I received an e-mail saying a friend's son was considering doing volunteer work with Operation Crossroads Africa, Inc. He was considering the French speaking countries of Benin, Niger, Rwanda, or Senegal.

Can anyone give me feedback on these countries, especially regarding safety / stability / health issues?

SBT,

First, I don't think those are all French African, but I could be wrong.

Second, as to helth and safety check sites for CDC and the US state department, as well as the British versions of same.

Sounds like a good adventure.

I checked. They all list as french except Rwanda also lists english and something else.

French is widely spoken in Rwanda, including by both the Hutu and Tutsi populations. It is a former Belgian colony, so that is natural. French and English are both official languages.

SBT, I would suggest that you review the data on the CIA World Factbook website for these countries. Here is a link:

CIA World Factbook

Scott,

One of the things about these aid/charity organizations is security. I'd want to know that my kid was protected in one of these places. I've talked to several Peace Corp folks and they are left to their own devices. I would not want to be on my own in most of Africa let alone have my kid be dumped in a place with some of the worst living conditions on the planet.

Mark

I am one of those who was on his own for three years in some of the worst living conditions on the planet. I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Central African Empire (now Republic) from 1977 to 1980. I lived for most of that time in N'Délé, then near Bouar (in Baoro), and for a short time near M'Baiki.

Of the countries you mention the poorest is Niger; because it is the largest of the countries you mention it is also the one with the most potential for being in a very remote setting, read "in the middle of nowhere" and it has the poorest health facilities. I know, I was in charge of a project to build hospital and clinics near Maradi and Diffa. Because of the ongoing strife between Touaregs and the central government there are acts of violence from time to time (the French nuclear company AREVA had their camp attacked and ransacked in Arlit a couple of weeks ago) and from time to time a Touareg kills an expat in Niamey to steal their car. A few years ago one of the Embassy Marines was killed coming out of bar and his vehicle stolen. The wife of the director of the French Aid agency in Niamey was also murdered in broad daylight coming out of the beauty parlor to steal her vehicle. By the way, I go to Niger fairly regularly.

Sénégal, Bénin and Rwanda are fairly small countries and health facilities in the capital cities are acceptable for most first aid situations. Brain surgery is best done elsewhere. The biggest risk for a young man is AIDS, because the women in these countries can be extremely attractive. Fortunately when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer AIDS hadn't yet acheived the geographical and numerical importance it has today. I was lucky. Of the three capital cities, Kigali is the safest in terms of physical violence, then Cotonou, then Dakar. But none are considered "dangerous". Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Johannesburg are dangerous. At least six "official community" Americans or their family members have been murdered in the last year. I'm only talking about Embassy and USAID type personnel, or their families, when I say official. Mostly it was carjackings.

There is loads I could say about each of the countries you mention, anything specific you need to know? Of course, one can hunt in the North of Benin and there is some big game. One can hunt in Sénégal but no big game. I personally find Dakar to be a pain in the ass, big city, too many pushy people, the bush in Sénégal is better than the big city but the same could be said for just about every country in Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
. . . the bush in Sénégal is better than the big city but the same could be said for just about every country in Africa.

I am a bit jaded, perhaps, but I would suggest that the same could be said about anywhere on earth! Still I would agree with you Wink, based on much less time and hard won experience than you have in Africa. On préfère la brousse partout, n'est-ce pas?

IMHO, the chief social problems in Africa, including much of the crime and politico-social unrest - and these are critical problems in many places - stem from the breathtakingly imperial disregard shown by 19th century Europeans for African people, religion, tribalism, ethnicity and geography.

When they drew the borders of their colonies, the Europeans cared little or nothing for tribal, ethnic or religious differences. Yet those borders remain largely unchanged right down to the present day. That, coupled with the post-colonial leadership failures and truly epic corruption of the African ruling classes, has sealed the fate of most African nations thus far, IMHO.

In short, there have been too many Léopolds, Verwoerds and Smiths, and too many Bokassas, Mobutus, Bandas, Kenyattas, Nkrumahs and Mugabes, and not enough Khanas and Mandelas (it's hard to find good guys in all of this) to go around in this world, much less in Africa.

A truly exceptional and honest book on this subject is Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair - A History of Fifty Years of Independence, PublicAffairs, New York, 2005. It is history, rather than current events, and no good for travel advice, but it is current through 2004 or so, and makes for fascinating although depressing reading.

Africa is a charming and wonderful place for the tourist hunter, but it will swallow whole the humanitarian, and spit out what's left for the hyenas to finish.

Mr& Wink: both of you impressed the crap out of me with those two posts. As a history major, I've done a lot of reading 7 research on the Imperial Epoch and your observations are spot on, although I have to give the Brits a lot of credit for their efforts in at least leaving a workable infrastructure upon departure, including a common language, crucial to nation building. The Belgians in turn were the worst of the lot. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
I have to give the Brits a lot of credit for their efforts in at least leaving a workable infrastructure upon departure, including a common language, crucial to nation building. The Belgians in turn were the worst of the lot. jorge

I am less sure about the British legacy than you. When the British left, they left. Those Anglo origin settlers that stayed did more for the emerging nation than the British government. The French government, on the other hand, didn't leave lock, stock and barrel. They created a common currency among the former colonies, linked to the French Franc and controlled by the French Central Bank, allowing currency stability and budgetary control. This is in sharp contrast to many ex-British colonies which just turned on the presses and created debilitating inflation and a worthless non-exchangeable money, such as Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana, etc. Also, the French left a much better road network in their ex-colonies. Lastly, the French government continued to provide the presence of French military, and through bi-lateral aid, civilian assistance (such as in schools, government ministries and hospitals) for many years after independence in most countries. The former British colonies are much more violent places than the former French colonies, in general. Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Sudan have had much more serious tribal warfare, civil warfare and continuing unrest, than almost any of the French colonies.

One of the things the French tried to do was actually incorporate at least a few of their colonies as part of the French State, much like we did to Hawaii. Of the ex Brit colonies you mentioned, there was also an element of time, in the Brits just weren't there that long but more importantly, tribal strife was more intense both before and after the Brits left. The French colonies were a bit more homogeneous? Still the issue of a coomon language and the whole British Civil Servant infrastructure at least gave them some semblance of "civilization" at least by our (west) standards. I think South Africa and to degree Kenya the Brits an excellent job. Your comment about the roads surprised me. Anyhow great discussion Wink, but I think we can discuss this over a beer (or a few) if you make it to Dallas. jorge

And then, of course, we have the Portuguese . . .

But I don't think we should put all of the blame on the colonialists.

The more immediate problem is that there have been only a handful of honest and competent black leaders and governments in all of Africa during the past fifty years - and there are fewer than that in power today.

mr: Yeah I didn't forget the Portuguese, but unlike the Belgians, they at least made an effort at civilizing. The Belgians on the other hand, left but a few people in the entire Congo that even had a modicum of education. YOu are also correct the onus of the mess they are in lies with the africans themselves. I thin Zimbabwe (to name just one) is the quitessential example. jorge

No argument on the Belgians being the worst of the lot. They set an abysmal standard, from the days of King Léopold (who personally owned the entire Belgian Congo) to the cowardly assassination of Lumumba.

My reading has taught me that neither the French nor the British, nor any of the other colonial powers, expected to have to get out of Africa as fast as they did. Initial discussions with the African nationalists in many cases called for the Europeans to stay in power for thirty to fifty more years. But once Ghana broke free, the nationalists in the other colonies forced the issue time and time again.

And I agree with Wink that France was able to do a much better job than most to stay involved. In no small part that was because many of the new black leaders in the former French colonies wanted to keep their ties to France.

That was emphatically NOT true of the former British and Portuguese colonies, which by and large wanted absolute independence, and in many cases, owing to Russian influence, adopted socialist or even Marxist-Leninist policies. But all of them of course were and are always ready to accept millions upon millions of annual foreign monetary and other aid, preferably with no strings attached.

All true MR. The other component is that we (the US) pressured the Colonial powers to accelerate the process naively thinking they could grasp democracy like the Germans and japananese did after WWII. jorge

quote:

mr: Yeah I didn't forget the Portuguese, but unlike the Belgians, they at least made an effort at civilizing

Definately not in Angola - they used it as a penal colony, shipping their worst criminals there, boat loads of murderers and rapists. Naturally these guys were not interested in 'honest homesteading', but slaving instead. Portugal then sent ship loads of orphaned girls as 'breeding stock', in hope of civilizing their own citizens. However they were late and many mestico children were around. Some tried to dress these colonist/local unions as the Portuguese egalitarian lack of racism and as 'true love' not horny criminals and rapists, which was more the case according to some authors (John Walker and Alan Lamb)

They then tried to dress their presence in Angola under a facade of mission work and the gospel, however the distinct paucity of churches in the colony at least until the 1900's definately emphasized that they used it only as slave capital for Brazil, simple as that. No civilizing desires at all. Some of the colonists probably became more civil!

Mozambique had better results overall. Guinea-Bissau I am not sure, other than it was their first stop on the way down the continental west coast

Great history lesson guys and I thank you. I was aware of the penal colony in Angola and yes the Spanish and Portuguese were a bit less discriminating than the northern european colonists but nevertheless it was definetly a more benign environment than what the Belgians fostered. jorge

'The Africans' by Alan Lamb is a great book! Its a bit old now (1986) but very informative. Dealing with major politics and events in the last 100 years.
He too comments on Frances far better social track record with their old colonies, as mentioned, due to instilling very strong ties with the 'mother country'.

I have alos read part of his other book, 'The Arabs', very interesting stuff on US/Arab league nations (todays membership) up until end of WW2.

I try to absorb as much of this as I can!

Cheers

Wow! I don't check this post for a few days and look what has happened. I will forward a link to this thread to the young man that is interested. Thanks, you are a great and learned bunch!