The fate of the Niger River and the fate of West Africa

The Inter Press Service (via AllAfrica.com) has an interesting article on the affect of dimished rainfull on the communities along the Niger, one of Africa's most important rivers.

"The silting up of the Niger river has caused our revenues to tumble. The level of water does not allow for fish resources to be renewed. The fish are threatened because there are practically no more deep waters where they can breed," Lanciné Camara, who is in charge of a group of about 300 fishermen told IPS.

The the three main causes: deforestation, soil erosion and climate change, which has resulted in noticeably diminished rainfall.

As West Africa's most important waterway, the silting up of the Niger has affected 210,000 square km of arable land, and undermined the livelihood of about 110 million people.

One meterologist notes that that rainful in the south of the Niger River basin has falled from 4000 mm in 1970 to 375 mm, a decline of over 90 percent in only 35 years.

Failure to restore the river to health will have dire consequences well beyond the countries it flows through, warns [a Guinean offiial], who points out that declining harvests and fish catches lead to food insecurity, and greater poverty and misery on the African continent.

Abacha money being used well

Nigeria is generally thought of as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But there is some good news on that front.

Last year, a Swiss court returned nearly $460 million in stolen money back to the Nigerian government, on the condition that it be monitored by the World Bank.

The Bank has reported that Nigeria is using the money wisely and efficiently to boost education, transport and health programs.

Islamists quit Mogadishu

The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) have unexpectedly abandoned Somalia's capital Mogadishu, leaving it to be captured by the alliance of forces from the Somali transitional national government and Ethiopian military.

Reports suggest that many UIC militiamen have abandoned their uniforms. One former UIC fighter told al-Jazeera, "We have been defeated. I have removed my uniform. Most of my comrades have also changed into civilian clothes."

Ethiopian strongman Meles Zenawi has promised, "We will not let Mogadishu burn."

One resident of the capital expressed fears to the contrary. "My worst fear is the capital will succumb to its old anarchy. The government should come in now and take over - this is the best chance they have before the city falls into the hands of the warlords again."

Al Jazeera's Mohammed Adow said that local commanders have already begun taking over parts of the city.

Ethiopia's 'defensive' attack on Somalia

If a foreign political story gets big play in the 'independent' US mainstream media, chances are it's because of the priorities of the administration of the day. It's even more true if it's an African political story. The Ethiopian invasion of Somalia is one of those cases. One of the main stories on the Christmas Day front page of The Troy Record, a resolutely local New York paper, was about this war.

Not everyone considers Ethiopia's action an invasion. The internationally recognized Transitional National Government (TNG) of Somalia reportedly asked for Ethiopian military help in order to eject the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), whose militias controlled most of Somalia.

The TNG was formed during internationally mediated negotiations in Kenya and comprises mostly warlords who'd kept Somalia in anarchy during the previous 15 years. The TNG controls very little of Somalia and even in the parts it did control, its members were infamous for bribery and racketeering. While the TNG may have international recognition (for lack of a better alternative), it has almost no credibility within Somalia itself.

The UIC has been able to bring much needed stability to a chaotic former nation. It imposed some sort of order. It re-opened the port in Mogadishu, the nominal capital. In other words, it filled the security vacuum in a way that the TNG was unable to do. While some may fear the potential future actions of the Islamists, most Somalis appreciate that they can now walk the streets in relative safety. Many are concerned by both what war will bring and by what would happen if the warlord-dominated TNG ever truly controlled the country.

The Bush administration has condemned the UIC, claiming that they are controlled by al-Qaeda. Outside experts say that there may be some sympathy for al-Qaeda within the diverse UIC coalition but that the group is independent of outside control.

The Bush administration has backed the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia though many fear that this will only further mistrust in the Muslim world about the west's intentions. Ethiopia, like the US, is a primarily Christian country and Somalia overwhelmingly Muslim.

Western diplomats and experts said that many Courts leaders, like most Somalis, are moderates and fiercely nationalist. For that reason and because of the complex tangle of clan allegiances within the courts, it's premature to conclude that the Islamists will impose a repressive Taliban-style Islamic regime aligned with bin Laden, they said.

The two countries have also fought a pair of wars in the past half century. Ironically, some observers think that the invasion of an old enemy might push Somalis to put aside clan differences and reignite nationalistic feeling against what the UIC is naturally portraying as a hostile foreign aggression.

This column in Kenya's Daily Nation (reprinted in The International Herald Tribune) expresses the widespread fear that the US proxy war in Somalia could destabilize the entire region.

Ethiopia and Eritrea remain tense after an insane, bloody border war. Eritrea backs the Islamists because Ethiopia opposes them. Some 240,000 refugees, mostly Somali, made their home on Kenyan soil in late September. That number is surely much higher now. The region of Kenya that borders Somalia has had its own troubles with famine even before the latest refugee influx.

Consciously mimicking President Bush's language, Ethiopia defended the invasion by stating that it was a pre-emptive measure against terrorists necessary for the country's security. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said, "As of today our defence forces have launched a counter-offensive, which is completely legal and proportional, on these anti-peace forces [the UIC]."

Prime Minister Meles added, "We are not trying to set up a government for Somalia, nor do we have an intention to meddle in Somalian internal affairs. We have only been forced by the circumstances."

Ethiopia's information minister added, "Ethiopian troops are fighting to protect our sovereignty from international terrorist groups and anti-Ethiopian elements,"

Despite claiming that the intervention was purely for its own security and not to meddle in Somali domestic affairs, the Ethiopian regime has announced that its forces will "besiege" the Somali capital Mogadishu until the UIC surrenders.

Mogadishu is on the Indian Ocean coast and thus about as far away from Ethiopia as you can get and still be in Somalia.


Update: a former US ambassador to Ethiopia points out that Ethiopia's interests (a weak Somali government with no real power or no central authority at all) and Somalia's interests (stability) are at odds.

Oil pipeline explosion kills hundreds in Lagos

A huge oil pipeline blast has killed at least 260 people in a suburb of Lagos, Nigeria's commercial capital. A photographer for the Reuters news agency said he counted over 500 bodies. The Nigerian paper This Day said the number might be closer to 1000.

Getting into the Christmas spirit in the Horn of Africa

Despite numerous (and almost universally disparaged) denials to the contrary, Ethiopia has finally admitted to invading neighboring Somalia. Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi claims that the invasion is a defensive measure to preserve his country's security against the Islamic Courts Union militias which control most of Somalia.

"Something must be done" about Darfur

Retired Gen. Roméo Dallaire recently was back in the news by by creating a multiparty group in Canada's Senate (of which he is a member) and House of Commons in order to urge the international community more seriously engage to halt the genocide in Darfur.

As many readers will remember, Gen. Dallaire was in charge of the ill-fated United Nations' peacekeeping mission in Rwanda that "failed" to prevent the genocide in that country. Dallaire famously sent a request to UN headquarters that his mission be beefed up to prevent the massacres that his sources told him were planned but instead of respecting his request to double the size of the mission and give it a strong mandate, the Security Council slashed the mission's numbers by 90 percent, essentially emasculating it.

In forming this group, Dallaire said, "The objective is prevent genocides, not to round up pieces afterward."

A prominent activist coalition was formed a while ago in the US called Save Darfur.

As its first priority, Save Darfur wants 'the immediate deployment of the already-authorized UN peacekeeping force.'

Though it tolerates the presence of an impotent African Union mission, Sudanese junta has already said it would regard any UN force as a hostile invader.

What human rights and anti-genocide activists (and I include myself in both categories) have a hard time accepting is this: there is no good external solution to the Darfur crisis.

They issue the call so often heard in crisis situations: "something must be done."

But there's a problem with this slogan.

The word "something" is vague to the point of being meaningless. WHAT must be done?

The phrase "must be done" is in the passive tense. WHO must do the doing? How can a serious call to action use the passive tense?

The African Union will never approve a stronger mandate for the force there because too many member states are afraid of setting a precedent. If an aggressive AU mission can be imposed on Darfur, then it can also be imposed on Zimbabwe or Côte d'Ivoire. It's sad that an organization that was created with so much promise, that was structured precisely to be able to act strongly in catastrophic situations, risks falling into the irrelevancy that crippled its predecessor The Organization for African Unity.

And even if the AU were to approve a serious mandate, who'd carry it out? The AU mission currently in Darfur barely has the troops or equipment to handle the present, weak mandate.

What about the useless Arab League? Deafening silence. They're so busy passing resolutions condemning Israel because an IDF soldier sneezed without covering his mouth that they haven't noticed a genocide and humanitarian catastrophe that make the West Bank and Gaza look like the Garden of Eden. A genocide and humanitarian catastrophe being perpetrated by a member state.

Why the silence? Maybe you should ask the Arab League's Sudanese presidency.

I suppose there could be a UN intervention, but who would supply the troops? The junta has already warned that a UN mission would be treated as a hostile force. Would the normal peacekeeping soldier donor countries be willing to send their troops into a hot, peacemaking conflict?

And if so, would they be equiped and trained for such an incursion? Of the top ten peacekeeping troop contributing countries, only Australia would be considered by most as a developed country. Would Kenya or Jordan or Bangladesh have the resources for their troops to engage in an invasion of Darfur? Would this even be a good use of their scarce resources?

Realistically, any aggressive UN mission in Sudan would have to be carried out by a major military power. China won't do it because they have their eye on Sudan's oil and want to cozy up to the regime. The US and Britain won't do it because they are bogged down in the morasses of Afghanistan and Iraq. France won't do it because they were badly burned in Côte d'Ivoire. So who's left?

And even if the US or Britain did lead such a mission, it would be disastrous. A hostile intervention in Sudan would INEVITABLY be seen as yet another example of the bullying of less powerful countries by an Islamophobic west. "Why don't they invade Christian Zimbabwe?" you'll hear them ask. The Bush administration's militarism in Iraq and support for militarism against Lebanon (and their militaristic language against Iran, North Korea, Somalia and anyone else that crosses them) means that any US-led intervention in Sudan would necessarily be seen as another American imperial adventure. Perception is reality.

This is something that people like Gen. Dallaire and the Save Darfur folks fail to take into account. No matter how personally well-intentioned these folks may be, the motives of a western military force in Darfur would be automatically suspect. The face of such a mission to the Arab world wouldn't be George Clooney and Roméo Dallaire but George W. Bush.

A western-led UN force would inevitably be yet another breeding ground for Islamist insurgents. They wouldn't have to go far. Both Somalia and Saudi Arabia are close to Sudan.

Despite Gen. Dallaire's well-intentioned sentiments, there is a significant difference between Rwanda and Darfur. In Rwanda, there was already a UN force on the ground with the agreement of the regime in Kigali. They were on the ground, staffed, armed, equipped (sort of) and had intelligence gathering operations. A UN force in Darfur would not only have to start from scratch while fighting its way in. Would this save lives or cost even more?

The core principle of any peacekeeping mission is the same as the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. A hostile intervention force would clearly do more harm than good. Adding thousands or tens of thousands of dead peacekeepers to the hundreds of thousands of dead Darfuris may assuage the conscience of liberal westerners who insist that "something must be done." But if that 'something' is even more carnage, then it MUSTN'T be done.

Les Étonnants voyageurs

The BBC World Service literary program The Word has an interesting segment on Les Étonnants voyageurs. This is a book festival being held throughout the nine provinces of Mali, a country more known for fantastic music than literature.

Circumcision: an anti-AIDS tool?

South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian reports on a World Health Organization study which concludes that circumcision can reduce a man's risk of contracting HIV by one half.

Another Joola?

About 80 suspected migrants are feared to have drowned after their small boat was shipwrecked off northern Senegal, reports the BBC. The Senegalese daily Wal Fadjiri estimates the death total at 102.

This tragedy occured only a week after another boat capsizing caused an estimated 70 deaths of the coast of Dakar, Senegal's capital.

The victims were trying to reach Spain's Canary Islands and thus gain access to the European Union labor market. The BBC has one West African's account of the journey here.

Blood diamonds

The Hollywood film 'Blood Diamond' opened in US theatres recently. It is set in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s, when illegal diamond mining was used to find one of the most vicious rebellions Africa has ever known.

The Christian Science Monitor notes that a self-policing process appears to be cleaning up the industry.

The mechanism, known as the Kimberley Process, was implemented in 2000 under pressure from non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

To me, this is a model example of how NGOs can effect positive change in international affairs. There was not demand for governments to impose punitive action or onerous regulations against diamond companies. Instead, NGOs successfully made 'blood diamonds' part of the vocabulary. This was devastating since diamonds have few practical applications and their demand and extremely high retail cost are based almost entirely on image. This naming and shaming convinced diamond companies that it was in their interest to agree to some sort of regulatory process.

This is called enlightened self-interest. The diamond industry didn't adopt these regulations because it suddenly had a tinge of guilt. Selling diamonds is an amoral activity. But activists made it so doing the right thing morally was the best thing for the industry's bottom line. In the end, a diamond boycott would hurt those engaging in legitimate mining, such as Botswana, Africa's oldest democracy.

Large corporations will always have a far greater influence on government than citizen groups, especially in the United States with its negligible campaign finance regulations. Influencing corporate-sponsored politicians will always be a long shot for citizen groups. And though government lobbying shouldn't be dismissed out of hand in all cases, appealing to enlightened corporate self-interest should be the primary tactic employed by activist organizations.

One World adds that although much progress has been made in cleaning up blood diamonds, some work still remains to be done.

The world's conscience leaves the scene

"My friends, our challenge today is not to save Western civilisation, or Eastern for that matter. All civilisation is at stake, and we can save it only if all peoples join together in the task." -UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan

Former South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon was sworn in a few days ago as the new United Nations Secretary-General. Ban swore to conduct himself solely in the interests of the United Nations and to refuse to accept instructions from any government or other authority, which surely infuriated the Bush administration. Soon will end the decade long tenure of Kofi Annan. Ban certainly has big shoes to fill as he replaces one of the world's few true statesmen, widely admired for his character and integrity.

Annan's 10 years in charge of the organization were eventful. He was originally installed at the post at the behest the United States, who did not want the Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali to serve a second term. This caused some resentment as only three or four of the UN's over 200 member states oppose Boutros-Ghali's re-election. But the organization was clearly much better served by the quiet, self-effacing and Nobel Peace Prize winning Ghanaian than by the obnoxious and imperious Egyptian.

Annan's accession was quite a coup for the United States because Boutros-Ghali was strongly backed by France; shortly after his departure from the UN, Boutros-Ghali was named head of La Francophonie, France's answer to Britain's Commonwealth. However, the Clinton administration calmed France by naming a Frenchman as head of peacekeeping. This was back in a time when the US government practiced diplomacy.

This piece in Foreign Affairs magazine reviews James Traub's book 'The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the UN in the Era of American Power' which takes a look at Annan's never dull decade as the world's top diplomat.

Annan had one of the most challenging tasks of any secretary-general in the organization's history. The end of the Cold War and of the bipolar world unleashed great hope around the planet that the UN would finally be allowed to function as its founders intended. Now, whenever there's a problem anywhere in the world, it's pretty much expected that the UN will deal with it.

But resources has not kept pace with these increased expectations. During Annan's first term, the Clinton administration was generally open to working with the organization but the Republican Congress regularly withheld dues because the UN wouldn't do whatever the Congress wanted. During Annan's second term, the Bush administration worked quite actively to undermine the organization at every turn. That Annan successfully wooed the notoriously isolationist Sen. Jesse Helms is a testament to his power of persuasion.

When the rest of the world expects more and more but the most powerful member is dedicated to undercutting you at every turn (except when it needs your moral stamp of approval), that's a pretty tough balancing act.

One thing the UN has come to do fairly well under Annan's leadership is nation building. To the point where, as I mentioned earlier, they are the default organization whenever a country or society needs to be rebuilt. Further, they have the international credibility as a neutral organization when it comes to humanitarian coordination and reconstruction. The disaster in Iraq only serves to underline both the UN's competence at nation building and the necessity of a non-military organization making it happen.

Under his leadership, the UN has also tried to bring human rights to the forefront. In 1998, the Rome Treaty was negotiated and the International Criminal Court to try the world's worst war criminals created. Additionally, many of his appointees have been vocal in raising international awareness about the world's worst crises. Sergio Vieria de Mello about East Timor. Jan Egeland about Northern Uganda and the DR Congo. Jan Pronk about Darfur. Olara Otunnu about child soldiers.

Some criticize him for not doing more about these things but few offer actual alternatives. Most criticisms of the UN, especially within the US, are based on an ignorance about how the organization actually works.

The position of secretary-general has been described as that of a secular Pope. And it's quite accurate. Much like the Pope, the secretary-general's international authority is almost entirely moral. Just as the Pope only has executive authority over the Catholic Church hierarchy, the secretary-general only has executive authority of the UN's bureaucracy.

People have often demanded that Annan "do something" about Iraq or Darfur, but he can not snap his fingers and send troops. The UN is barred from having a standing army. Troops can only sent if the Security Council agrees... and member states provide their own men for the mission. Those who demand the secretary-general "do something" ought to specify what exactly he should do.

Annan's remarkable tenure as 'secular Pope' was marred by one serious problem and one outright disaster, both involving Iraq.

With the massively increased expectations of the UN, it's been suggested that the post of secretary-general be split into two. One would focus on the diplomat-in-chief post that Annan was so masterful at. The other would focus on the actual internal management of the UN bureaucracy and its hugely important member agencies, an area which is reportedly Ban's strength. Continuing the papal analogy, just as John Paul II was a better diplomat and salesman for his organization's ideals than an administrator, Annan was too.

This was manifested in the oil-for-food scandal. The oil-for-food agency was set up as a way to allow Saddam's Iraq to sell oil and (theoretically) ensure the profits went to feed ordinary Iraqis instead of the regime's bank accounts. The scandal was that there was apparently a fair degree of corruption (corruption? in the oil industry? unthinkable!).

The oil-for-food program was unprecedented. Never before had the UN run the entire economy of a nation without having some sort of political stewardship over it. Annan was strongly opposed to the UN running oil-for-food but the Security Council, at the Clinton administration's behest, shoved it down his throat.

This proved the perfect excuse for those looking for an axe to grind. Annan never wanted the program in the first place but got all the blame when the exact problems he feared came to pass.

The other scar on his tenure is the US Aggression against Iraq. That the Aggression was launched despite UN opposition (and of almost the entire rest of the world, including for that matter the Pope) was seen by many as the organization's Mussolini Moment... referring to the League of Nations' failure to prevent or reverse Fascist Italy's conquest of Ethiopia, the incident widely seen as the beginning of the end for that organization. But despite massive protestations, the Ghanaian couldn't prevent the disaster, and that sense of helplessness drove him to despair.

Annan is man of great honor and dignity but he is also a man who has an almost religious belief in the institution of the United Nations. Anyone who thinks he's 'just another sleazy politician' should read the part in Traub's book where Annan is so distraught by the Iraq atrocity that he is temporarily rendered unable to speak. That's not expediency. That's principle. Can you imagine Bush, a great man of principle according to his apologists, being shaken to the point of speechless about what's happening in Iraq?

When the Bush administration went to the UN hat-in-hand and asked them for their expert help. Annan could've been prideful and told the administration, "You made this mess. Fix it yourselves." In fact, most of the UN bureaucracy wanted him to do exactly that.

But Annan believed that the ideals of the organization were more important than settling political scores, even with a government that, despite its decision to ok the US invasion of Afghanistan, had done nothing but viciously attack and undermine the UN for not sufficiently being its lap dog.

Annan swallowed his pride, ignored the opposition of most of his colleagues, and decided to ok a UN humanitarian and reconstruction presence in US-occupied Iraq. He did so because he believed the well-being of Iraqis was more important than spiting Pres. Bush and his lackeys.

Sadly, the UN mission in Iraq was seen by some extremists as an extension of US rule. As a result, a a massive bomb at UN headquarters in Bagdhad wounded over 100 UN staff and killed 22, including the widely respected Sergio Vieria de Mello.

The bombing was claimed by followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,who issued the following statement:

We destroyed the U.N. building, the protectors of Jews, the friends of the oppressors and aggressors. The U.N. has recognized the Americans as the masters of Iraq. Before that, they gave Palestine as a gift to the Jews so they can rape the land and humiliate our people. Do not forget Bosnia, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Chechnya.

The UN is attacked by the Americans as being anti-American, by the Israelis as being anti-Semitic and by the Jihadists for being pro-American and pro-Israeli.

Would you want this job?

Many lesser men would've quit, thus satisfying Christian and Muslim theocrats alike. That Annan kept going is a testament to his Job-like patience and strength of conviction and character.

Kofi Annan is not a saint, though he's about as close as any public figure can get nowadays. Some argue that he should've resigned or spoken out more forcefully when he was civilian head of UN peacekeeping during the genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda. I think that's a fair comment.

I know this piece seems like a hagiography but I can't help but concluding that UN will sorely miss this great man. At a time when the powers great and small genuflected to the gods of destruction and violence, Annan was a beacon for the most noble principles of morality and humanity. I hope Ban Ki-Moon is up to the job.


Update: This editorial from The Los Angeles Times also praises Mr. Annan for leaving the UN a stronger institution. And perhaps that's precisely why he's so hated by the American far right.

"Even aspirin is unavailable in health clinics"

Radio Netherlands' excellent documentary series did a piece on the collapse of Zimbabwe, entitled A Deep Cancer.

The piece was done by their Eric Beauchemin, who I consider to be the best radio journalist in the world. One thing that separates Beauchemin's work from that of most other reporters is proximity. Most other reporters deal with the abstract; they are most concerned about interviews with big shots: presidents, prime ministers, rebel leaders. Beauchemin's work focuses on the effect of crises on the lives of ordinary people simply trying to make a living; the stars of his work are not cabinet ministers but cleaning ladies and taxi drivers. Such journalism with a social conscience connects with listeners in a way that sterile transcription journalism, the profession's norm, does not. It also offers a fuller understanding of the situations in question.

Anyways, to refer to what's happening in Zimbabwe as a collapse is misleading. When a bridge falls apart because its component materials are old and decrepit, it's called a collapse. When a bridge falls apart because human beings blow it up or chip away with a pickaxe at its foundations and pillars, it's called sabotage. Zimbabwe is the victim of willful sabotage by its supposed leaders.

The country's medical system is in such a state that even aspirin is unavailable in health clinics. To say nothing of blood sugar monitors and insulin for diabetes' patients.

When life expectancy is halved in 15 years, that is the definition of a meltdown. This in what was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa when the current regime took over. And unlike in many other places, such a meltdown was not caused by war but by the active malfeasence of the central government. No state falls apart this quickly on its own.

And yet Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe continues to get a free pass from much of Africa's so-called intelligentsia. His role in liberating Zimbabwe from white colonial rule and helping South Africa's African National Congress do the same made him a cult figure among pan-Africanists. And that may have been reasonable for a while. But surely no one who cares an ounce for the humanity of black Zimbabweans, Mugabe's main victims, could possibly have an ounce of sympathy left for this tyrant.

Only someone living outside the country (or Mugabe's cronies) could possibly think the Big Man isn't an unmitigated disaster for the people of Zimbabwe. One woman interviewed in the documentary considered the country's liberation a myth. "We are not free because we are starving. More starving than what our forefathers were doing," she explained. History doesn't fill the stomach or put a roof over the head.

Zimbabwe has gone from breadbasket to basket case in less than a decade. This is because Mugabe no longer sees himself as the country's leader (it's an open question if he ever did). He considers himself Zimbabwe's owner, his personal plaything. Mugabe may be not Leopold II in scale, but perhaps he is in spirit.

Update: Apparently Leopold of Zimbabwe feels there's some part of the country he hasn't destroyed yet and needs two more years to finish the job.

Racists revealed by Darfur genocide

I was listening to a BBC story on the Darfur genocide yesterday. They interviewed the Zambian ambassador to the United Nations who was very critical of the regime in Sudan who is almost universally believed to be actively backing the genocide. In listening to the ambassador's comments I was struck by how rare they were. The Arab and sub-Saharan African world has been virtually silent on this tragedy.

Sub-Saharan Africa has attacked the United States and Europe for not doing enough to stop the Rwandan genocide. The Arab world stirs up worldwide indignation at the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis in the Occupied Territories.

Fair enough.

If Israel were to refuse to allow one ambulance through a checkpoint, the Arab world would whip up international anti-Israeli hysteria and pass this off as "proof" of a western conspiracy against Islam. If Europe were to refuse a boatload of black African immigrants without documents, African countries would scream racism.

But when the regime in Khartoum is actively complicit in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people (mostly black and mostly Muslim), the African and Arab worlds, with a few noble exceptions like Zambia, deafen the world with their silence.

Worse yet, when the US and Europe criticize the Sudanese regime for supporting this genocide, African and Arab countries attack THEM for supposedly advancing some sort of neo-imperialist agenda!

Apparently trying to stop the mass slaughter of Africans constitutes neo-imperialism. And protecting mass murderers constitutes some perverted version of pan-Arab or pan-African nationalism.

Loathsome!

We know the Sudanese regime is genocidal. But an almost equal tragedy is the way that African and Arab governments are despicably more concerned with opposing Washington than with protecting innocent lives in Darfur.

They have forfeited the moral right to criticize the west for racism.

Update: This news puts the Bush administration in a quandry. The International Criminal Court is investigating crimes against humanity in Darfur and is apparently ready to launch its first prosecution regarding this conflict. The Bush administration has rightly spoken out forcefully against the genocide. But they've also done everything possible to undermine the ICC's legitimacy at every turn. It will be interesting to see whether the US administration is more committed to unilateralism or justice for war criminals and mass murderers.

Malaria-HIV link?

According to an article in the journal Science, scientists have discovered what they believe is a link between the two biggest natural killers in Africa.

Apparently, the way malaria and the HIV virus which causes AIDS may help each spread faster. The BBC explains:

When people with Aids contract malaria, it causes a surge of HIV virus in their blood, making them more likely to infect a partner, the research says.

Meanwhile people weakened by HIV are more likely to catch malaria.

Additionally, "In turn, the weakening of the immune system by HIV infection has fuelled a rise in adult malaria-infection rates and may have facilitated the expansion of malaria in Africa," said James Kublin of the Hutchinson Center.

Guinea's richest man arrested

More shenanigans in the power struggle between Guinea's richest man and the de facto leader of the country. Guinean businessman Mamadou Sylla was arrested in his Conakry home and brought to the central police station, where he remains incommunicado, his lawyers said on Friday.

"The police refused to allow anyone to accompany him. It was an illegal and arbitrary procedure," his lawyer added.

Conte's cash-strapped government accuses Sylla, the head of the country's chamber of commerce, of fraudulently withdrawing $US22 million from the Central Bank in Treasury Bills with the complicity of its former deputy governor Fode Soumah.

Sylla denies the charges and alleges the West African state owes him $US28 million for supplies, including arms to fight a rebellion between September 2000 and March 2001.

Sylla has repeatedly clashed with presidential advisor Fodé Bangoura, who many believe to be truly in chrage of the country in place of the seriously ill head of state Gen. Lansana Conté.

Poorest half of the world's people own one percent of global wealth

That the global distribution of wealth is grossly unequal is not surprising. The degree of that inequality is somewhat astonishing.

According to a UN study as reported by the BBC:

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth

whereas

the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

Unlike many other reports, this study looks at not solely income but wealth (income minus debt).

As such, the study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

HIV-AIDS funding crowding out other health programs?

This brief piece from the Center for Global Development warns that HIV/AIDS programs may be crowding out other health initiatives in a competition for scarce resources.

The piece pointed out:

For instance, over the years 1998 to 2003, as funding for HIV/AIDS grew from 9 percent to 43 percent of overall U.S. foreign assistance for health and population, funding in the health sector strengthening category nearly vanished, declining from 20 percent to just 1 percent. Aggregate funding for all other major causes stagnated, save for infectious disease control. We see similar trends among other donors and within developing countries.

The editorial notes that as serious as the AIDS pandemic is, HIV/AIDS related deaths comprised around 5 percent of total mortality in low and middle-income countries.

In addition to rapping the HIV-AIDS lobby's insularity, it argues that funding to strengthen the public health sector should be given more priority since it would help efforts to combat not only HIV-AIDS but other health crises.

Zim insecurity forces to revolt?

The Daily Mail and Guardian of Johannesburg reports on fears of a revolt by insecurity officers.

In a confidential memo dated November 22, a copy of which was seen by independent news service ZimOnline at the weekend, Chihuri said morale in the security services has hit rock bottom as the salary discrepancies have caused serious division between the security forces and the youths, who've completed a so-called national service program which trains thugs to terrorize Mugabe's opponents.

"The salaries they earn [national-service youths] are more than 20 times what trained junior members of the uniformed forces who pay tax are being given per month and this has not only killed the morale of our members, but also made them more rebellious against the government.

"It is also worrying to note that these youths ... earn more than three times a senior assistant commissioner of the ZRP [Zimbabwe Republic Police]," reads part of the memo, according to the paper.

Once a general, always a general

The East African has a profile of the increasingly dictatorial regime of Rwanda's Paul Kagame.

The paper noted that Kagame's contribution to reconstructing Rwanda's shattered economy is beyond question. The former rebel leader has also handled the delicate task of reconciliation in a country traumatized by genocide. I happen to think the gacaca courts are an innovative way of addressing this complex task. True reconciliation must take place not solely in law courts but through broader social dialogue.

But aside from the gacaca, broader social dialogue is exactly what's missing from Kagame's Rwanda. Once a general, always a general.

What Kagame has failed to do, however, is to open up political space in the country. Today, there is no single individual or institution that can be described as an alternative voice in the country.

So stiffling is the atmosphere inside Rwanda that the media rarely gives the alternative view and easily embraces the culture of self-censorship. Open criticism of the government is regarded as treason.

When asked about how might succeed Kagame after he retires, one journalist responded nervously, “Do not involve me in that kind of talk; it is dangerous, watch out.”

Like most leaders who take over after a protracted struggle against fascist regimes, Kagame has exploited the country’ history of suffering and the conformist attitudes of his people to the full.

Kagame is widely appreciated for his group's role in bringing an end to the bloody genocide. And rightly so. But much like with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, he seems to think this gives him a free pass ad infinitum.

Like Mugabe and so many other African leaders, Kagame has passed himself off as the only person capable of running the country without it falling apart. There's only one problem, he will either leave office or die eventually.

This is precisely the opposite of leadership.

Someone like Nelson Mandela continues to stand in noble contrast to Kagame and so many others. I remain convinced that the greatest gift Mandela gave to the new South Africa was to serve only one term. In making himself dispensible, he sent the message that a modern, progressive state must not be dependent on a single person for leadership and vision. He sent that message despite governing a country that was nearly as divided, traumatized and precarious as Rwanda.

That is statesmanship.

Although he came to power around the same time as Mandela, Paul Kagame has sadly not learned from Madiba's example.

Kabila's eloquence

Now that Joseph Kabila has become the democratically elected leader of the DR Congo, discussion is migrating toward what kind of job he may job. TheMalau at The Salon blog opines that Kabila's oratory skills need to improve if he's going to become an effective leader of the massive and divided country. Particularly that the head of state should focus on improving his mastery of French and of Lingala, the main language of the western DRC where the capital is located.

Health care exodus cripples rural Africa

The Center for Global Development also has a piece on the exodus of health care workers from Africa and its significant effect on the continent's rural areas.

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day.

Being based in South Africa, which has the world's largest AIDS population, The Daily Mail and Guardian offers an interesting perspective. Two of its articles illustrate how the disease impacts more than just those affect with the HIV virus.

It notes that the AIDS death rate will create some 200,000 orphaned children this year alone.

The Mail and Guardian also talks about one of the underappreciated parts of the pandemic: the grave toll exacted on medical workers treating AIDS victims.

The paper mentions a study by a South African mental health group concluding that almost 2/3 of the caregivers in the country suffer from depression. Given that these are the people who help keep AIDS sufferers alive, it's a very serious problem.

The Independent offers a few bits of good news. The center-left paper has a surprising article on how the world's drug firms sacrificed profits in the battle against AIDS. It's a great example demonstrating how shame and public pressure are far better means to address socially irresponsible corporate behavior than government mandates (which should remain an option of last resort).

The British daily also has a piece on how music is being used in Senegal in HIV/AIDS education campaigns. The west African country has the lowest rate of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

The paper also has an article on the 50 best African artists.

Monsieur Touré goes to Washington

The Washington, DC-based Center for Global Development discusses the recent trip the US capital by Mali's president Amadou Toumani Touré.

The CGD is generally positive about President Touré's government. He certainly seems to have avoided the excesses of some of his neighbors (the intolerance toward opposition of Senegal's Abdoulaye Wade; the xenophobia of Cote d'Ivoire's ruling party).

Though one noter expresses the fear that Touré's no-party regime of national unity is largely built upon the fragile foundation of his personality and charisma rather than a coherent program designed to strengthen democratic institutions such as political parties and the national assembly.

In a region where power tends to be overly concentrated in the hands of the presidency, this is a key concern.

Sierra Leone's 'tinderbox'

The UK Independent has a story on how the country, once so hopeful after the ending of a brutal civil war, is now 'like a tinderbox.'

Elections scheduled for the middle of next year but the incumbent president Ahmed Tejan Kabbah can not stand again. The vice-president will be his party's standard bearer and expected to win easily. But The Independent worringly reports that possibility of a coup was raised in newspapers last week when a young army private, Abdul Sesay, was arrested following the theft of an arms cache. Sesay, somehow, later escaped.

The paper also cites the trial of Sam Hinga Norman as another potential flashpoint. The former leader of the Kamajor militia is admired by some for the groups role in fighting the the infamous rebel RUF fanatics during the 1990s. The UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, based in the capital Freetown, has indicted Norman for war crimes.

And ending a war is easier than rebuilding a shattered country.

The last war was not just about control of resources. The long-standing one-party state fell apart, the education system collapsed and agricultural output fell dramatically. Radicalised young men, angry at the lack of opportunities, became easy prey for rebel leaders such as [former Liberian dictator and indicted war criminal] Taylor who persuaded them to take up arms.

In many ways, a brutal civil war like Sierra Leone's is like a national rape. The agony lasts well beyond the end of the actual violent acts. The emotional trauma far outlasts the disappearance of any physical effects. And the perpetrators too often go unpunished.

Power games

In COTE D'IVOIRE: A power struggle has erupted between President Laurent Gbagbo and Prime Minister Charles Konan Banny.

Gbagbo reinstated three senior civil servants suspended by Banny last month for their part in the dumping of toxic waste around Abidjan in September.

Banny replied that Gbagbo's action would bolster the culture of impunity in the country.

When the state broadcaster RTI ran the prime minister's statement, its director was sacked by the head of state.

The dispute was expected as Banny and his national unity government was essentially imposed on Gbagbo by the international community, since Gbagbo's constitutional mandate expired over a year ago. A recent United Nations Security Council resolution extended the president's mandate but gave some of his powers to the prime minister, but Gbagbo rejected the transfer of authority.

***

In MAURITANIA, a military coup may be bringing democracy to the country. At least that's the politically incorrect but apparently accurate opinion of a columnist in South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian.

***

In the UNITED STATES: The daily Los Angeles Times ran an editorial urges the US Congress to renew a provision in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that benefits the continent's nascent apparel industry. In 2004, the provision was re-authorized unanimously which is rare, especially for something in the textile industry which has a very strong lobby in Washington. The textile industry isn't opposing the measure, but a Congressional committee chairman is trying to tack unrelated goodies on to this provision.

***

At the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: Guinea has filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for the jailing and expulsion of a Guinean businessman, when he tried to recover debts. This happened during the last days of the Mobutu regime in then-Zaire.

The DRC replies that the businessman's companies were themselves part of the cycle of corruption that enveloped the country

The suit is for the inconceivably absurd amount of $36 billion.

***

In the SUDAN: The country's dictatorship continues to deny that his country is in any way supporting the Janjaweed militias who are executing a genocide in the eastern Darfur region. But a special advisor to the head of state says otherwise. Minni Minnawi accuses the regime of quite active cooperation with the Janjaweed. "They know, everybody knows that the government is re-arming the Janjaweed, that the Janjaweed are activated even more than before somehow," he said.

***

In the DR CONGO: The Daily Mail and Guardian reports that the eastern DRC near Goma has seen days of clashes between forces loyal to a dissident former general and the DRC's army that have killed at least three people. United Nations forces were drawn into the unrest yesterday.

A volcano erupted last night spewing lava into the region. The city of Goma is not threatened because another volcano is in its path.

Still, maybe the warlords in the area should consider it a warning from above.

But at least losing presidential candidate and (hopefully) former rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba says he will accept defeat and become the civilian opposition leader. He will provide "strong republican opposition in the interests of the nation." Let's hope he means it.

Chinese investment in Africa

Western investment in Africa is usually viewed with suspicion on the continent. This isn't neither surprising nor irrational considering history, both distant and recent. But in the last few years, it's China, more so than any other foreign country, that has shown a dramatically increased interest in Africa. This piece from the BBC's From Our Own Correspondent explores the phenomenon.

More on the DRC elections

A followup to yesterday's post on the torching of the Supreme Court building in Kinshasa. TheMalau over at The Salon blog offers a much more nuanced and detailed analysis of the DR Congo elections and aftermath than I could ever provide.

Bemba's hordes torch DRC Supreme Court building

I wrote earlier on the recent runoff presidential election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A runoff won comfortably (58-42 percent) by the incumbent head of state Joseph Kabila. The losing candidate, former militia leader Jean-Pierre Bemba, rejected the victory claiming widespread fraud. This despite universal praise for the conduct of the United Nations-run election by international observers, who cited isolated irregularities that would not have affected the result considering Kabila's margin of victory. Bemba said he would "promise to use all legal means to ensure the will of our people is respected."

Apparently some the thugs in his camp never got the memo.

A mob of his supporters set on fire the DRC's Supreme Court building in the capital Kinshasa. Ironically, the Court was in session hearing LEGAL challenges by Bemba to election results.

Many Americans believe that Al Gore truly won the 2000 US presidential elections. Yet, even the most ardent Democrats did go off and burn the Supreme Court building, not even after the judicial body decreed Republican George W. Bush elected.

Apparently these delusional mobs believe that the DRC hasn't suffered enough division and that maybe a little more violence and disorder will save the country. If this is what Bemba's supporters believe, then thank God he didn't win the election.

I know these people are a small minority but until they start accepting the fact that democracy means your guy isn't going to win every time, then the DRC will have no future, regardless of who is president.

Al-Jazeera goes to Harare

Chippla's Weblog comments on the launching of al-Jazeera's English service.

Unlike many Americans, I've always respected al-Jazeera's mission. The channel essentially invented the concept of independent broadcasting in the Arab world. Certainly they were the first to do it on a wide scale. This is a region where state-controlled broadcast media remains the norm and all independent press outlets are tightly restricted by authoritarian regimes.

When criticizing al-Jazeera, many westerners focus only on stuff related to them: specifically verbal attacks on America and Israel and on al-Qaeda messages that pass on the station's airwaves. These westerners want free speech so long as it excludes the right to criticize them! Just as many of them want democracy in the Middle East unless that democracy produces a result that they don't like (Palestinian Authority).

But what al-Jazeera brought to the Arab political culture is the concept that bad leaders can be criticized in the media. This is a revolutionary concept that's critically important for anyone who wants a true democratic culture to implant itself in the Middle East.

Anyways, Chippla noted that al-Jazeera opened bureaus in five major African cities: Cairo (Egypt), Abidjan (Côte d'Ivoire), Nairobi (Kenya), Johannesburg (South Africa) and Harare (Zimbabwe).

Like Chippla, I am surprised that they didn't open one in Lagos or Abuja, the economic and political capitals respectively of Africa's most populous country Nigeria. Especially since CNN opened one there five years ago. Then again, from everything I've heard, I'm not sure who would voluntarily choose to live in either city.

This is a smart decision by the broadcaster. Al-Jazeera English is obviously focusing its efforts on the developing world, which is largely ignored by their two main competitors: BBC World and CNN International, who are more centered around North America and western Europe. Al-Jazeera is smart to cater to an audience that feels underrepresented.

When I read the list, though, I couldn't help but wondering what sort of difficulties their reporters will have. Egypt has been in a "state of emergency" for the last 25 years, quite possibly the longest "state of emergency" ever maintained in any country not at war. Egypt is also a country where state insecurity agents attack journalists.

Zimbabwe has infamously banned foreign reporters from being in the country without permission from the regime of Robert Mugabe. And even the local journalists who do dare report the truth are often thrown in prison or otherwise harassed.

The choice of Harare is even more peculiar. The other cities on the list represent a fairly wide geographic coverage of the continent. But Harare isn't really that far from Johannesburg; South Africa and Zimbabwe are neighbors. Certainly a place like Lusaka (Zambia) or Kinshasa (DR Congo) would've made more sense. Libreville (Gabon) hosts the pan-African radio station Africa No. 1.

It makes me wonder if a network which wants to appeal to viewers in the developing world was offered some sort of deal with a Dictator that wants to be seen as some sort of hero to non-aligned types. I'm not sure if I really believe this and it's certainly against al-Jazeera's careully cultivated image of independence but the choice of Harare really doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Chippla replied:

I do not think Al Jazeera would shy away from reporting fairly about the situation in Zimbabwe. Its first report from Harare looked at the influx of poorly skilled Zimbabweans into South Africa—not the sort of story Robert Mugabe, or other Zimbabwean ruling class members, would have wanted to hear.

Al Jazeera's Zimbabwe correspondent, Farai Sevenzo, is a Zimbabwean who has written extensively and produced documentaries on the situation in Zimbabwe in the past. I doubt he, or the Al Jazeera news team, would be silent about the reality of things on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Certainly the free press climate in many Arab countries al-Jazeera reports from isn't that much friendlier. But even with the best intentions, there's reason to be wonder if al-Jazeera really will be able to report freely from a country where journalists can face 20 years in prison for publishing news that the Leader doesn't like.

And there's surely plenty of that to go around in a country with a death rate higher than Darfur's or Iraq's.

Outside countries accused of destabilizing Somalia

An explosive UN report was released several days ago accusing ten different countries of arming the different warring parties in Somalia.

Syria, Iran, Eritrea, Djibouti, Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia are accused of sending weapons to the fundamentalist Islamic Courts Unions. Ethiopia, Uganda and Yemen are named as arming the internationally-recognized but weak Transitional National Government.

Ethiopia and Eritrea are named as the biggest violators of the arms embargo in Somalia, reports the BBC.

This is not surprising considering the long emnity between the two dictatorships. They are almost becoming the India and Pakistan of East Africa, though Lord help us if either ever gets nuclear weapons.

What's of further concern is evidence of detailed links between countries such as Iran, Syria and Lebanon and the Islamic Courts Union.

Coup attempt in Madagascar

Reports the BBC.

Bad news to be sure.

Death rate in Zimbabwe higher than in Darfur, Iraq or Lebanon

It's not news that Zimbabwe is falling apart thanks to Robert Mugabe's reign of terror. Most countries take decades to unravel slowly. But Mugabe's incompetence and malfeasance has accomplished that in six or seven years. The Independent reports that average life expectancy for Zimbabwean women has collapsed to only 34 years, the lowest female life expectancy in the world.

Speaking privately, WHO officials admitted to The Independent that the real number may be as low as 30, as the present figures are based on data collected two years ago.

How?

The reasons for this plunge are several. Zimbabwe has found itself at the nexus of an Aids pandemic, a food crisis and an economic meltdown that is killing an estimated 3,500 people every week. That figure is more than those dying in Iraq, Darfur or Lebanon. In war-torn Afghanistan, where women's plight has received global attention, life expectancy is still above 40.

What makes this disaster more tragic and outrageous is that it's largely Mugabe-made. The economic and food crises are largely his fault thanks to his attacks on large industrial farmers, food producers who were also significant employers. The AIDS pandemic isn't necessarily his fault but his oppression and the economic crisis have forced large numbers of qualified medical professionals to flee the country.

Disgustingly, Mugabe retains a large degree of support not only among other African heads of state, but among many ordinary Africans.

In this simplistic dichotomy, anyone attacked by Tony Blair or George W. Bush is necessarily an anti-imperialist saint.

3500 black Zimbabweans are dying every single week because of Mugabe's policies. But Mugabe went after WHITE farmers in his land 'redistribution' program (ie: redistributed to his cronies). And Mugabe's 'liberation' movement (from the 1970s) went after white imperial rule.

As a result, Africa's so-called intelligentsia has largely given him a free pass. I can honestly say that few things enrage me more than when educated and normally reasonable Africans provide nothing more than shameless apologia for this guy.

Never mind that white farmers merely had to flee the country. The worst victims of Mugabeism, the dead and starving, are black.

The rhetorical imperative is to support the big guy against the little guy. Except in this unfathomable definition, the big guys are Blair and Bush, while the little guy is beleaguered but noble Mugabe. Even though Blair and Bush haven't done a damn thing to harm Zimbabweans.

In this twisted paradigm, the little guys aren't those who are starving. The little guys are those with the fancy European cars and fat Swiss bank accounts. This hypocrisy is nauseating.

It looks like 'liberated' Zimbabwe is fairing even worse than 'liberated' Iraq But non-aligned movement types attacked Bush over Iraq while continuing to ignore the statistically worse disaster in Mugabeland. If his misrule causing more deaths than a genocide won't turn Africa's elite against him, nothing will!

Many in the developing world rightly attack Bush for the carnage in Iraq or Israel for the destruction of southern Lebanon. But they laud the author of the even greater carnage in Zimbabwe as some heroic warrior.

Supporting Mugabe is nothing more than racist contempt for the lives of these black human beings. And yes, apologizing away Mugabe's destruction simply because his skin is black IS racist. It's not quite as profane as what Mugabe is doing to Zimbabweans, but close.

But with tragic symbolism, at least one profession is booming: undertakers.

A real nail in the country's coffin.

DRC presidential loser rejects results but may be offered governmental post

Dangerous doings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, one of Africa's largest and most important countries. The incumbent head of state Joseph Kabila was declared the winner of the recent presidential runoff election with over 58% of the vote compared to nearly 42% for his rival Jean-Pierre Bemba. Kabila thus becomes the country's first elected leader since independence-era prime minister Patrice Lumumba, who was assassinated with connivance from western powers only a few months after taking power.

This time, the international community was instrumental in helping conduct what were universally considered the country's first free and fair elections since independence, as well as providing the world's largest UN peacekeeping mission.

The victory of young Kabila, who ascended to the post after the assassination of his father, was not surprising. Incumbents have an enormous advantage in African presidential elections because of name recognition and patronage. It was even more true in the DRC where Kabila was seen to represent stability.

Bemba, a former rebel leader who is vice-president in the current national unity government, has rejected Kabila's victory. This after having promised weeks ago to respect the election results even if he lost.

He claimed that a large number of ballots were cast by people outside the districts in which they were registered. The head of the independent electoral commission responded that this was because of the large poll workers who travelled to other parts of the country to actually conduct the election.

Observers consider it highly unlikely that fraud and errors occurred at such a large scale as to affect the result, considering Kabila's sixteen percent victory. Given all the international observers on the ground, could that many votes have been stolen without anyone noticing?

Bemba added, "I promise to use all legal means to ensure the will of our people is respected."

The key word here is 'legal.'

If he goes through the legal procedures and loses, will he respect the unfavorable outcome like US candidate Al Gore did in 2000?

Bemba's coalition calls itself 'The Union for the Nation.' Only time will tell if his group's real priority is national unity or selfish power at any cost. I've heard reports that Kabila may offer Bemba a high-ranking post, which would be a smart move considering the incumbent had very little support in the west of the country where the capital is located.

After the decade of savage war which followed 35 years of state rot, Bemba's choice, assuming he cares a whit about his country, is clear.

South Africa ends anti-gay apartheid

(Crossposted from my other blog)

Yesterday, the South African parliament passed a bill that authorized same-sex state marriage. It becomes the first country in Africa and only one of a handful in the world to do so.

That it did so is unsurprising for two reasons. Last year, the country's high court ruled that the definition of marriage was unconstitutional. The South African constitution explicitly bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, the only constitution in the world to do so.

Furthermore, South Africa is governed by the African National Congress. The primary reason the ANC was formed was to fight against irrational bigotry. The movement spent decades combatting institutionalized, state-sponsored discrimination so that it would take this position is in continuing with its historic positions in favor of equal rights for all citizens.

Equal rights for gays are regularly denounced as a western concept. In the US, when someone doesn't have a real argument, they call a person or idea 'anti-American.' In Africa, when someone doesn't have a real argument, they use the generic insult 'un-African.' As though any one person has the singular right to define what is truly American or African.

Gay rights advocates contend that same-sex relationships were present in African cultures long before the arrival of westerners. It wasn't until the colonizers passed repressive anti-gay laws that there was a problem. In other words, homosexuality is not un-African. Homophobia is.

The questionably named African Christian Democratic Party's leader took a page out of Pat Robertson's book, insisting that those who voted in favor of equal rights for gays would face divine wrath.

While a government in 'backwards' Africa will legalize gay marriage, the president of 'civilized' America wants a constitutional amendment banning it.

South Africa isn't the only country in the world where 'traditionalists' oppose equal treatment by the government for all citizens.

Pakistan's national assembly recently voted to strengthen protections for women in the country's rape laws. Under old law, rape victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime - if not they faced prosecution for adultery.

Something which of course made it virtually impossible to prosecute such crimes.

In other words, if a women were raped in private or in small groups, she was punished for her crime of being a victim of violence.

Much like South Africa's pseudo-religious moralists, Pakistan's religious parties predicted the apocalypse. In true bizarro world fashion, one leader predicted that the 'bill will turn Pakistan into a free-sex zone.'

Even though the reality would be the opposite, since sex via rape would actually be punished.

I don't oppose tradition. I'm actually a fairly conservative person in my personal conduct. I believe you shouldn't just snap your fingers and change things simply for the purpose of doing what happens to be in vogue at the current time. There's enough of that going around in my town, people believing that change and progress are inherently synonymous. That's why we have representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Any social change should be the result of thorough discussion, otherwise it will not last, nor will it run deep. You can't legislate how people feel (though you can legislate how the government should act). But that doesn't mean that nothing should ever change.

There was a time when 'tradition' forbade marriages between people of different 'races' (ie: skin color). There was a time when 'tradition' forbade women from voting. Neither were considered full-fledged American citizens for a long time. Maybe anti-gay bigotry and small group rapes are the 'traditions' that are long overdue to be challenged.

African 'orature'

Radio Netherlands' English service has a good documentary (and extensive accompanying dossier) on the African oral storytelling tradition.

Half a Yellow Sun

A book getting a lot of press lately in the western literary press is Half a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

The novel chronicles the lives of three people caught up in the Biafran Civil War that tore apart Nigeria in the late 1960s. The title refers to the ill-fated Republic of Biafra's flag.

Canada's CBC has a good piece on the book.

Mother Jones magazine has a long interview with the author.

The official site of the book is worth a look too.

Conté threatens to stay until 2010

There have long been rumors of tension between those generally seen as the two most powerful men in Guinea: the country's richest businessman Mamadou Sylla and the Fodé Bangoura, who is a top aide to the head of state Gen. Lansana Conté and generally seen to be the de facto head of the government. A few weeks ago, Sylla was indicted for 'complicity to steal public funds' for the amount equivalent to US$2.5 million. Sylla had been nicknamed the 'PUP's money man,' referring to the ruling Parti de l'unité et du progrès (sic) but he seems to have come out on the short end of the power struggle provoked by Conté's long and incapacitating illness.

Speaking of the ailing head of state, he recently gave an extremely rare interview with Agence France Press and Radio France Internationale journalist Mouctar Bah and Le Monde's Serge Michel. He reiterated his desire to finish his current term, which ends in 2010 (he took power in a 1984 military coup). He also lambasted his archenemy Charles Taylor, insisting that the former Liberian dictator 'deserves to be shot.' Though Conté opined that Taylor was a 'poor guy that was manipulated by whites against his own people.'

ONE blog

I know some Africans and Africophiles have problems with the ONE campaign, but I don't. Anything that pushes westerners to look at the broader world is just fine in my book. I've been informed that the ONE campaign has a blog. Here it is.

Ethiopia's top judge flees country

I knew the regime in Ethiopia was bad. From censorship to outright massacres.

But it's not just bloggers, journalists and opposition figures who have much to fear. Even the president of the Supreme Court has fled Meles Zenawi's dictatorship, even comparing it to its infamous predecessor: Mengitsu's Derg.

"The difference is these guys [Meles' regime] are wise... These people kill whoever they feel like and then ask: 'Who killed them?'", he said.

And he's right. These guys are wiser. Meles and his accomplices have avoided the anti-western rhetoric used by Robert Mugabe. That's why he hasn't attracted a fraction of the international condemnation of Zimbabwe's thug-in-chief.

Meles learned an important lesson: if you temper your propaganda, you can get away with a lot more.

Africa's 'watershed' year

The Christian Science Monitor's Chris Hennemeyer describes the year 2006 as a 'watershed' for Africa. It might be hard to wax eloquent about a year in which not only is there a genocide going on, but one that's getting worse. But Hennemeyer notes that there has been positive movement in several protracted conflicts, such as those in the reconstruction of southern Sudan, peace talks for northern Uganda a peace deal in Burundi, rebuilding in Liberia and landmark elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Abu Ghraib worse than Darfur?

BBC News online has an interesting discussion between Professor Eric Reeves and journalist Gamal Nkrumah on the Darfur genocide. Reeves argues for international action and Nkrumah against it. Of course, reading Nkruamah's comments, you'd have no idea that genocide was taking place there. In fact, you'd have no idea anything bad was taking place there, at least nothing out of the ordinary for a conflict zone. You'd have no idea that tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and over a million displaced. You'd have no idea because his primary focus is on attacking the west.

I agree that an uninvited UN military intervention in Darfur would do more harm than good. I believe that any intervention of this would have to have an overwhelming likelihood of improving the situation. Going in against the will of the regime would ignite Sudanese nationalism and pan-Arabism. The resulting backlash would be even more bloody that what's going on now. Iraq has taught us about war almost always unleashes the law of unintended consequences

But Gamal Nkrumah could've taken other Arab regimes to task for refusing to condemn the genocide in Darfur or pressure the regime in Khartoum, but that he didn't is hardly surprising. He barely said anything about the violence himself. Instead, he bends over backward to minimize what's going on there, implying that it's merely the chaos of a war zone.

I am appalled by the Bush administration's foreign policy as most people of the world and I've expressed this countless times. But how can anyone be taken seriously who is outraged about torture (Abu Ghraib) but virtually silent about state-sponsored mass killing?

Sadly, I think too many sympathetic to the non-aligned movement are outraged by anything said or implied by any western country but virtually silent by anything DONE by any non-western country. The mentality is that anything non-western is pure and authentic, simply by virtue of being non-western. It's colonialist white supremacy stood on its head.

This self-delusion blinds millions of people around the world to great evil being perpetrated. The aggression against Iraq is a crime. But it's not the only state crime being committed in the world. Neo-imperialism is wrong but it's not the only wrong. And just because a non-western regime criticizes the US or Britain for Iraq doesn't give them blanket immunity for their own atrocities.

It's a disgrace that Nkrumah is more worried about oil than human beings.

'Two bald men fighting over a comb'... again

There are persistent fears that one assinine war between Ethiopia and Eritrea wasn't enough for the misleaders of the two countries, a conflict likened to 'two bald men fighting over a comb.' UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is afraid that a second insanity might erupt between the two former allies.

Annan said UN officials are "doing whatever we can to bring the two parties together" but have not able to get the nations to cooperate with each other.

But ultimately, outsiders can do little if there is no desire for peace from the belligerent parties. And whether that will exists is seriously questioned.

The regime in Asmara is one of the most autocratic on the continent. And many fear its sole purpose is to destabilize the region. Notes the weekly Economist:

Eritrea's increasingly totalitarian regime has become a regional menace; its foreign policy now appears to comprise nothing more than to support any enemy of Ethiopia's, no matter the cost.

Tthe government in Addis Ababa is also increasingly out of control. A report was released recently accusing them of massacring 200 opposition protesters following this year's controversial elections.

The Ethiopians are universally believed to have sent troops into neighboring Somalia. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has overtly stated that his country is 'technically' at war with the Islamic Courts movement that control most of Somalia.

Ethiopia is a country where 10.4 million people are dependent on food aid out of a population of over 74 million.

So 14 percent of Ethiopians are dependent on outside aid to eat but the regime is looking to spend its meager resources on war with not one, but two neighbors.

If this is not criminal, I don't know what is.

Is the 'rainbow nation' merely an illusion?

A piece in Johannesburg's Daily Mail and Guardian opines that 'Something is rotten in the rainbow nation.' The piece notes that many of the authors who attacked the apartheid regime in South Africa have delivered searing indictments of the state of the nation, sickened by what they see as an inexorable decline towards corruption and lawlessness.

André Brink, whose novels such as A Dry White Season brought him regular opprobrium from the apartheid rulers, has also burnt his bridges with their replacements in the corridors of power.

He has described two Cabinet members -- Health Minister Manto Tsabalala-Msimang and Safety Minister Charles Nqukula -- as "monsters", despairing at what he regards as indifference to the rising tide of crime.

Brink acknowledged to Agence France-Presse (AFP) that crime has long been a problem but he said the situation has now reached breaking point.

"The cumulative effect has just reached a point where one cannot take any more, and where the attitude of the authorities goes beyond all acceptable limits," he said.

"The attitude of Nqakula [who told Parliament that those "whingeing" about crime should emigrate] has made it clear that the government simply does not take it seriously enough and, in fact, is in itself reason for despair."

Brink added that he had in the past 12 years told those who had doubts over South Africa that the negatives of the transition period were of a temporary nature.

"I can no longer say that today," he wrote in a French newspaper.

Literally minutes after I read these pieces, I caught a sickening report entitled 'Baby killed, penis cut off.'

I'm hesitant to draw sweeping conclusions based on one-time sensationalist events like this. But there is universal acknowledgement that South Africa is suffering from a social crisis of violence against women and children. The recent rape trial of former deputy president Jacob Zuma brought to attention this plague.

I think this is quite possibly the most tragic legacy of the apartheid period. During that time, grotesque violence was part of the everyday life for black South Africans. When you are subjected to, or at least surrounded by, massive violence all the time, you become desensitized to it.

Women and children are the main victims. A man returns home to a violent neighborhood with no running water and miserable living conditions from a menial job with low pay where his dignity is assaulted. So to blow off steam, he takes out his frustrations on the only people lower on the social pecking order in a patriarchical society: his wife and kids. This dynamic doesn't suddenly change just because the man occupying the presidency happens to share the same skin color.

Clearly, most South Africans are now better off under the present democratic and representative government. However, the government needs to do far more to tackle crime and misery. If the tyranny of state violence is replaced by the tyranny of random violence with the tyranny of poverty unchanged, then the efforts of the freedom fighters will have been for naught.

Update: Despite the problems of modern South Africa, this guy won't be missed.

Rawlings, Obasanjo planning coups?

Coups seem to on many lips in West Africa these days.

Ghana's president John Kuffour has accused his predecessor Jerry John Rawlings of trying to sollicit funds to overthrow the current democratic government. Rawlings engineered military coups in 1979 and 1981 but, when his handpicked successor lost, handed over to longtime opposition leader Kuffour. Ghana is now considered one of the most stable countries in West Africa.

The French language Le Messager of Cameroon reports on accusations that Nigerian president Olesegun Obasanjo is planning to create as much chaos as possible in the six geopolitical zones of the country in order to delay the elections planned for 2007 and maintain himself in power. One opposition leader accuses Obasanjo of 'preparing the way for a national state of emergency.'

On the other hand, the NGO Reporters Without Borders (known by its French acronym RSF) praised developments in respect for the liberty of the press in Mauritania. The pan-African weekly Jeune Afrique noted that Mauritania has improved from 138th in the world to 77th in terms of press freedom since the 2004 military coup that overthrew a long-standing dictatorship.

RSF noted that the military junta had put an end to the 'strong censorship' exercised by the previous regime and was pushing a liberalization of the airwaves.

Niger expells 150,000 Arabs

The government of Niger has ordered the expulsion of 150,000 Arabs who live in the east of the country.

The governor of Diffa State, where most of the Mahamid [nomad Arabs] live, told them it was "high time" to pack and return to Chad.

This despite the fact that many are actually citizens of Niger and have lived in the country for decades.

Most bizarrely, the central government has refused to offer any explanation for the expulsion.

UN to give power to Ivorian PM

According to South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian, the UN Security Council is preparing a resolution that would make Côte d'Ivoire's non-partisan prime minister effectively the leader of the country.

The resolution would give Charles Konan Banny full military and civilian authority to run the country for another year pending new elections, who would be empowered to "take all necessary decisions" in the government by "ordinances or decree" and appoint both civilian and military officials.

Additionally the five-page measures say Banny would supervise disarmament and "the identification of population and registration of voters in order to compile credible electoral rolls"

President Laurent Gbagbo's constitutional mandate expired last October but was extended another year by the Security Council because the northern half of the country is controlled by the Forces nouvelles rebel group.

Even if Gbagbo were to agree to the UN's conditions, it's almost inconceivable that the terrorist mafiosi Jeunes patriotes, who nominally support Gbagbo, would ever accept such a measure.

Ethiopian regime massacred almost 200 people: report

An Ethiopian judge named to head an investigation into violence following last year's disputed elections concluded that nearly 200 people were massacred and 763 injured by the country's insecurity forces.

The report said that the government had concealed the true extent of deaths at the hands of the police.
It said that 193 people had been killed, including 40 teenagers. Six policemen were also killed and some 763 people injured.

They had been shot, beaten and strangled.

The judge described the deaths as a massacre and said the toll could well have been higher.

"The police fired, definitely, as a kind of massacre of the demonstrators - especially in Addis, where more than 160 civilians were dead," by shooting, he told the BBC.

He said there was no doubt that excessive force had been used.

Additionally, some 20,000 people were arrested during the protests, according to police records.

The judge who conducted the investigation has since fled the country.

In a related development, the regime in Addis has expelled a pair of European Union diplomats. It said the two were arrested over "serious crimes" without specifying, according to the BBC.

There are also fears that the regime will wage a proxy war with old enemy/ally Eritrea on Somalian territory... as if the war over Badme wasn't assinine enough.

Senghor

The BBC World Service has a pair of documentaries on the late Senegalese president and cultural lion Léopold Sédar Senghor.

(Note: the audio for the first part of this series will only be available until Friday)

Mugabe tries to annex trade unions

There's something ironic about the fact that in many Marxist 'workers' paradises,' public enemy number one is quite often... the workers' trade union. Solidarity helped bring down the regime in Poland. Quite conscious of this fact, China has cracked down hard on trade unions.

Zimbabwe is also going after the trade unions, one of the few independent organizations left in Robert Mugabe's thugocracy.

The parliament, which is controlled by Mugabe's party, is ramming through a bill that would demand the main Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions sack its leadership and replace it with the tiny handful of leaders friendly with the regime.

The trade unions gave birth to the Movement for Democratic Change, the country's main opposition party. It's telling that the most dissatisfied people in Mugabe's workers' paradise are the workers themselves. Maybe this is why the regime recently barred a delegation from the main South African labor grouping COSATU... which was once a close ally with Mugabe.

Ultimately, these regimes don't give a whit about anything other than their own survival. To them, trade unions represent an alternate power structure, which is the most dangerous thing of all. This is why the Mugabe thugocracy has attacked (sometimes literally) the three main independent institutions in the country: the Catholic Church, what remains of the free press and now the trade unions.

Collapsing bridge, collapsing state

The UN's IRIN news service reports on the August collapse of a bridge on the main road linking the key southeastern Guinean city of N'Zérékoré with most of the rest of the country. The bridge must've been fairly new since it wasn't there when I lived in the country a decade ago.

For many observers, the bridge collapse is a metaphor for the steadily deteroriating Guinean economy, sclerotic state and shambolic infrasturcture.

The effect on ordinary Guineans is quite real.

Since the collapse of the bridge, the cost of a ticket on one of the dilapidated yellow minibuses that plies the route between Conakry and Nzerekore has jumped from US $27 to US $36, while the journey time has quadrupled from 24 hours to four days.

And not just on travelers.

The rise in transport costs has had a knock-on impact on the getting kids into schools. The cost of school desks which are made near Nzerekore and distributed throughout Guinea has more than doubled since the bridge collapse from US $12.50 to $27, a roughly equivalent to the monthly salary of a school headmaster in Guinea.

When I lived in Guinea, there was no shortage of construction projects. Roads, water pumps, health centers, schools. But I noticed that these structures were poorly maintained if at all after they were built. Poor infrastructure maintenance is clearly one of the biggest barriers to development in the country But that's what happens when everything is handed to a corrupt regime on a silver platter by foreign donors with no expectations: the regime lives down to those expectations.

Senegal: the new Côte d'Ivoire?

For most of its history, Côte d'Ivoire has been one of the main engines of the West African economy. As such, it was long a magnet for immigrants from other countries in the region. The civil war that erupted in 2002, as well as the anti-foreigner sentiment (known as 'Ivoirité') which provoked it, has put a damper on such migration.

Lacking Côte d'Ivoire's xenophobia and violence, Senegal (as well as Ghana) appears to be the new destination for West Africans in search of a livelihood. Though there is unrest in the southern Casamance region of Senegal, 'le pays de la teranga' has a democratic and stable government and a steadily improving economy.

It's also easy to go from other West African countries to Senegal, which becomes increasingly critical as western countries crack down on extralegal immigration.

Unlike would-be immigrants to the United States or Europe, [International Organization for Migration spokesman Amand] Rousselo explains, it is easy to move within West African countries. Thanks to a 1979 agreement, citizens from countries within ECOWAS, the Economic Organization of West African States, can move to any other ECOWAS country with nothing more than their identity card.

However, Rousselo adds that the influx of foreigners could lead to tension.

"The youth population in West Africa represents about 50-60 percent of the population," he added. "And the same percentage of youth is unemployed. You can imagine that sooner or later this will generate some social conflicts because the nationals will want to work, and the work will be done by foreigners even if they are done by people from neighboring countries."

Hopefully the Senegalese political class will deal with it in a more honorable way than their Ivorian comrades.

Why are they poor? (cont.)

Last week, I published an essay which explored the different development paths of Asia and Africa. I invited readers to present their theories as to why these two continents fared so different following the end of colonialism.

Reader Rufus Arthur Wilderson wrote:

I think there's another big factor that's put Southeast Asian ex-colonies ahead of Sub-Saharan African ex-colonies; prexisting infrastructure.

Recall that the European powers colonized Asia first. They fought for it too, against the native people there and against each other. Part of the reason for the Berlin conference was to prevent colonial proxy wars between the European powers by having a mutally agreed-upon set of borders (arbitrary though they were).

The Colonial powers went after Asia first because, from a European perspective, it's a much more lucretive place to colonize. Instead of having to chase down and subue multiple tribes, power can be seized in Asia after sailing a few gunboats up a few rivers and taking the capitols. The government already there can be left in place.

That last part I think is key. When the Europeans left Asia, there was already some sort of power structure (albeit often corrupt and brutal), and usually a fairly diversified economy with lots of room for growth. When the Europeans left Africa, they left behind minimal infrastructure, almost no industrialization, and a power structure based on artificial elevation of minority groups for European proxy rule. The economies in Africa were usually built around a single cash crop or resource, and at that only the production of that resource, as the processing usually happened in Europe. Clearly, the Asians were somewhat better off at the starting line.

(reprinted with permission)