Trade War Opens the Door for Emerging Markets

In the first two weeks of June the Trump Administration imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, while slamming China with a 25% tariff on US$50 billion worth of Chinese products. These actions have sparked international uproar and retaliation from the affected countries. Within the past week the European Union have announced “rebalancing” tariffs on approximately US$3.2 billion worth of US products including steel, bourbon, peanut butter, corn, cranberries, and orange juice. China has also announced a 25% tariff of their own, worth a total of US$50 billion on 659 US products including soybeans, corn, wheat, pork, rice, and electric cars. Earlier in June Mexico didn’t stand down either announcing tariffs ranging between 15% and 25% targeting agricultural products including apples, potatoes, bourbon and pork, valued at a total of US$3 billion. Canada has also joined the party alongside Mexico imposing tariffs on steel, aluminum, maple syrup and more, worth a total of US$12.8 billion. Finally, while Russia has announced plans to retaliate, India has aligned with other nations on June 21^st announcing tariffs on 29 US products including apples, almonds, walnuts and steel worth approximately US$235 million. All these tariffs will have significant global impact as the prices of US products and imports will rise, potentially creating opportunities for emerging economies to fill the export gap in various markets.

                The soybean industry in one of the most exposed to upheaval, as tariffs impacts and regional droughts are creating major supply gaps within the industry. The United States accounts for 34% of the world’s soybean production while Brazil accounts for 30% and Argentina approximately 18%.

This has potentially led to a prime opportunity for Brazil, India, and other small players to increase production and take more market share. Together the USA, Brazil and Argentina account for 82% of world soybean production. Argentina might have been a player looking to increase soybean exports but has been recently plagued by damaging weather conditions. Unfortunately, major droughts in Argentina caused by a trough of low air pressure off the southeast coast of Brazil  have resulted in non – tropical climates which have inevitably brought drought. Some Argentinean farmers have seen yields cut in half while the nation has experienced a fall in soy production by 31% in 2017/2018.  Argentina has resorted to importing soybeans this season, seeing its highest imports from the US in twenty years, while also turning to nieghbor Paraguay. Thus, Argentinean prospects to increase soybean exports to gain market share are unlikely in the short term, as the nation firsts addresses domestic shortages. China is also a key player in the soybean industry, accounting for 60% of the world’s soybean consumption. Amid tensions with the US, the Chinese government has shifted its policy to encouraging a significant increase in domestic soybean production, but given the current scenario this might not be enough. While China consumes 60%, the country only produces 4% of the world’s soybeans, meaning it can only meet Chinee consumer demand for 7 weeks using domestic supply and are therefore forced to rely heavily on imported soybeans. Of the soybeans imported by China the USA accounts for 44% of imports and Brazil 45%. In April, before the tariff retaliations, US Soybeans imported to China were approximately US$403 whereas Brazilian soybeans were about US$414 per tonne. Forecasters predict that China’s 25% tariff on US soybeans could potentially increase US soybean costs to more than US$100 per tonne. Meanwhile, Brazilian soybean shipments to China will only be between US$15 and US$20 per tonne, making the possible overall cost of Brazilian soybeans, still approximately US$80 cheaper per tonne. These circumstances could heavily cripple the American market while firmly boosting Brazilian competitiveness. Therefore, Chinese tariffs and competitive Brazilian soybean prices sets Brazil in an ideal position to take advantage of the output gap, and potentially gain more market share.  

One of the challenges Brazil faces may be the extent to which its could increase production, but data from the rainforest monitoring organization Imazon has shown a huge increase and acceleration in between February and April 2018. These efforts are most likely in aim of clearing land for more farms and infrastructure to support the Brazilian agricultural industry. While this may be in favor of economic growth, these actions could have detrimental development and environmental consequences, as the Amazon rainforest is at a current deforestation rate of 17%. This is quickly nearing the predicted climate tipping point of 20% - 25% which could see catastrophic alterations in global climate patterns. Meanwhile, there are also other countries making small bids to increase their own market share within the soybean industry. Paraguay, the world’s 6^th largest producer of soybeans, accounting for approximately 3% of world production in 2016, overtakes Argentina for the first time this year as it looks to expand its influence and become a more regional player within the market. Furthermore, India has also approached China in its attempt to fill the global output gap after discussion at the fifth India – China Strategic Economic dialogue earlier this year. Chairman Rajiv Kuar of India told the Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, He Lifeng, that, “you import a lot of agricultural products, up to USD 20 billion or more…I was noticing that there are some tariffs you imposed on farmers' from Iowa and Ohio. Maybe India can substitute for soybean and sugar, if we could access those exports with all the due quality considerations to our farmers. That is very useful.”

By and large, given the market circumstances and the immense impact of global trade tensions and sanctions, smaller producers will become more active, but Brazil is in an optimal position to capitalize and substantially expand its soybean industry, agricultural sector and international trade ties which will ultimately leading to strengthening of its economy.

                In other markets, prospects are opening as well, as in the corn industry the EU could possibly be looking to Ukraine to fill the output gap. Ukraine is currently world’s 6^th largest producer of corn and Europe’s third largest supplier, and German agriculture research specialist, Wienke von Schenk, believes Ukraine could boost its position, as the EU looks to its markets amongst new tariffs. The past year has also seen the EU, the world’s 3^rd largest consumer of corn, turn to South African markets to satisfy their demand for the grain. Given the excess of 2017’s harvest size, excess supply led to lower prices, allowing the EU to import more South African corn than it in the past six years combined.

                Mexico is also revamping its corn sources as it is turning to Brazil for its corn imports. Mexico is the world’s 5^th largest consumer of corn and has already ordered 300,000 tonnes of corn from Brazil in 2018. This is a very small fraction of the 12.75 million tonnes Mexico imported from the US in 2017, but its five times more than the country imported from Brazil last year, and the capacity to expand remains strong. Even Alejandro Vazquez, head of Aserca, an agency in the Agriculture Ministry that promotes Mexican products, stated that Mexico should have searched for US alternatives many years ago, and that “Mexico was in a comfort zone….We didn’t need to go and seek these opportunities that we’re finding now.”

Russia is in a position to cash in on wheat exports, as tariffs hit the US and Chinese output drops an estimated 20% due to poor weather conditions over the past year. Russia is currently the world’s 3^rd largest producer of wheat (60 million tonnes), with China at number one (126 million tonnes) and the United States at number five (55 million tonnes). In further Russian favor, Indonesia, the world’s tenth largest consumer of wheat, has ramped up its imports of Russian wheat over the past year. Given the current conditions, the door is open for Russia while India, the world’s second largest producer of wheat, is looking for a slice of the pie as the sub – continent nation recently revised its forecast for 2018/2019 to 98 million tonnes, 3 million tonnes higher than originally expected.

Finally, the tariffs on US steel are starting to take effect as earlier this week, Harley – Davidson announced its withdrawal of some of its US based manufacturing. After experiencing a 6% fall in share price on Monday 25^th of June, Harley – Davidson said that it is going to increase production at its overseas facilities in India, Brazil, and Thailand. The company released a statement saying that the decision, “is not the company’s preference, but represents the only sustainable option to make its motorcycles accessible to customers,” in the EU and other overseas markets.

Summing up, Chinese tariffs on US soybeans have presented multiple opportunities within the industry for Brazil to fill an excessive output gap, while India attempts to capitalize by supplying China and smaller players such as Paraguay seek to increase their regional influence in the industry. The EU tariffs on US corn could possibly see the EU rely more heavily on Ukrainian exports while also venturing into overseas markets such as South Africa. The Chinese tariffs on wheat has seen Russia attempt to increase global wheat exports, whilst India has also ramped up production. Finally, Mexican, Canadian, EU and Indian tariffs on steel, are starting to take their toll as Harley – Davidson was one of the first companies to shift more manufacturing operations overseas to economies such as Thailand, India and Brazil.

Overall, the current tariffs, sanctions and market conditions are creating a situation in which the global supply market is vulnerable to change. If emerging markets prepare themselves and seize the opportunities at hand, they could be the unexpected benefactors of ongoing international trade disputes.

How can Emerging Economies Diversify their Export Portfolios?

Over the past 10 years, emerging markets have been solely dependent on extremely volatile commodities. In recent years specifically, they have seen great hardship and it is for this reason that they should move towards diversifying their export portfolios. Studies have shown that there are positive outcomes in relation to export diversification. Early studies done in 1987 by Love discovered that by investing in export diversification a country can avoid high levels of instability within its economy, thus damping the effects of large fluctuations in commodity prices. Later studies in 1997 by Acemoglu & Zilibott and by Cadot, Carrere & Strauss-Kahn in 2011 also found that export diversification could lead to an increase in income. This is done by expanding opportunities and spreading investment risks over a more extensive portfolio, which in turn leads to a positive relationship between export diversification and economic development. Some emerging economies such as Mauritius have been able to take on the concept of creating a more diverse set of country exports. Mauritius in particular, has gone from having sugar as 69% of their exports in 1980 to approximately 6% in 2010. This has allowed them to become one of Africa’s most successful economies. ⁽³⁾

This produces two interesting questions:

1.      How can emerging economies diversify their export portfolio?

2.      What strategies can they adopt in order to reduce their reliance on commodity exports?

There are three types of diversification: horizontal, vertical, and diagonal. Horizontal diversification occurs within the same sector such as primary, secondary or tertiary. It encompasses an adjustment within the country’s export portfolio through the addition of new products. These product additions are within the same sector thus hoping to counteract international commodity price fluctuations and instability within markets.  This ultimately spreads the risk as well as foster job creation within various areas of the sector. They could also invest in other sectors within the economy such as tourism, services, or healthcare which would further decrease their exposure to risk of fluctuations in commodity prices and the severe impact it has on their economies today.

 Vertical diversification is the process of shifting economical focus and investment between sectors. For instance, creating and developing stronger industries within the secondary sector rather than the primary, moving from export of raw crude oil as a commodity to building refineries and exporting it as petrol/gas. This form of diversification is particularly important for commodity reliant economies due to the fact that many are so rich in certain commodities. Therefore, by expanding market opportunities for these raw materials it could drastically enhance growth and stability within their economies. ⁽²⁾ By taking on vertical diversification, these emerging markets could start to develop more advanced forms of production and start moving in the direction of an industrialized economy which focuses rather more on manufacturing of certain goods and services. One of the problems associated with this could be restrictions of exporting secondary manufactured products. Such as the sanctions imposed on Pakistan by the United States for cotton clothing exports but not cotton as a commodity.

Finally, there is diagonal diversification which encompasses of a shift from taking advantage of imported input and transferring them into the secondary and tertiary sectors. Ultimately sustainable long term growth demands a combination of all three types of diversification. One last aspect to consider is the level of diversification. Economies need to distinguish between diversification on local, regional, and national levels all of which would entail their own strategies and challenges. ⁽²⁾

There are also many strategies that can be developed in aim of achieving diversification by these methods. Government can provide incentives improving trade facilitation by setting policies to reduce costs. They could potentially move towards investing more in research and development activities which could help stimulate the creation or growth of new sectors within the economy. Eliminating external conflicts and improving governance would highly improve the way in which export industries produce in terms of efficiency and productivity. Adopting non-conservative fiscal policy would assist in ensuring macro-economic stability along with implementing trade policies promoting export diversification which could create shockwaves and have major positive effects on the economy. These are all strategies that I believe could greatly aid emerging markets into developing a much wider export portfolio and thus lead to much more stable and stronger emerging market economies.

             

References

1.      SAMEN, Salomon. A PRIMER ON EXPORT DIVERSIFICATION: KEY CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Salomon SAMEN, Ph.D 1 (2010): Growth and Crisis Unit World Bank Institute. Web. 30 Jan. 2016.

2.      Sannassee, Raja Vinesh, Boopendra Seetanah, and Mathew John Lamport. Export Diversification and Economic Growth: The Case of Mauritius. World Trade Organization, 2014. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.

Exploitation of Emerging Economies by Western Civilizations

Case Study:

Sierra Leone vs Britain

In order to investigate the exploitation of today’s emerging economies such as Sierra Leone, one must first start from a historical perspective and analyze some of its earliest beginnings. Originally, the British went to Sierra Leone to send freed slaves in the late 1700s and early 1800s, at a time when they had agreements with local chiefs and tribes and only stayed in area of Freetown. During the scramble for Africa in the later 1800s they attempted to colonize, rule over the rest of Sierra Leone and use it for a valuable trade post and exploit its resources.  The British intentions were to exploit is people and labor in order to gain control of the land in terms of trade and strategical vantage points due to high tensions between rival European nations such as France. They also later went on to further exploit its rich reserves of natural resources bauxite, diamonds and gold.

British Rule implemented policy referred to as “Divide and Rule” explicitly designed for the exploitation of the native country and its population mainly through the taxing and persecution of its people.

In Jarred Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies he discusses how the Spanish explorer Pizarro captured the Inca’s King Atahualpa and demanded a ransom after he had already massacred thousands of the Inca men. Diamond explains how, “Atahualpa’s people brought mountains of gold to ransom him, but Pizarro had him executed anyway.” By, “Depriving the indigenous defenders of leadership,” Pizarro was implementing his, ““divide and conquer” strategy.”

Furthermore, in alignment with this strategy the Inca ruling family was ravaged by a disease epidemic, which originated from Europe, immediately creating a succession crisis. Civil war broke out within the Inca empire where, “Atahualpa led one side and is Brother Huascar the other. The witty Pizarro was able to play the two sides against each other, achieving the ultimate victory for himself. Each side in the Inca civil war saw the other as the greatest threat.” This is exactly what happened in Sierra Leone where the British divided the country based on its two largest ethnic groups, the Temne and the Mende, feeding on the already strong rivalries and playing each group against each other to gain the overall advantage and power over the region. Once divided they also had to pay extremely heavy taxes and were forced into labor maintaining roads which left them no time to engage in subsistence farming, thus threatening their livelihood and survival. As a result, each chief was left with no choice but to rebel.

 In response not only did the British resist against the rebel armies but opted for a “scorched earth policy” which meant burning entire villages, farmlands and terrorizing communities. Eventually the native population gave in and granted Britain full control of the territory. Their misrule and exploitation of the land, and its people to gain control of valuable territory and resources set a strong negative tone and has had lasting negative impacts in terms of political tensions, conflict and hate. It ultimately gave birth to multiple military coups and an eleven year civil war broke out in 1991, which devastated the country, leaving 50,000 people dead and displacing approximately half of the five million population. (This was well represented in Leonardo’s epic movie Blood Diamond, where he nailed the Zimbabwean/ South African accent.)

In the past, many emerging economies have especially been exploited on account of their land and large reserves of valuable natural resources, such as diamonds and gold, as in Sierra Leone’s particular case. More recently, Sierra Leone has been exploited by foreign mining companies such as the British companies London Mining and African Minerals mainly for their iron ore reserves. London Mining and African Minerals are carrying out the actions that are being practiced all throughout resource rich developing nations by western companies seeking to make large profit margins. Minerals are being stripped from the country and going overseas, with no reinvestment back into the country of its origin.

In 2010 the Sierra Leone government gave two big leases to London Mining and African minerals. Both Deals violated the Minerals and Mine Act introduced in Sierra Leone in 2009 which was specifically drawn up with international support to prevent mineral exploitation. The act was brought forward to prevent the reoccurrence of previous cases such as, in which Siaka Stevens, former Sierra Leonean Prime Minister, made secret extraction deals for his own benefit, leading to a rebellion, which was supported by Liberia and lead to a mass amount of Sierra Leone’s diamonds being pilfered, smuggled and sold in Liberia.

London Mining and African Minerals not only took advantage of these corrupt governments to strike deals that benefit themselves, they manipulated and squeezed all that they could from the government, the land and the country. London Mining and African Minerals claimed that without the generous support from the government they would not have invested in Sierra Leone and would have taken their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, due to the Sierra Leonean government being corrupt, economically unstable and desperate for investment this leaves them in no position to bargain and do what they can to attract foreign investment, despite its limitations. Therefore, the foreign British mining companies took advantage of them and use their power as multinational corporations and exert large amounts of pressure onto the Sierra Leonean government to sign contracts that highly favor these multinational mining companies.

There are three major concerns in regards to these new deals between the two British mining companies and the Sierra Leonean government, with the first being that Government has ignored the fact that mining companies must always pay royalties, as London Mining has been exempt from paying when it is in a tax-loss position. The second is that the Government has severely lowered tax rates of both companies, while simultaneously introducing a tax on goods and services that has led to an increase in consumer prices. Not only does this put more pressure on the already struggling 60% of the population living below the national poverty line, but it result in huge outflows from the country and its economies. With the low tax rates and failure of these companies to reinvest into Sierra Leone large amounts of money are not being invested back into the country’s economy and instead leaking out to the British and global markets, thus depriving Sierra Leone of potential stimuluses that could be used to improve the country’s standard of living and overall well-being.

In doing an analytical analysis we can see the amount money being lost to these power and money driven multinational corporations. After lowering the taxes as well as violating the Minerals and Mining Act of 2009, as mentioned earlier, London Mining negotiated a 6% corporate income tax rate for its first three years of operations in Sierra Leone compared to the required 30% as stated in Sierra Leone’s Tax legislation. Both London Mining and African Minerals have also been granted full exemption from goods and services tax, as well as taxes implemented on imported capital goods, vehicles and equipment or Customs tax. The National Revenue Authority has estimated that these exemptions accumulate to a total loss of approximately $US224million in 2012 which was about 8.3% of the country’s GDP. Christian Aid, who maintains a high presence in Sierra Leone, estimated that between 2014 and 2016 the government would have lost a total of $US131million in revenue, which is an average of $US44million per year. This $US44million can be used to education 2.9million children which could educate ¾ of the total population of children under18. As it is extremely evident and is well summarized by Christian Aid worker Joseph Ayamba, “The granting of tax incentives to mining companies, especially African Minerals and London Mining in the country has resulted in massive revenue losses to the government and largely hinder the government capacity to support its development priorities such as health, education and agriculture.” These companies are clearly manipulating their own power, exploiting the country’s resources and leaving a long term trail of poverty and devastation.

 Finally, the third concern is that specifically with African Minerals, it is not clear if government is enforcing the section of the mining act, demanding that all extractors are required to setup an independent fund to rehabilitate the environment. This has already led to detrimental effects on the environment and the populations in the surrounding areas. Mining has caused massive dust pollution which has affected many communities, and created vital health problems. There have also been accounts of flooding which have crippled communities in the Lunsar townships which are located in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone. The mining itself and some of these affects have also had detrimental impacts on farmlands which have had repercussions for an already starving population. Along with decades worth of reckless diamond mining these companies are destroying the Sierra Leonean natural environment. Mining has led to soil erosion, deforestation, and the complete breakdown and loss of whole ecosystems, which also forced populations to relocate. This can be connected to the work of Pope Francis in Laudato Si where he discusses many ecological issues that our ever-changing world is facing. He mentions in his first chapter the loss of biodiversity which is exactly what the companies such as London Mining and African Minerals are doing, after striking corrupt deals with the government that exempt them from certain environmental restrictions. Pope Francis also commented further on the issue of water, noting that mining companies are not only causing flooding, threatening people’s lives, because of their minimal restrictions deforestation and land degradation, resulted in heavily polluted water systems and created large amounts of stagnant bodies of water. These specific conditions, especially the stagnate bodies of water, very similar to what was seen in the movie we watched about the Zika virus epidemic in South America, prove to play lethal roles in the spreading of epidemics such as malaria. Sierra Leone saw approximately 1.7million cases in 2013, in a country consisting of a total population of approximately six million. Collectively, this all contributes to one of Pope Francis’s last major issues which is the decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society. Unfortunately everything is connected and one lapse in the chain-link fence, can cripple the whole system. Despite many of these issues such as malaria and environmental degradation already existing in countries like Sierra Leone poor government policies allow these foreign companies to enter the country of their choosing, cut special deals, exploit the country’s resources, destroy it’s environment, and have a overall negative impact on the population’s well-being and country’s economic standing. They take advantage of these poorly - structured emerging economies, who actually need help and assistance, rather than attempt to create a positive long-lasting impact, seek to benefit from large profit margins. As said in the words of a London Mining Supervisor when interviewed by a reporter for the London School Economics Newspaper, “Exploit and go love, that’s all we’re here to do, exploit and go.”

I believe that the exploitation of Sierra Leone and its resources can also be analyzed with in relation Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time(1944). Polanyi believed that a market economy must include markets for all resources including labor, land and money. Polanyi discusses how the one of the two major developments of the 19^th century was the rise of market capitalism and how the market society in which industrialization was situated, was the key for disaster, as a result of the fictitious commodities of labor, land, and money.  He further exclaims how a commodity as in regards to labor, land and money is, ““entirely fictitious,” and that this fiction, “supplies a vital organizing principal, which is that anything that inhibits the functioning of these markets as if they are commodity markets should be prohibited.” Polanyi defines a commodity as something that is for sale in markets and explains that, “labor is an essential human function that is not always intended for sale, land is nature and therefore is not produced for sale and finally money is produced at all except by banks.” Polanyi argues how large-scale production and the investments needed to provide the conditions necessary for a capitalistic market created new risks and as a result required businesses to secure supplies of labor, land, and credit. This was only possible if these resources, land, labor and money, could be purchased in markets, but as defined by Polanyi, these commodities are fictious and cannot be produced for sale in markets. Therefore, attempting to trade them in markets and allocating them through the price system is an unnatural development leading to the destruction of society. Labor cannot be exploited or underutilized without affecting the nature of the person or population, and land similarly cannot be exploited without harm to the environment, if commodified these consequences are inevitable. Therefore, in reaction to the rise in market capitalism and protection of economies and societies Polanyi discusses the reality of the double movement which was, “the widespread expansion of “real” commodity markets accompanied by protective actions to limit the consequences of commodifying land, labor, and capital – the “fictitious” commodities.”

      This is unfortunately exactly what went wrong in Sierra Leone. In its early history Sierra Leone was just conquered by the British and therefore there wasn’t much to be done, but that isn’t the case amongst recent matters. Since Sierra Leone gained independence in 1961 they have partaken in a capitalistic market and although having commodified the fictious commodities they have placed prevention measures to prohibit the exploitation of its economy, resources and people. A perfect example of this is the Mineral and Mining Act of 2009 which prevents environmental and economical exploitation of the country and its resources. Consequently, due to a weak economy, corrupt government and multinational company pressures the Sierra Leonean government by passed these protective measures on behalf the British companies. Therefore, allowing for the exploitation and degradation of Sierra Leone’s resources, environment, and economy and as stated by Polanyi, the ultimate deterioration of the whole society, thus preventing any form of human development.

The manipulation of emerging economies by western civilization is unfortunately still a reality in today’s world. Through the impact of colonization, globalization, and the capitalistic market system, without any protective measures, developing countries are continually exposed to high risk of further exploitation.

Bibliography

1.      "British Mining Companies' Exploitation in Sierra Leone." ONE. ONE, 07 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. <https://www.one.org/international/blog/british-mining-companies-exploitation-in-sierra-leone/>.

2.      "British Mining Companies Exploitation of Sierra Leone." Africa at LSE. N.p., 23 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/12/23/british-mining-companies-exploitation-of-sierra-leone/>.

3.      Chasteen, John Charles. "Born in Blood and Fire." Google Books. W. W. Norton & Company, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <https://books.google.com/books?id=fC90B5xkYyIC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Pizarro%27s%2Bdivide%2Band%2Brule&source=bl&ots=XorpxEy12Z&sig=Jdsug85Xe7iv8GwQwLojisJQaXY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPtMTrrbDMAhUCMj4KHfguBy8Q6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q=Pizarro's%20divide%20and%20rule&f=false>.

4.      Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. Print.

5.      Francis, Pope. "Laudato Si' Study Guide: Chapter One - The Tablet." The Tablet. N.p., 25 June 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://thetablet.org/laudato-si-study-guide-chapter-one/>.

6.      "Malaria: Fighting the Other Epidemic in Sierra Leone." MSF USA. N.p., 23 Jan. 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/malaria-fighting-other-epidemic-sierra-leone>.

7.      "Malaria: Fighting the Other Epidemic in Sierra Leone." MSF USA. N.p., 23 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/malaria-fighting-other-epidemic-sierra-leone>.

8.      Mosselmans, Bella. "Stop British Mining Companies’ Exploitation of Sierra Leone." WE ARE RESTLESS. N.p., 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <https://wearerestless.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/stop-british-mining-companies-exploitation-of-sierra-leone/>.

9.      "Sierra Leone: The Agonizing Experience of a West African State under British Colonial Domination." Standard Times Press. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://standardtimespress.org/?p=6223>.