like Buddhist monks in Burma, who may prefer death to using violence to defend themselves against injustice. As such, they conflate “nonviolent” or “civil resistance” with the doctrine of “nonviolence” or “pacifism,” which is a philosophical position that rejects the use of violence on moral grounds. But in civil resistance campaigns like those occurring in the Arab Spring, very few participants are pacifists. Rather, they are ordinary civilians confronting intolerable circumstances by refusing to obey — a method available to anyone, pacifist or not. Even Mahatma Gandhi, the iconic pacifist, was a highly strategic thinker, recognizing that nonviolence would work not because it seized the moral high ground, but because massive noncooperation would ultimately make the British quit India: “We should meet abuse by forbearance,” he said. “Human nature is so constituted that if we take absolutely no notice of anger or abuse, the person indulging in it will soon weary of it and stop.”

“Nonviolent Resistance Works Better in Some Cultures Than Others.”

‘Tank man’ in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

Wrong. Nonviolent movements have emerged and succeeded all over the world. In fact, the Middle East — routinely written off by people elsewhere as a hopeless cauldron of violence — can boast some of the biggest successes, even before the Arab Spring. The Iranian Revolution that took down Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s dictatorial regime and brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power was a nonviolent mass movement involving more than 2 million members of Iranian society (though also a useful reminder that nonviolent uprisings, like the violent kind, don’t always produce the results one might hope for). Palestinians have made the most progress toward self-determination and lasting peace with Israel when they have relied on mass nonviolent civil disobedience, as they did in the demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and protests that dominated the First Intifada from 1987 to 1992 — a campaign that forced Israel to hold talks with Palestinian leaders that led to the Oslo Accords, and convinced much of the world that Palestinians had the right to self-rule.

In the Americas, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil have all experienced nonviolent uprisings, ousting military juntas and at times replacing them with democratically elected leaders. South Africa’s nonviolent anti-apartheid campaign fundamentally altered the political, social, and economic landscape there, while the African National Congress’s forays into revolutionary violence yielded little. Europe, of course, can claim some of the most iconic examples: the 1989 Eastern European revolutions, for instance, and the Danish resistance to the Nazi occupation during World War II. And in Asia, successful nonviolent resistance has succeeded in casting off oppressive regimes in places as diverse as India, the Maldives, Thailand, Nepal, and Pakistan.

“Nonviolent Movements Succeed by Persuasion.”

Not always. The moral high ground is necessary, but hardly sufficient. Campaigns need to be extremely disruptive — and strategically so — to coerce entrenched dictators to abandon their posts. Nonviolent resistance does not necessarily succeed because the movement convinces or converts the opponent. It succeeds when the regime’s major sources of power — such as civilian bureaucrats, economic elites, and above all the security forces — stop obeying regime orders. The literary scholar Robert Inchausti put it well when he said, “Nonviolence is a wager — not so much on the goodness of humanity, as on its infinite complexity.” As in war, the key for a nonviolent campaign is to find and exploit the opponent’s weaknesses.

Take the recent uprising in Egypt. In the first days of the uprising, military and security forces cracked down heavily on protests. But the demonstrators were prepared: Activists — influenced by recent nonviolent revolutions elsewhere — circulated instructions to protesters detailing how to respond to the crackdown and began placing women, children, and the elderly on the front lines against the security forces. The handouts encouraged protesters to welcome the soldiers into the ranks of the movement and strongly forbade any violence against them. Movement leaders also made sure that repressive acts against peaceful protesters were caught on video and publicized.

Ultimately, the Egyptian Army refused orders to suppress the campaign — and Hosni Mubarak’s regime lost one of its key centers of power. Here again is an advantage that nonviolent groups have over armed guerrillas: Loyalty shifts among the security forces are difficult for small, clandestine, violent groups to achieve. Violent threats typically unite the security forces, who join together to defend against them (which is precisely why the Syrian regime insists it is fighting “armed groups” rather than unarmed civilians).

“Only Weak or Weak-Willed Regimes Fall to Nonviolent Uprisings.”

Protesters opposing Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi wave flags in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in 2013

Not true. Many nonviolent campaigns have succeeded against some of the bloodiest regimes on Earth, at the height of their power. In fact, a vast majority of the major nonviolent campaigns in the 20th century were facing down regimes such as Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s in Pakistan, Slobodan Milosevic’s in Serbia, Augusto Pinochet’s in Chile, Suharto’s in Indonesia, and various imperial rulers who were clearly invested in maintaining power over their colonies. During the famed Rosenstrasse incident in Berlin in 1943, for example, even the Nazis showed their vulnerability to nonviolent protests, when German women organized protests and faced down SS machine guns to demand the release of their Jewish husbands — a small victory against one of history’s most genocidal regimes, and an unthinkable one had the protesters taken up arms.

In fact, almost all major nonviolent campaigns of the 20th and early 21st centuries have faced massive and violent repression. In Pinochet’s Chile, for instance, the regime often used torture and disappearances to terrorize political opposition. In such circumstances, engaging in visible mass protest would have been highly risky for those opposing the government. So in 1983, civilians began to signal their discontent by coordinating the banging of pots and pans — a simple act that demonstrated the widespread support for the civilians’ demands and showed that Pinochet would not be able to suppress the movement with the tools at his disposal. People also walked through the streets singing songs about Pinochet’s impending demise — a practice that so irked the general that he banned singing. But such desperate measures demonstrated his weakness, not his strength. Ultimately, Pinochet caved and agreed to hold a 1988 referendum on the question of whether he would serve an additional eight years as president. Opposition leaders took the opportunity to organize nonviolent direct actions that focused on coordinating “no” votes, obtaining an independently verifiable vote count, and holding Pinochet accountable to the results. When it was clear that Pinochet had lost, the military ultimately sided with the Chilean people, and Pinochet stepped aside.

“Sometimes Rebels Have No Choice but to Take Up Arms.”

Not true. The current civil conflict in Libya, it’s easy to forget now, began with nonviolent protests in Benghazi around Feb. 15. The demonstrations were summarily crushed, and by Feb. 19, oppositionists had responded by taking up arms, killing or capturing hundreds of Qaddafi’s mercenaries and regime loyalists. In his infamous Feb. 22 speech, Qaddafi said, “Peaceful protest is one thing, but armed rebellion is another,” and threatened to go “house by house” in search of the rebel “rats.” Few civilians would be willing to participate in unarmed resistance after such threats, and what had begun as a peaceful movement unequivocally became an exclusively violent rebellion. It appears now to have been a success, but one that came at an enormous cost: Although an accurate death toll for the conflict is thus far impossible to come by, some counts midway through the war put the casualties as high as 13,000 deaths.

Could it have been otherwise? Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but if Libya’s activists had a chance to evaluate their experience, they may have recognized a few mistakes. First, the movement appeared to have been fairly spontaneous, unlike the well-planned, highly coordinated campaign in Egypt. Second, the nonviolent movement may have focused too much on a single tactic — protests — to pursue its aims. When movements rely exclusively on rallies or protests, they become extremely predictable: sitting ducks for regime repression. Successful movements will combine protests and demonstrations with well-timed strikes, boycotts, go-slows, stay-aways, and other actions that force the regime to disperse its repression in unsustainable ways. For example, during the Iranian Revolution, oil workers went on strike, threatening to cripple the Iranian economy. The shah’s security forces went to the oil workers’ homes and dragged them back to the refineries — at which point the workers worked at half-pace before staging another walkout. This level of repression required to force the masses to work against their will is untenable because it requires a massive coordination of regime resources and effort.

In fact, what we know from previous cases, such as Iran, is that the kind of violent reprisal Qaddafi used against the nonviolent uprising at the outset is often unsustainable against coordinated nonviolent movements over time. Moreover, the rebels’ nearly immediate turn to violent resistance evoked the strongest reaction from Qaddafi, and it immediately excluded large numbers of people who might have been willing to regroup and brave the streets against Qaddafi but who had no interest in joining what was sure to become a nasty fight. Before NATO lent its support, the largest gains the Libyan opposition made were during the nonviolent phase of the uprising, which involved massive protests that shut down the country, elicited numerous defections from key regime functionaries, and even led to the taking of Benghazi without significant bloodshed. But once the rebels reacted to Qaddafi’s repression by taking up arms, they required NATO intervention to stand a chance.

Or consider Syria, where the decision to use violence or not is similarly wrenching. In August, following months of peaceful mass protests, Assad ordered a full-scale military bombardment of Hama, a largely Sunni city known for an armed Islamist uprising that was even more brutally crushed in the 1980s, and other opposition strongholds across the country. Time to grab your gun, right?

February 3, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt.

Even in such cases, nonviolent movements have choices. They could respond to regime violence by switching tactics. In fact, Syrian activists have been doing this well, avoiding regime repression by using flash mobs and nighttime protests, which are more difficult to repress. Daytime protests are now well-planned, with multiple escape routes and mirrors to blind snipers trying to shoot protesters. Syrian activists have also so far largely avoided the temptation to respond to regime provocations with violence — a critical decision, not only because taking up arms may undermine their domestic bases of participation and support, but also because it makes security forces more likely to obey orders to repress the movement. Because the regime has expelled journalists and cut off electricity in cities under siege, Syrian activists charge their laptops using car batteries and make fake IDs to get close to security forces so they can document human rights abuses and share them online. The continued mobilization resulting from these acts may help the opposition forge indispensable links with regime elites.

Nonviolent resistance is, in effect, a form of asymmetric warfare. Dictators predictably rely on their perceived advantages in brute force to defeat challengers. It’s best to fight the enemy where you have an advantage — in this case, people power, unpredictability, adaptability, and creativity — rathe[b]r than where he does.

“Nonviolent Uprisings Lead to Democracy.”

Not necessarily. There is a strong empirical association between nonviolent campaigns and subsequent democratization, which shouldn’t be terribly surprising: Higher levels of political participation and civil society — factors that make a nonviolent uprising more likely to take root — tend to lead to higher levels of democracy. But there are important exceptions. The Iranian Revolution — one of the world’s largest and most participatory nonviolent uprisings — eventually ushered in a theocratic and repressive regime. The Philippines has endured several major nonviolent revolutions and continues to struggle with democratic consolidation and corruption. The largely successful Orange Revolution in Ukraine seemingly heralded a new era of political liberalization, but recent setbacks suggest the country is reversing course.

But none of these outcomes would likely have improved if the revolutions had been violent. In fact, in most countries where violent revolution has succeeded, the new regimes have been at least as brutal as their predecessors — as anyone who has lived in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, the Afghan civil war, or the Cuban Revolution could tell you. As Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the Burmese pro-democracy movement, put it, “It is never easy to convince those who have acquired power forcibly of the wis­dom of peaceful change.”

The bottom line is that while nonviolent resistance doesn’t guarantee democracy, it does at least more or less guarantee the lesser of the various potential evils. The nature of the struggle can often give us a good idea of what the country will be like after the new regime takes shape. And few people want to live in a country where power is seized and maintained by force alone.

Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/

BY: Joe Schoffstall

President Obama’s recent trip to Kenya and Ethiopia ran taxpayers roughly $6 million on roundtrip air transportation alone.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation conducted a study based on presidential travel abroad and determined the cost of the trip using total flight time and costs per hour to fly Air Force One.

The Washington Examiner reports:

The taxpayer watchdog group determined that Obama’s trip from Joint Base Andrews to Nairobi, Kenya, then to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia then home today has a total flight time of 29 hours.

The Air Force recently told Judicial Watch that it cost $206,337 an hour to fly Air Force One, putting the price just for Obama’s jet at $5,983,773, said NTUF. Not included are the many millions more for lodging, security, communications and the prepositioning of cars, vans and aircraft for the president.

Study author and policy analyst Michael Tasselmyer said, “While flight costs can be estimated, the rest of the expenses associated with travel, including security, lodging, food, and more, not just for the president and Air Force One, but additional staff and airplanes, remains opaque.”

The National Taxpayer Union Foundation also concluded that President Obama has now tied Bill Clinton for most international travel–with 41 trips–by their seventh year in office. Obama’s top destinations include Mexico and France, having visited each five times.

George W. Bush, by comparison, took 38 international trips at this point in his presidency. Reagan took 21.

Source – http://freebeacon.com/politics/obamas-africa-trip-cost-taxpayers-6-million-on-airfare-alone/

BY WARKA · AUGUST 2, 2015

By Aaron Maasho

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – An Ethiopian court sentenced 17 Muslim activists on Monday to prison sentences ranging from seven to 22 years on charges they plotted to create an Islamic state in the majority Christian country.

A journalist for a Muslim newspaper was also sentenced for conspiring with the activists, the court in Addis Ababa said.

The defendants, who all denied the charges, were arrested in 2012 on charges of plotting to stage attacks to create an Islamic state in Ethiopia, which has a sizable Muslim minority.

The sentencing comes as Ethiopia faces increasing scrutiny from human rights groups that have regularly accused it of arresting activists, journalists and bloggers to stamp out dissent. The government dismisses the allegations.

The activists were arrested during protests between 2011 and 2013 by Muslims – a rare event in this tightly-controlled country – who accused the government of interference in their affairs. Officials have denied this.

The protesters accused the government of trying to impose a little-known Islamic sect called Al Ahbash on the country’s Muslim population as a moderate bulwark against the hardline Islam it believes is being spread by extremist preachers.

Ethiopian Muslim leaders say their community follows traditional Sufi-inspired Islam and not any radical movement.

The court sentenced four of the activists to 22 years in jail, five to 18 years, another five to 15 years and four defendants to seven years behind bars. One in the last group was the journalist working for the Muslim newspaper.

(Editing by Edith Honan and Tom Heneghan)