After the death of the longtime ruler of Guinea, President Lansana Conte in December 2008, the army, led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara seized power in a bloodless coup. Captain Camara assured the people of Guinea, Africa and the world that this take over the government by the army would be a temporary one and while in power he would work towards eventually transferring power back to the people by holding free and fair elections. However, from December 2008 to today, from the scraps of information I have been able to gather, things have not been going according to plan. In my opinion accurate information on what is really going on in this country behind the scenes is very scarce.
There should be no surprise to anyone that Captain Camara has been unable to deliver on his promises and control forces inside his country. Although his promises of ensuring democratic elections were vehemently repeated whenever he made public speeches and there are indications that he made attempts to Sheppard this process, its failure to be organized should not be a shock to anyone.
What needs to be understood I believe is that many times the power dynamics and power distributions in a dictatorship are not seen. President Lansana Conte was indeed the figure head or the most visible profiteer of the corruption that existed in Guinea prior to his death. However, what many times is not seen is that there were (and still are) dozens of powerful individuals in the army, government and sectors of civil society who were equally benefitting from the corruption that existed in Guinea. When President Conte died, all that Captain Camara did was attempt to fill that one void left by Conte but the systematic corruption and misuse of the wealth of the nation was still in place. His attempt, whether it was heart-felt or not I do not know, to bring democracy to the country was doomed to failure because people who were benefitting from the previous system would do all in their power to prevent this from happening.
In September 2009, a month after it was declared that Presidential elections would be held on January 31, 2010, their was a protest held by the citizens of Conakry in a stadium over whispered rumors of Captain Camara’s supposed intention to stay in power contrary to his assurances of the otherwise. Troops were called in to control the fired up crowd and as things got more out of hand soldiers lost their composure it seems and opened fired on the protesting people. According to the Guinean Human Rights Organization, around 157 were killed in the violence and 1200 injured. There were horrible reports of undisciplined soldiers raping women with the barrels of their guns, violent beatings and general uncontrollable suppression by the army of the protesting citizens. This to me was the first indication that Camara did not have full control over his armed forces and even though he might have given indications to suggest otherwise, and many wish to place him as the mastermind behind this disaster, I do not believe this to be the case although accurate information on this is scarce.
However, with the recent assassination attempt by forces within his own army in December 2009, my theory seems to hold same sort of validity. Obviously Captain Camara does not and did not have universal loyalty within his own ranks and whether that is due to the fact that he intended to keep his promise and bring free and fair elections to the country or because somebody else wished to be the “big man in charge” again we do not know. But little bits of information are beginning to add up and all that I wish to say is that we need to start looking at the people in the shadows behind the men in power because they have their own agendas and methods of trying to achieve power.
All in all, it is a sad event that is taking place in Guinea. The Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) as is typical with the regional organizations of Africa didn’t do much to help the situation except to issue a rebuke and suspended them from membership wish doesn’t do much in my opinion. In addition to this, the French made many tough declarations on how corruption and dictatorships in Africa, especially their former colonies would not be tolerated, they have really done nothing substantial to hurt the people who are corrupt in Guinea as they are profiting too from their corruption. The African Union (AU) has also not come out strong enough on this issue as many of its own leaders are also corrupt. Take its Chairman, Col Gaddaffi. I love him to death and think he is one of our great leaders but he is a dictator and is very undemocratic so who is he to presume to come down hard on Guinea (although with Gaddafi I wouldn’t put anything past him)!
In closing, I would like voice my irritation at the International Media always making big issues out of Africa’s failures and downplaying and in many cases flat out ignoring our triumphs. The situation in Guinea, to say the least, is quiet unfortunate. What makes matters worse is that in a year when Namibia, Botswana and South Africa (to name a few) have had smooth, free and fair elections, issues such what is presently occurring in Guinea re-enforce negative stereotypes the world has of Africa. The world sees the chaos, violence and corruption in places such as Guinea, Zimbabwe, and other areas of trouble and these are the stories that get headlines in the major international media outlets. Why is this the case? This discourse needs to change and we as the Africans need to lead this change in perception by always acknowledging our faults, but also promoting our triumphs as well.
The problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of how humans engage, encounter, and react to difference. I begin this article with this statement very much inspired by the great Pan Africanist intellectual, W.E.B Du Bois. Du Bois once remarked that, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.” For his time, this to me was indeed an insightful and prophetic declaration of the realities of his world. However in the 21st century, as has been a reoccurring theme throughout the vastness of human history, our greatest challenge will be how this truly globalized world interacts and reacts to difference.
With the accelerated pace over the last few decades of globalization due to factors such as technological advances and the expansion of capitalist free market ideology, the world has become smaller. With this shrinkage of time and space, more people are coming into contact with people who are very different from themselves. Ideas, information, and feelings are now shared between individuals and communities which would have never happened in the past. This interaction has and will form positive as well as negative social relationships that did not exist before.
The challenge I see humans facing, whether black, white, yellow, Catholic, Muslim, homosexual, male, female, rich or poor is how we interact with each other. Today, more than any time in the past this issue is of paramount importance as mankind now has the capability, due to our technological advances, to kill each other more efficiently and effectively than ever before. In addition to this, through institutions like the media, those in power can now more easily demonize and villianize a people or idea they reject/don’t understand and influence millions in the process.
This being the case, institutions, communities and individuals around the world need to question how they react to a people/culture/tradition/lifestyle that is very unlike their own. With this being the realities of the times we live in and our foreseeable future, I wonder whether humans will be able to see that, “Our global civilization is a world heritage--not just a collection of disparate local cultures” as was said by Amartya Sen (2002). And by doing that recognize that much of what we enjoy and use today has come from someone who does not look like us, or live with us or worship the same God as us? When human beings are able to look at history and understand it as human history, not only as African, Indian or Arab history, that is when the human race as a whole will have taken the first steps to embracing difference.
Rabindranath Tagore stated that, "Whatever we understand and enjoy in human products instantly becomes ours, wherever they might have their origin... Let me feel with unalloyed gladness that all the great glories of man are mine." Times change and I believe in order for human beings to survive and flourish in this dynamic world, it is essential that we take to heart Tagore’s words. This can start by us looking at achievements made by Sun Tzu, Aristotle, Newton, Emperor Menelek II, Du Bois, and Nkrumah as not just Chinese, Greek, British, Ethiopian, American or Ghanaian achievements; but as human contributions to the world.
We should also understand for example, that many of the first advances in mathematics and optics came not from Isaac Newton in 17th century England, but from India and the Arab peoples between the 2nd and 6th centuries. And when we sit back and examine human history we can finally see that what has gotten us to this point of development is not just the work of “Western minds” but an accumulation and collection of world minds.
Once we can understand that, we can then look at someone who is different from us and concentrate not on what we don’t have in common, but more on what we can learn from each other. By being able to encounter difference, which can be scary and uncomfortable at times, we can move forward in the 21st century better equipped to solve global problems such as poverty, social inequality, global warming, war, and a host of other troubles together.
As for the African continent, I believe this message has a special relevance. If we are to truly form a wider African union, we need to be able to address difference in a positive and mutually constructive way. Africa’s diverse ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, traditions and colors are its strength, not its weakness. Our multi-cultural continent is what makes being an African beautiful because although we are very different we can still build a greater union incorporating these differences.
Indeed there are fears that many Africans, both inside and outside the continent have, but these fears stem primarily in my opinion from uncertainty. Many are uncertain as to what this “greater union” will look like and fear that in assimilation their individual identities will get lost. For example, many fear that what it means to them to be a Tanzanian, or an Ovambo, will get lost in this wider African identity. As the old saying goes, “people do not like what they don’t understand, it scares them.” This is a logical fear and one that is by no means restricted to African peoples.
To this day many, many Americans (all of which I might add, with exception to Native Americans and we can argue the black American population, came to the US as immigrants and/or colonizers) feel their American identity is threatened with the influx of people to their shores from around the globe. These people fear that eventually a “melting pot” effect will occur which will erode all difference and make them, like these new people who arrive. Similar examples can be found in Europe with the steadily progression towards the creation of a greater European Union. In Britain for example, some of its citizens wish to reject the increased unity of the continent as they fear with the clause allowing freedom of movement, cheaper laborers will flow to Britain from the poorer Eastern Europe and thus British citizens fear that their jobs will be lost. So what turns out to maybe be an economical/financial concern gets construed and verbalized as a fear of losing ones identity.
So this fear is an understandable one, but let me pose a few questions to attempt to address this fear. Is it impossible for two very different peoples to come together to build something that will benefit them both? Is it impossible for the oil producing African countries to pool their oil into a common market so as to not be easily exploited by outside forces? Is it impossible for the diamond producing and coca producing countries to work together to form an OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries) like syndicate to better control their valuable natural resources? Can African intellectuals, who indeed do exist and come from the entire spectrum of the African peoples, not come together to debate better ways for us as a people to move forward? I say no. It is not impossible and even though we as African people are very different, the possibilities for progress are limitless in co-operation but limited in antagonism.
So let us work better together, not just with other African peoples, but with the wider world that we indeed do live in and are apart of, in order to build a better world for us, others and for future generations.
Early last year, as one of the most influential figures of the 20th century steps down from power. Many wonder about the legacy a person of the stature of Fidel Castro leaves behind. On the 19th of February 2008, Fidel Castro announced that after 49 years in power in Cuba, he would no longer continue as President. This decision was met with mixed reactions throughout the world as there were people who both rejoiced and mourned this decision by Fidel. Whether one morns or celebrates Castro’s stepping down from power depends upon ones politics, interpretations of history, and ultimately, ones opinions. What I am interested in is discussing what I believe the legacy of Fidel Castro should be as we look back upon the life and leadership of one of the most dominant and intriguing figures of the 20th century.
On January 1st, 1959, Fidel Castro and his supporters successfully overthrew the corrupt, oppressive, US backed Batista regime. In coming to power, Fidel promised the Cuban people that the Cuban government would act in the best interests of the people and not act according to the will of foreign countries and business. This was met with cheers of joy and hope because prior to Castro, the corrupt Batista regime allowed foreign (primarily US) companies, both legitimate and illegitimate, to profit off the backs of the Cuban people. They shamelessly exploited the Cuban people and their resources and it was this that led Fidel to in 1953 take up arms against the government. Fidel vowed to overthrow Batista and install a government that would represent the will of the millions of peasants living in abject poverty working almost as slaves on the sugar and tobacco plantations for rich land lords and US companies.
After successfully overthrowing Batista, the Cubans and Americans who profited from the Batista regime fled Cuba and went primarily to the United States, in particular, Florida. After attempts to forge economic ties with the US government, and repeated rejections, Castro decided that communism would be the best form of government for the Cuban people. He nationalized all national resources and certain private enterprises and turned fully embraced communism as a form of government in an attempt to create a better distribution of wealth for all Cubans. This infuriated the Americans and they immediately imposed sanctions on Cuba and strove to demonize Castro and his government to their people and the world.
Throughout the 20th century, Fidel Castro has been a symbol of defiance to the Americans and their foreign policy. He has also been known as a great survivor as the CIA has tried over 600 times to assassinate him in an attempt to remove this leader who defies American power and dictatorship. By setting up a communist power just 90 miles from the US coast, that is un-intimidated by the US, Castro has in effect made a fool out of the world’s most powerful superpower. After all of America’s exploits and interventions in the world throughout the Cold War, Castro has remained alive and well. The strength of his will and his powerful belief in himself has been enough to inspire Cubans and oppressed people throughout the world to take up arms against capitalist imperialism.
So the question still remains how are we to remember the life and deeds of Fidel Castro? This all depends on who you talk to and what you read but for me, the legacy of Castro a good one. Castro to me signifies defiance of injustice in the face of insurmountable odds. In the opening stages of his revolution, with barely 90 men, Castro and Che Guevara fought the Batista government, which controlled an army of 50,000 troops and had the backing of the mighty US government, for the freedom of Cuba. Although the odds were against him and failure seemed imminent, Castro won. In Cuba, he introduced a wonderful education and health program that surpasses many in the developed world in its potency and effectiveness. Although there is still significant poverty and hardship in Cuba, much of this is not the fault of Cuba but the fault of US economic sanctions on Cuba that have been in effect since the early sixties. In their attempt to discredit and depose Castro, the US has instead been the direct cause for the sufferings of many Cubans.
But through it all, Castro has stayed strong and supported Che on his revolutions, leaders like President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola and President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela in their attempts to free their people from the oppression. Though this may be controversial, Castro has at least backed leaders who represent the collective will of their people than the Americans who have backed leaders who represent the collective will of American foreign policy/business.
So when we remember Fidel Castro, let us remember him as a leader who defied a powerful empire and brought to Cuba freedom from American imperialism. Fidel Castro always sympathized with countries around the world that were being denied their freedom and wasn’t afraid to help them with arms, political support, and diplomatic help. Castro helped the MPLA and SWAPO fight against Apartheid South African and UNITA forces in Angola and was critical to our victory. He denounced US action in the DRC in terms of their support for a ruthless dictator who did not speak for the people. He did his best to help Che Guevara in his quest for the freeing of oppressed people all over the world. So with this, remember Castro. Indeed a dictator, but also a man who stood for what he believed in and was not afraid to put his money where his mouth was.
The central theme of Escobar’s critique of development stems from his observation that the development discourse has become the imposition of western ideals, values, and economic systems on the “Third World.” By casting the “Third World” as backward and in need of expert assistance to facilitate “progress,” a power relation has developed in which the “Third World” is dependent on the west for the tools and knowledge of development. In the west’s attempts to “develop” these countries, the methods and theories used to initiate economic growth were taken from the models created in the west, regardless of whether they were applicable to the “Third World” or not. Through this framework, development became a way of “conceiving of social life as a technical problem” (Escobar, pg. 52) that could only be managed by certain “development professionals” (Escobar, pg.52) whose expert knowledge deemed them as competent for the job. This is why the development discourse is problematic, and it is this that Escobar tries to analyze in his book.
By labeling certain countries as “Third World” or “less developed” a de-humanizing effect has occurred, causing the western nations to be seen as better than the less developed countries. This has lead to the application of western economic systems and methods of development in the “Third World” in an attempt to help them “modernize,” but just the concept that the “Third World” needs to be modernized is problematic. Why is the “Third World” seen as this space that is “backward” and “under-developed”? Countries that apparently fall under the bracket of developing countries are being measured by the standards of development that western culture and society values. Little if no regard is given for what the people in the “underdeveloped” countries value and strive for; instead, western values are imposed and implemented on the people in an attempt to make them like the west. To quote Escobar, ‘Indigenous populations had to be “modernized,” where modernization meant the adoption of the “right” values, namely, those held by the white minority,”. (Escobar, pg. 42) One cost of this discourse is that people in the “Third World” think of themselves as inferior to the west and thus strive to copy everything that is “western” in an attempt to “better” their lives. Because of this, many have shunned their own cultural and traditional methods of living for the acquisition of western ideas and technology.
But even the application of western frameworks and theories on economic growth in the “Third World” is problematic because they were created through a natural process of change, formed in the west. As Escobar says, “Development fostered a way of conceiving of social life as a technical problem, as a matter of rational decision and management to be entrusted to that group of people, - the development professionals – whose specialized knowledge allegedly qualified them for the task.” (Escobar, pg.52) This has lead to the construction of a power relation that made the “developing” countries dependent on the west for their knowledge, science, and technology. In order to receive these tools and theories of modernization, the “Third World” has rely on “experts” from the west, who apparently know how to manage this phenomenon called development. This puts the western experts in power in the developing society and contributes to the dismantling of local beliefs, cultures, and traditions all in the name of industrialization and progress.
Furthermore, the application of the western framework for development in the “Third World” was challenging because it could not be applied to the “Third World” to get the results that were seen in the developed nations. What must be remembered is that the theories and frameworks for development that formed in the west occurred naturally. There was no imposition of the concepts of the free market, capitalism, and industrialization on Germany and Britain during the industrial revolution but a steady and natural progression towards these ideas. It is out of this natural evolution that measures of success such as GDP, GNP, per capita income, economic growth, and poverty rate were shaped. How else were Germany and Britain to compare themselves with each other? So it is problematic when the west attempts to apply their measurements of success to the “Third World” and seek to problematize the apparent “failures” in the society in question. Furthermore, western industry and capital was built and fueled by the exploitation of the “Third World” by the west, and to try to recreate the progress experienced in the west in the “Third World” is unrealistic.
In conclusion, Escobar makes the point that the development discourse “has been the central and most ubiquitous operator of the politics of representation and identity in much of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the post – WWII period.” (Escobar, pg.214) What this means is that the “Third World” has been defined and shaped by the west. The “Third World” was created as the antithesis of the west and owes its existence to the west. So in effect, the developed countries only exist if they have the “Third World” to define themselves against. This means that the west’s identity as a superior is reliant on the representation of the “Third World” as inferior and “backward”. So the only question that remains to be asked is, where does the “Third World” go from here?
The point of this book review/summary is not to say to Africans that we should not develop. What I ask is we understand what it is we want to do for ourselves to be better? And if it is development that we choose, we must understand what they means, how it needs to be achieved, and what effects it will have on our people. Escobar’s book is very useful because he attempts to break down and understand what development means and how that is indeed problematic. So again, I am not saying development shouldn’t be a goal of ours, what I am saying however is that we have to understand what that word means and see if that is what we wish to do.
In the media today, many Africans, Europeans, and Americans rave about the increased Chinese presence in Africa. According to the Tehran Times, which like the BBC, reported Ugandan President Paul Kagame’s speech on Chinese investment in Africa, in 2003 investment from China in Africa stood at $491million and rose to $7.8billion last year. Many Africans fear that increased interest in Africa is a new kind of colonialism where our resources are being sold for unequal value in order to fuel China’s rapidly growing economy. The general European reaction can be interpreted as having fear of Chinese competition for Africa’s immense resources as they don’t like having their historical playground disturbed. The Americans feel similar to the Europeans but they are angrier about Chinese influence in Africa and more recently in Latin America and the Middle East because it is seen as a direct challenge to US hegemony and they are not amused. All these perspectives have merit but from I have a very different viewpoint on how Africans can look at Chinese actions.
What the Chinese are doing is purchasing natural resources from African countries in exchange for either cash or large constructions of infrastructure. Plain and simple. The Chinese do not care if our governments are democratically elected or whether those governments care for their people or whether they ask for fair value for their commodities. I as an African have no problem with this. The Chinese are not like the Americans and Europeans who try to play God with us and decide to withhold “aid” or investment if we don’t show them that we are worthy of it by practicing “good” government. Why do the Americans criminalize Zimbabwe or Sudan for having bad undemocratic governments when they trade freely with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and the other various oil producing giants in the Middle East who are as far from democracy as Pluto is from the Sun? The Chinese don’t get on our case because they are in no morale position to talk about good democratic government as they are not a democracy and have never tried to say they were or hide their lack of democracy. They are in Africa to get what they want and if we Africans sell them these materials then there is no problem.
Furthermore, in my opinion, there are many positives that stem from this investment in Africa by the Chinese. In the case of Angola, the two countries signed a large oil deal in 2006 that can be worth an estimated 9 billion of dollars if certain targets for production in the treaty can be reached (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5080626.stm). According to the same BBC report, this is money that Angola can use to build better roads, improve a lagging school system, and upgrade and expand a broken infrastructural system. This country desperately needs this type of investment as it is just six years removed from a crippling civil war that destroyed its production and development potential.
However, in the same report, people have questioned whether this money will actually be used the way the Angolan government has been said it will be used. Will it get to the people and institutions that need it the most? There is no question that there is rampant corruption in the Angolan government and the divide between the rich and poor is large. But, this is not the problem of the Chinese. It is the problem of the Angolan government and its people who they are suppose to represent. Should the Chinese government demand that this money make it to the people who need it before it flows into the country? Maybe. Should the Angolan government have charged a higher price for its oil? Probably. But since neither party did that, a fair deal was signed and the world needs to respect that.
Now, I do believe that African countries who sell these natural resources should get higher value for them. I do believe we could charge more for our resources and obtain more financial help from China if two things happened. Firstly, if African countries were able to work together and form OPEC-like groups for our natural resources, that way we aren’t competing against each other in the market in the selling of our goods, we could obtain higher prices for our goods. Secondly, we need to take advantage of Chinese, European and American rivalries with each other and see if we can get better deals for our resources. It is clear that there is a demand for the rich mineral resources Africa has from the non-African countries; we must find ways to use this situation for our advantage and extract high prices for our goods.
Furthermore, more needs to be done in Africa to transform our economies from being a raw material based economy to being a manufacturing and tertiary economy. So instead of Namibia, Angola, and Botswana just selling raw diamonds from the ground, we should have our own polishing and cutting industries and have our own jewelers who we sell finished products to. This will increase our own revenues and provide employment to thousands of unemployed in our countries.
However, in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with what the Chinese are doing in Africa. Whenever reading the critiques of the Chinese it is important to understand where these comments are coming from and why. We need to ask ourselves why the issue is framed as a “problem” and in whose best interests is it for this to be framed as such. But no matter what these critics say, in my opinion, African governments and the Chinese are entering into agreements for our natural resources and if our leaders are too naïve to charge fair value for our goods then that is our problem. China is not responsible to ensure that we Africans set “fair” and “just” prices for our goods, this is our responsibility. Gone are the times when we Africans can blame others for our own bad decisions, the time has come for us to take responsibility for our actions and live with the decisions that we make.
Why is it that so many “experts” on Africa conclude that foreign aid/investment is the key for African development. It is true that foreign investment/aid, when used appropriately, can stimulate economic growth through job creations and industrialization. However, Africa has its own wealthy elite who if they invested in their countries, would lessen the “need” for foreign aid/investment for Africa to develop. If these rich African elites were to marshal their vast resources, they could pour millions into their countries achieving the same goals as foreign aid/investment and maybe even surpassing them.
However, it must be understood that there are strong barriers preventing these wealthy elites from achieving this goal. To begin with, many of these wealthy Africans got wealthy from stealing from their countries. Many cut deals with foreign oil, diamond, and gold companies (to name a few) and actively participated in the exploitation of their country’s resources. With this money, these African elites began investing their money not in their countries but in places like France, Britain, or the US. They bought villas, stocks, and any manner of wealth holding assets outside of their birthplaces thus in a way giving the west returns on their investments in Africa as they money they poured into certain nations came back to them in this manner.
Furthermore, much of the African elite are either presently in the government or military, or where so at some point. This is problematic because many of them abused the powers of their offices and illegally profited from them. In addition to this, they have no motivation to invest in their countries because they enjoy their positions of power and influence in society. They fear investing in their people because that might upset the status quo where they are dominant in society by creating more people having income and wealth. Moreover, many foreign companies/businesses rely on this corruption of the African elite and political leaders to continue their exploitation of our resources. They will not easily allow an upsetting of this system and will make it difficult to change.
However, even though there are indeed a lot of drawbacks to trusting and relying on the African elites, there is hope. In this article it has been mentioned that most of the African elite are at this point in time not trustworthy or useful in terms of being able to properly find the incentive to invest in their countries. But there is a smaller percentage, unseen by the international as well as national communities that are in a good position to invest in their countries.
These elites need to take the lead in working together to pour money into their own country’s industries and businesses. Entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged and rewarded by government in order to develop the country. The incentive that these elites need to see is that there is huge potential for profit in their own countries by investing in them. Foreign companies and governments are not running to Africa spending billions of dollars because they are crazy, they see untapped potential and wish to make billions off of their millions in investments! Our African elite needs to see this and organize themselves and start identifying sectors of the economy that has a strong possibility for strong returns on their investments and start making moves.
But in order to create more of an incentive for these African elites to spend the money they have, government is necessary. In many countries, Namibia for example, the official rate of interest is roughly 12%. This is a problem has now investor will only take out loans and invest in projects/business ventures that yield over 12% in profits. It is very hard and rare to find any investment opportunity that yields this kind of profit in the short term or even the long term. Loans taken out at this level need very wealthy people who can take the losses that will occur on their investments. Something needs to be done to lower these interest rates in order to provide a stronger incentive for the wealthy to risk their money.
Government also needs to lower income taxes in order to encourage the upper classes to start spending and investing. With a lower income tax rate a further incentive is created for the African elite to begin investing their wealth as they now have more disposable income with which to do so. The draw back of this is that unfortunately in countries like Namibia and South Africa this upper class is taxed heavily because less than half of the population pays tax. So in my opinion government needs to find a way to get people who indeed are capable of paying taxes to start paying in order to help recoup the losses in revenue it will incur when they lower taxes on the rich.
And it is my belief that if this is done, the rich will begin investing in the country and jobs will be created. As more jobs are created more of the population will be able to be taxed which in the medium and long run is good for the country as government has more revenue! More revenue for government means more services for the population such as the building of schools, hospitals, police stations, roads and all manner of public works.
If government and the private sectors can learn to work together and can mutually assist each other in the growth of their respective nations, Africa will not need much foreign assistance in order to develop. Although this article does not speak to all of the problems facing this relationship between government and the private sector, it does tackle the key issues. Africa does not need to west, China or India in order to develop, what we need is a stronger will and desire to better ourselves and when this is achieved, we will develop beyond our wildest dreams.
In a recent article posted on Deutsche Welle, former German Ambassador Volker Seitz was interviewed on his opinions regarding the problems facing Africa. In this interview, he stated that it is corrupt political elites that block development in Africa and not Europe. Ambassador Seitz spent 17 years serving Germany in various African countries and has concluded from his experiences that former colonial powers are not the reason for Africa’s lack of development and overall poverty. He believes that Europe feels responsible for Africa’s development but shouldn’t as that is the job of Africa’s elites. In other words, Africans need to be the ones leading the charge for their own development and not Europe.
This argument that can be found on this link (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4643406,00.html) and in my opinion is important and accurate for many reasons. To begin with, many African countries have been “independent” for almost forty years now and yet have not experienced much of a change in peoples living standards. When compared to Europe we can’t even compete and even when compared to other Asian countries that gained independence at similar times, we do not measure up. This can be attributed to western influence (interference) as they did meddle in our affairs which lead to numerous wars, the application of poor economic growth plans, and overall mismanagement of our freedom. However, this article wishes to remind us, and rightly so, that it was the African elites/leaders of the newly independent nations that followed the advice of the west and thus we have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Many of our leaders, whether political or in the private sector, did not make good decisions when we gained independence and now are suffering for it through civil war, large international debt, extreme poverty, corrupt leadership and many other issues.
In addition to this, why should the Europeans care about us? They colonized us in order to get resources from us to feed their growing industries and expanding markets. They colonized us for their own self-interests and had to be forcibly removed from our land in order for it to stop. So why would they give us advice that is the best for us or do what is in our best interests? Of course they are going to manipulate us, lie to us, trick us and do whatever they can get away with if it is to their advantage to do so. This shouldn’t be a surprise and thusly we need to enter into relations with them understanding this and make the best deal for ourselves too or not make any agreements at all. Once this happens, and the west realizes that we will not allow them to do whatever they want to us, they will change the way they deal with us.
Finally, much of the blame that gets thrown at the west from us flows from the fact that we are unable to take responsibility for our own actions. Mobutu Sese Seko and Idi Amin, two of Africa’s worst dictators many times openly blamed the west for the problems in their respective countries. And although the west was interfering, it was they who were active partners in the rape of their countries resources and potential. However, by blaming the west, the spotlight was turned off them. People saw the poor performances of Zaire and Uganda and didn’t focus enough on the evidence at hand which was that these leaders were also, with the west, guilty of destroying their countries.
This example can be used in many places in Africa and quite frankly it needs to stop. It is hurting our people and damaging our countries and preventing us from achieving our full potential as nations. By creating a dream world in which others are primarily to blame for our own faults we will never be able to see what the real problems and challenges facing us are and thus we will be unable to solve them.
However, this is not to say that colonialism did not cripple our natural growth as a people. It did and its scars and wounds can be seen and felt to this day but we must clean them out, let them heal and move on. African unity/development will only happen when we as Africans take our destiny into our own hands and fight hardest for ourselves rather than ask for, demand or expect the Europeans, Americans, or Chinese to work for us. We must act or else we will remain poor, underdeveloped, unsafe, unstable and backwards. Harsh words true and it must be noted that there are many African countries that have managed their independence well such as South African, Botswana, Namibia, Ghana and a few others. These countries have their problems for sure but they are on the right path towards growth, development, political stability and general betterment of themselves. If Africa is ever to be united we must all be like them and when that goal is achieved, nothing will stop us from bettering the lives of our people.
When Reagan came to the White House in 1980, he would make the US more involved in the conflict in Angola. To begin with, he increased military aid given to Savimbi and increased the amount of military aids dispatched to UNITA bases. However, Reagan was still limited in what he could do because the Cark Amendment was still in effect and instructed countries such as Apartheid South Africa, Morocco, Mobutu’s Zaire, and Israel to be the medium for the dispersion of this military aid to UNITA.
During Reagan’s two terms in office, the MPLA and its allies, Cuba and SWAPO, tried numerous times to sign peace agreements between themselves and UNTIA and have elections. The Reagan administration counseled Savimbi not to agree to this because CIA reports were very clear that in Angola, the MPLA was the more popular party and would win the election.
In 1985, after tireless battles by the Regan administration, the Clark amendment was overturned and the US could legally give aid to Savimbi. This occurred and Regan even invited Savimbi to the US and was quoted thanking him for being a “defender of democracy and capitalism” and hoped to see him “win a victory that electrifies the world”. So, from 1985, the US was able to send covert aid to Savimbi in the form of $15million annually. They provided avenues for him to sell his illegally mined diamonds on the international market and supported him in the UN.
In addition to his political support, the Heritage Foundation in the US offered enormous amounts of support to Savimbi and his guerilla war. They were a group that was influential in shaping the Reagan Doctrine. According to their website, “The Heritage Foundation is committed to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.” So naturally, they gave their support to a ruthless megalomaniac with no concept of democracy but who hated communism because it had denied him access to power. Throughout the 80s and 90s the Heritage Foundation was a powerful voice for Savimbi to the American people and provided him with numerous platforms to voice his opinions and be heard by certain influential Americans.
Nevertheless, once the Reagan left office and Bush Sr. ascended to the Presidency, international pressure had grown to a point where the US could not justify both the support of UNITA forces and the illegal occupation of South Africa over Namibia. SWAPO, the MPLA, and Cuba were scoring major military victories and the UNITA and the South African Army were being beaten. Furthermore, the ANC was making things difficult for South Africa and this limited their ability to fight a war on three fronts, in Angola, Namibia, and at home. On top of all this, the USSR was falling and it became even harder to justify US support of UNITA against supposedly Russian backed MPLA when the USSR was falling. So, Bush did the clever thing and helped broker an agreement where Cuban troops would gradually reduced their armed forces in Angola. And in exchange, the US would allow UN Resolution 435 to be implemented and they would help national elections for a transitional government take place in Angola. So, Namibia gained independence on the 21st of March, 1990 and won the UN monitored elections in a landslide. Angola’s elections were set to begin in 1992.
In the build up towards the 1992 elections in Angola, it became clear to the US, from CIA reports and other indicators that the MPLA was going to win the election. As the date for voting came ever closer, the Bush administration began pushing for the implementation of a coalition government to prevent the complete control of government of the MPLA. After losing the election, Savimbi attacked the MPLA hoping to score a sneaky victory. People had become hopeful in the build up towards the elections and with the departing of the Cuban forces, reduced aid from Moscow, and the MPLA beginning to disarm slightly, Savimbi initially was very successful militarily. But by this point, he had lost the support of even his own tribal areas and since the late 80s had been forcing people to join his army, selling women into sexual slavery, and burning all those who opposed him. The US knew this but still continued to support him and his reign of terror.
During the Clinton administration, things got slightly better. Aid to UNITA was cut and international support for Savimbi was zero. However, aid was still being given and Savimbi continued to throw Angola into continuous chaos. Another peace process was attempted in 1994 but again Savimbi broke it and continued fighting. It wasn’t until 2002 when Savimbi was ambushed by MPLA and Namibian troops and finally killed, did the civil war in Angola come to an end. Many in the UNITA party wanted to abide by the peace processes in place and help build a new Angola, but through the will of one man, a nation was plunged into a 27 year civil war that even now they are still recovering from.
To put things bluntly, Savimbi was a war criminal. With military aid from the US Savimbi was able to control large portions of the rural areas in central and south-eastern Angola. He, with the support of Apartheid South Africa, scored numerous victories against the MPLA and her allies and many times helped the Apartheid regime attack SWAPO installations. In addition to their military aid, the US turned a blind eye towards Savimbi’s illegal mining the vast diamond wealth in the areas he controlled. This allowed him to sell these diamonds to the DeBeers Company and this provided him with the majority of his income. Money that could have been going to feed the people of Angola went instead to the purchasing of guns and mines to fight against the party representing the general will of Angola.
November 2009 is election year in Namibia and contrary to the typical trend in Africa; it will be a peaceful and successful one. The South West Africa Peoples Organization (SWAPO) Party has the unquestioned support of the majority of the Namibian people and is the only party in Namibia that offers a good plan for progress. Most Namibians are loyal and confident in SWAPO party’s ability and determination to improve Namibia and will demonstrate so in the upcoming election.
Five years ago, a historic election took place in Namibia. The Founding President of the country, President Sam Nujoma had fulfilled the constitutional limit of two terms as President and SWAPO party had chosen Hifikepunye Pohamba to stand as the party’s candidate for President. It was a moment unprecedented in African history as there was a successful transition of power from the Founding President to his successor.
According to statistics of the election, out of 977,742 registered voters 85.2% actually turned out to vote. Hifikepunye Pohamba won 76.44% of the vote with his nearest challenger Ben Ulenga winning just 7.28%. In the elections for the National Assembly (Parliament) of Namibia SWAPO party won 75.83% of the available seats with the Congress of Democrats winning 7.27%. SWAPO won comfortably in both elections and seeing as the elections were peaceful and successful in the sense that all political parties were able to campaign freely; there is no reason to believe that SWAPO party will not have similar success in the upcoming elections.
This reality of a SWAPO landslide victory can be attributed to many factors of which a few will be highlighted here. To begin with, SWAPO party is the party that fought for and brought independence to Namibia in 1990 and thusly is still deeply respected and trusted by the Namibian people. From it’s founding in 1960 till the present SWAPO has been present in the minds of Namibians as the fighter for their rights and this is something the people value highly.
Furthermore, SWAPO party does have a comprehensive and clear plan on how to develop the country through projects such as Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan 3 to name the more important ones. There are indeed problems facing the implementations of these development plans and how to best achieve them but they are at least goals SWAPO party is trying to achieve.
In addition to this, SWAPO party is truly a national movement. Namibia has thirteen different ethnic groups and although the Ovambo tribe is slightly less than 2/3 of the population, SWAPO has support from all of the tribes. Most of the other political parties such as RDP, COD, DTA, and NUDO are formed primarily on tribal foundations and have yet to create a message that the Namibian people as a whole can rally around.
Finally, the weakness, ineffectiveness, and incompetence of the opposition parties make any of their elections to power a dream only they entertain. As mentioned before, COD, RDP, DTA and all the others have formed primarily on tribal lines rather than national lines and thus don’t appeal to the Namibian people. These parties also don’t have any plan for what they will do for the country when they get to power; all of their campaign rhetoric consists of critiquing SWAPO party but yet offering no alternative to supposed “ineffective policies”. Moreover, many of these opposition groups were founded by unhappy SWAPO members who broke from the party because they believed when independence came they should have been given higher positions of power in government or government run businesses. They didn’t form these groups to serve the Namibian people but to satisfy their own desires for power and thusly they will not gain any meaningful votes in the upcoming election.
With this as the case, coupled with SWAPO’s determination to run a strong and effective campaign, expect SWAPO to win the upcoming election. Presdent Pohamba, who is standing for re-election recently, spoke about what SWAPO had to do to ensure victory at the upcoming election and concluded his speech with these words, “We must also work harder and always consistently so that the voters can turn out in large numbers to exercise their democratic right and vote… While the track record of our Party speaks for itself, we must work to convince the populace that we can do better.” So as was stated earlier, expect SWAPO to handily win the November elections not because of corruption, voter intimidation or opposition intimidation, but because they are the party that the Namibian people wish to follow.
As Africans, I believe it absolutely imperative that we actively engage with the rest of the world. Naturally, we should concentrate on the issues that arise within our own borders as a priority, but one thing we should never forget is that we are not alone in the world and engagement with it is necessary if we are to flourish. In this article, I break from my usual style of writing about issues on the African continent and wish to touch upon some events outside of our borders. The issue I wish to address is some recent news in the ever heart-breaking Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This paper will in no way attempt to explain in any detail the causes for the current crisis and because of this I advise that if one wishes to fully appreciate this article and better understand the plight of our brothers and sisters in Palestine, the time has come for you to study it. With that let us examine the issue at hand.
Just a few days ago, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gave an important policy speech concerning the Palestinian question. Netanyahu's coalition government just came into power a few months ago and hadn't yet stated its policy regarding the Palestinians. In his previous stint as Prime Minister and in the years since, Netanyahu has never publicly endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Netanyahu represents the right-wing conservative Lekud party which is usually quiet unsympathetic to the oppression that Israel puts Palestine under. However, with President Obama in the White House, Israeli's most powerful ally is no longer their unquestioned follower.
Throughout his campaign and in since his early days in office, Obama has tried to walk the line between being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. In President Obama's recent speech in Cairo on the 4th of June, he stressed the importance for reconciliation and closer bonds between the west and the Muslim World. In addition to this, President Obama again stated that the US supported the creation of a Palestinian state and called on Israel to stop some of its actions that hindered and ultimately harmed the peace process. (such as the building of settlements on Palestinian land) Those who have followed and are interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict waited curiously to see how Netanyahu's government would respond to such a strong pro-Palestinian statement by a US President.
The response of Netanyahu was not surprising to many but still had the effect of infuriating Palestinians and their allies/supporters across the world. Netanyahu declared for the first-time his acceptance of a Palestinian state but when one reads the conditions with which he accepts this, it is as if he had said nothing. Netanyahu has claimed willingness to support a creation of a Palestinian state under certain conditions the key ones being the following. Firstly, Palestine is to accept Israel as a Jewish state and secondly, Palestine is to have no army, navy, or control of their airspace, and measures must be taken to ensure weapons aren't able to enter the new state.
My brothers and sisters of the continent, the conditions laid out by the Israeli government are ludicrous and utterly outrageous. Was it not only a generation or two ago, when our colonial masters made similar demands on us? Didn't they not, in their attempts to continue to control and dominate their colonies attempt to impose similar restrictions on our sovereignty? Apartheid South Africa for example attempted to impose similar terms on Namibia and South Africa before international and local pressures forced them to allow free and fair elections. Didn't we as Africans who had our independence and were members of the UN stand up in opposition to such racist subjugation of a people who demand their freedom!! We did, and now our brothers and sisters call for the same action from us on the continent.
Kwame Nkrumah once said, “The best way of learning to be an independent sovereign state is to be an independent sovereign state.” He also said, “Freedom is not something that one people can bestow on another as a gift. They claim it as their own and none can keep it from them.” My brothers and sisters, the Palestinian people have been denied their freedom by the Israeli's and their American/western allies since the declaration of the state of Israel in 1947. Since that point, they have been abandoned and ignored not only by the western powers, but by many who live in the Arab World. The subjugation of the Palestinians is eerily similar to the Apartheid government in Namibia and South Africa. We as Africans rejected that government and its practices because we saw it as an evil on this earth that needed to be eradicated. What is happening to our brothers and sisters in Palestine must not continue and we as Africans, who understand very well the injustices and pain of illegal occupation, must act.
One of the most important things I wish to emphasize in my writing is this, freedom and justice is the light that makes this world beautiful. We as Africans must unite not because of sentimental feelings or random reasons such as geography etc. We must untie because it is my belief that we will be better able to ensure a better standard of living for our people if we work together. When Africans formed the OAU in the early 1960s, and stated that one of its goals was to assist other African countries fighting for their independence, we did it for a reason. And that reason was to help fight injustice and assist bringing freedom to a people. We wanted to give support to those, who happened to be African, in their struggle against foreign domination and oppression. We must not forget that at this moment, the Palestinians are fighting the same fight. Yes we are Africans and we indeed have immense problems that we already can't handle, but what we must remember is that we are human beings! We all share this earth and it is our larger goal to ensure that all human beings have freedom and justice wherever and whoever they are. We can't fight every battle but we can speak out and act against certain blatant injustices when we see them. This is such a case and I stand with my brothers and sisters in Palestine who fight for their freedom, where do the rest of you stand?
