I am hoping to see it this coming weekend InshAllah, it looks good and Ben Kingsley is a good actor.

Muslims facing the wrong way to Mecca RIAZAT BUTT July 21, 2010 Indonesian Muslims have been praying in the wrong direction for months, facing Somalia when they should have been facing Saudi Arabia, the country's highest religious authority says. A cleric from the Indonesian Ulema Council admitted it had made a mistake in March when calculating which way Muslims should turn to pray. New instructions had now been issued and people had only to shift their position for the correct alignment, he said. According to Islamic tradition, the prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca and it is said to be the place where Allah's message was first revealed to him. Each day Muslims around the world turn to Mecca to pray and, at least once in their lives if they can afford it, travel there to perform the Haj, or pilgrimage. Advertisement: Story continues below Ma'ruf Amin, from the Ulema Council, said a ''thorough study with some cosmography and astronomy experts'' revealed that Indonesian Muslims had been facing southern Somalia and Kenya instead of Mecca, which is more than 1600 kilometres further north. The error did not mean their prayers would be ignored, he said. ''God understands that humans make mistakes. Allah always hears their prayers.'' The council's website advises Muslims to make use of a website, QiblaLocator, to find Mecca without a compass. It is not the first time the council has played down the significance of misdirection. In January it told worshippers they need not be concerned by reports that thousands of Indonesian mosques had displayed the incorrect kiblah, or direction towards Mecca. One Islamic scholar, Mutoha Arkanuddin, said more than half the country's mosques pointed the wrong way, a statement a government minister described as invalid and dangerous. The Ulema Council said God was not in Mecca. The director of sharia and Islamic affairs at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Rohadi Abdul Fatah, said the state frequently checked the accuracy of kiblahs across the country. He told the Jakarta Globe that off-kilter kiblahs were often an issue in quake-hit areas such as Yogyakarta, West Java and West Sumatra and that the government had the money for the necessary precision equipment. With about 200 million followers Islam is the main religion in Indonesia, but its constitution allows everyone to worship according to their own religion. http://www.smh.com.au/world/muslims-facing-the-wrong-way-to-mecca-20100720-10jhs.html

Journey to Mecca: In the Footsteps of Ibn Battuta (PG) Follow the amazing story of Ibn Battuta, one of the greatest travellers of all time. Journey to Mecca is a dramatic and documentary feature for IMAX®, filmed in Saudi Arabia and Morocco in English and in Arabic, which tells the amazing story of Ibn Battuta, one of the greatest travellers of all time. The film follows his first pilgrimage in 1325 from Tangier to Mecca. His perilous journey resonates with adventure while presenting an unforgettable picture of Islamic civilization during the 14th century. The film culminates with Ibn Battuta's first Hajj and dissolves into the most stunning modern day footage of the Hajj ever recorded in IMAX® with over 3 million pilgrims. Narrated by Oscar® award winning British actor, Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Schindler’s List), Journey to Mecca stars Chems Eddine Zinoun (The Objective) as Ibn Battuta and Hassam Ghancy (Traitor, Rendition) as the Highwayman. http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_imax/film_programme/journey_to_mecca_in_the_footsteps_of_ibn_battu ta_pg

^I might have to pull the "old Im going to make a phone call trick" and jump on the Piccadilly line

I read this the other day, the young guns are living the high life. I will check this café out and order a mint tea.

Tarsan wa Rageeygi

If Somali troops assisted by 4,000 Amisom troops have with held Al Shabaab without attacking, I am sure more international boots would easily overturn the young mad men considering they have no moral support from the masses.

FBI will help in Ugandan bomb probe July 13 2010 at 12:34AM Get IOL on your mobile at m.iol.co.za Washington - The United States vowed on Monday to support Uganda after major bombings, sending the FBI to assist in the probe and pledging to pressure Somalia's "hateful" Shebab insurgents . President Barack Obama spoke by telephone with President Yoweri Museveni and offered to provide "any support and assistance" the Ugandan government requested, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said. "The leaders reaffirmed their shared commitment to working together to combat terrorist organisations that threaten innocent civilians around the world," Gibbs told reporters. Somalia's al-Qaeda-inspired Shebab rebels claimed responsibility for Sunday's attacks, in which 74 people were killed in twin bombings on revellers watching the final of the World Cup in South Africa. Continues Below ↓ "What they seek to destroy and who they seek to kill - innocent people - just as the continent of Africa, just as the country of South Africa, shows the world what it had built, I think speaks volumes to the hateful motive" of the assailants, Gibbs said. A three-person team from the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in Kampala to help collect evidence, with two officers from US Diplomatic Security arriving later on Monday, State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley told reporters. Another FBI team was on standby in the United States to go to Uganda if needed, Crowley said. Without offering details, the spokesperson said the United States had evidence to believe Shebab's claims that it carried out the attack. The movement's top leader had warned in an audio message earlier this month that Uganda would face retaliation for contributing to an African Union force supporting the Western-backed Somali transitional government. Museveni, in a separate call with Johnnie Carson, the top US diplomat for sub-Saharan Africa, "indicated to us that Uganda remains committed to the mission in Mogadishu", Crowley said. "That probably is the strongest retort to al-Shebab, that we are going to continue to support those who want to responsibly govern in Somalia and will resist those who have a narrow, brutal, violent vision of the future in that country," Crowley said. The United States has strongly supported President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed's transitional government in Somalia, seeing it as the best hope in years for a country that has lacked an effective government for two decades. Under the Obama administration, the United States has stepped up its commitment by sending arms to the transitional government to fight the Shebab and other insurgents. - Sapa-AFP

In the long run these attacks are a good thing for the Somali people, let the world feel the pain Somalis face at the hands of these madmen. Duke, IA we shall have a debate when your ideas evolve. Somalia needs good government to turn back the terrorist tide Has the world woken up to the risk coming from Somalia? The simultaneous bombing on Sunday in the Ugandan capital Kampala may be the start of a wave of violent terrorism in the Horn of Africa and beyond, waged from Somalia. The radical Somali group al-Shabab had already made public threats against Uganda and Burundi, the two African countries that have contributed troops to African peace mission in Somalia. Today its commander admitted responsibility for the bombs. The threat of terrorism emanating from Somalia is real, and equal to that from Afghanistan. As in Afghanistan, few days go by without an act of terrorism targeting civilians. Similar too is the magnitude in which they cause carnage to their people. Somalia today is a much more dangerous place for Somalis, for the region and for the rest of the world than it has ever been. What are not similar, however, are the world's responses. Somalia is left to 5000 Ugandan and Burundian soldiers supporting a very weak government living in a citadel inside Mogadishu. What is at their disposal is a "shoot back when attacked" policy and an attempt to hold the fort until the rest of the world comes to help. Four years after they arrived, they still holding fort with no sign of the world coming to their aid. African troops lack resources for basic things such as payment of their soldiers, training of their Somali counterparts and of course any resources for winning the hearts and minds of the Somali people. One can only speculate why extremist groups do what they do. But what al-Shabab want from yesterday's bombing is very clear to many who observe Somalia. They want a heavy-handed response from the neighbouring countries that sucks them into Somalia. Al-Shabab are looking for a new rallying slogan to continue their war. They know that they are losing the hearts and minds game in Somalia. As many as 1.5 million Somali civilians left areas under the control of al-Shabab and are now living as displaced citizens in the rest of the country. Somalis need a functioning and capable government more than anything else. They have been incapable of establishing one in the last 20 years. They need a lot of sustained support, as do their African friends who are there to help Somalia. Functioning, legitimate and capable government is the greatest weapon against terrorism in Somalia and in the region. I hope this is what will emerge from yesterday's tragedy.

No denial brother, there has been a transition in Somali politics. You seem to be stuck in 2006. Now if you want I can go through step by step on how all the players have transitioned since then but you are a smart guy. The bottom line is President Sharif renounced violence, went into reconciliation and became president. Your beef is with his clan adeer, once you get over the Southern boogie man things will become clearer. I’m off home.

Saxiib you protest to much, he was the leader of the ICU and now he is the President of Somalia, it is a simple fact the rest of the world has managed to comprehend.

Good move by the president this will only strengthen his position and weaken his opponents (namely Al Shabaab).

Uganda blasts 'evil' act says Sharif 2010-07-12 12:25 Mogadishu - The deadly Uganda twin bomb attacks blamed on Somalia's Shebaab insurgents are a "despicable" and "evil" act, the president of Somalia's embattled transitional government said on Monday. "The fact that the victims were enjoying the World Cup final reveals the evil and ugly nature of the perpetrators and the need to uproot from region those who do not value the sanctity of the human life," President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed said in a statement. The statement from his office said Sharif also condemned "in the strongest terms the despicable terrorist acts that killed over 60 people in Kampala and injured many more". No group claimed responsibility for the carnage but Uganda pointed a finger at the al-Qaeda-inspired Shebaab insurgents in Somalia, where it has thousands of troops deployed as part of an African Union mission. The Shebaab's top leader called for an all-out jihad (holy war) this month against countries contributing to the AU force in Somalia and protecting the Western-backed government there. Sharif, whose administration holds on by a thread and has come under increasing military pressure from the Shebaab in recent weeks, sent his condolences to the relatives of the victims. "This act of terrorism will only strengthen the strong bonds between the peoples of Somalia and Uganda. Neither the region nor the international community will tolerate the spread of insecurity," he said. Uganda is due to host the African Union's annual heads of state summit this month in Kampala and was the first country to contribute troops, in early 2007, to the AU force in Somalia. Earlier this month, the regional organisation Inter-Governmental Authority on Development group vowed to send 2 000 more troops to bring the AU mission to its full strength of 8 100.

^^ I must say you are becoming more reliable than Octopus Paul. The better team deserved to win the game. It was a great tournament, Ghana did us proud and to top it the best player Forlan got Golden Ball. Back to the drawing boards for England and lets hope Blanc can reverse the French failure for the next World Cup. The Germans will be a dominant force in the near future, and a movie will be made of Diego Maradona.

Warm Congratulation to H.E Ahmed Silaanyo, may he continue the good work of his predecessor and improve or reverse the not so good.

“If in doubt boot it out, let’s go for route 1, get stuck in, never pass from corner, smash the ball back in a scramble in the box”. This is what English footie boils down to, systematically praising of things that would make a continental European or a South American holding Midfielder look like a ballet dancer. Number of times I remember the school coach having a go at the Angolans and Somalis for dribbling there way out of the box, but on the ball we had more confidence than highest earning English Premier league player. It is not only football, Britain needs a cultural revolution, were taking risks and failing is praised not frowned upon, were patience and humbleness should be virtuous to be proud of.

Ngonge McCarthy is terrible, he should only commentate on state funerals says the Scottish guy in my team.

Mashallah excellent role models, good to see my mate and former neighbor in Somalia Naima Bashir leading the way. We need more UK role models on this platform, I am sure we have more qualified folks than the yanks. Lets begin with our very own Juxa

The case for investing in Africa The continent is now growing much more rapidly than the OECD nations. It may well be on the cusp of a reversal of fortunes. Most international businesses are still not very aware of Africa’s investment opportunities. Information costs are high: Africa is fragmented into many different countries, and even in aggregate the continent is a fairly small economy. For several decades, investor ignorance did not matter: with few exceptions Africa’s economies were too badly run for there to be many opportunities for firms of integrity. But there has been a sea change—Africa is on the move. There will be ups and downs, but investors from the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who remain set in their ways may be missing a giant business opportunity if they fail to pay attention to the changes afoot. The situation in Africa quietly began to change during the period 1995–2005. Profound macroeconomic reforms tamed inflation and opened economies to international trade. More patchily, the regulatory environment facing international business also improved. Public ratings, such as the World Bank’s Doing Business surveys, enabled African governments to benchmark their performance and began to put pressure on those that were recalcitrant. As the global commodity boom built to its 2008 crescendo, many African countries were well positioned to harness the spike in their export revenues for growth beyond the resource extraction sector itself. That upturn in national growth rates was mirrored in the increased profitability of companies operating in Africa. Indeed, three distinct sources of data indicate that returns on investment are higher there than in other regions. One was a comprehensive study of the publicly traded companies operating in Africa for the period 2002–07, mostly in the manufacturing and services sectors. It found that these companies’ average return on capital was around two-thirds higher than that of comparable companies in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Another source, on the foreign direct investment of US companies, showed that they were getting a higher return on their African investments than on those in other regions. Finally, analysis of a series of surveys of several thousand manufacturing firms around the developing world found that, at the margin, capital investment had a higher return in Africa.1 This was the scene in the years leading up to the global crisis. Although its origins had nothing to do with the continent, the crisis did not bypass Africa. Its effect was to collapse commodity prices—for example, the price of oil initially tumbled by more than $100 a barrel. More subtly, the international appetite for risk collapsed, and since Africa is still generally viewed as the riskiest region, investors got scared; for example, international banks curtailed letters of credit to African exporters far more drastically than to those in other regions. These effects were severe. However, with a few exceptions—inevitable in a region with so many countries—Africa weathered the economic storms well. Led by its two largest economies, South Africa and Nigeria, most countries had built prudent fiscal positions: in a remarkable break with its past, Nigeria had freed itself from debt and built up over $70 billion of foreign-exchange reserves. Further, the adverse impact of the crisis through commodity prices lasted less than a year for Africa. Globally, commodity prices rapidly bounced back and seem to have stabilized around levels markedly higher than those in the decades before the boom, underwritten by growing Asian economies and their corresponding need for commodities. Revenues from commodity exports have been augmented not just by high prices but also by the resource discoveries that high prices have triggered. Yet the recent discoveries are merely the beginning: the scale of what is likely to happen is not widely appreciated. As I show in The Plundered Planet, Africa is the last major region on Earth that remains largely unexplored. In the long-explored countries of the OECD, the average square kilometer of territory still has beneath it around $114,000 of known subsoil assets, despite two centuries of intense extraction. In contrast, the average square kilometer of sub-Saharan Africa has a mere $23,000 of known sub-soil assets. It is highly unlikely that this massive difference is due to a corresponding difference in what is actually there. Rather, the difference in known assets is likely to indicate an offsetting difference in what is awaiting discovery. It is reasonable to suppose that what is actually under the soil in the average square kilometer of Africa is at least as valuable as what is known still to be available in the OECD. An implication is that once these untapped resources have been discovered, Africa’s commodity exports will be around five times their present level. In turn, this has three profound implications. One is that many of the countries in which resources are discovered will be those that currently are not significant resource exporters: the economic map of Africa will change quite drastically as new opportunities open. A second is that such a radically higher level of commodity exports across the region will support correspondingly larger economies. The final implication is that in the process of getting to this much higher level, Africa will have a prolonged phase of rapid growth. Now for the reality check. During the commodity booms of the 1970s, Africa also had a wave of resource discoveries. With a few exceptions, most notably Botswana, these opportunities were not harnessed for transformative growth. Indeed, the more common experience was an ugly and costly political contest for control of the revenues. If history repeats itself, the forthcoming much larger wave of resource discoveries in Africa will leave a legacy of scarred landscapes and scarred lives. Yet the contrast between Nigeria’s dysfunctional management of its first oil boom of 1973–83 and its brilliant management of the second boom of 2003–08 cautions against the gloomy cynicism that until recently bedeviled investor thinking about Africa. The road to economic transformation is undoubtedly likely to be a bumpy one, but many African societies have learned both from their own histories and from the prosperity of other once-poor countries. Unlike the externally dictated structural-adjustment programs of the 1980s, the key struggles over economic policy will be internal to African societies. They will not all be won, but nor will they all be lost: some societies will decisively adopt progrowth economic strategies. To date, Africa has lacked the spectacular regional role models of economic success that so benefited Asia. But it is now starting to get them. Even in Rwanda, a landlocked, crowded country lacking in natural resources, a leadership committed to economic transformation has been able to sustain a growth rate of 10 percent. In some of the countries with more favorable fundamentals, even faster growth rates will be sustained. Such successes will have a profound influence on the neighbors, just as occurred in Asia. As in Asia, I doubt that there will be a close correspondence between the struggles for democracy and the struggles for economic transformation. The struggles for democracy do indeed have an important economic dimension: many African rulers have accumulated excessive personal power and abused it to sacrifice the common good of national prosperity for narrow sectional self-interest. But more recently, some African leaders, such as President Museveni of Uganda, President Kagame of Rwanda, and Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, have built strong credentials for a commitment to the economic transformation of their societies while being somewhat hesitant democrats. Some of Africa’s coming economic successes will be in societies that have won the struggle for accountable democratic government. But others will be in societies in which autocratic leaders have become ambitious for national goals rather than merely for power and privilege; expect some African repetitions of Malaysia’s experience. To date, Africa has lacked the spectacular regional role models of economic success that so benefited Asia. But it is now starting to get them. Africa’s economic potential extends well beyond commodity exporting. Per capita GDP in China is already above the global average, so its days as the low-wage factory of the world are limited. Africa will soon be the last remaining major low-wage region. It has an enormous coastline, more proximate to both European and North American markets than Asia is. Over the past three decades, offshoring shifted labor-intensive manufacturing from the OECD countries to Asia. In the next decade, expect the same process to begin shifting these activities from Asia to Africa. Contrary to fears that the “Dutch disease”2 must inevitably make nonresource exports uncompetitive, the Asian examples of Malaysia and Indonesia have demonstrated that successful exporting of natural resources can be entirely compatible with successful exporting of light manufactures. From African independence, beginning in the early 1960s, until around the turn of the millennium, the OECD prospered while Africa stagnated. A legacy of this divergent experience is that OECD investors are skeptical of Africa’s future. Their skepticism is not shared by the new entrants to international investment, who missed this sorry phase of African economic performance. It may be that Africans will use their history to learn from it, while OECD investors end up being trapped by it. Africa may be on the cusp of a reversal of fortunes. Indeed, Africa is now growing markedly more rapidly than the OECD. A future of continued rapidly rising prosperity for the OECD looks less assured than it did before the global crisis, whereas several decades of high growth look to be quite a likely scenario for Africa. At present, the typical investment portfolio has massive exposure to the OECD countries and negligible exposure to Africa. This looks unlikely to be appropriate for the coming decades.

McKinsey is focusing on Africa this quarter for obvious reasons, nevertheless good insight from the world's largest management consultants

Making the most of Chinese aid to Africa It’s time to move beyond sterile arguments and accept China’s role in Africa. But it’s also time for China to enhance that role. The debate over China’s role in Africa continues to rage. One side contends that China is a rapacious neocolonial oppressor, while the other sees it as a miraculous alternative to decades of failed Western aid. To a large extent, however, facts on the ground have rendered this debate academic: China already has become an indisputably significant force in Africa’s development, with substantially increased commitments and engagements just in the past few years. Pragmatism argues for moving the discussion ahead, to how China’s involvement can reap the greatest benefit for both Africans and Chinese. African and Chinese leaders—along with interested outside parties, such as multilaterals, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—should focus on three opportunities. The first is strengthening Africa’s economic-development strategies and capabilities at the national and regional levels. Second, China’s willingness to undertake additional strategic-development projects in Africa, including the recent emphasis on sustainable and results-driven models, should be supported. Finally, collaboration between Chinese institutions working in Africa and other donors or partners ought to be developed and encouraged. China’s role in Africa is dynamic, with deep historical roots and a wide range of ever-changing engagements and models that don’t lend themselves to black-and-white categorization. By pursuing these three opportunities, Africa and China can uncover new ways to promote economic development and the reduction of poverty on the continent. China’s historical role The People’s Republic of China started engaging with African countries not long after it was founded. Since the Bandung Conference, in 1955, its activities in Africa have been rooted in their common experience as developing regions. From then onward, China has committed aid and support to various African leaders and countries, despite its own economic and political challenges and upheavals. With inventive packages of aid, loans, and investments, the People’s Republic, in return, secured votes to take China’s seat at the United Nations (held by Taiwan’s government until 1971), opened up channels for much-needed oil and mineral resources, mitigated its food-security concerns, and gained a strategic foothold on the continent. Even in 1978, when China was just emerging from the devastating effects of its Cultural Revolution and was itself one of the world’s poorest countries, it provided foreign aid to 74 countries—and to more in Africa than the United States did. By 1984, China was the eighth-largest bilateral donor to sub-Saharan Africa, ranking higher than many members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). From 2002 to 2007, China offered over $33 billion worth of government-sponsored aid and investment, over half for infrastructure projects, to African countries. Today the continent is dotted with Chinese-sponsored projects, from railways to agricultural centers to clinics to stadiums. Several attributes of China’s engagement in Africa merit particular attention. Credibility as a fellow developing country It’s no secret that some Chinese activities in Africa have prompted concern and even hostility, particularly the long-standing support of leaders in countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe, as well as questions about worker safety, community engagement, and environmental degradation. Overall, however, the evidence suggests that many Africans welcome the involvement of China not only because of the scale of its resources and commitments but also because it has credibility. The Chinese see themselves as a developing country, a view shared by many Africans; indeed, China still ranks 97th in the world for GDP per capita, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Many Africans welcome the involvement of China not only because of the scale of its resources and commitments but also because it has credibility. Yet China’s recent development trajectory—lifting hundreds of millions of its people from poverty in the past 30 years—offers Africans lessons and hope. Other factors adding to China’s credibility are its pragmatic, business-like approach to development and focus on much-needed infrastructure projects. Also, Chinese workers are generally well-respected because they are prepared to work in Africa’s fields or factories, often at the locals’ salaries, in contrast to the wages, housing, and approaches of Western aid organizations or commercial enterprises. For this reason, China still explicitly rejects the label of donor. Project-based aid and investment models Chinese aid generally focuses on specific projects rather than the large programmatic models familiar to Western donors, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a US-sponsored program for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. This US effort has a broad strategy, operating across several countries, with a multiyear approach and standardized practices. By contrast, China’s health assistance generally involves commitments to build a clinic or hospital in a country or region or to send Chinese medical personnel or medicines to specific countries. These efforts are sometimes associated with a particular investment or a Chinese official’s political commitment to a local African leader. Such projects are not part of a broader program to build networks of hospitals, for example, or to develop a replicable and scalable approach. Instead, the Chinese focus on an immediate need—though sometimes a very large one, such as dams or highways—which they generally execute in a timely, effective way. Also, the line between aid and investment is unclear for many of these projects. Some of the ambiguity arises from China’s aid model: with no central foreign-aid agency, Beijing often designates different ministries (or, in some instances, provinces) to tackle different projects in different countries. China’s blended model of aid, investment, trade, and technology as levers for development, while less common in Western approaches, has an antecedent: China’s own experience as a recipient of aid and investment in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time, China entered into deals with Japan and many Western partners, bartering its own natural resources and commodities for technologies, tools, and know-how. Broad-based interests While access to natural resources and consumers is an important goal for many of China’s African projects, such a narrow view of its role risks missing the broader commitment. Today, China is involved in almost every African country that does not recognize Taiwan—even the resource-poor ones. While the majority of China’s $107 billion-a-year bilateral trade with African countries still involves extractive industries, China’s reach extends to almost every sector. In 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce reported that about 1,000 Chinese enterprises do business in Africa, spanning fields such as trade, transportation, agriculture, and the processing of agricultural products. Even official Chinese development aid does not appear to be disproportionately provided to countries with large endowments of natural resources. New approaches and enhanced engagements During the past few years, China has attracted considerable attention for its commitments to Africa. In November 2009, at the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), Chinese premier Wen Jiabao announced a $10 billion package of loans and aid, including programs in agriculture, education, and health. In addition, the China–Africa Development Fund has made more than $5 billion of new money available for private-equity investments in Africa and has an ever-growing presence of workers on the ground to develop an investment pipeline. In these and other announcements, we discern a shift in tone and emphasis on both the Chinese and African sides. China’s engagement with the region appears to be growing not only in sectors and geographies but also in a broader strategic commitment. Premier Wen suggests as much in his recent focus on support for African development in the fields of agriculture, debt relief, expanded market access, climate change, health, education, environmental protection, and investment. Similarly, African leaders increasingly seek more comprehensive and heavily negotiated packages of aid and investments from China—a preoccupation reflected in recent deals with Ghana and Malawi. There have also been examples of better coordination and attention to measurable results and strategic goals. New dialogues between China and the aid and development programs of other countries, multilateral organizations, and NGOs are under way. Even collaborative opportunities with other foreign donors have opened up; most recently, the Chinese Academy of Agriculture has partnered with a number of Chinese and African institutions to support an international initiative by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create green super rice, a new variety that can survive in harsh environments. Strengthening African development strategies and capacity Chinese leaders frequently make state visits to Africa. On their return to Beijing, they often take a “checkbook” approach to aid, charging Chinese government ministries with fulfilling commitments to high-level African officials for construction, infrastructure, health, agricultural, or other projects. Although this approach has led to random acts of kindness, they are often not only unrelated to the recipient government’s agricultural- or industrial-development strategies but also not sustainable. What’s more, the Chinese often rely on their own labor and materials, so projects may have little connection or benefit to local workers or industries (for more on China’s role in Africa, see “South Africa in the spotlight: An interview with Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe”). China has, for example, launched over ten agricultural demonstration centers in Africa to expand R&D on African crops, irrigation, agricultural engineering, or other potential drivers of agricultural reform (as suggested by China’s own experience). To date, however, these centers often operate in a vacuum, poorly connected to the recipient countries’ national programs and with limited outreach to local farmers and slim chances of scaling up nationally. The Chinese approach to aid and investment presupposes that an effective public sector in the recipient country exists, which is not always the case. That approach has to change. African countries must continue to take more responsibility for their development agendas instead of leaving them in the hands of others, even if well-meaning. It will therefore be necessary to create more explicit and comprehensive development strategies for agriculture and other areas. Planning is a skill, and African countries should develop it to make sure that the aid they get from China can be readily used and expanded. This view has gained currency and now has the support of groups such as the African Center for Economic Transformation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the African Union. Even Chinese stakeholders, including China’s state planning agency, recognize that many African countries lack robust strategic-development plans and therefore can’t benefit fully from investments by China and others. Support China’s shift to programmatic engagements At the FOCAC meetings in Egypt last November, Chinese leaders repeated their commitment to connecting more closely with host communities, measuring results, and making them sustainable. These comments may reflect an understanding, held by many who follow China’s work in Africa, that projects often haven’t realized their promise. How to get more from these investments? They must be more programmatic—that is, linked to a development strategy for the relevant country—have clear objectives, and span more than a single project. China’s government and corporate leaders must establish performance metrics from the outset of engagements, provide appropriate and transparent roadmaps for achieving goals, and develop a way to measure outcomes. Depending on the project, the performance metric might be its impact on production, employment, the alleviation of poverty, market development, health outcomes, or student achievement. Consider the fact that China has sent agricultural experts to Africa since the 1950s, basing its approach on the impact that hundreds of thousands of local extension technicians had on Chinese agricultural reform. Yet the country’s current agricultural-extension efforts in Africa are small (with fewer than 1,000 experts on the continent), uncoordinated, and unsystematic. Several Chinese agricultural experts believe that these programs have had a negligible impact. Teaching formats range from classroom lectures to field schools, often without clear curricula or objectives. Generally, each African country decides on the technology, expertise, and training China should provide. Such programs could prove valuable, but they would be more effective if planned and executed with a better understanding of specific African conditions and local issues. Other desirable features include relevant best practices and evaluation systems to measure a program’s short-term impact (such as increases in productivity or the skills of farmers) and long-term, sustainable gains (such as higher levels of rural income). Encourage more collaboration While some believe that China wishes to go it alone in Africa, there is increased evidence to the contrary. China’s engagement with African national and regional organizations and leaders on a variety of projects has significantly increased. A formal dialogue among donors is taking place in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Many NGOs, foundations, and academic institutions in China, Africa, and elsewhere are beginning to work together. China invited academics, African health officials, and international representatives to Beijing last December, for example, to attend an international roundtable on China–Africa health collaboration. The discussions could promote greater cooperation between China and other partners—through temporary staff transfers, joint missions, and pilot projects—in delivering health assistance to Africa. Enormous opportunities exist for shared learning and improved models for programs in agriculture, health, and financial services, to name just a few fields. Collaboration also holds great promise in scientific R&D as China dramatically increases its spending and capabilities. Moreover, the impact of aid and investment projects run by China could be enhanced if it worked with third parties that can make things happen because of their local staff and contacts and deep understanding of the countries and sectors where they operate. Closer collaboration between the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture or the China–Africa Development Fund and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa,1 for example, could identify opportunities for investment, aid, and trade. China could catalyze the efforts of African countries to develop economically and lift their people from poverty. Let’s move the debate beyond “good versus bad” and “China versus the West” to capitalize on the opportunity at hand.

I'm going to the Little Algeria (Finsbury park) with my England top tonight, for some Baklava, mint tea and some come on Rooney (Your not singing any more). It's been a slow day at work today

^^ you are taking me back to the many demonstrations held in Stockholm in 1993

Get in there great goal - Bafana

Sounds like a fair prediction, although with home support Bafaana Bafaana might pull out an upset.