When Alexander the Great set out to dominate the known world, he didn't bother moving West, he moved to the East - because that was where trade was happening.
For several centuries, right up to Columbus, East-West overland trade was the most prominent trade.
For several centuries, right up to Columbus, East-West overland trade was the most prominent trade.
European maritime powers (Spain & Portugal, then The Netherlands, Britain and France) effectively cut off Silk Road trade and established a new global trading pattern; which still exists today.
Is it wrong to question this global trading pattern? No & that is what China is doing
Is it wrong to question this global trading pattern? No & that is what China is doing
If you get beyond the "Belt and Road" driven hysteria - you can examine the facts. The West put itself at the center of global trade (starting from Columbus) - so there's nothing wrong if China attempts to build a trading architecture that puts itself at the center.
Let's bring this home to Africa.
Africa's infrastructure was designed to make port cities wealthy and the hinterland poor - because Africa's infrastructure was designed for trade with the West, not for trade among African nations.
Africa's infrastructure was designed to make port cities wealthy and the hinterland poor - because Africa's infrastructure was designed for trade with the West, not for trade among African nations.
Just glance at a map of Africa. Africa's hinterland is huge.
Without a revolution in infrastructure in Africa, Africa's hinterland will continue to be poor and yet another generation of Africans will be condemned to poverty.
Infrastructure facilitates trade & economic growth.
Without a revolution in infrastructure in Africa, Africa's hinterland will continue to be poor and yet another generation of Africans will be condemned to poverty.
Infrastructure facilitates trade & economic growth.
In case you haven't quite figured out what "hinterland" means - consider the Sahel Region. The Sahel will be condemned to poverty for the next 100 years if we don't rethink intra-continental trade.
And no, the Sahel cannot trade with Europe - it is too far inland.
And no, the Sahel cannot trade with Europe - it is too far inland.
Interestingly, a few hundred years ago, some the richest states in precolonial Africa were in the Sahel. Europeans came, re-directed trading routes, and the Sahel was the biggest casualty (just like Central Asia was the biggest casualty of a similar process in Asia).
The world does not revolve around "threats to U.S. interests".
Africans need to understand where their interests lie.
We need an African version of the "Belt and Road Initiative" - new infrastructure & new trading routes to drive economic growth in the hinterland,
Africans need to understand where their interests lie.
We need an African version of the "Belt and Road Initiative" - new infrastructure & new trading routes to drive economic growth in the hinterland,
We need to approach this century with our eyes wide open.
Do you think France is really keen on African integration and a trading and infrastructure architecture that keeps France at the periphery and not at the center? Hell, no.
Do you think France is really keen on African integration and a trading and infrastructure architecture that keeps France at the periphery and not at the center? Hell, no.
We need to take this seriously - because France is the predominant Western power on the African continent.
In simpler language - US, Germany, Italy, Belgium etc. will defer to France on African policy.
So the West is unlikely to be helpful here.
It is that simple.
In simpler language - US, Germany, Italy, Belgium etc. will defer to France on African policy.
So the West is unlikely to be helpful here.
It is that simple.
