Europeans conquest of Africa was carried out in an inhuman and brutal manner. Europeans sought out the African rulers, promising them military protection and lucrative trade in exchange for their country and loyalty. When they refused this, they were down without mercy. The resistance was crushed. Africans could be saved, but not be independent. For Europeans, Africa was a continent without history, without stability, without culture and had no value at all. Europeans drew up its own borders that suited them and took no account of existing political entities, such as Africa still suffers from. Ethnic groups were mixed in the new-drawn lines and thus the conflicts which still exist. Extraction of Africa's riches, which were shipped from there and gave the Europeans wealth. What legacy did the Europeans left when they left the continent? Before Europeans arrived people lived in peace in the continent. We left them in new subdivisions and a legacy of brutality, how to subdue a people. Despite independence, so did the African countries that still follow the old colonial powers tracks, with power structures and economic dependence. This inheritance characterizes today's Africa in the form of wars, disasters and poverty. It is not so long ago this happened. We in the West seem to forget our own involvement in today's Africa. In our own media, we paint the picture of how well we have succeeded and how bad it is in Africa. Diseases such as AIDS raging, poverty and corruption wherever you turn. Conflicts that never end. But it was not so long ago, just as Frederick Cooper says that the genocide took place in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal. This page is true, of course, but there is another side of Africa, a beautiful page. An African who is proud of its culture, which protects the family and always stick together no matter what. This is what we in the West lost much of. Ideally, it seems that we believe that it is Africans themselves who bear full responsibility for the current situation and we are not our own involvement.


Europeans still have not stopped exploiting Africa. As in the colonization time we ask ourselves always in his own profit, as Frederick Cooper writes, "What's it worth?, What does it cost?, What it gives us, what expectations to date? What sacrifices give it? "Under the advice of the West invested the newly independent Africa to rapidly modernize and industrialize itself. The cities were in focus and the countryside came in second place. The little revenue coming in exports were invested in urban areas while agriculture in rural areas were infringed. The result was a government subsidized imports of European industrial and agricultural products for consumption in urban areas, while in rural areas increasingly impoverished and even more focus on export agriculture. This led to even more severe economic crisis and increasing dependence on external sources and continued urbanization. Despite this, the major drive for industrialization and export agriculture remains the cornerstone of the IMF and World Bank's development program for third world countries.


 Our trade ignores to protect and support African trade. Africans have long complained, rightly, that the Europeans' demands in negotiations to open African economies in a manner that is likely to affect poor farmers, small businessmen and burgeoning industries. The EU is Africa's largest trading partner. The EU protects its own farmers and for subsidies for their unsold goods to other continents. This dumping prevents developing countries from building up an agricultural sector that can handle themselves on the world market. The EU wants to trade with African countries on an equal footing. The EU will remove all tariffs on African remove their duties. To have the same condition although they have different conditions. To remove African Customs Union, although they subsidize their own farmers and knocking out agriculture in Africa. African countries have criticized the EU in the EPA negotiations, the EU affect poor countries to reduce poverty. The fear that trade with the EU will deteriorate and that African countries ultimately have to open up to competition from the EU. China has also begun to puff the EU in the neck that conclude trade agreements. For there are many economic benefits to reap in Africa. Although poverty is widespread, about 400 million live in extreme poverty, as are 10 percent of world oil reserves and 30 percent of the earth's mineral resources here. Assets that are highly sought after in Europe and the world. Despite the West's many attempts to improve the situation through assistance in developing countries has thus helped to deepen the situation gradually.

Continued poverty, the high indebtedness (which we again stand for the dodgy loans that we lent to Africa) and diseases like AIDS is a major problem that the Europeans have been involved and caused. Europeans have been involved in creating Africa's history and we are still today the conditions for Africa's future. West, which lends money. Money that will never be repaid the interest on which only increases. Europeans and America that puts the patent laws to include anti-retroviral medicines against HIV / AIDS. They know that poverty is caused a large proportion of HIV / AIDS. If Africa were allowed to produce cheap copies of anti-retroviral drugs, the countries can afford to distribute disease-modifying drug for the victims. West still controls what happens on their own terms. As Cooper says it can be argued that much of the negative trend can be attributed to colonization, but also on those in power in Africa and the unsound policy.

There is much talk about importance of aid in Africa. Africa has enormous assistance each year to be spent in particular development. Assistance to disappear into the corrupt state apparatus in African countries. Impact of aid seems to be absent. Instead of development and democracy have failed and corruption persisted. Why have 40 years of European, American and Japanese aid given almost no dividend? The industrial investments made have failed. Moreover, borrowing money from the World Bank and IMF have long gone and the only debt remaining. In the 1970's resulted in, for example, Sweden Ethiopia 17 million in grants that would go to humanitarian aid. The money was shown to Ethiopia's warfare against Eritrea (Bengt Nilsson "Sweden's African wars"). 1986 gave Sweden a great aid to Uganda, Per Karlsson, Page (2005 Mission Review) said that Uganda should be able to afford to do what they have to make such defense. Uganda was at war with its own people and the Congo. Meanwhile, we in the West introduced such as "Human Rights" and "CRC". We say that we follow this. But at the same time as we support dictatorships and corrupt governments by providing assistance and allows them to use the money for various purposes that violate the "human rights". Does not break us against them then, too?


One of the biggest factors behind the failure of aid in sub-Saharan Africa is the lack of basic societal institutional policy. A functioning judiciary, government agencies and politicians are not corrupt, local banks, secure family structures and a good education are some of the institutional policy that should be present for development to be possible. Another factor is the failure by the lack of local involvement and the ability to influence. Lack of skilled labor, the difficulty of transferring modern technology and a non-functioning infrastructure. The African societies need to change economic policy if they are to have any hope to be able to leave the legacy of colonialism and poverty behind. It needed a new development policy, a new kind of assistance. Assistance that is based on the development of developing countries' own terms, and trade in Africa must be on Africa's terms. Not continuing competition with the Western world price of dumped agricultural surplus which is just a further power to the impoverishment of rural areas. The investment must be made to agriculture and development of technology there. The response of the western world is still a problem for Africa, the answer is yes, with the policy that we are today, we are there just as we did then.




Asia, where China's role in Africa


China has already since Bandung Conference of 1955 began with diplomatic relations with Africa. Many seem to believe that this is a new collaboration, but not. In 2000, created a forum for cooperation between China and Africa. It was an action plan for CHINAWOMAN-African cooperation in social and economic development. Farming was a high priority here. African countries and China agreed that they would jointly develop agriculture in Africa to countries in the long term would be self-sufficient in cereals and also be able to export agricultural products to the Chinese market. China also promised to train African agricultural staff. China skuldavskrev old African debts with a value of 1.27 billion dollars. Another conference in 2006 China decided to send one hundred skilled farmers to Africa for establishing demonstration centers where African workers could learn about new agricultural technology. New ideas for developing the African economy, including through new marketing relationships and methods were also presented. China also promised to help African countries to set up 100 schools in rural areas during the period 2005-2009, increasing the number of scholarships to African students from 2000 per year to 4,000 per year before the 2009th China would also conduct annual training for university and school managers and leaders in the education sector and assist in the establishment of 30 new hospitals. Also contributing with approximately 261 million U.S dollars to buy malaria medicine and the construction of 30 demonstration centers to learn how malaria can be treated. In 2003, trained and educated about 6000 Africans in 1500 and gave scholarships to African students to study in China. These Chinese scholarship has been of great importance for improving the skills and quality of education in several African countries.


China has provided substantial assistance to several African countries. They have also undertaken many large construction projects (particularly in infrastructure), sent skilled medical teams and helped develop the educational system in several countries. A major construction project was the construction of the railway between Tanzania and Zimbabwe in the 1970s. Trade between these 2 parties have skyrocketed in recent decades and it is estimated that the trade turnover of 28 billion U.S dollars 2004th Africa's exports to China consist mostly of natural resources and then presented to all the oil. China's exports to Africa is presented to all of the textiles, clothing and consumer goods. Chinese companies have invested in all sectors in Africa, but mainly in construction, natural resources and foodstuffs. But of course, the Chinese exports and Chinese investment in Africa is not without difficulty and in some places very negative. China is now Africa's third largest trading partners, after the United States and France is also the second largest exporter to Africa after France.


A quarter of China's oil imports come from Africa. Although the trade in natural resources have a positive impact on the trade balance as the course has its disadvantages. Oil production requires only capital investment and oil production does not require a large workforce. Countries with oil reserves have tended to focus on the extraction of oil in the first place, thereby neglecting other important sectors. Corruption is also a common problem. China also conducts trade in natural resources and one of the main imports to China from Africa are timber. Unfortunately, it is estimated that approximately 50% of the exports are from illegal land degradation in some countries the figure is up from 90%


As things stand in China with the increasing population and industrialization, the availability of good arable land in China has become worse and in the future the country will not be able to provide food, their own people. As a solution to this problem, therefore, China is investing much in agriculture and fisheries in Africa. China has signed agreements with several African countries to get permission to send Chinese fishing boats to Africa's shores. Moreover, China has leased agricultural land in Zambia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The African market is full of cheap Chinese products. What worries for the future is that, for example, Chinese textile exports drive out the local African production. While this has created problems for Africa's exports of textiles and clothing. Chinese textile imports into the United States has sharply reduced the previously promising growth of African textile exports to the United States. One example is South Africa's exports to the U.S fell from 26 million USD in the first quarter of 2004, to $ 12 million in 2005. In 1999, invested Chinese investors to set up new textile factories in Lesotho and Swaziland with the sole purpose of bringing duty-free access to U.S markets. In this way, China could completely escape the American and European quotas on Chinese imports text. Where the law of the quotas were removed were those factories down directly. Thus, although China uses of course Africa.


In 2004, about 700 Chinese companies invested in Africa, they invested in the largest part of oil, fisheries, timber, precious metals and infrastructure. But investment has been made is obviously not problem-free and the West have criticized this. Chinese construction companies have lower costs and win most of the contracts in Africa against the Western construction companies. International observers have criticized the Chinese way of doing business, with bribery and without conditions. Another problem is that the West Bank and international organizations find it difficult to put pressure on countries that have financial backing from China. A major problem is that Chinese companies are taking with their own workers to do work in Africa. This is a big problem of unemployment in Africa that could have been lower if China used the Africans in business. Although knowledge would be passed in this way. Chinese firms out-compete African companies thanks to its cheap labor and technical expertise. Thus, Chinese investment could also lead to take jobs from Africa instead of creating them. Therefore, as in colonization of the discontent of the European powers, there are certain parts of Africa also great dissatisfaction with Chinese investors' presence.



The relationship between increasing cooperation with China if it is better than the West is difficult to answer because the conferences have been held between China and Africa has many interesting plans for Africa has emerged, which promises a positive development. Promised investment to buy malaria tablets, scholarships for students and better education in schools is encouraging. But then there is documentation on investments that do not improve. Just as the West's involvement in Africa, there are positive and negative sides. The most rewarding so far has been investment in infrastructure and natural resource extraction. The conclusion seems that the investments made in industrial and construction projects largely deals with China's own profit. Investment in agriculture can also be questioned. China would like to actually help the African continent to become self-sufficient in food, or just a way to increase China's food imports to meet their future crisis. It's probably a combination of the two alternatives. But the assistance China has given so do they care about Africa's development. I do think that after 40 years with Western aid and development as China and Asia still good for Africa. The West continues with the same program to develop Africa. As I have already mentioned the restructuring program on industrialization and exports. Nothing new happening from the Western world the same old patterns that we know does not work. Africa's cooperation with China may evolve into positive development and that Africa will create a strong economic growth and on the two sides play with the right cards is key in both Africa and China to catch up with the West. But increased cooperation between the African countries themselves would probably be the optimum. Real concentration in rural areas and agriculture and teach farmers in the new technologies. If we in the West and China could ensure that aid went to farmers directly, allowing them to new technologies and training in it. Then Africa would be a positive development in the near future.


Then both Latin America and Africa are the continents that are poor so I can see the difficulty of cooperation there. Latin America has both tried to export-led growth and import policies. But neither the one nor the other has worked. Economic instability, good times relieving the deep crises in Latin America. The technology and expertise is in short supply in both Africa and Latin America. As a collaboration which seems impossible as I can see it in all cases that end as quickly as possible get on their feet again in the economy. But what Africa needs is the help of experts that will help to educate the farmers, the correct technique and help with policy and, once and for all get rid of the corrupt leaders. If we in the West and China may conclude with the assistance of the money that goes in the wrong direction and instead convert the value of technology and send experts will probably start development sooner.