- Oct 2021
And at the end of the day, Gates is not accountable to governments or to communities. He was not elected, and there is no mechanism for him to be recalled, challenged, or held responsible for faulty policies. He could suddenly decide that he was no longer interested in supporting agriculture in Africa. In that case, the new food system Gates is importing to the African continent would collapse. Political and economic systems are being drastically altered, all at the whim of one person, one foundation.In fact, the differences between this situation — powerful individuals and institutions deciding to mess with the social, political, and economic realities of countries — and the earlier form of colonialism are thin. It’s still advertised as “good intent” and the desire to “civilize” an “uncivilized” people. The only difference is that neocolonialism is quieter and more covert. By design, it provokes less outrage. But the essential power structures remain the same.
Concentrating power to one individual is dangerous. Large portions of the food security of African nations should not be so vulnerable to corporatism.
espite the foundation’s claims to be investing “within” Africa, The Nation “examined 30,000 charitable grants the foundation has awarded over the past two decades and found that more than 88 percent of the donations — $63 billion — have gone to recipients in the wealthiest, whitest nations, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and European countries.”African groups received only 5 percent of their total funding for NGOs.By withholding critical funding from African institutions, Gates ensures that any technologies developed are owned externally to the continent, keeping power consolidated in Global North institutions.
The money trail speaks for itself.
Powerful Global North governments, corporations, and individuals today don’t need to resort to explicit violence — invasion, seizure, genocide, and enslavement — in order to control other countries. Instead, they can use structural violence — leveraging aid, market access, and philanthropic interventions in order to force lower-income countries to do what they want.
Economic dependency of the Global South on the Global North is exactly what happens when exploitation of the wolf is disguised under the sheep’s clothing. A case in point is Unilever, the multinational food conglomerate based in the global north. Unilever is spending a significant amount of capital to circularize their entire supply chain. That is laudable. Yet, at the same time, they see Africa is their future growth market. Who benefits from that economic growth? ,,,, a small group of wealthy shareholders in the Global North or Global South. It is important to realize that capitalism has levelled the playing field. Economic exploitation, wealth concentration and extractionism is now democratically open to all!
Typically, what they want is more control over markets. The initial interventions end up creating debt for lower-income countries (because they give more power to Global North corporations). That debt ultimately becomes the most deadly form of leverage, giving Global North governments the justification for more interventions and allowing them to shape economic and trade policy in the way they see fit.In short, colonialism never ended. It just changed form.
The weaponization of economic leverage points means control can be gotten without spilling blood. Why is Africa perpetually poor in spite of its enormous wealth? Look no further than the wealth of management tier individuals of the Global North mining resource companies.
- african food security
- economic exploitation
- global morth
- structural inewuality
- Food security
- white saviorism
- gates foundation
- Bill gates
- Economic exploitation
- Gates Foundation