Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
David,

About the viability of the proposed state - I don't think the Tauregs are less economically viable than either Nigeria or Mauritania.
Nigeria has a lot of oil. If the finance minister can do what she has set out to do, is a lot of potential for growth there. There is probably even enough to spread some prosperity to the North. That would undermine support for BH, which, in turn, might lead to more foreign direct investment as the region became more stable which then leads to more stability and so on. Unfortunately that is a pretty big if.

Mauritania does not but its economy is about 81% industry and services. That is a big improvement over an agrarian economy. Their DDP per capita (PPP) is only about $2200 but that is an improvement over 2009. Their real growth, as measured by GDP, was about 5% over the last two years (after a 1.2% contraction in 2009). That isn't a blistering pace but not bad for a developing world state with no mineral wealth.

Overall Mali's growth over the last two years has not been bad (also about 5%) but its economy is still ~39% agriculture based and GDP per capita (PPP) is still around $1300. Much of the industry and services are located south of Timbuktu. For that matter, if memory serves, most of the best agricultural land is south of Timbuktu as well. The increasing desertification of Sub-Saharan Africa has left much of the land in the north of countries like Mali and Niger unfit for much agriculture. One of the problems that has led to this uprising is the limited economic support that the Tuareg have gotten from Bamako. I am not sure how creating a separate state is going to fix that.