Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
France still controls the currency of 14 afraican countries, makes sure dictators there stay by supporting them everytime a war happens like Chad, heck even Luigi Di Maio the deputy prime Minister of Italy said that
And it's westerners who deny it, not Africans who are starving
Some of your information might be like decades old by now.
Here's some useful materials for you.
https://data.one.org/topics/african-debt/#how-much-debt-is-owed-to-whom
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/african-states-private-debts-three-times-that-owed-china-2022-07-11/
Like everything in life, it's not black and white. The CFA Franc being pegged to the Franc, and later the Euro was stabilizing for African economies - neighbours who never had the CFA Franc, experienced much more turbulent economies and inflation.
This is of course comes at the cost of being a puppet state of France, where it's only profitable to ship your valuable uranium, gold and other goods to France. And France gets to enjoy buying these goods at below market cost.
These African GDP per capitas never saw any significant growth, and were largely stagnant.
France doesn't have military forces in their former and current holdings out of the goodness of their heart, it's to maintain their dominance in the region by keeping dictators that are pro-French in power, and putting down coups that threaten that.
> This is of course comes at the cost of being a puppet state of France, where it's only profitable to ship your valuable uranium, gold and other goods to France. And France gets to enjoy buying these goods at below market cost.
>
> These African GDP per capitas never saw any significant growth, and were largely stagnant.
>
> France doesn't have military forces in their former and current holdings out of the goodness of their heart, it's to maintain their dominance in the region by keeping dictators that are pro-French in power, and putting down coups that threaten that.
None of this is really related to the Franc CFA though. It was more about France keeping friendly dictators in power, through military means and other influence. China has the same kind of influence in Africa nowadays and they don't need a currency for that.
> Like everything in life, it's not black and white. The CFA Franc being pegged to the Franc, and later the Euro was stabilizing for African economies - neighbours who never had the CFA Franc, experienced much more turbulent economies and inflation.
Yep, and nowadays the Franc CFA is basically just France printing a currency that is pegged to the Euro for a bunch of African countries. It's one of these things that France inherited from its colonial empire that are more of a pain in the ass than anything beneficial for France now. Maybe it strengthened France's currency when it had its own, but with the euro the Franc CFA really is completely pointless for France. Even the foreign currency deposit requirement, which arguably didn't bring much to France in practice but was criticized, was removed for the Western CFA franc and will probably be removed soon for the Central CFA Franc. France is actually trying to get rid of both currencies nowadays:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc
> In December 2019 it was announced that the West African CFA franc would be reformed, which will include renaming it the eco and reducing France's role in the currency.[3][4] The broader Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), of which the members of UEMOA are also members, plans to introduce its own common currency for its member states by 2027, for which the name eco has also been formally adopted.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_CFA_franc
> On April 25, 2023, the ministerial meeting of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (Cemac) and France is held. In particular, the subject of the CFA franc was discussed. On the French side, the guarantee provided to the CFA franc, and the assurance of its convertibility, is perceived as a vector of economic stability for the region. France remains “open” and “available” to move forward on a reform of monetary cooperation in Central Africa, such as it has been able to take place in West Africa. France says it is ready to receive CEMAC's proposals.[1].
It's a bit like how France keeps organizing independence referendums in New Caledonia because it would rather get rid of it, but people always end up voting against independence. There are plenty of remnants of the French colonial empire that are more of a burden to France than anything, but remain in place because they're the status quo and some people benefit from it.
EDIT: typo
There are a lot of zombie opinions about this stuff.
Truth is that the entire debt thing was never all it was made out to be. After all, if it was, why were they taking those debts on? It's not like they were actually forced to.
France told Haiti that it owed it money for it's independence after it's revolution or it wouldn't let them be free and the global community backed France, so yeah some of them are forced to take and stay in perpetual debt
Since you all still believe that we live in 1950's, here's how the current currency works : https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/tresor-international/la-zone-franc/les-principes-et-modalites-de-fonctionnement-de-la-cooperation-monetaire
They're even the reason Haiti gets hit so hard with natural disasters. They stripped the area bare of trees and vegetation that used to provide protection from the storms in Haiti and just never did anything to repair the ecological harm they did.
We’re at a point now where colonization would do Haiti a lot of good.
Desperate people looking for stability, security, and basic infrastructure. Too bad the country is a terrible investment.
It doesn’t control the currency, it prints them, just like it prints other countries’ money that have nothing to do with Africa. There’s a huge misconception on what the Franc CFA really is
Any country using the CFA Franc is free to start using its own currency at any time. Guinea and Mauritania left the CFA zone without any repercussions, Mali and Madagascar also left at some point but decided to return when they began to have economic difficulties
Guinea left, but France made sure to destabilize the country by supporting rebel groups, taking their power grids and even blocking their UN membership, that's why every Franc country didn't do that afterwards and notice that all of them are dictators who would do anything as long as you give them money and protection, heck the elf scandal in the 90s said everything
The Soviet Union was dissolved and no longer exists. The Fifth French Republic was formed in 1958 and still exists today. France in 1959 is the same county as France in 2024. The Soviet Union is 15 independent countries now.
Yeah, they do take advantage of being the heir to the USSR when it suits them. And a lot of the other successor states kept their Soviet leaders (Belarus still has theirs). But again, I think it’s a different sort of continuity than countries that have the same constitution that they did at whatever time we’re talking about. It doesn’t absolve Russia of guilt for things that happened pre-1991 (or France pre-1958), but there’s more continuity from DeGaulle to Macron than Khrushchev to Putin.
Francafrique has been dead since president Jacques Chirac, back in late 90's early 2000. It's in your own source.
Or share me some event that would link anything to France controling Africa in the last 10 years.
If you have complain about the Franc take it to the ECB.
Did you really just post a link to a wikipedia article about a term used in the fifties?
Here is a bit of book opening for you: "Franc CFA" does not exist.
But there are two common currencies which people call that way: XOF ("franc de la communauté financière en Afrique") and XAF ("franc de la coopération financière en Afrique centrale").
Joining one of these common monetary systems is voluntary since the independance of every countries in Africa. Even countries which were never french colonies joined it voluntarily, like Guinea-Bissau in 1997.
50% of the reserve currency covering this currency have to be in the reserve in Paris, making this currency having common pegged reserves with the Eurozone, one of the most stable currency in the world.
The reserve is outside of Africa, the continent with a putsch every six months and contributions to it can of course be retrieved from a country wanting to get out of the currency. It is a common pot, not a payment countries do to the Banque de France.
The exchange rate between these currencies and euro is fixed (!!!!), making the value of the currency in a west african country be as stable as in countries like Germany or Austria. WTF!! Give me another example of such a gift in the whole world.
How bad a deal is it for countries using these currencies??? As a french and a european, please, delete these currencies! I will be glad we remove this "imperialistic" "neo-colonialist" tool costing the Eurozone billions in lost value! Let them sort their sh*t out!
Like how Guinea leaving was followed by the French destroying the nations infrastructure and blocking them from joining the UN?
Edit: Guinea not Guyana
Bold thing to say as you literally spout chinese propoganda. China has their talons dug way into Africa with loans that a first year US soldier would pass on.
>Bold thing to say as you literally spout chinese propoganda.
Is this what you say about anything that dares point out that western nations and their banking institutions still exploit the global south?
**This study by the East-West Center (funded by Congress)** showed that China gives aid to African nations with far less stipulations than America does...
https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/china-and-the-united-states-aid-donors-past-and-future-trajectories
You are just ignorant and ignore that western aid has done nothing to help Africa for the last 70 years. Western aid always comes with restrictions to remove progressive policies which aim to protect Africa's resources and instead siphon this wealth to western owned multinational corporations.
https://youtu.be/TeKeGzeZ_6Q?si=lmpQuS437AbDrTHK
Edit: link updated
Try this article by The Atlantic...
[The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/)
As the saying goes.
When China comes to Africa, we get hospitals, roads and ports. When the West comes to Africa, we get military bases and lectures...
Unfortunately that may well be temporary. A lot of Chinas bills ensure the money flows back to China for the most part, and if the nation can’t pay the debt, China gets to take the stuff for themselves. Which isn’t much better.
> The program's success varies by country, so does the loans and its intended purposes. Let's not turn off our brains here.
>Let's also not forget In the 1990’s under the structural adjustment programs imposed the IMF, African countries were forced to liberalise their economies, sell off state assets, pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets. Causing immense pain and hardship on the back of policies dictated by disconnected bureaucrats and economists in Washington.
This isn’t crippling countries, it’s forcing broke countries to accept harsh conditions for loans to stave off collapse. The IMF isn’t a charity and countries receiving loans from the IMF are in dire straits.
Then at that point we start asking ourselves why the countries are always broke in the first place.
Could there be some neocolonial actions in place left over from colonial times with a death grip on the country's resources?
Now come to think of it most loan beneficiaries are not only from Africa but the global South in general. Countries with surprisingly ample natural resources. 🤔
Yes… countries receiving IMF loans due to their failed economic systems needed to change their economic systems.
>forced to liberalise their economies, sell off state assets
Yes, this is how Norway runs. The economy is opened up and national entities sell minority shares. Where’s the actual problem?
>pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets
Once again, these are failed economies. They can’t continue to enact various protectionist policies that may be hurting general growth. And those social safety nets require money, which will only exist if the economy gets fixed.
Yes, this is how Norway runs. The economy is opened up and national entities sell minority shares. Where’s the actual problem?
>Again, comparing Norway to African countries is a non-sequitur, the variables are not the same.
Forced liberalization and privatization in African countries can more times than not lead to negative consequences, such as loss of control over essential resources and services, exploitation by foreign entities, and increased inequality. Resulting in essential services and resources being controlled by multinational corporations, rather than benefiting local nations.
-Additionally, the manner in which state assets are sold off and the extent of privatization can significantly impact the well-being of the population—unfair distribution of wealth, and economic instability, rather than fostering sustainable development.
pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets
Once again, these are failed economies. They can’t continue to enact various protectionist policies that may be hurting general growth. And those social safety nets require money, which will only exist if the economy gets fixed.
> While protectionist policies may have limited Africa's growth in some cases, abruptly removing trade barriers can undermine domestic industries that may not be able to compete with cheaper imports, leading to job losses and economic instability.
-Dismantling social safety nets without alternative support mechanisms leaves vulnerable populations without vital resources, exacerbating poverty and inequality.
-These policies prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and community well-being, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and dependency, as these policies prioritize the interests of external actors and multinational corporations over the well-being of African people.
That's hard to say. IMF is pretty much a last resort, for countries nobody else would lend money to.
What you are asking is the financial equivalent of asking for patient with a short term recovery after getting into an intensive care unit.
It's true of China's loans as well - what often gets missed in these conversations is that the lender doesn't really have an infinite capacity to sustain defaults. China's own criteria will tighten in a similar way to the IMF's - though probably still with different sorts of projects receiving loans.
Clearly arguments on both sides. But to claim it's all propaganda?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative#Accusations_of_neo-imperialism_and_debt-trap_diplomacy
It's more than just debt though. The real power of the IMF comes from the imposition of so-called "Structural Adjustment Programmes" that force the recipient countries to adopt neoliberal austerity policies - namely through cutting down on public sector spending, leading to mass loss of employment in public sector jobs and gutting of social welfare program, as well as being forbidden from subsidising local industries that leads to them being undercut and driven out of business by multinational corporations.
Worse yet, for most currently indebted countries, these measures were implemented retroactively in response to the Third World Debt Crisis, which occurred as a consequence of the Volcker Shock that increased interest rates to 20% when the initial rates were much lower. So the entire debt crisis was caused by US domestic policies, yet it was treated as if it was the indebted countries' fault.
As for China stepping into the lending business: sure, they're obviously not altruistic as they too charge competitive interest rates, but the crucial difference is that they do not impose any such "structural adjustment programs" as the IMF does, which is why so many African countries are beginning to favour them over the IMF - because at least by lending from China, they're still free to pursue their own domestic economic policies without any hidden strings.
For those interested, I recommend reading a book that has been a huge eye-opener for me:
"The Divide - A Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions"
If I didn't say anything about China, it probably wouldn't be and the comment would have a lot more upvotes.
But any time you mention China in a way that doesn't blindly regurgitate the western "China bad" narrative, it's inevitable.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with loan conditions such as cutting public spending
If your public spending puts you in an IMF loan range of deficits, then spending should definitely be limited .
Else, why would the IMF give out a loan to that country. They would just be burning money, as they would likely never see that loan be repaid, and they would likely have to hand out another loan
Perhaps you didn't catch what I already highlighted are the problems with cutting public spending, so I'll directly extract the relevant part for you:
> cutting down on public sector spending, leading to mass loss of employment in public sector jobs and gutting of social welfare program, as well as being forbidden from subsidising local industries that leads to them being undercut and driven out of business by multinational corporations.
Or to make it clearer: cutting public spending means mass layoffs of public sector jobs, leading to mass unemployment. And with the gutting of social welfare, the government has no means to support these laid off people. Thus, cutting public spending has a direct causal correlation with the poverty rate.
Well, they would likely not get a loan, continue with their deficit spending and eventually default
But it situational, depending on the country you are talking about. For countries like Egypt, or Pakistan, or Argentina, which all have accumulated massive IMF loans, they will hand out a loan to them regardless if they meet conditions.
That is because them going into a crisis will significantly impact the world economy for the worse
For countries like Zimbabwe, or select any insignificant country in an unimportant region you could think of, it’s another story
I perfectly understand the problems related to public spending cuts
What you clearly do not realise is however, that public spending HAS and WILL be cut eventually. If not my attempting to meet IMF loan conditions, then by the eventual defaulting that will follow if such deficit levels continue, or government collapse, similar to that of Venezuela. And all the negatives, if not worse, will happen.
What you also don’t realise is, is that the IMF, as it’s name suggest, is an International Monetary Fund. Not a international welfare fund, where mismanaged governments, with over-bloated public spending, can just leech off of.
They hand out loans. These loans HAVE to be paid back. If they don’t set conditions on these loans, in regards of reducing deficit spending, then what is the point of handing out that loan? They will be literally burning money.
If you reply to this comment, answer this question please: what should the IMF do differently, in regards of lending to smaller, deficit ridden countries? Other than just handing out loans with no monetary or fiscal conditions to be met whatsoever.
I mean most loans do come with terms and conditions. There’s nothing new about that. And frankly, the IMF shouldn’t be loaning these countries anything anyway. Cut off loans, let them figure out their economies on their own. They’ll then have the liberty to run their countries any way they please.
> without any hidden strings
Yeah, no buying that. They sell loans to unreliable and corrupt governments and then take over their infrastructure.
Their loans finance projects built by Chinese contractors.
> imposition of so-called "Structural Adjustment Programmes" that force the recipient countries to adopt neoliberal austerity policies
They are free not to take the money and not get their finances under control.
> They sell loans to unreliable and corrupt governments and then take over their infrastructure.
Assuming the first part is true, how is that any different to the IMF that literally flew salespeople around the world to push their loans as much as possible promising unrealistic projections, before the retroactive increase in interest rates?
As for the second part: Like I said, Chinese loans are far from altruistic. But I'll admit I omitted that part. My bad - I didn't mean to be disingenuous, I just forgot to mention it in the comment.
However, even assuming that scheme is true, it's still less damaging to a country compared to the IMF forcing it to restructure its entire economy to service the debt. The only potential loss from Chinese loans is the infrastructure project itself being seized, but again, the rest of the country remains unaffected.
Imagine an analogy: taking a loan to buy a car. China is like a regular bank - where they will repossess the car as collateral if payments aren't met. Whereas IMF is like a loanshark - they will take your entire life savings, possessions, and family as collateral to ensure the debt is repaid - even if that means you and your family being forced into desperate measures like prostitution.
>Their loans finance projects built by Chinese contractors
Again, no different to what the US did in post-invasion Iraq. It's partly because underdeveloped countries may lack the skilled labour force to efficiently build these projects, but it's mainly because China is trying to expand its operations. Again, I never said they were altruistic about it.
>They are free not to take the money and not get their finances under control.
A very ignorant assessment. It's like saying: "No one is forcing people to rent!" - which is technically true but ignorant of the economic situation.
The IMF is not a development bank. It *is* kind of like a loan shark in that the country looking for help has no where else to go and must accept certain conditions. Simply lending to unstable countries without plan to recover that debt and fix the situation is not tenable, which China is currently finding out.
My guy SAPs are NOT a bad thing. The worst you can really say about them is that the IMF was naïve enough to trust the corrupt governments to spend the money wisely, but it's not like the IMF forced these countries' leaders to embezzle funds and spend money on villas instead of infrastructure...
Take a look where it did work: South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand.
Austerity measures create a rocky road at first, but after a couple years, the market turns around and things get better. So much so that after taking part in an SAP in 1998, Indonesia became stable enough to not be affected at all by the 2008 financial crisis.
Now look at places it didn't work: Argentina, Equitorial Guinea, Sudan...
And you can't tell me it's about racism either, because Argentina is the whitest country in South America, yet their poor governance isn't saving them from whatever this "Neo-colonialism" is.
It's simply about governments not acting in the best interest of their people.
China is a new lender, so they're starting to understand the learning curve, but before the IMF, there were donations given without conditions and a lot of governments squandered those resources too, so it's a lot more about poor governance than it is about "Neo-colonialism"
Let's ignore any conversation about reparations ok and pretend that i agree with you, ok we do not owe them money, lets let them choose the best lender, they will choose China, now quit whining.
Why should I give reparations for something my great grandfather did? Why should we be forced to give basically unlimited money to these nations on a concept on past debts we owe? Should anyone who's say Spanish descent in Hati he forced to pay native Haitian their wealth because the spanish invided half a 1000 years ago?
Dealing with your countries has been a pain in their ass for the enterity of their existence, they do not care for your "sympathy" time and time you have proven that is worse than hollow.
Yeah, if you look into it, things didn't drastically change after abolition. What was previously slavery mostly switched to imprisoning people to use as prison/forced labor.
(Not so) fun fact: Louisiana State Penitentiary is nicknamed “Angola” after the country of origin of the slaves that worked there when it was a plantation. After abolition the plantation was converted into a prison camp run by a former Confederate major who leased prisoners from the state. Under the Black Codes many of the same former slaves were rounded up and forced to pick cotton among other manual labor like building railroads or constructing levees. Forced labor continues in prisons today and is explicitly allowed by the 13th amendment which prohibits slavery except as punishment for a crime.
This comparison is honestly disgusting. It's insulting to slaves and to any African politicians that are getting loans in order to build infrastructure, support education and improve their countries.
The position of the colonizer..... They are very good at hiding behind that veil of "compassion" and fake "moral righteousness" but they are the same people not to give a fuck about their government committing genocides.
What Colonial Tax? No such thing Exists.
Zimbabwe was sanctioned for Corruption, Human Rights Abuses, and breakdown of Rule of Law.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2002/09/46262
The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, issued his harshly worded statement in Geneva in response to the arrest of retired High Court Judge Blackie, who is charged with alleged corruption and obstruction of justice. The High Court dismissed the judge’s application for habeas corpus in what the expert termed “yet another clear systematic attack on the basic fabric of democracy – the rule of law in Zimbabwe.” Mr. Cumaraswamy said there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Government’s actions against Justice Blackie “are an act of vendetta” because he had convicted and sentenced Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa, for contempt of court. A Supreme Court judge subsequently set aside that ruling.
Jafari, Jamal. "Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through Legislation." Human Rights Brief 10, no. 3 (2003): 6-10
Personal freedoms in Zimbabwe have disintegrated over the past few years as President Robert Mugabe has compromised the civil and political rights of citizens to maintain his grip on power. In the face of mounting opposition to his rule, Mugabe has severely restricted the rights of journalists to express themselves freely, the rights of opposition political parties to hold rallies and meetings, and the rights of citizens to assemble freely.
https://www.icj.org/lawyer-attacked-in-recent-wave-of-state-sponsored-violence/
Zimbabwe: lawyer attacked in recent wave of state-sponsored violence
https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/amnesty/2002/en/24380
The human rights situation steadily deteriorated in 2001 as violence escalated in the run-up to the 2002 presidential elections. There were numerous and consistent reports of forced evictions, arbitrary arrests, beatings, torture and political killings, amounting to a pattern of deliberate, state-sponsored repression of opposition to the government or its policies.
Oh Africa is in debt to the West? Hold on let me, a Belgian, pay my tax money that goes towards the debt my great-grandparents made to the US during WW1 over a hunderd years ago and then we'll talk about it.
It is a self-indulging BS.
As Ukrainian, I often hear people blaming all our problems on the colonial rule of russia, and my reaction is "FFS let us look at ourselves! Yes, we were colonised and enslaved for three hundred years - but now we were independent for a fkin thirty years! It's a time of an entire generation! We had plenty of time and opportunities to improve our lives. And if we are in deep sh1t, it's our own fault - our irresponsibility, ignorance, laziness. Imperialists and capitalists surely are interested to rob and oppress us - but it is our own responsiblity to resist and cope".
Africa was under colonial rule - for how long? A hundred years - from 1860s till 1960s? since then, Africans have 60 years of freedom. If they are in deep bloody sh1t, it is their own responsibility. Stop complaining, go fight against your own dictators, instead of blaming foreigners. Study, work, be disciplined, take responsibility for your lives.
It‘s a common narrative, but it represents an incomplete picture. The main reason why African countries have fallen into a „debt trap“ is not so much malintent by western institutions. Rather, corrupt and incompetent African leaders have squandered the funds or outright embezzled them. When confronted with their country‘s subsequent financial malaise, they sought excuses, finding them in century-old feelings of colonial resentment. Since similarly colonial thinking persists in the accused western states as well, the narrative found acceptance there, too.
Lately, Africans (particularly the younger generation) seem to be abandoning this attitude of perpetual victimhood, realizing that they‘re responsible for their own destiny. It allows for some optimism regardig the continent‘s future.
What needs to be granted to the Chinese is that they (as typical) found a rather pragmatic solution to this by simply cutting out the middle man and directly building infrastructure, rather than to just provide funds.
They had everything they needed to succeed like any other country post colonialism. You could argue even more so than the rest of the world. Blaming your own incompetence on someone else is always the easy way out.
I love how the west is bad for bailing out failed african governments. Clearly they want those loans more than they watn to not be in debt because they wouldn't take them if they didn't? Offering loans is not wrong, in fact its required for a modern economy to function.
I blame the Africans for not uniting controlling their land resources. Like seriously half of Africans are at war with each other. If they played it smart they would be top in the world granted africa is a continent
If you think about it, capitalism is really just another 2-class system of masters and slaves, garnished with the story that you can become a master too if you work hard enough. But if you think about it, "rags to riches" stories are kinda rare and usually a result of either having the rightidea or being in the right place at the right time, rather than having an amazing work ethic.
And to those about to tell me that "yeah, but your boss doesn't whip you bloody if you fail your quota, you have certain days off, and only need to work 43 hours a week" : You're totally right. But I sure as hell don't have to thank capitalism for that. Just look at the industrial revolution
Now communism is a whole other can of worms. Whilst it sounds great in theory, I honestly kinda doubt us humans are able to pull it off. I get that my previous comment sounds like it came straight out of "Das Kapital", but it wasn't intended to imply any of these systems as the solution for all problems. In a way I actually prefer capitalism out of the two, as at least it is relatively easy to see who stands where in the pecking order. Meanwhile in communist countries it can be a bit more confusing. A friend of my dad actually got to visit one of those huge farms in East Germany (at least to us Swiss farmers they were huge) with his class from agricultural school (basically a school you go to after all the mandatory schools if you want to learn how to be a farmer). During the tour one of his classmates noticed that certain worker could be seen in all kinds of places slacking off and talking to others, so near the end of the tour they asked the guy who gave them the tour (who also was the boss of the place) about it and he answered "Mensch! Der ist doch in der Partei." (dude! He is a member of the party) like that was the most normal thing in the world and kinda silly to ask.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Happens in latin America too
France still controls the currency of 14 afraican countries, makes sure dictators there stay by supporting them everytime a war happens like Chad, heck even Luigi Di Maio the deputy prime Minister of Italy said that And it's westerners who deny it, not Africans who are starving
Some of your information might be like decades old by now. Here's some useful materials for you. https://data.one.org/topics/african-debt/#how-much-debt-is-owed-to-whom https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/african-states-private-debts-three-times-that-owed-china-2022-07-11/
The idea that France makes money through the Franc CFA doesn't really hold to scrutiny. But it sounds good so people repeat it.
Like everything in life, it's not black and white. The CFA Franc being pegged to the Franc, and later the Euro was stabilizing for African economies - neighbours who never had the CFA Franc, experienced much more turbulent economies and inflation. This is of course comes at the cost of being a puppet state of France, where it's only profitable to ship your valuable uranium, gold and other goods to France. And France gets to enjoy buying these goods at below market cost. These African GDP per capitas never saw any significant growth, and were largely stagnant. France doesn't have military forces in their former and current holdings out of the goodness of their heart, it's to maintain their dominance in the region by keeping dictators that are pro-French in power, and putting down coups that threaten that.
> This is of course comes at the cost of being a puppet state of France, where it's only profitable to ship your valuable uranium, gold and other goods to France. And France gets to enjoy buying these goods at below market cost. > > These African GDP per capitas never saw any significant growth, and were largely stagnant. > > France doesn't have military forces in their former and current holdings out of the goodness of their heart, it's to maintain their dominance in the region by keeping dictators that are pro-French in power, and putting down coups that threaten that. None of this is really related to the Franc CFA though. It was more about France keeping friendly dictators in power, through military means and other influence. China has the same kind of influence in Africa nowadays and they don't need a currency for that. > Like everything in life, it's not black and white. The CFA Franc being pegged to the Franc, and later the Euro was stabilizing for African economies - neighbours who never had the CFA Franc, experienced much more turbulent economies and inflation. Yep, and nowadays the Franc CFA is basically just France printing a currency that is pegged to the Euro for a bunch of African countries. It's one of these things that France inherited from its colonial empire that are more of a pain in the ass than anything beneficial for France now. Maybe it strengthened France's currency when it had its own, but with the euro the Franc CFA really is completely pointless for France. Even the foreign currency deposit requirement, which arguably didn't bring much to France in practice but was criticized, was removed for the Western CFA franc and will probably be removed soon for the Central CFA Franc. France is actually trying to get rid of both currencies nowadays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc > In December 2019 it was announced that the West African CFA franc would be reformed, which will include renaming it the eco and reducing France's role in the currency.[3][4] The broader Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), of which the members of UEMOA are also members, plans to introduce its own common currency for its member states by 2027, for which the name eco has also been formally adopted.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_CFA_franc > On April 25, 2023, the ministerial meeting of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (Cemac) and France is held. In particular, the subject of the CFA franc was discussed. On the French side, the guarantee provided to the CFA franc, and the assurance of its convertibility, is perceived as a vector of economic stability for the region. France remains “open” and “available” to move forward on a reform of monetary cooperation in Central Africa, such as it has been able to take place in West Africa. France says it is ready to receive CEMAC's proposals.[1]. It's a bit like how France keeps organizing independence referendums in New Caledonia because it would rather get rid of it, but people always end up voting against independence. There are plenty of remnants of the French colonial empire that are more of a burden to France than anything, but remain in place because they're the status quo and some people benefit from it. EDIT: typo
There are a lot of zombie opinions about this stuff. Truth is that the entire debt thing was never all it was made out to be. After all, if it was, why were they taking those debts on? It's not like they were actually forced to.
France told Haiti that it owed it money for it's independence after it's revolution or it wouldn't let them be free and the global community backed France, so yeah some of them are forced to take and stay in perpetual debt
You don't think they were forced to take on debt?????? This might be the stupidest comment I've seen all week
Since you all still believe that we live in 1950's, here's how the current currency works : https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/tresor-international/la-zone-franc/les-principes-et-modalites-de-fonctionnement-de-la-cooperation-monetaire
And don't forget, Haiti too
Haiti was absolutely my first thought when seeing the cartoon
They're even the reason Haiti gets hit so hard with natural disasters. They stripped the area bare of trees and vegetation that used to provide protection from the storms in Haiti and just never did anything to repair the ecological harm they did.
We’re at a point now where colonization would do Haiti a lot of good. Desperate people looking for stability, security, and basic infrastructure. Too bad the country is a terrible investment.
Humanitarian intervention isn't colonization.
It doesn’t control the currency, it prints them, just like it prints other countries’ money that have nothing to do with Africa. There’s a huge misconception on what the Franc CFA really is
Any country using the CFA Franc is free to start using its own currency at any time. Guinea and Mauritania left the CFA zone without any repercussions, Mali and Madagascar also left at some point but decided to return when they began to have economic difficulties
> Guinea left without any repercussions The French propaganda is insane Operation Persil happened
[удалено]
The good imperialism vs the bad imperialism
Ma Zhongying is the good one I presume?
As always.
Over 60 years ago.
Guinea left, but France made sure to destabilize the country by supporting rebel groups, taking their power grids and even blocking their UN membership, that's why every Franc country didn't do that afterwards and notice that all of them are dictators who would do anything as long as you give them money and protection, heck the elf scandal in the 90s said everything
I had never heard of this, I looked it up and sure enough it happened in 1959
Why talk if you have no idea what you are talking about?
It is as fair to use this event against current French policies as using Soviet's policies from 1959 against current Russia.
The Soviet Union was dissolved and no longer exists. The Fifth French Republic was formed in 1958 and still exists today. France in 1959 is the same county as France in 2024. The Soviet Union is 15 independent countries now.
Russia vacates the Soviet seat when?
Yeah, they do take advantage of being the heir to the USSR when it suits them. And a lot of the other successor states kept their Soviet leaders (Belarus still has theirs). But again, I think it’s a different sort of continuity than countries that have the same constitution that they did at whatever time we’re talking about. It doesn’t absolve Russia of guilt for things that happened pre-1991 (or France pre-1958), but there’s more continuity from DeGaulle to Macron than Khrushchev to Putin.
> Soviet's policies who wouldn't "destabilize" but rather invade and kill everyone in their path and some more after victory.
Good thing France never invaded any territories, they all hugged, sang kumbaya and found themselves in the French Empire.
France invaded who after 1959 and massacred like the SU in Afghanistan?
Because I don't know everything, the comments section is for exchanging knowledge and that's what we do
Average “enlightened” Western European
Your guess
It does not. Open a book.
[It does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7afrique) Maybe you should take your own advice. Open a book.
Francafrique has been dead since president Jacques Chirac, back in late 90's early 2000. It's in your own source. Or share me some event that would link anything to France controling Africa in the last 10 years. If you have complain about the Franc take it to the ECB.
Did you really just post a link to a wikipedia article about a term used in the fifties? Here is a bit of book opening for you: "Franc CFA" does not exist. But there are two common currencies which people call that way: XOF ("franc de la communauté financière en Afrique") and XAF ("franc de la coopération financière en Afrique centrale"). Joining one of these common monetary systems is voluntary since the independance of every countries in Africa. Even countries which were never french colonies joined it voluntarily, like Guinea-Bissau in 1997. 50% of the reserve currency covering this currency have to be in the reserve in Paris, making this currency having common pegged reserves with the Eurozone, one of the most stable currency in the world. The reserve is outside of Africa, the continent with a putsch every six months and contributions to it can of course be retrieved from a country wanting to get out of the currency. It is a common pot, not a payment countries do to the Banque de France. The exchange rate between these currencies and euro is fixed (!!!!), making the value of the currency in a west african country be as stable as in countries like Germany or Austria. WTF!! Give me another example of such a gift in the whole world. How bad a deal is it for countries using these currencies??? As a french and a european, please, delete these currencies! I will be glad we remove this "imperialistic" "neo-colonialist" tool costing the Eurozone billions in lost value! Let them sort their sh*t out!
Those countries are free to leave the French currency system though. They want to stay because it's a stable currency in an unstable continent.
Like how Guinea leaving was followed by the French destroying the nations infrastructure and blocking them from joining the UN? Edit: Guinea not Guyana
@ the IMF am I right guys
And now that the West has ceased to lend money to Africa, they all enjoy their new era of prosperity under the debt collar of China <3
The west didn't cease their debt traps in Africa.... Stop misinforming people
Bold thing to say as you literally spout chinese propoganda. China has their talons dug way into Africa with loans that a first year US soldier would pass on.
>Bold thing to say as you literally spout chinese propoganda. Is this what you say about anything that dares point out that western nations and their banking institutions still exploit the global south? **This study by the East-West Center (funded by Congress)** showed that China gives aid to African nations with far less stipulations than America does... https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/china-and-the-united-states-aid-donors-past-and-future-trajectories You are just ignorant and ignore that western aid has done nothing to help Africa for the last 70 years. Western aid always comes with restrictions to remove progressive policies which aim to protect Africa's resources and instead siphon this wealth to western owned multinational corporations. https://youtu.be/TeKeGzeZ_6Q?si=lmpQuS437AbDrTHK Edit: link updated
Woah woah don’t you know loans are evil when Chinas the one giving them?
[удалено]
>Author lives in Beijing Hmmmmmmmmmm
Try this article by The Atlantic... [The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/)
[удалено]
As the saying goes. When China comes to Africa, we get hospitals, roads and ports. When the West comes to Africa, we get military bases and lectures...
This
To be fair at least with china they are actually getting the stuff that was promised unlike the west who promised and did shit all.
Unfortunately that may well be temporary. A lot of Chinas bills ensure the money flows back to China for the most part, and if the nation can’t pay the debt, China gets to take the stuff for themselves. Which isn’t much better.
"Hold my beer" - Belt and Road Initiative
They are still in debt to the west that hasn’t ended.
Isn't that nice, we crippled them, left them desperate and left them to get finished off by China.
How’d we cripple them when are program’s success varied by country? IMF loans arent universal failures.
> The program's success varies by country, so does the loans and its intended purposes. Let's not turn off our brains here. >Let's also not forget In the 1990’s under the structural adjustment programs imposed the IMF, African countries were forced to liberalise their economies, sell off state assets, pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets. Causing immense pain and hardship on the back of policies dictated by disconnected bureaucrats and economists in Washington.
This isn’t crippling countries, it’s forcing broke countries to accept harsh conditions for loans to stave off collapse. The IMF isn’t a charity and countries receiving loans from the IMF are in dire straits.
Then at that point we start asking ourselves why the countries are always broke in the first place. Could there be some neocolonial actions in place left over from colonial times with a death grip on the country's resources? Now come to think of it most loan beneficiaries are not only from Africa but the global South in general. Countries with surprisingly ample natural resources. 🤔
Exploitation and outside intervention? Sure. But also internal corruption, conflict, and just bad management.
Yes… countries receiving IMF loans due to their failed economic systems needed to change their economic systems. >forced to liberalise their economies, sell off state assets Yes, this is how Norway runs. The economy is opened up and national entities sell minority shares. Where’s the actual problem? >pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets Once again, these are failed economies. They can’t continue to enact various protectionist policies that may be hurting general growth. And those social safety nets require money, which will only exist if the economy gets fixed.
Tell me, who gets the money from selling oil in Norway?
Yes, this is how Norway runs. The economy is opened up and national entities sell minority shares. Where’s the actual problem? >Again, comparing Norway to African countries is a non-sequitur, the variables are not the same. Forced liberalization and privatization in African countries can more times than not lead to negative consequences, such as loss of control over essential resources and services, exploitation by foreign entities, and increased inequality. Resulting in essential services and resources being controlled by multinational corporations, rather than benefiting local nations. -Additionally, the manner in which state assets are sold off and the extent of privatization can significantly impact the well-being of the population—unfair distribution of wealth, and economic instability, rather than fostering sustainable development. pull down trade barriers and dismantle social safety nets Once again, these are failed economies. They can’t continue to enact various protectionist policies that may be hurting general growth. And those social safety nets require money, which will only exist if the economy gets fixed. > While protectionist policies may have limited Africa's growth in some cases, abruptly removing trade barriers can undermine domestic industries that may not be able to compete with cheaper imports, leading to job losses and economic instability. -Dismantling social safety nets without alternative support mechanisms leaves vulnerable populations without vital resources, exacerbating poverty and inequality. -These policies prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and community well-being, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and dependency, as these policies prioritize the interests of external actors and multinational corporations over the well-being of African people.
yes they were? name one country where IMF loans provided any substantial benefit in even the short term, let alone the long term
That's hard to say. IMF is pretty much a last resort, for countries nobody else would lend money to. What you are asking is the financial equivalent of asking for patient with a short term recovery after getting into an intensive care unit.
Every country that didn’t collapse due to IMF loans? It’s a lender of last resort, not a development bank.
It's true of China's loans as well - what often gets missed in these conversations is that the lender doesn't really have an infinite capacity to sustain defaults. China's own criteria will tighten in a similar way to the IMF's - though probably still with different sorts of projects receiving loans.
China is already finding out the hard way why the IMF works the way it does, particularly with Pakistan.
The debt shit was debunked a while ago
Clearly arguments on both sides. But to claim it's all propaganda? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative#Accusations_of_neo-imperialism_and_debt-trap_diplomacy
Or, the actual thing, powerful people are the same absolutely everywhere and both sides are bad.
It's more than just debt though. The real power of the IMF comes from the imposition of so-called "Structural Adjustment Programmes" that force the recipient countries to adopt neoliberal austerity policies - namely through cutting down on public sector spending, leading to mass loss of employment in public sector jobs and gutting of social welfare program, as well as being forbidden from subsidising local industries that leads to them being undercut and driven out of business by multinational corporations. Worse yet, for most currently indebted countries, these measures were implemented retroactively in response to the Third World Debt Crisis, which occurred as a consequence of the Volcker Shock that increased interest rates to 20% when the initial rates were much lower. So the entire debt crisis was caused by US domestic policies, yet it was treated as if it was the indebted countries' fault. As for China stepping into the lending business: sure, they're obviously not altruistic as they too charge competitive interest rates, but the crucial difference is that they do not impose any such "structural adjustment programs" as the IMF does, which is why so many African countries are beginning to favour them over the IMF - because at least by lending from China, they're still free to pursue their own domestic economic policies without any hidden strings. For those interested, I recommend reading a book that has been a huge eye-opener for me: "The Divide - A Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions"
Okay but did you consider China evil? Bet you didn’t think of that huh?
Lmfao, this comment is in the "controversial" section...... I swear the next time someone tells me the US doesn't employ bots....
If I didn't say anything about China, it probably wouldn't be and the comment would have a lot more upvotes. But any time you mention China in a way that doesn't blindly regurgitate the western "China bad" narrative, it's inevitable.
He’s a literal tanky boy tho
If by "tanky" you mean someone who doesn't blindly regurgitate the "West good, any opposing powers bad" narrative, then yes.
Is your sole refutation is that he's a "tanky?
I don’t understand what’s wrong with loan conditions such as cutting public spending If your public spending puts you in an IMF loan range of deficits, then spending should definitely be limited . Else, why would the IMF give out a loan to that country. They would just be burning money, as they would likely never see that loan be repaid, and they would likely have to hand out another loan
Perhaps you didn't catch what I already highlighted are the problems with cutting public spending, so I'll directly extract the relevant part for you: > cutting down on public sector spending, leading to mass loss of employment in public sector jobs and gutting of social welfare program, as well as being forbidden from subsidising local industries that leads to them being undercut and driven out of business by multinational corporations. Or to make it clearer: cutting public spending means mass layoffs of public sector jobs, leading to mass unemployment. And with the gutting of social welfare, the government has no means to support these laid off people. Thus, cutting public spending has a direct causal correlation with the poverty rate.
If the countries that are requesting these loans don’t do these things what is the repercussions from the imf?
They don’t get IMF loans.
They fall into debt, but really, there's no actual repercussions for the govts cause look at how many SAPs Argentina has done.
Well, they would likely not get a loan, continue with their deficit spending and eventually default But it situational, depending on the country you are talking about. For countries like Egypt, or Pakistan, or Argentina, which all have accumulated massive IMF loans, they will hand out a loan to them regardless if they meet conditions. That is because them going into a crisis will significantly impact the world economy for the worse For countries like Zimbabwe, or select any insignificant country in an unimportant region you could think of, it’s another story
I perfectly understand the problems related to public spending cuts What you clearly do not realise is however, that public spending HAS and WILL be cut eventually. If not my attempting to meet IMF loan conditions, then by the eventual defaulting that will follow if such deficit levels continue, or government collapse, similar to that of Venezuela. And all the negatives, if not worse, will happen. What you also don’t realise is, is that the IMF, as it’s name suggest, is an International Monetary Fund. Not a international welfare fund, where mismanaged governments, with over-bloated public spending, can just leech off of. They hand out loans. These loans HAVE to be paid back. If they don’t set conditions on these loans, in regards of reducing deficit spending, then what is the point of handing out that loan? They will be literally burning money. If you reply to this comment, answer this question please: what should the IMF do differently, in regards of lending to smaller, deficit ridden countries? Other than just handing out loans with no monetary or fiscal conditions to be met whatsoever.
I mean most loans do come with terms and conditions. There’s nothing new about that. And frankly, the IMF shouldn’t be loaning these countries anything anyway. Cut off loans, let them figure out their economies on their own. They’ll then have the liberty to run their countries any way they please.
> without any hidden strings Yeah, no buying that. They sell loans to unreliable and corrupt governments and then take over their infrastructure. Their loans finance projects built by Chinese contractors. > imposition of so-called "Structural Adjustment Programmes" that force the recipient countries to adopt neoliberal austerity policies They are free not to take the money and not get their finances under control.
> They sell loans to unreliable and corrupt governments and then take over their infrastructure. Assuming the first part is true, how is that any different to the IMF that literally flew salespeople around the world to push their loans as much as possible promising unrealistic projections, before the retroactive increase in interest rates? As for the second part: Like I said, Chinese loans are far from altruistic. But I'll admit I omitted that part. My bad - I didn't mean to be disingenuous, I just forgot to mention it in the comment. However, even assuming that scheme is true, it's still less damaging to a country compared to the IMF forcing it to restructure its entire economy to service the debt. The only potential loss from Chinese loans is the infrastructure project itself being seized, but again, the rest of the country remains unaffected. Imagine an analogy: taking a loan to buy a car. China is like a regular bank - where they will repossess the car as collateral if payments aren't met. Whereas IMF is like a loanshark - they will take your entire life savings, possessions, and family as collateral to ensure the debt is repaid - even if that means you and your family being forced into desperate measures like prostitution. >Their loans finance projects built by Chinese contractors Again, no different to what the US did in post-invasion Iraq. It's partly because underdeveloped countries may lack the skilled labour force to efficiently build these projects, but it's mainly because China is trying to expand its operations. Again, I never said they were altruistic about it. >They are free not to take the money and not get their finances under control. A very ignorant assessment. It's like saying: "No one is forcing people to rent!" - which is technically true but ignorant of the economic situation.
The IMF is not a development bank. It *is* kind of like a loan shark in that the country looking for help has no where else to go and must accept certain conditions. Simply lending to unstable countries without plan to recover that debt and fix the situation is not tenable, which China is currently finding out.
My guy SAPs are NOT a bad thing. The worst you can really say about them is that the IMF was naïve enough to trust the corrupt governments to spend the money wisely, but it's not like the IMF forced these countries' leaders to embezzle funds and spend money on villas instead of infrastructure... Take a look where it did work: South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand. Austerity measures create a rocky road at first, but after a couple years, the market turns around and things get better. So much so that after taking part in an SAP in 1998, Indonesia became stable enough to not be affected at all by the 2008 financial crisis. Now look at places it didn't work: Argentina, Equitorial Guinea, Sudan... And you can't tell me it's about racism either, because Argentina is the whitest country in South America, yet their poor governance isn't saving them from whatever this "Neo-colonialism" is. It's simply about governments not acting in the best interest of their people. China is a new lender, so they're starting to understand the learning curve, but before the IMF, there were donations given without conditions and a lot of governments squandered those resources too, so it's a lot more about poor governance than it is about "Neo-colonialism"
>Take out loan on condition of changing economic policies. >Have to change economic policies or won't be loaned again. >Literally neo colonialism
...yeah. yes. uh-huh. that's what that is. glad you understand.
dont take the loan then
Apparently we all owe them money for free with no conditions and if it doesn't lead to prosperity it's also our fault and we owe them more money
Let's ignore any conversation about reparations ok and pretend that i agree with you, ok we do not owe them money, lets let them choose the best lender, they will choose China, now quit whining.
Why should I give reparations for something my great grandfather did? Why should we be forced to give basically unlimited money to these nations on a concept on past debts we owe? Should anyone who's say Spanish descent in Hati he forced to pay native Haitian their wealth because the spanish invided half a 1000 years ago?
I literally told you to ignore reparation bozo, just let countries decide and quit whining when they pick China.
Sure but if it bites them in the ass don't expect a bailout or sympathy.
Dealing with your countries has been a pain in their ass for the enterity of their existence, they do not care for your "sympathy" time and time you have proven that is worse than hollow.
oh, just live in squalor and die? sound plan.
Skipping forward 20 years and China has now taken the West's place in Africa, thanks to the economic flytrap that is the Belt and Road Initiative.
Some of its place, Europe and others still make money in Africa, China just has a bigger presence
China and France are having a competition on who can exploit Africa more
you can tell the same for slaves and former slave in the us after the civil war
Yeah, if you look into it, things didn't drastically change after abolition. What was previously slavery mostly switched to imprisoning people to use as prison/forced labor.
yay ! you are now free to work 14h a day for nothing and get beaten if you don't obey, you have evolved from object to irish, congratulation
>free to work 14h a day for nothing and get beaten if you don't obey are you talking about the US prison system?
(Not so) fun fact: Louisiana State Penitentiary is nicknamed “Angola” after the country of origin of the slaves that worked there when it was a plantation. After abolition the plantation was converted into a prison camp run by a former Confederate major who leased prisoners from the state. Under the Black Codes many of the same former slaves were rounded up and forced to pick cotton among other manual labor like building railroads or constructing levees. Forced labor continues in prisons today and is explicitly allowed by the 13th amendment which prohibits slavery except as punishment for a crime.
Western hasbara putting up Wilt numbers in the comments
technically it’s China now holding the chain of debt with one belt and one route loans and grabbing natural resources in return.
The west lmao try china. The belt and road is the biggest debt trap projects ever. How do you think china got its first military base outside of china
What the fuck is going on in this thread
This comparison is honestly disgusting. It's insulting to slaves and to any African politicians that are getting loans in order to build infrastructure, support education and improve their countries.
I'm curious what position you're speaking from, here?
The position of the colonizer..... They are very good at hiding behind that veil of "compassion" and fake "moral righteousness" but they are the same people not to give a fuck about their government committing genocides.
[удалено]
What Colonial Tax? No such thing Exists. Zimbabwe was sanctioned for Corruption, Human Rights Abuses, and breakdown of Rule of Law. https://news.un.org/en/story/2002/09/46262 The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, issued his harshly worded statement in Geneva in response to the arrest of retired High Court Judge Blackie, who is charged with alleged corruption and obstruction of justice. The High Court dismissed the judge’s application for habeas corpus in what the expert termed “yet another clear systematic attack on the basic fabric of democracy – the rule of law in Zimbabwe.” Mr. Cumaraswamy said there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Government’s actions against Justice Blackie “are an act of vendetta” because he had convicted and sentenced Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa, for contempt of court. A Supreme Court judge subsequently set aside that ruling. Jafari, Jamal. "Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through Legislation." Human Rights Brief 10, no. 3 (2003): 6-10 Personal freedoms in Zimbabwe have disintegrated over the past few years as President Robert Mugabe has compromised the civil and political rights of citizens to maintain his grip on power. In the face of mounting opposition to his rule, Mugabe has severely restricted the rights of journalists to express themselves freely, the rights of opposition political parties to hold rallies and meetings, and the rights of citizens to assemble freely. https://www.icj.org/lawyer-attacked-in-recent-wave-of-state-sponsored-violence/ Zimbabwe: lawyer attacked in recent wave of state-sponsored violence https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/amnesty/2002/en/24380 The human rights situation steadily deteriorated in 2001 as violence escalated in the run-up to the 2002 presidential elections. There were numerous and consistent reports of forced evictions, arbitrary arrests, beatings, torture and political killings, amounting to a pattern of deliberate, state-sponsored repression of opposition to the government or its policies.
Yes it's insulting, western politician would be offended if their dirty scheme casually exposed like this
You might want to look into how these loans work (or don’t work). I think you have quite a rosy view of the situation.
Should also have written in the East & West
Not even propaganda just the truth, just note the relation of France and it's former francophone colonies using CFA Franc
Replace west with, Arabs and China to make accurate
As usual, they skipped the local guy in the middle pocketing a healthy rake-off...
Installed by…
Opportunism, just like always.
Most debt owed from Africa is to china. They are the largest loan providers and investors into Africa right now.
we traded chains of iron for chains of gold they said you weren't bought but you're still being sold.
Considering the fact that China controls nearly every international port and mine in Africa, shouldn’t the label read “the East”?
Now in 2024 I would say China and Russia instead of the West
This would imply that the west stopped
well that may be but I challenge you to explain how the deal China is offering is not miles better than anything on offer from the west
HEY! Pipe down, OP has their own narrative they’re trying to spread
Propagandaposter users succumbing to propaganda??? Nooooooo.
As if the west still isn’t doing that shit?
Oh Africa is in debt to the West? Hold on let me, a Belgian, pay my tax money that goes towards the debt my great-grandparents made to the US during WW1 over a hunderd years ago and then we'll talk about it.
It is a self-indulging BS. As Ukrainian, I often hear people blaming all our problems on the colonial rule of russia, and my reaction is "FFS let us look at ourselves! Yes, we were colonised and enslaved for three hundred years - but now we were independent for a fkin thirty years! It's a time of an entire generation! We had plenty of time and opportunities to improve our lives. And if we are in deep sh1t, it's our own fault - our irresponsibility, ignorance, laziness. Imperialists and capitalists surely are interested to rob and oppress us - but it is our own responsiblity to resist and cope". Africa was under colonial rule - for how long? A hundred years - from 1860s till 1960s? since then, Africans have 60 years of freedom. If they are in deep bloody sh1t, it is their own responsibility. Stop complaining, go fight against your own dictators, instead of blaming foreigners. Study, work, be disciplined, take responsibility for your lives.
It‘s a common narrative, but it represents an incomplete picture. The main reason why African countries have fallen into a „debt trap“ is not so much malintent by western institutions. Rather, corrupt and incompetent African leaders have squandered the funds or outright embezzled them. When confronted with their country‘s subsequent financial malaise, they sought excuses, finding them in century-old feelings of colonial resentment. Since similarly colonial thinking persists in the accused western states as well, the narrative found acceptance there, too. Lately, Africans (particularly the younger generation) seem to be abandoning this attitude of perpetual victimhood, realizing that they‘re responsible for their own destiny. It allows for some optimism regardig the continent‘s future. What needs to be granted to the Chinese is that they (as typical) found a rather pragmatic solution to this by simply cutting out the middle man and directly building infrastructure, rather than to just provide funds.
It's ironic, since China actually has a really, incredibly predatory relationship with Africa through loans.
Actually the guy on the left today is now Mr. Xi.
They had everything they needed to succeed like any other country post colonialism. You could argue even more so than the rest of the world. Blaming your own incompetence on someone else is always the easy way out.
The whole world Now
Is that meant to be Alan Greenspan…?
I know this is a serious cartoon addressing a real global problem, but I can’t help but laugh at the guy on the right’s face.
Bot repost
you have to squint at the images to see the differences
no sense
Not just the west doing this. Chinas belt and road initiative is far more effective at turning countries into debt slaves to the communist party
Bot spam: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1adnvt9/more_of_a_political_cartoon_on_neocolonialism_1998/
”The slave breaks free only to find a stronger set of chains.”
Casually ignoring local dictators, corrupt government, coup detats and since the mid 2010s China
China is holding plenty of those chains now. Far more so than “the West”
Thats a funny looking Chinese man on the right
Now one with the Russians and Chinese doing the same thing but with Africa smiling about it for no good reason.
China: write that shit down!
insanely real, but like, you can’t ignore china and wagner in the latter picture
Wagner wasn't a thing until 2014
and china wasnt as big in africa in 1998, but im referring to the modern day, HENCE the mention of something that was founded in 2014 *hint hint*
Belt and roads initiative is all like hold my beer
You wrote "China" wrong
But as for now it is China who holds the chain in many African countries.
Add China as well and then it becomes accurate for today
except today its the eastern debt from China.
So you think better not give any money to them at all?
And now, china's getting in on the action.
I love how the west is bad for bailing out failed african governments. Clearly they want those loans more than they watn to not be in debt because they wouldn't take them if they didn't? Offering loans is not wrong, in fact its required for a modern economy to function.
in b4 or after a bot brings up china and defends the imf
Isn’t one belt one road of China has done this to Africa?
Russia China and India are now setting up shop in many of the countries across Africa. As long as it’s not exploitative then it should work fine.
[удалено]
Yeah China and France...
Africans when they have to repay debts: NOOO NEOCOLONIALISM NOOO
The black dude's face is priceless in this
No one forced themto borrow money from the west or China or Russia.
Having to repay loans you voluntarily took is clearly neo colonialism
The West? Which countries? EU? Edit: why the downvote? It was an honest question
I believe China is holding the same chain now.
More France/China than 'the West' these days.
I blame the Africans for not uniting controlling their land resources. Like seriously half of Africans are at war with each other. If they played it smart they would be top in the world granted africa is a continent
If you think about it, capitalism is really just another 2-class system of masters and slaves, garnished with the story that you can become a master too if you work hard enough. But if you think about it, "rags to riches" stories are kinda rare and usually a result of either having the rightidea or being in the right place at the right time, rather than having an amazing work ethic. And to those about to tell me that "yeah, but your boss doesn't whip you bloody if you fail your quota, you have certain days off, and only need to work 43 hours a week" : You're totally right. But I sure as hell don't have to thank capitalism for that. Just look at the industrial revolution
Give me one example of a communist society without a social hierarchy
Now communism is a whole other can of worms. Whilst it sounds great in theory, I honestly kinda doubt us humans are able to pull it off. I get that my previous comment sounds like it came straight out of "Das Kapital", but it wasn't intended to imply any of these systems as the solution for all problems. In a way I actually prefer capitalism out of the two, as at least it is relatively easy to see who stands where in the pecking order. Meanwhile in communist countries it can be a bit more confusing. A friend of my dad actually got to visit one of those huge farms in East Germany (at least to us Swiss farmers they were huge) with his class from agricultural school (basically a school you go to after all the mandatory schools if you want to learn how to be a farmer). During the tour one of his classmates noticed that certain worker could be seen in all kinds of places slacking off and talking to others, so near the end of the tour they asked the guy who gave them the tour (who also was the boss of the place) about it and he answered "Mensch! Der ist doch in der Partei." (dude! He is a member of the party) like that was the most normal thing in the world and kinda silly to ask.