Shorbe, I agree that the US is not run on free market principles, a quick check of the US/Australia <joke>free trade</joke> agreement would dispell any lingering doubts. But arguing that there is no real free market economy in the world to test free market theory is a bit like saying that Pol Pot didn't implement "real Maoism" and therefore Maoism could work. The fact is that through the IMF we have had decades of what is laughingly called structural adjustment in the Third World, which effectively implemented a monetarist agenda. I think that the calamity that has ensued should surely be bad enough to disprove monetarism permanently, you might look here http://wwwnew.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/imf/POLSAP1.HTM if you're interested. An overview on conditionality from the IMF itself is here http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/conditio.htm but those without a strong stomach for managerialist jargon should proceed with caution.

Despite all the government rhetoric about choices, we are actually headed in the opposite direction, with more and more regulation. The Comm Govt's IR Work [No] Choices is a classic example; ie the choices are the government's choices, not yours.

PTBI, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with you (somewhat). Europe and the USA, as the beneficiaries of the slave trade and colonial oppression, are obligated to Africa. Don't forget however that the Arabs founded the trans-Saharan slave trade in the 10th Century, so they can't evade their obligations either. I don't believe Australia was involved in Africa, it is simply specious to point to our white skins. Would you argue that Indonesia is complicit in the African slave trade because you are a majority Islamic country? No, I didn't think so either.

Why do you keep mentioning Schappelle Corby? You're not in love are you?

Australia was involved in blackbirding (ie slave trade from the Pacific islands) and was the last colonial power in Papua, so that would seem to dictate where we need to provide some aid funding.

Johnj: I'm not arguing for quasi-government intervention either, which is what the IMF is. Is anyone under the illusion that the IMF is actually anything but an extension of certain governments and business groups? I'm for a devolution of power, not a concentration or centralisation of it, but that requires vigilance on the part of people. The incredible inhumanity (political, military and economic) of the twentieth century can quite easily be explained by the centralisation of power.

I also refuse to buy into the whole line that Africa is the mess it is because of colonialism. Yes, colonialism was quite ugly, yet Africa has had, on average, forty years to get its act together (which Asia has and is). Yet in that time, it's been hamstrung by backwards world views/religions, corrupt governments, periodic wars, over population in regions of marginal land use, and so on. There has to come a time when people look at some regions of the world and wonder if their cultures are just messed up at a deep level. Russia is another such region -- that country loves strife, and always has. Much of the Balkans too.

@Johnj:

Australia, a neo-European colony, are developed by British capital. British capital were mostly derived from colonial exploitation of extractive colonies in Africa or in Caribbean (using African slaves). British capital was also derived from its trade monopoly, especially the highly profitable trans-Atlantic slave trade from 16th-19th century. Remember, most slaves in the Americas were transported by British ships.

So, Australia as a neo-British country, owes its prosperity from infusion of British capital originating from the merciless exploitation of non-white people, particularly Africans.

Shorbe, I agree wholeheartedly with your desire for devolution of power, but it is not happening. Systems of surveilance and control become ever more pervasive and government ever more insistent on using them for "our own good". This is a depressing worldwide trend. Vigilant? I'm vigilantly watching life choices being eroded in the name of freedom and choice.

I'm not suggesting that all Africa's woes are caused by colonialism, but some are. The legacy of inappropriately drawn borders is just one of the issues facing Africa. I agree that the IMF is another imperialist force, but just look at their agenda, which includes: cutting social expenditures, implementing user fees in basic services such as education and health, focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction, devaluation of overvalued currencies, trade liberalization, removing import and export restrictions, increasing the stability of investment (by the opening of domestic stock markets) etc etc

PTBI, your economic argument is marginally better than the skin-colour one, but shows a poor grasp of both African and Australian history. Britain's only African colony until the 1870s was the Cape of Good Hope. After that they grabbed Egypt, Sudan, South Africa, Tanganyika etc. By this time Australia was already heading towards Federation and the money flowed from Australia to the UK, not the other way around. The point of colonies is to create goods and provide markets. Capital is needed to begin the process, but the profits always end up back with the colonial power. A look at the magnificent imperial architecture of London (or Madrid or Lisbon or New York) shows what it is all about.

@Johnj:

It seems you are deliberately closing your eyes to historical truth. British exploitation of Africa did not begin in post-1878 (Berlin Conference) Scramble for Africa, but it started much earlier in 16th century with British domination in trans-Atlantic slave trade and her highly profitable sugarcane plantations in West Indies which depended on African slave-labour. It is clear much British capital that were used to develop Australia came from exploitation of Africans.

And you are wrong, Australia was not colonised to be exploited, but as a place to dump excess British prison population, and after 1850s, excess overall population. Australia is not an extractive colony meant to create profit, but a neo-European colony meant to relieve British overpopulation. This is because Australia has temperate climate somewhat similar to England suitable for white habitation, while most extractive colonies are located in tropical areas where whites died like flies to various diseases.

British capital derived from exploting non-whites, and most of revenues from exploiting Australian resources, was used to establish British-style institutions and modern infrastructure in Australia that is still used today and is responsible for prosperity of Australian whites. Hence, you cannot escape your debt to Africans, the most heavily-exploited colonised people in the world.

Johnj: You seem familiar with the situation, but I suspect you're being wound up and/or hitting your head on a brick wall. Based on other threads, I'm surprised you haven't been flamed yet.

Anyhow, as to our debate...

I'm upset that both the left and the right want to stick it to our freedoms in this country -- everyone wants to control some aspect of our lives. It troubles me that growing up at the end of the Cold War was actually a more moderate, less paranoid and more free (in a whole lot of senses) time in Australian history. I don't think history will judge the present well at all.

Africa is not the only region plagued by inappropriately drawn borders. I mean, why is it that the former Yugoslavia collapsed violently, yet most of the rest of eastern Europe didn't? Certainly part of what's Poland was only historically German, and part of what's Belarus or the Ukraine should be Polish. The Baltic countries have large Russian minorities, yet haven't torn themselves apart. Czechoslovakia managed to split peacefully. Part of what's Hungary should be Slovakia (one of the three mountain ranges that represent the core of the Slovak geographic identity, all of which are on the Slovak flag, is now in Hungary), and there's a large Hungarian minority in Slovakia. I don't think it's enough to say African borders are wrong.

The biggest problem with the sort of free trade reforms pushed by the IMF and many western nations is that they're so hypocritical, but that's not a problem with free trade as such. I think the term has been misappropriated. If there were a breaking down of barriers and subsidies in the west so that third world nations could actually compete (rather than be bullied and shut out), then things would be radically different. Also, if the west wants money to flow out of the third world, it also has to expect that it's only right for people to be allowed to follow that money too if they want.

Of course, I'm talking about a lot of hypotheticals.