TheAnswer2 wrote:@CushiticReflections Could you please elaborate on how the West is to be largely blamed for Somalia's woes?
What resources of Somalia are being exploited? And please don't give me that crap about illegal fishing on Somali waters, the idea that the West is conspiring to subjugate Somalia so they could get free fish is just laughable. These are independent corporations that are doing the illegal fishing/toxic dumping and their only motive is a quick buck, nothing else. Regardless, what happens in Somali waters is completely irrelevant to the chaos inside that lawless jungle you call a country.
When did I ever state that the US is interested in Somalia's waters? I did not and so that has no place in the discussion, although it is certainly true that Somalia's waters have been polluted and exploited.
Somalia is, generally speaking, an arid land. So I do not understand why you referred to it as a jungle.
I have also never stated that Somalia's resources have been exploited so I am unsure as to why you ask that of me. The only times when I mentioned "resources" were to highlight the importance of Somalia's development being sustainable and protecting the environment or at least doing the least amount of damage as possible. I also mentioned that other African nations' resources are being exploited. But while we are on that topic, I should probably clarify how Somalia's resources come into play. I have provided a link to a source in case more information was needed. On that page, it states that Somalia possesses oil and ores. Here is a quote from the site that provides information perhaps more clearly than I could:
In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn’t letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil ?
Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but doesn’t need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States have no guarantee on that point : if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.
Source:
http://www.michelcollon.info/Somalia-Ho ... ml?lang=fr
TheAnswer2 wrote:These "neo-colonial powers" that are hell bent on subjugating Somalia so they could become client states only exist in your mind. The US and co are only concerned about their security and commercial interests. Somalia poses a threat to both these interests -- you can't expect jihadism and piracy to reign supreme in Somalia and expect the West to do nothing.
If you read the same link provided above and in my last post, then you will find that it is precisely because Somalia is a strategic location and so it is of concern to their security and commercial interests. I suggest you take the time to read the source provided before as many of the points you raise are addressed there.
"Jihadism" did not rule supreme in Somalia, in fact, your misuse of the word "jihad" entirely misrepresents what Al Qaeda had been and is doing in Somalia. "Jihad" comes from the root word jim - ha- dal. It literally means to struggle or strive. In Islam, it is striving in various aspects including spiritual, personal endeavours, fighting injustice, among other things. But it never included terrorism - the Qur'an prohibits Muslims from being aggressors and permits fighting only to fight oppression. To use "jihadism" is to use the term that the media popularized and which has mistranslated as "holy war". In the minds of many non-Muslims "jihad" means to fight against non-believers when, in reality, the Qur'an states that we are to fight only against oppressors. Jihad is far more than fighting, it is striving in the cause of God which includes the spiritual aspects of one's inner life as well as their life decisions.
You can read more on the root jim- ha - dal here:
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
TheAnswer2 wrote:Anyway, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a client state of the US. History has shown that those countries that are on the same page as the US fare much better than those petty autocratic countries that seek conflict with it.
Compare: North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, Venezuela, Burma (until recently) etc with Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan, SIngapore, Saudi Arabia etc. How are these countries different in terms of economic well being and prosperity? What do they have in common in terms of foreign policy and strategic allegiance? Go figure. Somalia doesn't have the resources nor the human capital to stand up to a few units of ragtag militia yet alone the United States of America. The Somali president should be preoccupied on how he could woo the US for aid money and foreign companies for investment investment in the country. His foreign policy should be based on how best to achieve economic progress, absolutely nothing else.
“Quite evidently, dependence presupposes an exchange of favors: the 'patron state' allots to the 'client state' goods necessary to its survival according to a procedure identical with what occurs at the level of internal societal functions. In turn, the client state brings favors all the more diverse, whether they concern the use of its territory or the symbolic power it holds as a state on the international scene. The transfer of territorial rights from the patron state corresponds, first of all, to what an abundant literature formerly called the “looting of the third world”, referring principally to its diverse and abundant natural resources. It is also known that this transfer fits into the geopolitcal aims of the patron state and concerns the granting of military bases or simply of “facilities” for crossing the client state's territory. These two are often demanded as exclusive rights, as Great Britain did with Persia following the Afghan wars in the nineteenth century.”
“But it is remarkable that in modern times this transfer logic tends to become outrageously diversified, as is revealed by the extension of the practice of the 'trash state', in which the client allows the patron to dump industrial waste on its land and in its waters. This kind of agreement concern in particular the Gulf of Guinea and the Horn of Africa.”
There is an imbalance of power in a patron-client relationship. The patron state holds the majority of the power and so this means a great inequality of power in financial, economic, military, technological levels. The patron state also decides the organization of the sociopolitical life of the client state and everything that influences it (ie. verbal, musical, and satorial expression). This, in turns, affects the cultural identity of the nation and its people.
In addition, there are risks for the client state which exists only minimally for the patron state, due to the current power structures of the international scene. This means that the client state has more to lose when their relationship changes.
Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=LH0XCe ... pg=PA26&dq p 24-26
Considering that such a relationship involves dependendence on another nation, particularly on one that has less to lose when it decides to end the patron-client relationship and gains more in this relationship, then it only follows that when the relationship is no longer of benefit to the more powerful state, the relationship will change resulting in the lack of security of the patron-client relationship.
According to the book linked above, such shifts have had negative affects on client states (ie. Ethiopia between patronages and Iran after the Islamic revolution. This has meant ostracizement from the international community as well as other negative results.
As outlined above, the effects of being a client state and possible outcomes reveal that more than simply changes in the economy that may lead to great losses for the client nation.
Foreign investment has led to great losses in the economies of so-called “third world” nations. The example, though there are many like it, of Zambia follows:
An investigation by the British charity ActionAid has found that a major British corporation avoided paying income tax on hundreds of millions of dollars earned in the African state of Zambia.
The charity says that Zambia Sugar, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods (ABF), has paid almost no tax in Zambia since 2007.
The company moved millions of dollars out of Zambia and into tax havens like Mauritius and the Netherlands, reducing its taxable profits.
The report also accused ABF of "exploiting two separate tax breaks originally intended respectively for domestic Zambian farmers and big foreign investors".
ABF has denied the allegations, describing ActionAid's assertions as "illogical".
"The mill and related activities provide employment for more than 5,000 people," ABF said in a statement.
"As a direct consequence of this investment in a sustainable business, capital allowances and tax incentives were available to the company as they are to other investors."
Since 2007, Zambia Sugar has paid less than 0.5 percent of its $123m in profits, according to ActionAid - in a country where the main corporate tax rate is 35 percent; between 2008 and 2010, the firm paid no taxes at all.
"We estimate that Zambia has lost tax revenues of some US$17.7m since 2007, when ABF took over the Illovo sugar group," the charity wrote in its report, adding that this case is part of a much larger problem.
In response to the report, Illovo said it "believes that ActionAid’s work on the ground in many countries is laudable. However, this report is clearly designed with political campaigning in mind. It is inaccurate and misleading".
Researchers estimate that Zambia's economy loses some $2bn each year because of tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
Those underpayments mean poor public services for Zambians.
In Mazabuka town, on the edge of a local sugar plantation, about 1,200 students cram into just 12 classrooms, where they are taught in shifts, according to the charity's report.
Medical care is scarce; nationwide, there is just one doctor for every 10,000 Zambians.
In summary, this loss leads to fewer public services made available to the public. Such services include education, health care, among other important facilities or insitiutions.
In what ways are autocratic countries all “petty”? Is the mere fact that they autocratic automatically mean that they are “petty”? This does not logically follow. It is a word with a negative connation and thus reveals a bias against such nations. Bias affects how one views an issue or situation and if it even comes into what would ideally be a factual, objective post considering that you asked for elaboration while providing examples of your own to support your assertions. In order for your statements to hold weight in any debate, it is important that they be factual, logical, and objective in delivery. This is because, while everyone has an opinion, arguments are most persuasive and its logic sound when it fits the above criteria.
In conclusion, your argument neglects the many impacts that client states or nations that are invested by multinational corporations that leads to billions of dollars in losses to a poor nation's economy, fewer public services (ie. health care, education, infrastructure, etc), lack of independence of identity and culture, pollution (see “trash states”), among many similar impacts. Therefore, the possibility of some economic growth in addition to the above results does not lead to the overall benefit of poor nations to accept the foreign investment or a patron-client relationship.
