[millie_(A)TCK]

There goes their relative stability...

Uganda set to be top-50 oil producer
A deal this week has brought Uganda a step closer to becoming a significant oil producer, offering billions of dollars of fresh investment to develop newly discovered oilfields.

Italian energy giant Eni said on Tuesday it had agreed to buy a stake in two large oil exploration blocks in Uganda for up to $1.5 billion.

For a decade, exploration in the land-locked former British colony has been carried out by a handful of independent oil companies who have drilled a series of successful wells but who lack the large amounts of capital or expertise on their own to bring the local oil industry to its full potential.

The entry of Eni, an integrated oil company with enough cash to build pipelines, terminals and refining capacity, heralds an escalation of development, which analysts say is likely to make Uganda one of the top-50 oil producers by 2015.

Very keen

“Eni has done its homework on Uganda and is very keen,” said Thomas Pearmain, African energy analyst at IHS Global Insight.

“To develop these resources is going to require multiple billions of dollars in investments, and Eni would not want access to Uganda’s oil if the prospects were not good.”

Oil was first discovered in the region in the 1920s in the Albertine Graben - the northern most part of the East Africa Rift system - and the first well was sunk in 1938.

But World War Two and political instability in Uganda between 1940 and the 1980s meant there was limited exploration.

Economic stability

The search for hydrocarbons began in earnest in the 1990s after a return to political and economic stability following President Yoweri Museveni’s ascent to power.

Uganda now has nine exploration blocks from its northern border with Sudan through Lake Albert on the western border with the Democratic Republic of Congo and south to Lake George

http://www.nation.co.ke/business/news/- ... index.html

[JohnRawls]

I heard they are supporting terrorists , time to clean the country of corruption and terrorists and help them rebuilt it for the well being of us all.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Which terrorists is Uganda claimed to support?

[Captain Sam]

This is great news. Economic prosperity helps ensure national stability.
It'll be nice to see an African country outside of Southern Africa prosper.

[Figlio di Moros]

Way I hear it, Captain Sam, they won't be prospering for long...

[Dr House]

It'll be nice to see an African country outside of Southern Africa prosper.

I guess North Africa doesn't exist...

[JohnRawls]

Which terrorists is Uganda claimed to support?

Al queda /sarcasm

[millie_(A)TCK]

This is great news. Economic prosperity helps ensure national stability.
It'll be nice to see an African country outside of Southern Africa prosper.

No this is horrific news. Every country in Africa with large reserves of oil has had a civil conflict of some sort. Uganda already has a civil war in it's Northern State, they've been embroiled in the Congo conlfict, and they had one of the continent's worst dictatorships under Amin.

[Nandi]

In despotic sub-Saharan Africa oil income is rarely a blessing. Raw commodities are dictator manna. The reasonably succesfull states haven't relied on it to propel their growth while many of the largest producers have succumbed to nasty civil wars. The legacy of the Cold War was partly to blame for that though so let's hope it can turn out differently.

[wishywashyliberal]

I hear they have WMD's, better go have a look.

[Kapanda]

@ millie

It still doesn't follow that because Uganda has now become a sort of oil state, that it will plunge into civil war, especially if it is actually quite stable right now (I know nothing of Ugandan politics).

[Kaspar]

Raw commodities are dictator manna. The reasonably succesfull states haven't relied on it to propel their growth while many of the largest producers have succumbed to nasty civil wars.

Botswana, arguably the most successful nation in Sub-Saharan Africa, relied on diamond wealth to reach its current state of development.

I don't think its fair to completely rule out resource wealth as a path towards development for African economies.

[Dave]

Botswana has an 80% ethnic majority and in some ways functions as a protectorate of DeBeers. Uganda is rife with ethnic conflict and would not experience the kind of relative tranquil that Botswana does.

[Kaspar]

Of course there are differences between Uganda and Botswana, all I am saying is that economic development through resource wealth should not be completely ruled out in the big picture of Africa. My post was mainly in response to posts similar to that of Nandi's.

[Dave]

That's fine, but I think it's fair to see that resource wealth has broadly not led to positive (or what whites would consider positive) governance in Africa. As I hinted at, this to a significant degree reflects the ethnic heterogeneity of many African states due to their borders being the product of European imperialism. In heterogeneous states wealth tends to be a source of conflict as varying ethnic factions squabble over its division.

[millie_(A)TCK]

In heterogeneous states wealth tends to be a source of conflict as varying ethnic factions squabble over its division.

Somalia is a homogenous country (the only one in Africa) and its the most anarchic. Colonialism is indeed to blame for Africa's current governance woes but not in the way you think. Their formation of African states into commodity extraction ports creates gate-keeper states which together with traditional African governance which is based on clan patronage inevitable creates corruption and conflict: " Colonial states had been gatekeeper states. They had weak instruments for entering into the social and cultural realm over which the presided, but they stood astride the intersection of the colonial territory and the outside world. Their main source of revenue was duties on goods that entered and left its ports; they could decide who could leave for education and what kinds of educational institutions could come in; they established rules and licenses that defined who could engage in internal and external commerce...Most rulers realized early on that their own interests were served by the same strategy of gatekeeping that had served the colonial state before WW2....The stakes of controlling the gate were so high that various groups tried to grab it - officers or noncommissioned officers in the army, regional power brokers; A regime not so dependent on gatekeeping benefits from the fact that its opponents can afford to lose; they have other avenues for wealth and other loci for power. Gatekeeper states are dangerous for the simple reason that rulers in control of the gate to survive need to stay there." ( Africa Since 1940 5-6)

[Dave]

I don't disagree with that at all Millie, and naturally imperialist powers in the process of decolonizing attempted to safeguard their interests in the region and still do. I don't think that invalidates my point that heterogeneous societies are much more likely to squabble over wealth and power, which is of course not to say that homogeneous states will necessarily be successful.

Also, isn't Somalia in certain ways fairly successful by the standards of the region? I read that during the period of anarchy that living standards and stability improved, and that things only began to get worse again after the Ethiopian invasion and US bombardment in response to the Islamic Courts Union.

[millie_(A)TCK]

and naturally imperialist powers in the process of decolonizing attempted to safeguard their interests in the region and still do.

You must have misunderstood. African states weren't made into gatekeeper states during decolonization but the colonialists formed them as such during the initial conquests.

I don't think that invalidates my point that heterogeneous societies are much more likely to squabble over wealth and power, which is of course not to say that homogeneous states will necessarily be successful.

There is no proof to back this assertion. Europe is less likely to wage war on itself today because of forced economic cooperation but 70 years ago when its was divided into more or less homogenous nation states, it did.

Also, isn't Somalia in certain ways fairly successful by the standards of the region?

Not at all. Somalia is the least developed country in Eastern Africa. You might have been referring to Somaliland but even Somaliland is behind all of its neighbors.

I read that during the period of anarchy that living standards and stability improved, and that things only began to get worse again after the Ethiopian invasion and US bombardment in response to the Islamic Courts Union.

The ICU had created relative stability in Somali terms in Mogadishu prior to the Ethiopian invasion but the rest of Somalia (minus Somaliland) was still anarchic.

[Dave]

You must have misunderstood. African states weren't made into gatekeeper states during decolonization but the colonialists formed them as such during the initial conquests.

No, I understood that, I was merely noting that imperialist powers that were decolonizing very much made sure that this arrangement continued to the best of their ability. Francafrique is a very good example.

There is no proof to back this assertion. Europe is less likely to wage war on itself today because of forced economic cooperation but 70 years ago when its was divided into more or less homogenous nation states, it did.

Europe was significantly more heterogeneous before World War Two than after. Millions of Germans lived outside the Reich's borders (and not just in Austria), millions of Hungarians lived outside Hungary, much of Central and Eastern Europe had large Jewish populations, and Poland was only 60% Polish. After World War Two Germans and Hungarians were ethnically cleansed via mass deportations, Poland became homogeneous due the Soviets annexing all Polish territory east of the Curzon Line, and most of the Jews were annihilated. The only multiethnic states after WW2 in Europe were Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Belgium. Of those two collapsed along ethnic lines and Belgium is divided into ethnic power blocs.

I will very much grant you your point about forced cooperation, of course.

Not at all. Somalia is the least developed country in Eastern Africa. You might have been referring to Somaliland but even Somaliland is behind all of its neighbors.

A quick look at Wikipedia shows its economic development to be slightly below that of Ethiopia and Kenya but ahead of Eritrea and Tanzania.

The ICU had created relative stability in Somali terms in Mogadishu prior to the Ethiopian invasion but the rest of Somalia (minus Somaliland) was still anarchic.

Not to come off as some kind of dreamer here, but is anarchy necessarily worse than gross misgovernment?

[millie_(A)TCK]

Europe was significantly more heterogeneous before World War Two than after. Millions of Germans lived outside the Reich's borders (and not just in Austria), millions of Hungarians lived outside Hungary, much of Central and Eastern Europe had large Jewish populations, and Poland was only 60% Polish. After World War Two Germans and Hungarians were ethnically cleansed via mass deportations, Poland became homogeneous due the Soviets annexing all Polish territory east of the Curzon Line, and most of the Jews were annihilated. The only multiethnic states after WW2 in Europe were Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Belgium. Of those two collapsed along ethnic lines and Belgium is divided into ethnic power blocs.

But they didn't fight on ethnic lines but on nationalist lines. You haven't given evidence that proves homegenous society are less likely to have civil wars than heterogenous societies. Right now this merely a theory that supports your racial politics.

A quick look at Wikipedia shows its economic development to be slightly below that of Ethiopia and Kenya but ahead of Eritrea and Tanzania.

You can't compare Kenya to Somalia. Its like Comparing America to Haiti and saying Haiti is doing economically just a little below America. Somalia has been in conflict for two decades whilst Kenya has never had a civil war and is one of the most stable countries in Africa.

According to CIA Factsheet:

Kenya: PPP $63.52 billion (2009 est.)
GDP - per capita -1,600 (2009 est.)

Unemployment rate:

40% (2008 est.)


Industrial production growth rate:

2% (2009 est.)

Industries:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
small-scale consumer goods (plastic, furniture, batteries, textiles, clothing, soap, cigarettes, flour), agricultural products, horticulture, oil refining; aluminium, steel, lead; cement, commercial ship repair, tourism

Somalia:
PPP
$5.733 billion (2009 est.)

GDP - per capita
$600 (2009 est.)
Industries:
a few light industries, including sugar refining, textiles, wireless communication

industrial production growth rate:

NA%

Not to come off as some kind of dreamer here, but is anarchy necessarily worse than gross misgovernment?

Largely anarchic countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, DRC, fare worse than countries where the governments has a broad though corrupt reach like Burma, Nigeria, North Korea.