as economists specialised in making fewer ever people richer. what would intelligence purpose be?

 today AIntelligence * energy is far more impactful than the currency of money - but for what purpose - go to 2025- here we discuss how economists increasing lost trust  of majorities of democratic nations let alone ...

Problems Conflicting with Decolonization Post-1960The global consensus against colonization, crystallized by the UN General Assembly’s Resolution 1514 in December 1960, marked a turning point, but decolonization faced significant obstacles that hindered true sovereignty and economic independence for newly liberated nations. These challenges were rooted in historical, economic, political, and structural issues inherited from colonial systems and exacerbated by post-World War II global dynamics. Below, I outline the major problems that conflicted with universal decolonization, addressing your specific examples (e.g., UK’s debt to the USA, the European Economic Community’s agricultural policies, corporate control of minerals, and the USA/USSR’s limited responsibility) and the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in creating additional burdens through debt. I’ll also expand on related issues to provide a comprehensive picture.Key Problems Conflicting with Decolonization

Problem	Description	Impact on Decolonization	Specific Example
Colonial Powers’ Financial Constraints (e.g., UK Debt to USA)	Post-WWII, European powers like the UK were economically devastated, owing massive debts to the USA (e.g., $3.75B Anglo-American Loan of 1946, with repayments until 2006). This limited their ability to provide financial support to former colonies transitioning to independence.	Independence was often granted without adequate economic aid, leaving new states like Nigeria or Kenya reliant on loans from BWIs or private banks, perpetuating dependency. E.g., UK’s 1960s aid to Commonwealth Africa was ~0.7% of GDP, far below reconstruction needs.	UK’s inability to fund Ghana’s post-1957 development (e.g., Volta Dam required WB loans of $47M) led to debt cycles, undermining sovereignty.
European Economic Community (EEC) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)	The EEC’s CAP (introduced 1962) subsidized European farmers, flooding global markets with cheap crops and imposing tariffs/quotas on agricultural imports from former colonies, which relied heavily on primary commodities (e.g., coffee, cocoa, sugar).	Stifled economic growth in African/Asian states by depressing commodity prices (e.g., 20–30% price drops for coffee in 1960s). Colonies’ main economic driver—agriculture (70%+ of GDP in many African states)—was outcompeted, locking them into raw material exports.	Ghana’s cocoa exports (60% of GDP in 1960) faced EEC tariffs, reducing earnings by ~15%, forcing reliance on IMF loans.
Colonial Corporate Control of Resources	Post-independence, colonial corporations (e.g., Anglo-American in Zambia, Shell in Nigeria) retained ownership or long-term concessions over minerals/oil, often negotiated under colonial regimes. These firms repatriated profits, limiting local reinvestment.	Prevented resource sovereignty; new states inherited unequal contracts (e.g., 99-year leases). By 1970, ~80% of African mineral wealth was foreign-controlled, per UNCTAD, stunting industrialization.	Zambia’s copper mines (70% of GDP) remained under Anglo-American control post-1964, with only 20% of profits staying local until nationalization in 1969, which required IMF/WB loans.
USA/USSR Limited Responsibility for Decolonization	Neither superpower saw decolonization as their primary duty, treating it as a Cold War chessboard. The USA supported anti-communist regimes (e.g., Zaire’s Mobutu) while the USSR backed socialist ones (e.g., Angola’s MPLA), prioritizing influence over structural transformation.	Proxy conflicts destabilized new states (e.g., Congo Crisis 1960–65 killed 100,000+); aid was geopolitical, not reparative. Both powers avoided accountability for colonial legacies, leaving BWIs to fill gaps.	U.S. aid to Kenya (1963) was $20M vs. USSR’s $15M to Tanzania, both tied to military basing rights, not economic equity.
IMF Debt and Conditionality	IMF loans (e.g., via Stand-By Arrangements) required new states to adopt austerity, devalue currencies, and liberalize trade to access funds, often to stabilize economies hit by commodity price drops or colonial debt inheritance.	Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs, formalized 1980s but rooted in 1960s) forced cuts to social spending (e.g., education/health down 20–30% in Ghana post-1966). Debt burdens grew—Africa’s external debt rose from $5B in 1960 to $50B by 1980.	Nigeria’s 1967 IMF loan ($13M) mandated currency devaluation, raising import costs by 25%, sparking unrest and dependency.
Arbitrary Borders and Ethnic Fragmentation	Colonial borders, drawn without regard to ethnic or cultural realities, created unstable states with internal divisions (e.g., Nigeria’s 250+ ethnic groups). Decolonization often retained these, lacking resources to redraw.	Fueled conflicts (e.g., Biafra War 1967–70, 1M+ deaths) and weak governance, diverting funds from development to security. New states spent ~10% of GDP on conflict resolution in 1960s, per SIPRI.	Rwanda’s Tutsi-Hutu divisions, exacerbated by Belgian policies, led to post-1962 violence, delaying economic stability.
Lack of Human Capital	Colonial education systems prioritized extractive elites, leaving most new states with low literacy (e.g., 10–20% in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1960) and few trained professionals.	Hindered state-building; new governments relied on foreign advisors or BWIs, reinforcing external control. E.g., only 3% of Congo’s civil service was local in 1960.	Zambia had <100 university graduates at independence (1964), forcing dependence on UK advisors for mining policy.
Global Economic Structures (Neo-Colonialism)	Post-1960 trade systems (e.g., GATT) favored industrialized nations, with former colonies locked into primary commodity exports (80% of African GDP in 1960s). Terms of trade deteriorated ~15% by 1970.	Limited industrialization; new states faced “dependency traps” (e.g., exporting raw materials, importing finished goods). NIEO (1974) demands for equity were largely ignored by BWIs.	Côte d’Ivoire’s coffee exports (50% of GDP) earned 30% less by 1970 due to global price drops, necessitating IMF loans.

How BWIs Changed Post-1960 to Address These (and Where They Fell Short)As discussed earlier, the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) pivoted post-1960 to accommodate decolonization, driven by the influx of new member states and UN Resolution 1514’s anti-colonial mandate. However, their responses often clashed with these problems, creating mixed outcomes:

• IDA Creation (1960): The World Bank’s International Development Association provided concessional loans to new states (e.g., $1B initial capital), targeting infrastructure and poverty reduction. This addressed UK/France’s inability to fund colonies but often tied projects to export economies (e.g., Kenya’s roads for tea exports), not industrialization.
• IMF Facilities: Compensatory Financing Facility (1963) and Buffer Stock Financing (1969) aimed to stabilize commodity prices for African/Asian states, countering EEC CAP’s distortions. Yet, loans required austerity, exacerbating debt (e.g., Ghana’s $100M IMF debt by 1970 led to 20% budget cuts).
• Membership and Voice: By 1970, 40% of BWI members were former colonies, but voting power stayed skewed (U.S./Europe held ~60%). This limited influence over loan terms, reinforcing corporate control (e.g., WB loans to Zambia required Anglo-American partnerships until 1969).
• SAPs and Neo-Colonial Critiques: By the 1980s, Structural Adjustment Programs mandated liberalization to access funds, countering USA/USSR proxy games but deepening dependency. E.g., Nigeria’s 1986 SAP cut social spending 25%, sparking protests, per UNECA.

Tie to 2025 ContextThese historical challenges resonate with our discussions on Ajay Banga’s Mission 300 and Trump’s Africa policies. The IMF’s debt traps mirror modern concerns about China’s BRI loans, while corporate resource control parallels Saudi/Israel’s mineral interests in Africa. The 2026 Bangkok meetings could revisit these via AI/energy sovereignty—e.g., countering neo-colonial tech dependency with local AI models, building on 1960s lessons.In sum, the BWIs weren’t anti-colonial at inception but adapted post-1960 to support new states, yet their loans and conditions often perpetuated dependency, clashing with decolonization’s promise. If you’d like to dive deeper into a specific problem (e.g., IMF debt’s modern parallels) or BWI reform, what’s the focus you’re curious about?