Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)
28 February 2008
Thalif Deen
United Nations
The international failure to respond aggressively to the killings in Sudan, and more recently in Kenya, is threatening the spread of genocide and ethnic cleansing in other parts of Africa, a London-based human rights organisation warns.
Mark Lattimer, executive director of Minority Rights Group International (MRG), predicts that "mass killings" will continue in 2008 -- if the international community refuses to take decisive action.
He says that over half of the 20 countries in the world where people are most under threat of genocide are in Africa, including Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic.
Chad, one of the new trouble spots in Africa, has risen 14 places up the rankings table since 2007.
Widening inter-communal violence in the eastern part of the country has seen civilian communities targeted in the fighting between black toroboro militias and Arab fighters -- a cruel replica of the ethnic conflict now familiar across the border in the Darfur region of neighbouring Sudan, according to MRG.
In Asia, MRG singles out three countries -- Burma (Myanmar), Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as potentially dangerous, while Iraq is described as the "most dangerous" in the Middle East.
In its 2008 global ranking of "Peoples Under Threat", MRG says that "alarmingly, states widely described to be stable, such as Kenya, have been catapulted up the table -- disputed elections in December 2007 exposing the tribal fault-lines in Kenyan society where competing political interests overlapped with ethnic differences."
In the rioting and "ethnic cleansing" that followed a contentious election, more than 1,000 Kenyans were killed. But neither the United Nations nor the European Union (EU), both of which expressed concern over the killings, took any concrete action.
Pakistan and Iran, both bordering Afghanistan, have risen significantly in the rankings this year.
"The fallout from military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq continues to spread to neighbouring states," says Lattimer, "and is now engulfing whole new communities in the threat of violent conflict."
The threat of mass killings comes at a time when the United Nations is seeking to implement the principles of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), adopted by the 192-member U.N. General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit in New York.
The R2P concept originated in a 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
William Pace, executive director of the New York-based Institute for Global Policy, told IPS that after the "historic and very surprising endorsement" of R2P by the heads of all states, and the backing of R2P in two Security Council resolutions in 2006, R2P lost momentum in 2007 due to a variety of reasons.
This, he points out, was mostly connected to "the always difficult transition from one (U.N.) secretary-general to a new one"-- from Kofi Annan who ended his term in December 2007 and Ban Ki-moon who took over in January 2008.
However, with the appointment by Secretary-General Ban of Francis Deng from Sudan as the new special advisor/representative for the prevention of genocide, and Ed Luck from the United States as special advisor to advance the implementation of R2P inside the U.N. institutions, "We expect important progress in 2008".
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also taking important steps forward, said Pace, who is also the Convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC).
He pointed out that the recent launching of the new Global Centre for R2P, with Andy Knight from Barbados as its new leader, is the first of several major NGO initiatives to support R2P, "in what is hoped will become a vital new tool for peace in our new century."
"The first decade, so far, has been as disastrous and unsuccessful in preventing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity," said Pace.
However, civil society from all regions are committed to making old peace tools, like the United Nations, and new tools like the International Criminal Court (ICC), and R2P work, so millions of lives will be saved, he added.
The new global institute, dedicated to improving international responses to genocide and mass atrocities, was inaugurated on Feb. 14. It is housed at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Centre of the City University of New York.
Described as an independent research and advocacy organisation, it says it "will make this doctrine (R2P) a reality." In a statement issued during its inaugural, the Centre said: "The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a call to action on behalf of populations at risk, and seeks to eradicate a legacy of inaction that has led to the loss of millions of lives during the Holocaust and in Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur."
Since Feb. 8, according to Human Rights Watch, Sudanese government troops and Janjaweed militias have attacked and bombed villages in West Darfur, killing hundreds of civilians and displacing tens of thousands more, with little response so far from the U.N. Security Council.
Asked if the U.N. appointments of Luck and Deng would advance the cause of R2P, Lattimer of Minority Rights Group International told IPS: "The U.N. special representative on the prevention of genocide and now the new special advisor on R2P are the first U.N. mechanisms with a specific mandate on genocide prevention and have a great potential to focus early U.N. action to prevent killing".
Their ability to make a difference will of course depend on the availability of accurate early warning information on groups under threat, he said.
Perhaps the first practical example of the United Nations acting to implement R2P is in the current situation in Kenya, he argued.
Although much of the debate around R2P has focused on armed humanitarian intervention, the greatest chance for the United Nations in general, and these two posts in particular, to make a difference is in preventive diplomacy at an early stage to stop mass killing before it starts.
Asked about "unilateral" U.N. interventions to prevent genocide,, Lattimer said: "The United Nations is a multilateral organisation composed of member states, so it can't intervene 'unilaterally'."
But if the question is about armed or forceful intervention, then there have been a number of such interventions, he pointed out.
They are authorised under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and need to be mandated by the Security Council acting "to maintain or restore international peace and security" -- not quite the same as preventing genocide or mass killings, but the Council has explicitly agreed that deliberate targeting of civilian populations in armed conflict may constitute a threat to international peace or security.
Lattimer also said that past Chapter VII interventions include Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda and East Timor.
In Rwanda and Bosnia, he said, the U.N. missions were unable to stop genocide. By contrast the mission in East Timor was widely seen as successful, bringing to an end a widespread pattern of gross human rights violations by the Indonesian army and by militias.
Some current U.N. peacekeeping missions, which have Chapter VII enforcement powers, play a vital role in preventing ethnic killings, including those in Cote d'Ivoire and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, although their record of success is mixed, he declared.
vrijdag 29 februari 2008
France Arrests Another '94 Genocide Suspect
The New Times (Kigali)
29 February 2008
Felly Kimenyi
Paris
France has arrested another Rwanda Genocide suspect, the second to be apprehended on her territory in two months.
Claver Kamana, who has been on the list of top Genocide suspects wanted by Kigali, was on Tuesday arrested from France's eastern town of Annecy, officials have confirmed.
Rwandan prosecutors say the arrest came after Rwanda issued his international arrest warrant through Interpol.
"The Genocide Fugitives Tracking Unit compiled and sent Kamana's indictments and arrest warrant in August last year," Prosecution spokesman, Jean Bosco Mutangana, said yesterday.
Mutangana coordinates the tracking unit, which is composed of prosecutors and police officers.
He said the Government of Rwandan is already preparing a document to request for Kamana's extradition to Rwanda for trial.
On January 7, France arrested another Genocide fugitive, Lt. Col. Marcel Bivugabagabo, who also faces a possible extradition to Kigali.
And another Genocide fugitive, Isaac Kamali, also arrested in France last year after he had been deported from the US, is awaiting a court decision on Rwanda's extradition request.
The examination of the transfer request of Bivugabagabo is also set for March 18 at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, southern France.
"It is a good progress and cooperation from the French judiciary. They have arrested two people since the year began which is an indication that the French government is keen on bringing to book Genocide perpetrators," Mutangana said.
Kamana, who was on the executive committee of the Mouvement Republicain National pour la Democracie (MRND), the party that masterminded the 1994 Genocide, is accused of having spearheaded killings in the former Runda commune, Gitarama prefecture, now in the Southern Province.
"He was among key financiers of the infamous Radio Television des Milles Collines (RTLM) - a hate radio," Mutangana said.
According to the indictment, Kamana is accused of six counts including Genocide, complicity to Genocide and several other ordinary crimes such as formation of a criminal gang.
"He personally transported militiamen to killing sites and chaired various meetings that incited militias to commit Genocide," said Mutangana.
Apart from the trio, France is holding in custody three other Rwandan suspects arrested at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha, Tanzania.
The three are Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Laurent Bucyibaruta (the former prefet of Gikongoro prefecture) and Dominique Ntawukuriryayo, a former sous-prefet of Gisagara in the Southern Province.
ICTR has since requested France to prosecute Munyeshyaka - who was two years ago sentenced in absentia to life in prison by the Rwandan Military Tribunal - and Bucyibaruta.
As for Ntawukuriryayo, a French court last week sanctioned his transfer to ICTR for trial.
Other Western countries holding Genocide suspects include Britain, Finland, Holland and the United States.
Hearings on Rwanda's request for extradition of four men detained in Britain are set to resume next month, while the other three countries have one Rwandan suspect in custody each.
"We are expecting more fugitives to be arrested because we have received various rogatory commissions from different countries to investigate the crimes committed by fugitives in their respective countries," said the prosecution spokesman.
Mutangana said that the Government of Rwanda is also in talks with several African countries to ensure that Genocide fugitives holed up there are apprehended.
"We are particularly in touch with Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia," he added.
He said that the reason African countries have not made many arrests compared to European nations was lack of capacity to track the movements of the wanted fugitives.
"In Africa, it is not easy to monitor their movements from one country to another; it is easier in Europe because they track fingerprints," he said. No single Genocide fugitive has been arrested in any African country for over the past ten years on Rwanda's request although last week Tanzania arrested Callixte Nzabonimana after ICTR, which itself sits in that country, indicted him.
Most of these fugitives are said to be moving freely from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to southern African countries such Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia where they are believed to be conducting businesses.
29 February 2008
Felly Kimenyi
Paris
France has arrested another Rwanda Genocide suspect, the second to be apprehended on her territory in two months.
Claver Kamana, who has been on the list of top Genocide suspects wanted by Kigali, was on Tuesday arrested from France's eastern town of Annecy, officials have confirmed.
Rwandan prosecutors say the arrest came after Rwanda issued his international arrest warrant through Interpol.
"The Genocide Fugitives Tracking Unit compiled and sent Kamana's indictments and arrest warrant in August last year," Prosecution spokesman, Jean Bosco Mutangana, said yesterday.
Mutangana coordinates the tracking unit, which is composed of prosecutors and police officers.
He said the Government of Rwandan is already preparing a document to request for Kamana's extradition to Rwanda for trial.
On January 7, France arrested another Genocide fugitive, Lt. Col. Marcel Bivugabagabo, who also faces a possible extradition to Kigali.
And another Genocide fugitive, Isaac Kamali, also arrested in France last year after he had been deported from the US, is awaiting a court decision on Rwanda's extradition request.
The examination of the transfer request of Bivugabagabo is also set for March 18 at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, southern France.
"It is a good progress and cooperation from the French judiciary. They have arrested two people since the year began which is an indication that the French government is keen on bringing to book Genocide perpetrators," Mutangana said.
Kamana, who was on the executive committee of the Mouvement Republicain National pour la Democracie (MRND), the party that masterminded the 1994 Genocide, is accused of having spearheaded killings in the former Runda commune, Gitarama prefecture, now in the Southern Province.
"He was among key financiers of the infamous Radio Television des Milles Collines (RTLM) - a hate radio," Mutangana said.
According to the indictment, Kamana is accused of six counts including Genocide, complicity to Genocide and several other ordinary crimes such as formation of a criminal gang.
"He personally transported militiamen to killing sites and chaired various meetings that incited militias to commit Genocide," said Mutangana.
Apart from the trio, France is holding in custody three other Rwandan suspects arrested at the request of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha, Tanzania.
The three are Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Laurent Bucyibaruta (the former prefet of Gikongoro prefecture) and Dominique Ntawukuriryayo, a former sous-prefet of Gisagara in the Southern Province.
ICTR has since requested France to prosecute Munyeshyaka - who was two years ago sentenced in absentia to life in prison by the Rwandan Military Tribunal - and Bucyibaruta.
As for Ntawukuriryayo, a French court last week sanctioned his transfer to ICTR for trial.
Other Western countries holding Genocide suspects include Britain, Finland, Holland and the United States.
Hearings on Rwanda's request for extradition of four men detained in Britain are set to resume next month, while the other three countries have one Rwandan suspect in custody each.
"We are expecting more fugitives to be arrested because we have received various rogatory commissions from different countries to investigate the crimes committed by fugitives in their respective countries," said the prosecution spokesman.
Mutangana said that the Government of Rwanda is also in talks with several African countries to ensure that Genocide fugitives holed up there are apprehended.
"We are particularly in touch with Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia," he added.
He said that the reason African countries have not made many arrests compared to European nations was lack of capacity to track the movements of the wanted fugitives.
"In Africa, it is not easy to monitor their movements from one country to another; it is easier in Europe because they track fingerprints," he said. No single Genocide fugitive has been arrested in any African country for over the past ten years on Rwanda's request although last week Tanzania arrested Callixte Nzabonimana after ICTR, which itself sits in that country, indicted him.
Most of these fugitives are said to be moving freely from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to southern African countries such Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia where they are believed to be conducting businesses.
The 1984 Wajir Massacre in Kenya
2008-02-25
announcement by the Kenya Somali Community of North America
February 25, 2008, is exactly 24 years since the horrific massacre that took place when the Kenyan security killed over 400 Somali men. Today, we are submitting a memo to the Kenya High Commission in Ottawa at 415 Laurier Avenue East Street from 11:00 am - 12:00 pm. This is to mark the 24th anniversary of the Wajir Massacre. This act of genocide occurred in 1984 in Wagala near Wajir. The massacre itself occurred following the rounding up of five thousand Somali men and their removal to the Wagala air strip, while their homes were being burnt to the ground. The men were detained within a barbed wire enclosure over a four day period, forced to strip and denied food and water. The massacre has been devastating to the morale of Somalis, the majority of whom are too intimidated to take any action in case of further reprisals.
To the Somalis, the Wajir Massacre is one of the gravest in a sad history of brutal massacres, including Malkameri in 1996, Garissa in 1980, Madogashe in 1982 and Bagala in 1989. Since none of these massacres has ever been investigated, the pattern of repression of the Kenyan Somali people continues.
Hundreds of families of victims of the Wajir Massacre are in the Bula Jogoo area of Wajir and are still in a state of destitution depending solely on relief aid. They have never been compensated for the massacre by the Kenyan government. At the time of the Wajir Massacre there was an international outcry and many western countries showed their concern and protested to the Kenyan government. Among them were Canada, Britain, United States of America, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium. The Kenyan government has, for the first time, admitted that the horrific Wajir Massacre occurred sixteen years ago and that hundreds of ethnic Somalis were killed in the Wajir district in the northeastern province of Kenya during this massacre.
We, the Kenyan Somali Community of North America, are calling on the Kenyan Government to take the following actions immediately:
- Appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the Wajir, Garissa and Malkameri Massacres. - Compensate the bereaved families of the 381 people that the Kenyan government admitted had been massacred by its security forces.
- Immediately bring to justice those who were responsible for these heinous crimes
announcement by the Kenya Somali Community of North America
February 25, 2008, is exactly 24 years since the horrific massacre that took place when the Kenyan security killed over 400 Somali men. Today, we are submitting a memo to the Kenya High Commission in Ottawa at 415 Laurier Avenue East Street from 11:00 am - 12:00 pm. This is to mark the 24th anniversary of the Wajir Massacre. This act of genocide occurred in 1984 in Wagala near Wajir. The massacre itself occurred following the rounding up of five thousand Somali men and their removal to the Wagala air strip, while their homes were being burnt to the ground. The men were detained within a barbed wire enclosure over a four day period, forced to strip and denied food and water. The massacre has been devastating to the morale of Somalis, the majority of whom are too intimidated to take any action in case of further reprisals.
To the Somalis, the Wajir Massacre is one of the gravest in a sad history of brutal massacres, including Malkameri in 1996, Garissa in 1980, Madogashe in 1982 and Bagala in 1989. Since none of these massacres has ever been investigated, the pattern of repression of the Kenyan Somali people continues.
Hundreds of families of victims of the Wajir Massacre are in the Bula Jogoo area of Wajir and are still in a state of destitution depending solely on relief aid. They have never been compensated for the massacre by the Kenyan government. At the time of the Wajir Massacre there was an international outcry and many western countries showed their concern and protested to the Kenyan government. Among them were Canada, Britain, United States of America, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium. The Kenyan government has, for the first time, admitted that the horrific Wajir Massacre occurred sixteen years ago and that hundreds of ethnic Somalis were killed in the Wajir district in the northeastern province of Kenya during this massacre.
We, the Kenyan Somali Community of North America, are calling on the Kenyan Government to take the following actions immediately:
- Appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the Wajir, Garissa and Malkameri Massacres. - Compensate the bereaved families of the 381 people that the Kenyan government admitted had been massacred by its security forces.
- Immediately bring to justice those who were responsible for these heinous crimes
vrijdag 22 februari 2008
Spreading Western Values by the Sword
02/18/2008
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to unfold.
Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West’s ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder and colonise vast populations in order to control resources and maximise wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying civilisation such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines. Those who survived colonisation were forcibly converted to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities the West could only gloat at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns, aeroplanes, mustard gas etc only hastened the acquisition of colonies and the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force – often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of western values.
This is a description of the Old World where countries like England, France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World (America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.
The Islamic Khilafah in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric fashion. Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force nor destroy civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews that survived this Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western values than WMD. In the past these values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger-facing mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest of the world through WMD.
-Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim Affairs. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to unfold.
Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West’s ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder and colonise vast populations in order to control resources and maximise wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying civilisation such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines. Those who survived colonisation were forcibly converted to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities the West could only gloat at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns, aeroplanes, mustard gas etc only hastened the acquisition of colonies and the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force – often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of western values.
This is a description of the Old World where countries like England, France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World (America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed as precision bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.
The Islamic Khilafah in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric fashion. Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force nor destroy civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews that survived this Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western values than WMD. In the past these values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger-facing mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest of the world through WMD.
-Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim Affairs. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com
By Inviting Bush We Are Dishonouring Ourselves
by Hamza Mustafa Njozi (2008-02-12)
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” – Abraham Lincoln
It would seem to me that there are certain moral limits beyond which no one can cross without forfeiting one’s honour and human dignity. Our seemingly voluntary decision to invite and to entertain a hated war criminal for four days in our beautiful land will probably go down in history as marking the darkest moment in our political history so far. I recall, not without pride, that in 2003 as members of the University of Dar es Salaam Academic Assembly [UDASA], we prevented the then U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania from visiting the Mlimani main campus. The university’s long-standing intellectual tradition was too noble to be soiled by a representative of a war criminal who was, and still is, butchering innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is as it should be. Intellectuals should keep the beacon of freedom and justice burning even during the darkest night of unbridled tyranny.
And now, Kwame Nkrumah’s worst fears have come to pass. Tanzania, a former Frontline State, is feverishly preparing itself to participate in a macabre dance with the deadliest twenty-first century harpy, “a monster who entices its victims with sweet music.” Tanzania is apparently following the footsteps of Uganda and Ethiopia. In whose interest? Let us begin by listening to the sweet music as performed by the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania and sickeningly echoed by some of our leaders.
The Sweet Music of Economic Gain
According to the American Ambassador, Mr. Mark Green, President Bush’s visit to Tanzania will stimulate investment because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania. Of course, Mr. Green dismissed claims about Bush’s keen interest to station AFRICOM in Tanzania. Instead, Bush’s noble intentions include intensifying the fight against malaria and Aids. To this end, Tanzania will receive $818.4 million to fight Aids. During the visit, Bush would also highlight his country’s commitment to improving health in Africa. In summary, the iron spine of the argument justifying Bush’s trip is economic gain, both, actual and prospective.
Unless if Tanzanians wish to fall prey to racist reasoning, Mr. Green’s story is nothing but an attempt to disguise ignoble motives beneath a glittering façade of altruism. Why should Mr. Bush be so concerned about improving the health condition of Tanzanians and at the same time use the most sophisticated weapons to kill and maim, with zest and ruthlessness, the Iraqis and Afghans and now the Somalis? Why? Is it because we are black and they are Arab? In his recent State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush, amid cheers from his sycophants, vowed to heighten his hawkish policies world wide. And yet, Mr. Bush is so kind and altruistic to Tanzanians. Why? Of course we know from history that even the sordid intentions of tyrants are always dressed up in glowing principles. Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia because he wanted to promote peace and social welfare for all; Mussolini invaded Ethiopia because he wanted to liberate the savages; Japan invaded China to create an earthly paradise; the US and UK invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; and so on and so forth.
Thomas Jefferson on Profession of Noble Intent
Commenting on the famous claim by the British Imperialists that they were fighting for the liberation of mankind, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, as quoted in Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, "We believe no more in Bonaparte’s fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain’s fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth, and the resources of other nations."
“A century later,” writes Chomsky, “Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of state, Robert Lansing, commented scornfully on ‘how willing the British, French or Italians are to accept a mandate’ from the League of Nations, as long as ‘there are mines, oil fields, rich grain fields or railroads’ that will make it a profitable undertaking.’ These ‘unselfish governments’ declare the mandates must be accepted ‘for the good of mankind’: ‘they will do their proper share by administering the rich regions of Mesopotamia, Syria, & c.’ The proper assessment of these pretensions is ‘so manifest that it is almost an insult to state it’. (p. 48)
To their credit, American leaders saw through such pretensions, and dismissed them for what they were. They knew the real motive was to grab the wealth and resources of other nations. We should apply the same standard in assessing the noble intent of Mr. Bush.
The Transparency of American Motives
Since the Americans know that their real motive is to pillage and loot the wealth and resources of other nations, they have often demonstrated by their behaviour that they must have unhindered access to all resources of the world. To achieve this end, they have stationed military bases all over the world. The goal of their grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the power, position, and prestige of the United States. Since securing the supplies of oil enables the Americans to have power over her rivals and competitors, successive US governments have bombed, occupied or controlled countries with rich oil deposits. According to a government daily newspaper Habari Leo of 21 July 2007, an American oil company Helvey International and Petronet International of South Africa have signed a $313 million oil exploration contract in Tanzania. In view of how American oil companies have fleeced other oil rich countries like Ecuador, this does not augur us well. No wonder, suddenly, Bush, loves Tanzanians! Why not invite the Chinese who need no military bases, who have invaded no country and who give the best offer? If what has befallen other countries is any barometer, the Americans will need a military base in Tanzania. Military presence is necessary to ensure total control of this vital resource as well as the continued pillage of our gold mines.
Of late USAID has increased its activities in Tanzania. Commenting on the role of USAID in promoting the American Empire, John Pilger notes in Freedom Next Time:
Illuminating how America exported ‘democracy to the world’, the head of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described ‘aid’ as ‘a key foreign policy instrument’. Wishing to leave no doubt about what he meant, he said, ‘Foreign assistance helps developing and transition nations move toward democratic systems and market economies; it helps nations prepare for participation in the global trading system and become better markets for U.S. exports. (p.265)
John Perkins has lent to the same verdict the weight of his considerable weight as a professional Economic Hit Man [EHM]. He says the job of an EHM is:
To encourage world leaders to become part of a vast network that promotes U.S. commercial interests. In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty. We can draw on them whenever we desire – to satisfy our political, economic, or military needs.
Acccording to John Perkins, EHM “funnel money from the World Bank, UASID, and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources” (p. ix).
Bush’s Visit and AFRICOM
The U.S. Ambassador has repeatedly and vehemently dismissed the disquieting reports that one of the objectives of Bush’s visit to Tanzania is to persuade our leaders into accepting to host the hated AFRICOM. Still, the signs and portents are too consistent to brush aside. According to Assistant Secretary of Defence for African Affairs, Theresa Whalen, the mission of AFRICOM will be to promote diplomatic, economic and humanitarian aid for African countries. In recent months, the U.S. Ambassadors, Michael Retzer and Mark Green have conspicuously [ and somewhat undiplomatically] attempted to show the shiny face of the U.S. Army. On 20 July, 2007 the US Ambassador opened a primary school in Chake Chake, Pemba. The school was built with the support of the US military base in Djibouti. The U.S. Navy Captain Wright from the U.S. CJTF-HOA, and the Country Director of USAID attended this important humanitarian function! Mwananchi of 10 November 2006 reported about a Tshs. 3.2 billion U.S assistance to the police laboratory. Habari Leo of 28 November 2007 reported that our police force received 100 hand-cuffs, 50 tape-recorders, 2 laptops, and a camera. Mwananchi of 8 December 2007, reported about the U.S. pledge to increase military assistance to Tanzania to the tune of $70 million under the Acota programme. Mwananchi of 6 December 2007, the U.S. Ambassador addresses students of Kinondoni Secondary school who are under USAID’s Stay Alive programme. Mwananchi of 22 November, 2007 the U.S. Ambassador visits and assists an orphanage in Arusha. Mwananchi of 22 November 2007, the U.S. Army helps a Handeni Hospital with equipments worth Tshs. 6 million. The U.S. Army stationed in Tanga involves itself with helping in the repair and rehabilitation of schools, dispensaries, bore holes and other social activities. Mwananchi of 12 January 2008, an American Army officer distributes toys to school children of Mbagala. Mwananchi of 17 January 2008, USAID officials give academic prizes to outstanding science students. Mtanzania of 10 January 2008, USAID praises the educational achievements of Zanzibar. USAID was handing over text books for Zanzibar secondary schools published by the University of South Carolina. The ceremony was part of the celebrations to mark 44 years of the Zanzibar Revolution. The Zanzibar Minister of Education did not seem to notice the tragic irony of the entire ceremony!
It may be instructive to recall that on 6 November 1933, Hitler responded to his political opponents by saying, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” Four years later he said, “This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” Yes, new textbooks were written and new curricula developed.
After 44 years of Independence we are delegating this role to USAID. And USAID has nothing but praise for us!
The Boomerang Effect of the Global Media
The prediction that Tanzania would benefit economically because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania is nothing but a cruel hoax. If this claim were true, Bush himself would have been the first beneficiary. He enjoys the publicity of the world media throughout the year. Yet, he is probably the most hated leader alive today. He is so hated that he becomes a huge security risk wherever he goes. In their book, America Alone, Harper and Clarke note that America’s militarism has brought about such a rise in world-wide anti-American feeling that:
When the president travels, he must do so in a locked-down security bubble: eight hours here, sixteen hours there, never more than thirty minutes from an airport, no press conferences, no meeting the people, no seeing of the sights. American representative overseas tell us that in many small ways their jobs have become more difficult…(p. 311).
Tanzania under Mwalimu Nyerere received very negative publicity from Newsweek, Time, The Economist, and other leading Western magazines and newspapers. And yet, as a nation we commanded respect throughout the world. The U.S. print and electronic media had nothing but praises for Tony Blair. And yet, unlike the leaders of Germany and France who took a principled stand against America’s unprovoked military aggression in Iraq, Blair’s enduring political image is that of a contemptible poodle of Uncle Sam and his otherwise great country as the 51st State of America!
In 2001 the U.S. Congress passed a bill which directed the government to cut off military aid to all countries which ratified the International Criminal Court treaty, unless they pledged never to surrender American criminals to the International court. Tanzania took a principled stand. It refused to bow to American pressure. Uganda bowed to the U.S. Bush praised Museveni as a shining example of African statesmen. To the rest of the world, Museveni had metamorphosed from a revolutionary African leader to a docile American pupil. In this regard, for some of us, it is a huge embarrassment when the number one war criminal in the world, who should be facing charges in the Hague, showers praises on our leader. No amount of positive media coverage may possibly help Senator Obama win votes in the U.S. if he were for four days to dine and go sight-seeing with Osama bin Laden in the beautiful land of Afghanistan! The situation would certainly be far worse if Osama were to shower praises on him. Likewise, Tanzania will irreparably tarnish her image by allowing the blood-drenching Bush to land in Tanzania, let alone to entertain him for four dark days.
When Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela visited Tanzania, the country virtually came to a standstill. Thousands upon thousands of Tanzanians braved the rain and the scorching sun to welcome them at the airport. The rest thronged the streets out of respect and admiration. What a contrast with the forthcoming visit of Mr. Bush. For the first time since Independence, a state visit by a foreign head of state is greeted with fierce debates about the wisdom of allowing him to come! His presence is not an asset but a political liability.
Ominous Signs on the Wall
One ominous result of our close association with the American Empire, which may not be intended but inevitable, is the radical shift in our foreign policy. You cannot unequivocally support the rights of the Palestinian people against the Zionist occupation of their land and at the same time win the praise of Mr. Bush as an exemplary statesman. America is backing Israel to the hilt. We used to support the Palestinian people. To this day there is in Sinza area a hospital named after Palestine. The Palestinian people provided us with their doctors in appreciation of our political solidarity with them. We have to make a choice. We either maintain our stance against oppression and foreign occupation and court the displeasure of Mr. Bush or join the oppressors and win the unqualified praise from Mr. Bush and his so-called world media. It seems we value the empty praises of Mr. Bush more. This is a political tragedy.
The clearest example of this shift was observed when in 2006, the Israelis with the open support of the U.S. and UK launched their ill-fated war against Hezbullah in Lebanon. Tanzania was at a loss. The incompatibility of running with the hare and hunting with the hound confronted us. As country after country issued statements to condemn Israel, Tanzania kept quiet. And when we could no longer keep quiet, we issued a feeble and disappointing statement which provoked the anger of most Tanzanians. For the first time, Tanzania spoke with an uncertain voice. We condemned both, the aggressor and the victim! Even that feeble statement was eclipsed in virtually all print and electronic media! The Americans were happy. We were on the side of oppressors. We qualified to send a peace-keeping force to Lebanon! This, again, is a very bad omen indeed.
On the question of Somalia, once again, Tanzania is supporting the war-lords who were recruited and funded by the U.S. The Somali people rejected and defeated them. Peace returned in Somalia. The U.S instructed Ethiopia to intervene militarily. As a result, the biggest humanitarian crisis now is not in Darfur but in Somalia. However, since the principal architect of the crisis in Somalia is America, the suffering of the Somali people is not covered in the so-called world media. Uganda has dutifully sent her army to Mogadishu to give political life support to the American puppets. Tanzania has accepted the role of training the police force of Bush’s henchmen in Mogadishu. We are allowing America to divide us. In whose interest?
In short, as we go closer and closer to the armpit of the U.S. we shall quite inevitably, recede further and further from our former Third world allies. Americans and Europeans are granted visa at the airport here in Dar es Salaam. Egyptians, our long-standing allies and fellow Africans have to apply for visa and await clearance before they can travel to Tanzania. We invite investors from America, and we organize the Sullivan meeting. We discourage investors from the Middle East. America does not like them. The president has made many trips abroad. I do not recall if he has visited Iran, where we do not even have an Embassy. And yet, Iran bailed us out at a very critical moment when the country had no fuel. When our president was in Cuba to attend the NAM conference, he did not pay a courtesy call to Fidel Castro! From Cuba he went to the U.S. These are ominous signs on our political wall.
The Hawk and the Pigeons
In the Fables of Aesop there is a story of the hawk and the pigeons which is worth recalling as we invite Bush in Tanzania:
Some pigeons had long lived in fear of a hawk, but since they had always kept on the alert and stayed near their dovecote, they had consistently managed to escape their enemy’s attacks. Finding his sallies unsuccessful, the hawk now sought to use cunning to trick the pigeons.
“Why,” he once said, “do you prefer this life of constant anxiety when I could keep you safe from any conceivable attack by the kites and falcons? All you have to do is to make me your king, and I won’t bother you anymore.”
Trusting his claims, the pigeons elected him to their throne, but no sooner was he installed than he began exercising his royal prerogative by devouring a pigeon a day.
“It serves us right,” said one poor pigeon whose turn was yet to come.
The moral of the story is that some remedies are worse than the disease itself.
Let me end as I began with a quotation:
“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
--Abraham Lincoln.
*Hamza Mustafa Njozi is a Senior Lecturer in Literature and current Chair in the Department of Literature at the University of Dar es Salaam.
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” – Abraham Lincoln
It would seem to me that there are certain moral limits beyond which no one can cross without forfeiting one’s honour and human dignity. Our seemingly voluntary decision to invite and to entertain a hated war criminal for four days in our beautiful land will probably go down in history as marking the darkest moment in our political history so far. I recall, not without pride, that in 2003 as members of the University of Dar es Salaam Academic Assembly [UDASA], we prevented the then U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania from visiting the Mlimani main campus. The university’s long-standing intellectual tradition was too noble to be soiled by a representative of a war criminal who was, and still is, butchering innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is as it should be. Intellectuals should keep the beacon of freedom and justice burning even during the darkest night of unbridled tyranny.
And now, Kwame Nkrumah’s worst fears have come to pass. Tanzania, a former Frontline State, is feverishly preparing itself to participate in a macabre dance with the deadliest twenty-first century harpy, “a monster who entices its victims with sweet music.” Tanzania is apparently following the footsteps of Uganda and Ethiopia. In whose interest? Let us begin by listening to the sweet music as performed by the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania and sickeningly echoed by some of our leaders.
The Sweet Music of Economic Gain
According to the American Ambassador, Mr. Mark Green, President Bush’s visit to Tanzania will stimulate investment because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania. Of course, Mr. Green dismissed claims about Bush’s keen interest to station AFRICOM in Tanzania. Instead, Bush’s noble intentions include intensifying the fight against malaria and Aids. To this end, Tanzania will receive $818.4 million to fight Aids. During the visit, Bush would also highlight his country’s commitment to improving health in Africa. In summary, the iron spine of the argument justifying Bush’s trip is economic gain, both, actual and prospective.
Unless if Tanzanians wish to fall prey to racist reasoning, Mr. Green’s story is nothing but an attempt to disguise ignoble motives beneath a glittering façade of altruism. Why should Mr. Bush be so concerned about improving the health condition of Tanzanians and at the same time use the most sophisticated weapons to kill and maim, with zest and ruthlessness, the Iraqis and Afghans and now the Somalis? Why? Is it because we are black and they are Arab? In his recent State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush, amid cheers from his sycophants, vowed to heighten his hawkish policies world wide. And yet, Mr. Bush is so kind and altruistic to Tanzanians. Why? Of course we know from history that even the sordid intentions of tyrants are always dressed up in glowing principles. Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia because he wanted to promote peace and social welfare for all; Mussolini invaded Ethiopia because he wanted to liberate the savages; Japan invaded China to create an earthly paradise; the US and UK invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; and so on and so forth.
Thomas Jefferson on Profession of Noble Intent
Commenting on the famous claim by the British Imperialists that they were fighting for the liberation of mankind, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, as quoted in Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, "We believe no more in Bonaparte’s fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain’s fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth, and the resources of other nations."
“A century later,” writes Chomsky, “Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of state, Robert Lansing, commented scornfully on ‘how willing the British, French or Italians are to accept a mandate’ from the League of Nations, as long as ‘there are mines, oil fields, rich grain fields or railroads’ that will make it a profitable undertaking.’ These ‘unselfish governments’ declare the mandates must be accepted ‘for the good of mankind’: ‘they will do their proper share by administering the rich regions of Mesopotamia, Syria, & c.’ The proper assessment of these pretensions is ‘so manifest that it is almost an insult to state it’. (p. 48)
To their credit, American leaders saw through such pretensions, and dismissed them for what they were. They knew the real motive was to grab the wealth and resources of other nations. We should apply the same standard in assessing the noble intent of Mr. Bush.
The Transparency of American Motives
Since the Americans know that their real motive is to pillage and loot the wealth and resources of other nations, they have often demonstrated by their behaviour that they must have unhindered access to all resources of the world. To achieve this end, they have stationed military bases all over the world. The goal of their grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the power, position, and prestige of the United States. Since securing the supplies of oil enables the Americans to have power over her rivals and competitors, successive US governments have bombed, occupied or controlled countries with rich oil deposits. According to a government daily newspaper Habari Leo of 21 July 2007, an American oil company Helvey International and Petronet International of South Africa have signed a $313 million oil exploration contract in Tanzania. In view of how American oil companies have fleeced other oil rich countries like Ecuador, this does not augur us well. No wonder, suddenly, Bush, loves Tanzanians! Why not invite the Chinese who need no military bases, who have invaded no country and who give the best offer? If what has befallen other countries is any barometer, the Americans will need a military base in Tanzania. Military presence is necessary to ensure total control of this vital resource as well as the continued pillage of our gold mines.
Of late USAID has increased its activities in Tanzania. Commenting on the role of USAID in promoting the American Empire, John Pilger notes in Freedom Next Time:
Illuminating how America exported ‘democracy to the world’, the head of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described ‘aid’ as ‘a key foreign policy instrument’. Wishing to leave no doubt about what he meant, he said, ‘Foreign assistance helps developing and transition nations move toward democratic systems and market economies; it helps nations prepare for participation in the global trading system and become better markets for U.S. exports. (p.265)
John Perkins has lent to the same verdict the weight of his considerable weight as a professional Economic Hit Man [EHM]. He says the job of an EHM is:
To encourage world leaders to become part of a vast network that promotes U.S. commercial interests. In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty. We can draw on them whenever we desire – to satisfy our political, economic, or military needs.
Acccording to John Perkins, EHM “funnel money from the World Bank, UASID, and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources” (p. ix).
Bush’s Visit and AFRICOM
The U.S. Ambassador has repeatedly and vehemently dismissed the disquieting reports that one of the objectives of Bush’s visit to Tanzania is to persuade our leaders into accepting to host the hated AFRICOM. Still, the signs and portents are too consistent to brush aside. According to Assistant Secretary of Defence for African Affairs, Theresa Whalen, the mission of AFRICOM will be to promote diplomatic, economic and humanitarian aid for African countries. In recent months, the U.S. Ambassadors, Michael Retzer and Mark Green have conspicuously [ and somewhat undiplomatically] attempted to show the shiny face of the U.S. Army. On 20 July, 2007 the US Ambassador opened a primary school in Chake Chake, Pemba. The school was built with the support of the US military base in Djibouti. The U.S. Navy Captain Wright from the U.S. CJTF-HOA, and the Country Director of USAID attended this important humanitarian function! Mwananchi of 10 November 2006 reported about a Tshs. 3.2 billion U.S assistance to the police laboratory. Habari Leo of 28 November 2007 reported that our police force received 100 hand-cuffs, 50 tape-recorders, 2 laptops, and a camera. Mwananchi of 8 December 2007, reported about the U.S. pledge to increase military assistance to Tanzania to the tune of $70 million under the Acota programme. Mwananchi of 6 December 2007, the U.S. Ambassador addresses students of Kinondoni Secondary school who are under USAID’s Stay Alive programme. Mwananchi of 22 November, 2007 the U.S. Ambassador visits and assists an orphanage in Arusha. Mwananchi of 22 November 2007, the U.S. Army helps a Handeni Hospital with equipments worth Tshs. 6 million. The U.S. Army stationed in Tanga involves itself with helping in the repair and rehabilitation of schools, dispensaries, bore holes and other social activities. Mwananchi of 12 January 2008, an American Army officer distributes toys to school children of Mbagala. Mwananchi of 17 January 2008, USAID officials give academic prizes to outstanding science students. Mtanzania of 10 January 2008, USAID praises the educational achievements of Zanzibar. USAID was handing over text books for Zanzibar secondary schools published by the University of South Carolina. The ceremony was part of the celebrations to mark 44 years of the Zanzibar Revolution. The Zanzibar Minister of Education did not seem to notice the tragic irony of the entire ceremony!
It may be instructive to recall that on 6 November 1933, Hitler responded to his political opponents by saying, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” Four years later he said, “This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” Yes, new textbooks were written and new curricula developed.
After 44 years of Independence we are delegating this role to USAID. And USAID has nothing but praise for us!
The Boomerang Effect of the Global Media
The prediction that Tanzania would benefit economically because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania is nothing but a cruel hoax. If this claim were true, Bush himself would have been the first beneficiary. He enjoys the publicity of the world media throughout the year. Yet, he is probably the most hated leader alive today. He is so hated that he becomes a huge security risk wherever he goes. In their book, America Alone, Harper and Clarke note that America’s militarism has brought about such a rise in world-wide anti-American feeling that:
When the president travels, he must do so in a locked-down security bubble: eight hours here, sixteen hours there, never more than thirty minutes from an airport, no press conferences, no meeting the people, no seeing of the sights. American representative overseas tell us that in many small ways their jobs have become more difficult…(p. 311).
Tanzania under Mwalimu Nyerere received very negative publicity from Newsweek, Time, The Economist, and other leading Western magazines and newspapers. And yet, as a nation we commanded respect throughout the world. The U.S. print and electronic media had nothing but praises for Tony Blair. And yet, unlike the leaders of Germany and France who took a principled stand against America’s unprovoked military aggression in Iraq, Blair’s enduring political image is that of a contemptible poodle of Uncle Sam and his otherwise great country as the 51st State of America!
In 2001 the U.S. Congress passed a bill which directed the government to cut off military aid to all countries which ratified the International Criminal Court treaty, unless they pledged never to surrender American criminals to the International court. Tanzania took a principled stand. It refused to bow to American pressure. Uganda bowed to the U.S. Bush praised Museveni as a shining example of African statesmen. To the rest of the world, Museveni had metamorphosed from a revolutionary African leader to a docile American pupil. In this regard, for some of us, it is a huge embarrassment when the number one war criminal in the world, who should be facing charges in the Hague, showers praises on our leader. No amount of positive media coverage may possibly help Senator Obama win votes in the U.S. if he were for four days to dine and go sight-seeing with Osama bin Laden in the beautiful land of Afghanistan! The situation would certainly be far worse if Osama were to shower praises on him. Likewise, Tanzania will irreparably tarnish her image by allowing the blood-drenching Bush to land in Tanzania, let alone to entertain him for four dark days.
When Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela visited Tanzania, the country virtually came to a standstill. Thousands upon thousands of Tanzanians braved the rain and the scorching sun to welcome them at the airport. The rest thronged the streets out of respect and admiration. What a contrast with the forthcoming visit of Mr. Bush. For the first time since Independence, a state visit by a foreign head of state is greeted with fierce debates about the wisdom of allowing him to come! His presence is not an asset but a political liability.
Ominous Signs on the Wall
One ominous result of our close association with the American Empire, which may not be intended but inevitable, is the radical shift in our foreign policy. You cannot unequivocally support the rights of the Palestinian people against the Zionist occupation of their land and at the same time win the praise of Mr. Bush as an exemplary statesman. America is backing Israel to the hilt. We used to support the Palestinian people. To this day there is in Sinza area a hospital named after Palestine. The Palestinian people provided us with their doctors in appreciation of our political solidarity with them. We have to make a choice. We either maintain our stance against oppression and foreign occupation and court the displeasure of Mr. Bush or join the oppressors and win the unqualified praise from Mr. Bush and his so-called world media. It seems we value the empty praises of Mr. Bush more. This is a political tragedy.
The clearest example of this shift was observed when in 2006, the Israelis with the open support of the U.S. and UK launched their ill-fated war against Hezbullah in Lebanon. Tanzania was at a loss. The incompatibility of running with the hare and hunting with the hound confronted us. As country after country issued statements to condemn Israel, Tanzania kept quiet. And when we could no longer keep quiet, we issued a feeble and disappointing statement which provoked the anger of most Tanzanians. For the first time, Tanzania spoke with an uncertain voice. We condemned both, the aggressor and the victim! Even that feeble statement was eclipsed in virtually all print and electronic media! The Americans were happy. We were on the side of oppressors. We qualified to send a peace-keeping force to Lebanon! This, again, is a very bad omen indeed.
On the question of Somalia, once again, Tanzania is supporting the war-lords who were recruited and funded by the U.S. The Somali people rejected and defeated them. Peace returned in Somalia. The U.S instructed Ethiopia to intervene militarily. As a result, the biggest humanitarian crisis now is not in Darfur but in Somalia. However, since the principal architect of the crisis in Somalia is America, the suffering of the Somali people is not covered in the so-called world media. Uganda has dutifully sent her army to Mogadishu to give political life support to the American puppets. Tanzania has accepted the role of training the police force of Bush’s henchmen in Mogadishu. We are allowing America to divide us. In whose interest?
In short, as we go closer and closer to the armpit of the U.S. we shall quite inevitably, recede further and further from our former Third world allies. Americans and Europeans are granted visa at the airport here in Dar es Salaam. Egyptians, our long-standing allies and fellow Africans have to apply for visa and await clearance before they can travel to Tanzania. We invite investors from America, and we organize the Sullivan meeting. We discourage investors from the Middle East. America does not like them. The president has made many trips abroad. I do not recall if he has visited Iran, where we do not even have an Embassy. And yet, Iran bailed us out at a very critical moment when the country had no fuel. When our president was in Cuba to attend the NAM conference, he did not pay a courtesy call to Fidel Castro! From Cuba he went to the U.S. These are ominous signs on our political wall.
The Hawk and the Pigeons
In the Fables of Aesop there is a story of the hawk and the pigeons which is worth recalling as we invite Bush in Tanzania:
Some pigeons had long lived in fear of a hawk, but since they had always kept on the alert and stayed near their dovecote, they had consistently managed to escape their enemy’s attacks. Finding his sallies unsuccessful, the hawk now sought to use cunning to trick the pigeons.
“Why,” he once said, “do you prefer this life of constant anxiety when I could keep you safe from any conceivable attack by the kites and falcons? All you have to do is to make me your king, and I won’t bother you anymore.”
Trusting his claims, the pigeons elected him to their throne, but no sooner was he installed than he began exercising his royal prerogative by devouring a pigeon a day.
“It serves us right,” said one poor pigeon whose turn was yet to come.
The moral of the story is that some remedies are worse than the disease itself.
Let me end as I began with a quotation:
“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
--Abraham Lincoln.
*Hamza Mustafa Njozi is a Senior Lecturer in Literature and current Chair in the Department of Literature at the University of Dar es Salaam.
maandag 18 februari 2008
what is Bush doing in Africa and Rwanda=
George Bush Visits Africa to promote the US Africa Command
Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding
18 February 2008 - Horace Campbell (The writer is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.)
Source: www.pambazuka.org
One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo-liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV -AIDS pandemic.
Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.
In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William "Kip" Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?
One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.
Why Now?
At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western 'interests' in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.
Central Command
After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).
At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.
Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI "plans" to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in "peacekeeping" operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.
Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East
After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.
What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.
The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.
African Oil -The real objective
The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been "fabricating terrorism" in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of "intelligence sharing to fight terrorism." It is in the Sudan where the neo-conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.
Challenging the European Union and China in Africa
The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.
In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar.
It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America.
This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.
African responses
Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest "partners' of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 "distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.
For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for 'security cooperation." Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition.
More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.
One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia.
Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.
In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.
Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.
In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.
The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting of Africa is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror.
Racist images of war and "anarchy" and "failed states" are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.
We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written, 'The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.'
Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding
18 February 2008 - Horace Campbell (The writer is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.)
Source: www.pambazuka.org
One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo-liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV -AIDS pandemic.
Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.
In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William "Kip" Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?
One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.
Why Now?
At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western 'interests' in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.
Central Command
After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).
At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.
Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI "plans" to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in "peacekeeping" operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.
Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East
After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.
What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.
The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.
African Oil -The real objective
The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been "fabricating terrorism" in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of "intelligence sharing to fight terrorism." It is in the Sudan where the neo-conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.
Challenging the European Union and China in Africa
The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.
In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar.
It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America.
This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.
African responses
Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest "partners' of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 "distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.
For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for 'security cooperation." Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition.
More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.
One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia.
Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.
In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.
Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.
In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.
The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting of Africa is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror.
Racist images of war and "anarchy" and "failed states" are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.
We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written, 'The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.'
zondag 17 februari 2008
Bush Returns to Africa
Twisted Priorities
By EVE BACHRACH
Counterpunch February 16 / 17, 2008
This week, President Bush sets out on his second state visit to Africa. The six-day trip will take him to Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. Yet it is far from clear what the people of Africa stand to gain from the visit. A lame duck president with a hostile Congress at home, Bush has little to offer the continent but platitudes.
President Bush has used his presidency to make a succession of grand statements on human rights and democracy, which he has then followed by returning to his own reactionary agenda. The man who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" has in fact governed with a callous disregard for human life. There was nothing compassionate about his invasion and subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan. And nothing compassionate about launching a second war in Iraq designed to make multinational corporations rich and test out neoliberal ideas of pre-emptive war and "exporting" democracy.
And so on the eve of his Africa trip, it's worth exploring exactly what policies he intends to implement when he makes rosy promises to the African continent.
Since his January 2008 State of the Union address to Congress, much of the focus of his visit has been on the promises Bush made regarding HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) promises $30 billion over five years for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. But fully one third of that money is required to go to "abstinence-only" education--programmes popular with Bush's base back home but proven ineffectual time and again. The bill also makes outreach work with sex workers, a key constituency in the fight against AIDS, nearly impossible.
PEPFAR is dressed up to sound like a compassionate plan to help the millions of Africans affected by AIDS, but in fact it sacrifices the suffering of millions to right wing talking points. Helping those in need is never as important as throwing a bone to Bush's base: extreme rightwingers and big business.
When it comes to alleviating the crushing poverty faced by so many Africans, President Bush is guided by the same twisted priorities. According to a White House statement, Bush is seeking to spur development by discussing how the United States can support "free trade, open investment regimes and economic opportunity" in Africa. Poverty reduction is a noble aim, but these prescriptions will not achieve it. Instead they will make rich corporations richer while stagnating--if not destroying--local economies.
The Bush administration preaches the gospel of free trade as a cure-all. But free trade, especially as practised by the US, falls short on a number of key levels. While refusing to allow developing countries to protect their own fledgling economies, the US has not recognised the hypocrisy in its own agricultural subsidies. Each year, billions of dollars in "aid" goes to large-scale farmers across the country, and the harmful effects are felt around the world. The US subsidies, and subsequent overproduction of key crops, artificially drive down global prices and have been found illegal by the WTO. One recent study found that if US cotton subsidies were removed, the price of cotton could rise by as much as 14%. The extra income in the pocket of a West African farmers--20 million of whom rely on cotton for income--could feed millions of children each year.
On the other side of the equation is the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a Clinton-era measure that has undergone several mutations under Bush. AGOA largely removed tariffs and quotas on a number of goods imported to the US from 39 African countries. In exchange for this, African governments were forced to accept American foreign investment and harmful financial liberalisation.
Since the measure went into effect, imports from Africa to the US have more than quadrupled. But real benefits have been illusive. While jobs have increased, decent work is still hard to find. Labourers working well over 12 hours a day still fall short of taking home a living wage. The executive director of the International Labour Rights Forum, Bama Athreya, said: "Our goal shouldn't simply be to provide any job through our trade policy, but to provide really decent jobs that come with dignity, respect, and the possibility that these workers can prosper in the future and expect a better life for their children."
Workers haven't seen benefits in the short term, and long-term development is also unlikely to materialise. The textile industries in many of Africa's least developed countries are entirely dependent on foreign capital. Asian companies have set up factories on the continent, and domestic growth in the industry has been nil. And as Chinese exports flood global markets, African textiles have decreased for two years running, making a future upturn increasingly unlikely.
But he's not all bad. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush did at least ask Congress to approve a measure that would allow 25% of the US food aid budget to go towards buying food grown locally in developing countries, rather than only benefiting US exporters as it has until now. Such a measure would increase emergency response times, benefit local farmers and prevent economic disasters when markets are flooded with cheap American produce. Bush has announced this plan four years running now. This year, as before, Congress is expected to stop it in its tracks.
Eve Bachrach lives in London, where she works for War on Want. She can be reached at: EBachrach@waronwant.org
P.S. to sum it all up: the Monster from Washington's visit to Africa is the most serious form of evironmental pollution the continent has had to endure for years
By EVE BACHRACH
Counterpunch February 16 / 17, 2008
This week, President Bush sets out on his second state visit to Africa. The six-day trip will take him to Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. Yet it is far from clear what the people of Africa stand to gain from the visit. A lame duck president with a hostile Congress at home, Bush has little to offer the continent but platitudes.
President Bush has used his presidency to make a succession of grand statements on human rights and democracy, which he has then followed by returning to his own reactionary agenda. The man who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" has in fact governed with a callous disregard for human life. There was nothing compassionate about his invasion and subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan. And nothing compassionate about launching a second war in Iraq designed to make multinational corporations rich and test out neoliberal ideas of pre-emptive war and "exporting" democracy.
And so on the eve of his Africa trip, it's worth exploring exactly what policies he intends to implement when he makes rosy promises to the African continent.
Since his January 2008 State of the Union address to Congress, much of the focus of his visit has been on the promises Bush made regarding HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) promises $30 billion over five years for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. But fully one third of that money is required to go to "abstinence-only" education--programmes popular with Bush's base back home but proven ineffectual time and again. The bill also makes outreach work with sex workers, a key constituency in the fight against AIDS, nearly impossible.
PEPFAR is dressed up to sound like a compassionate plan to help the millions of Africans affected by AIDS, but in fact it sacrifices the suffering of millions to right wing talking points. Helping those in need is never as important as throwing a bone to Bush's base: extreme rightwingers and big business.
When it comes to alleviating the crushing poverty faced by so many Africans, President Bush is guided by the same twisted priorities. According to a White House statement, Bush is seeking to spur development by discussing how the United States can support "free trade, open investment regimes and economic opportunity" in Africa. Poverty reduction is a noble aim, but these prescriptions will not achieve it. Instead they will make rich corporations richer while stagnating--if not destroying--local economies.
The Bush administration preaches the gospel of free trade as a cure-all. But free trade, especially as practised by the US, falls short on a number of key levels. While refusing to allow developing countries to protect their own fledgling economies, the US has not recognised the hypocrisy in its own agricultural subsidies. Each year, billions of dollars in "aid" goes to large-scale farmers across the country, and the harmful effects are felt around the world. The US subsidies, and subsequent overproduction of key crops, artificially drive down global prices and have been found illegal by the WTO. One recent study found that if US cotton subsidies were removed, the price of cotton could rise by as much as 14%. The extra income in the pocket of a West African farmers--20 million of whom rely on cotton for income--could feed millions of children each year.
On the other side of the equation is the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a Clinton-era measure that has undergone several mutations under Bush. AGOA largely removed tariffs and quotas on a number of goods imported to the US from 39 African countries. In exchange for this, African governments were forced to accept American foreign investment and harmful financial liberalisation.
Since the measure went into effect, imports from Africa to the US have more than quadrupled. But real benefits have been illusive. While jobs have increased, decent work is still hard to find. Labourers working well over 12 hours a day still fall short of taking home a living wage. The executive director of the International Labour Rights Forum, Bama Athreya, said: "Our goal shouldn't simply be to provide any job through our trade policy, but to provide really decent jobs that come with dignity, respect, and the possibility that these workers can prosper in the future and expect a better life for their children."
Workers haven't seen benefits in the short term, and long-term development is also unlikely to materialise. The textile industries in many of Africa's least developed countries are entirely dependent on foreign capital. Asian companies have set up factories on the continent, and domestic growth in the industry has been nil. And as Chinese exports flood global markets, African textiles have decreased for two years running, making a future upturn increasingly unlikely.
But he's not all bad. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush did at least ask Congress to approve a measure that would allow 25% of the US food aid budget to go towards buying food grown locally in developing countries, rather than only benefiting US exporters as it has until now. Such a measure would increase emergency response times, benefit local farmers and prevent economic disasters when markets are flooded with cheap American produce. Bush has announced this plan four years running now. This year, as before, Congress is expected to stop it in its tracks.
Eve Bachrach lives in London, where she works for War on Want. She can be reached at: EBachrach@waronwant.org
P.S. to sum it all up: the Monster from Washington's visit to Africa is the most serious form of evironmental pollution the continent has had to endure for years
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)