I am not an Africa "hand" and my comments are based on watching the continent from my "armchair". Plus a couple of encounters whilst visiting South Africa.

The theme of exploitation of Africa's natural resources is not a 'silo' and certainly from a UK perspective has been in parallel with arguments over multinational corporations (MNC), international aid, government aid, non-government aid (often via NGO's, who get a large % of state funding), international finance, world debt campaigns and the list goes on.

A few years ago now there was a loud debate between economists over the value of aid full stop; alas names now lost. Read Paul Collier's books.

Only last week I read this point of view (not solely on Africa):http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...-charity.thtml

Thirty years ago I met a South African journalist, who had travelled throughout the continent and she stated firmly "The West has written off this continent, except for exploiting it's natural resources. It has no strategic interests here and the West never did understand Africans".

To this "brew" add AIDS. On my last trip to South Africa the devastating impact on Botswana, the African "showcase" for 'good' exploitation of natural resources (diamonds by a MNC), good governance and peace was widely described as imploding under the pressure of the epidemic.

Just a question. Can an argument be made for sub-Saharan state(s) being 'better off' without known natural resources being exploited? The linked article refers to Somaliland and on a quick reflection I'd refer to former Spanish Sahara.