Ndung’u Wainaina argues that there has to be an unwavering commitment by African societies to human rights - and that part of that vigilance also means protecting human rights advocates who might be under threat from the state or other actors.

Building the rule of law and respect of human rights in a post-conflict situation is challenging. The problems which are borne out of conflict are, notably, the loss of human lives, displacement of the population, destruction of property, trauma, sexual assault and violence. These disastrous consequences contribute to instability and the destabilization of a country. Peace remains fragile. To reinforce the return of stability, specific situational context process must be adopted to include a harmonious balance between the fight against impunity, the necessities to create a solid base for a lasting reconciliation, the respect for human rights and the rule of law. These fundamental issues must be integrated with an equal redistribution of resources and the participation of all. Kenya human rights defenders have faced extraordinary challenges throughout post-independence era yet they have worked intensely and with great courage. But now is not the time to rest on their laurels, as this period of political transition offers both opportunities and challenges for the protection and promotion of human rights; particularly in an Opposition vanquished or demobilized scenario.

Human rights defenders are the experts on the historical lessons and understand current situation prevailing in Kenya. A great lesson has been the importance of a vibrant civil society and media in checking the excesses of ever crafty political class. In the context of current conflict, and the threat to democratic rights, the unwavering commitment by civil society and the media to insist that human rights be upheld demonstrated the significance of these independent voices. A vibrant, diverse civil society and a free and fearless media will continue to be essential in the transition period ahead. It is also essential that, human rights defenders maintain their independence from the political process, and defend the human rights of all Kenyans. Human rights are not political, they do not pertain to only one group or other of society, and a shift in political power must not lessen vigilance of human rights defenders.

An important development we have witnessed during the current political crisis in Kenya is the rising tide of awareness of commitment to human rights by the wider Kenyan society. Though there were cases of serious threats and extremisms, against independent voices of human rights defenders who rose above parochial and partisan ethnic politics. The expressions of social solidarity, of the aims for a more inclusive society which does away with ingrained discrimination, offer great hope and opportunity for human rights in the future. Discrimination on the basis of social orientation and ethnicity must be tackled in the new Kenya. Discrimination against women, which is often multiple discrimination as it is added to patriarchal systems and ethnicity-based discrimination, also needs to be systematically eradicated.

The positive and significant political developments that have happened, including the signing of the Political Agreement and the establishment of a grand coalition government, have raised great expectations, particularly with regard to an end to discrimination, inequalities and impunity. As the peace process advances, the complexities of bringing about such changes, which require political will and the uprooting of deep-seated traditional patterns of prejudices and stereotypes, have become more apparent. The enactment of new democratic constitution and undertaking comprehensive transitional justice policy remains a crucial step toward the creation of a more participatory, inclusive and equal society, but there are still obstacles to overcome in order for that reality to take place. Equally the new government has to make strong commitments to human rights culture. These commitments must be seen through, in terms of policy and action. Though there is continued commitment to human rights standards through political statements, political leadership must ensure that its cadres at all levels understand these commitments and fulfill them. Even if difficulties arise in the political process, there must be no backing away from these commitments to protect human rights by any party.

While there has been established commitment to observe and adhere to the agreement between the government of Party of National Unity[PNU] and the Orange Democratic [ODM], it is essential that the parties move ahead rapidly to establish a credible and strong mechanism to monitor the implementation of the agreement. This must include an effective mechanism for reporting and dealing with violations of the agreement, in order to ensure that problems which occur at the local level are dealt with quickly and fairly before they blow up into larger or intractable problems.

Another key issue for human rights defenders, seeking to consolidate the rule of law in the transition period and for the longer term, is that of accountability for present and past human rights violations. There must be accountability for human rights violations of the past and the present. Without accountability and without justice, the culture of impunity will never end. Human rights defenders shall continue vigorously to call for action to resolve all outstanding cases of grave human rights violations. Families and relatives of the affected should not have to wait any longer to see a thorough and credible process initiated by the State to unmask truth and administer justice. It is legal obligation and moral imperative.

The issue of accountability for violations committed during the conflict and in the past has wider implications. The process of prosecutions, assistance to victims, truth commission, and institutional reform are some of the measures which Kenya should adopt to address the consequences of the post-election violence violations and past human rights violations in order to rebuild a society based on respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is important, that Kenyans have an open discussion about what measures are needed. This discussion itself must be inclusive, and especially bring in people from marginalized and discriminated against groups, victims and women. One of the important lessons from other countries which have come out of conflict is that such transitional justice measures, in order to be effective, need the pro active engagement of members of civil society at all levels.

The hopes of Kenyans are very high, with constant calls on leaders to ensure that the political process ahead respects the aspirations for a fairer society, one that respects the human rights of all. Fulfilling these hopes will require commitment and hard work from Kenyans from all walks of life. The human rights community of Kenya with their regional and other international friends must remain vigilant and maintain its integrity and independence. It will need all to work hard to ensure that the political process is effective as a step toward a permanent end to perpetual conflicts in Kenya and that the political process respects and protects the human rights of all Kenyans.

Another prerequisite for creating a climate free of fear, impunity and intimidation will be the commitment of all parties, organizations and their constituencies to respect the peaceful views and progressive activities of others. Building trust and dialogue must replace threats, intimidation and acts of violence to resolve differences. Security system must also take effective measures to end abuses by its cadres. Transforming a climate of impunity into a culture of accountability will be essential to a successful transformation and sustainable peace. The lack of progress in addressing impunity is deeply worrying. It will require political will, courage and determination to move the process forward, but it is one that cannot wait. The political ceasefire agreement still provide a historic opportunity to create a fully inclusive and democratic State which protects the human rights of all and enables all Kenyan people to participate equally and effectively in society governance. It is the responsibility of all parties and Kenyans to ensure that this promise is fulfilled.

*Ndung'u Wainaina is the Director of the International Center for Policy and Conflict (www.icpcafrica.org)

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Here below is an organizational sign-on letter to G8 leaders calling for the $60 billion committed last year to AIDS, TB, malaria, and health system strengthening to be apportioned about the G8 countries to help make that commitment real, as well as for technical and financial support, through an agreed framework again apportioning responsibility among G8 countries, to support national health workforce plans designed to meet health goals. The Health Workforce Advocacy Initiative (http://www.healthworkforce.info/HWAI/Welcome.html), a civil society-led network affiliated with the Global Health Workforce Alliance, circulated this letter for signature last week at the First Global Forum on Human Resources for Health in Kampala, Uganda, where it received considerable support. We now seek supplementary organizational signatures to support this call. If your organization is able sign, please email Amanda Cary ([email protected]) with your organization’s name and country by Tuesday, March 18.

Dear Prime Minister Fukuda,

We are health workers, non-governmental organization representatives, people living with HIV/AIDS, global health leaders, government ministers, health professional association presidents, academics, and other citizens from around the globe who are committed to a healthier world. We recognize that the health workforce is central to achieving the human right to health, and [many of us] have gathered in Kampala, Uganda, for the First Global Forum on Human Resources for Health, March 2-7, 2008. Our presence in Kampala symbolizes the global consensus on the need for unprecedented action to respond to the global health workforce crisis. Only then can the unconscionable level of death and disease in much of the developing world – such as the 1 in 16 chance lifetime risk that a woman in sub-Saharan Africa has of dying in childbirth – be overcome.

We write to you as the host of this year’s G8 summit. Japan has a recent history of supporting global health, including by launching the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria following the G8 Kyushu-Okinawa Summit, Japan’s Okinawa Infectious Diseases Initiative, and more recently the Health and Development Initiative. At the half-way point towards MDG health commitment, many countries are falling far behind. Thus it is critical for the 2008 summit to become be a landmark in fulfilling commitments to global health.

In your World Economic Forum speech in January, you recognized the massive shortage of health workers. Sub-Saharan Africa needs an estimated 1.5 million new health workers. Inadequate human resources for health is a fundamental obstacle to scaling up of services to address HIV/AIDS, other infectious disease, and maternal and child death.

Therefore, we urge you to lead the G8 members this year to commit to fully meet their responsibilities under the Global Action Plan for Human Resources for Health adopted at this First Global Forum on Human Resources for Health, including to provide predictable financing sufficient (combined with other sources) to enable national health workforce plans to be fully implemented; to ensure that international financial institutions relax macroeconomic constraints; to adhere to ethical recruitment practices and strive for self-sufficiency in their own health workforces; and to provide technical support. We too commit ourselves to meeting our collective responsibilities in the action agenda, since, as you have correctly noted, changing the current crisis cannot be shouldered by the G8 alone, but requires actions from all stakeholders.

To help implement the Global Action Plan for Human Resources for Health, you can lead the G8 to the historic step of turning joint past commitments an agreed framework of individual country action by G8 countries. In particular, at the 2007 G8 Summit, G8 countries committed to spend $60 billion in the coming years for AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and health system strengthening. We urge you to turn this pledge into concrete action. The first essential step is a G8 plan where the $60 billion is apportioned among each G8 country, pursuant to a timeline that is consistent with the pace and scale of investments required to achieve universal access to HIV/AIDS services by 2010 and the MDG health goals. The 2008 G8 Summit should also fully fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria at $6-8 billion annually. We urge you lead a G8 strategy to apportion funding for the G8 commitment by launching negotiations among the G8 countries and seeking to conclude such negotiations by the end of Japan’s G8 Presidency.

The 2008 G8 Summit should also ensure that countries can secure technical support to develop health sector strategies and national health workforce plans aimed at achieving the health-related MDGs, and that no sound strategy or plan should lack funding needed for full implementation. The G8 should develop a framework – such as that used for the $60 billion – to ensure that the G8 invests its fair share in these health workforce plans. We urge the G8 to begin to fund implementation at country level on an urgent basis, particularly in the countries that are furthest behind towards achieving the MDGs.

We look forward to a Hokkaido Summit that will help turn the ideal of human security that Japan has championed into reality for untold millions of people around the world, including through the commitments and concrete actions required to secure for every person, in every part of every country, access to skilled health workers who are equipped, motivated, and supported.

*To sign, please email the name of your organization and country to Amanda Cary at [email][email protected] no later than March 18.

**Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Blessing-Miles Tendi argues that If Mugabe is to stand trial for crimes against humanity, he must do so as close as possible to the site of his crimes - Zimbabwe.

On February 27, 2008, the BBC’s John Simpson asked Simba Makoni if he ‘would not stand against the principle of sending President Mugabe to The Hague’.

Makoni replied: ‘No. We will be a full member of the international community and we will act in accordance with the normal standards of international justice’.

International newswires immediately went into an excited frenzy about the prospect of Mugabe standing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which functions to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This ‘international’ excitement needs to be shot dead in its tracks.

Since the treaty for the ICC was assented to by countries around the globe in 1998, 105 countries have ratified the treaty to date. Zimbabwe is not one of these 105 countries hence the ICC has no jurisdiction over Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, the ICC treaty came into effect in 2002. The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after 2002. The crime that could provide the strongest basis for Mugabe standing trial at a court such as the ICC is the Gukurahundi atrocities. However, the Gukurahundi was perpetrated before 2002.

Mugabe cannot stand trial for the Gukurahundi at the ICC.

Mugabe committed many crimes after 2002 but the burden is on those who advocate for Mugabe standing trial at The Hague to prove how these crimes qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

And while it is within the power of the UN Security Council to refer a human rights situation to the ICC for investigation, this has failed to materialise for years now and it is debatable whether consensus for such a measure can ever be reached given some of Zimbabwe’s long standing allies on the Security Council.

States that have not ratified the ICC treaty can opt to accept the court’s jurisdiction but for Zimbabwe, this option is undesirable and unnecessary.

Zimbabwe’s justice system has been corrupted by Zanu PF over the years but it remains competent and it has retained a considerable level of independence despite manifold state pressures. More importantly, there is a pertinent tension between the universal jurisdiction embodied in the ICC and the local.

Justice that is local or national is better felt than justice delivered in distant international courts such as the ICC.

Justice at The Hague is not felt by widows deep in Tsholotsho who lost their husbands to the Gukurahundi. It is not felt by the homeless and displaced victims of Murambatsvina who are living like cockroaches on Caledonia farm. If Mugabe is to stand trial, he must do so as close as possible to the site of his crimes - Zimbabwe.

The appropriate place for Mugabe to face the judgment of history is in Matabeleland where he had thousands slaughtered and in the areas where Murambatsvina was conducted.

There are many unanswered questions in Zimbabwean history, and there is a need for national healing and reconciliation. Mugabe has a part to play in addressing these issues, and he can only do so adequately if his fate and confessions are a national affair.

The likes of John Simpson, the ‘international’ media, the executive director of the International Bar Association Mark Ellis, and some members of the British House of Commons, who make a lot of noise about Mugabe standing trial at The Hague must be reminded that Zimbabweans have a strong historical perspective, and that Zimbabweans are not blind to their double standards.

For instance, were it possible for Mugabe to stand trial for the Gukurahundi at The Hague, serious questions about British sins of omission and commission in Zimbabwe would arise. Britain was aware of the killings in Matabeleland but in 1983, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in India, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did not raise the matter of the Gukurahundi.

In the same year, Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Office Minister, visited Zimbabwe and held diplomatic consultations with Mugabe. Rifkind did not mention the Gukurahundi in his report to the British House of Commons on his return to London.

Perence ‘Black Jesus’ Shiri, the dreaded commander of the Fifth Brigade during the Gukurahundi, was the first Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) officer to attend London’s Royal College of Defence Studies as an honoured guest in 1986. The Royal College of Defence Studies describes itself as ‘the senior Defence academic institution in the United Kingdom… the most prestigious institution of its kind in the world’.

Retired General Edward Jones, Director of the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT) in Zimbabwe from 1983 to 1985, explained the motive for Britain’s offer of tenure at the Royal College to Shiri as follows: “Undoubtedly, he was the man who was going to be important in Zimbabwe and I think it was important that we should influence him positively in so far as we could.” In 2000, Tony Blair’s Labour government authorised the sale of spare parts for British made Hawk 200 jets to the Zimbabwe Air Force, now commanded by the same Perence Shiri. Farm invasions during the Third Chimurenga were coordinated by ZNA officials with Shiri playing a key coordinating role.

The military man whose excesses Britain had turned a blind eye to in the past, honoured at London’s Royal College and supplied with military parts became a key impediment to attempts at ending the violent farm invasions. In light of this, the ‘international’ moral grandstanding about Mugabe going to The Hague must be abandoned.

There is no powerful ‘international’ lobby for Tony Blair and his associates - or George Bush and his cronies for that matter - to stand trial at the ICC for their naked crimes in Iraq. The few criminal cases the ICC is dealing with today involve countries such as the Central African Republic, Sudan, the DRC and Uganda. Thorny questions about African sovereignty are brought into play by this focus on crimes in Africa. There is clearly one standard of international justice for the powerful and another one for the weak.

The ‘international’ clamour for Mugabe to stand trial at The Hague must be seen against this background.

*Blessing-Miles Tendi is a researcher at Oxford University.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Marie Claire Faray-kele argues that even though the bodies of Congolese women were used as battlefields in the DRC war, they are now being excluded from peace process.

As women from around the world join in solidarity this International Women’s Day, we are reminded that gender-based violence is one of the greatest threats to women’s advancement, empowerment and security. Sadly, for many of my sisters in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), sexual violence of the worst kind is a daily reality. Some of them have suffered such grievous sexual abuse; that they would struggle to walk to water well, let alone join a demonstration for female emancipation.

There is no denying that the human cost of the conflict and instability in the DRC has been cataclysmic. Since 1997, more than 4 million people are estimated to have died as a result of the war. But so far there is no figure for the number of Congolese women who have suffered the petrifying and dehumanising ordeal of systematic rape. While rape and sexual violence have been a product of many conflicts, the scale and systematic nature of the rapes in eastern Congo renders it a weapon of war. Sexual violence has been used to punish entire communities for their political loyalties, to displace populations from their lands or as a form of tribal cleansing.

As part of the UK disapora of Congolese women, I am in regular contact with members of women’s organisation in the DRC, such as the Solidarity of the Women of Burhalé (SOFEBU), based in the east of the country. The group was founded in the 80s, in recognition that women can only become politically emancipated once they have gained economic empowerment. So SOFEBU women set up collective crèches, manage livestock and agricultural projects and form cooperatives in jam-making or clothes dye production. All these projects are managed and implemented by women. But since 1997, many of my fellow Congolese women have lost everything after being subjected to rape and other gender-based violence. Some of these women and girls have been held in sexual slavery. Kidnapped at gunpoint, they were raped by gangs of armed men; who sometimes then mutilated their genitals. Many women are so badly that they have been left with “obstetric fistula”, a condition that leaves them incontinent and unlikely to survive a full-term pregnancy. There are no exemptions from the rapists’ barbarity: victims are as young as three and as old as 75.

Even if these terrible physical injuries do heal – which is unlikely given the scarcity of medical provision in the region – the victims then face the appalling humiliation of being rejected from their husbands, due to the stigma of rape.

These women become silent, invisible. They have no possibility of a social life. Their levels of poverty increase sharply. They cannot seek any justice, even if they know the rapist’s identity. The conflict in the DRC is often referred to as the forgotten war in the international media. But the international community also overlooks the fact that the rapes and the killings have been fuelled by the flood of AK-47 rifles, revolvers and pistols into the African Great Lakes region. These weapons are the rapist’s and killer’s tools of choice and have continued to facilitate the brutality, despite a UN arms embargo.

They are smuggled across the borders from neighbouring countries such as Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and South Africa, but of course they originated in the United States, Europe and the former Soviet Union. A further source of weaponry is provided by multinational companies who flock to eastern DRC to extract coltan, which is used in the manufacture of laptops and mobile phones. Showing an astonishing lack of responsibilty and disregard for human rights, these companies employ local men whom they then arm with guns for "security purposes."

Even UN peacekeepers, the very people who should be protecting the population, have been accused of trafficking gold and weapons. A recent investigation conducted by the Chief of U.N. Peacekeeping was criticised for its lack of transparency, slow progress and narrowness of scope. No system has been set up to observe and control the traffic of guns and no arms brokers or traffickers have been punished and brought to justice.

There is a crucial stumbling block in the DRC disarmament process because women were not and are still not adequately involved or informed. In fact, women are practically excluded from the peace building processes all together. The latest peace agreement was signed in late January 2008, at a conference in Goma, eastern Congo. Out of 600 delegates, there were only 33 women in attendance. Out of a six page document, the only referral to rape and sexual violence was in a singular paragraph that read: “[all parties hereby agree to] the cessation of all acts of violence in all forms towards the civilian population, particularly women and children, the elderly and handicapped.”

Unlike acts of mass killings, which are referred to as massacres, there is no noun for the act of deliberate, systematic rape. Congolese women want to know why not. They want a strengthened, independent and effective justice system in the DRC; and they want to see this disgusting crime investigated at the highest levels of the International Criminal Court. Crucially, they also want to be active in pursuing this justice. It is in the interest of women worldwide that violence against our gender at all levels is recognised and punished - and not witnessed on this scale ever again.

*Marie Claire Faray-kele is a Research Scientist in Infectious Diseases Centre, Institute of Cell and Molecular Science (ICMS), Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry in London.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

We, Daughters and Sons from the Kongo assembled in the Kodya dia Moyo Study Group, are hereby denouncing the events which took place in Lower Congo, more precisely, in Luozi and Nseke Banza.

1. For the record we would like to restate:

That the Kongo people are dedicated to peace, justice and truth;

That the ongoing massacres in Lower Congo were triggered by a legitimacy crisis which, in turn, stems from:
1. An election result achieved by corruption and intimidation;
2. A way of exercising power, by the provincial executive, under the control and partisan interests of the AMP and the Central Government through the Interior Ministry instead of the people of Kongo through its provincial Assembly;

That, subsequent to the unraveling of Kongo culture, the marginalization and pauperization of its people, since the 2nd Republic, the Bundu dia Kongo has set itself up as a body for the rehabilitation of the language, the cultural values and the conscience of the Kongo. Hence its current impact on the Kongo people;

That the rapid intervention police force is made up of former army soldiers who were once members of the Katangese gendarmes, and of the so-called Dragons and commando units from Mobutu’s days and trained as soldiers;

That the results of previous investigations have never been published and the appended recommendations never carried out;

II. We condemn:

The disrespectful treatment shown to our dead by throwing their bodies into the river;
The resorting to heavy military weapons by the police force;
The use of disproportionate repressive measures to resolve political problems;

III. We demand:

That heavy military weaponry be no longer used by the police;
That the governor act as an elected official and not as someone appointed by the Minister of the Interior;
An international investigation of the massacres by a credible organization;
The organization of a Provincial Round Table as had been recommended by the National Assembly;
That the current governor respond publicly, in the Provincial Assembly of the Lower Congo, to questions regarding the events mentioned above;
An explanation as to what happened to the 300 Interahamwe who were rejected in Bandundu, and then were sent to Lower Congo;
That the media use with utmost caution any image or language which might trigger and/or encourage the spreading of xenophobic sentiments throughout the country;

IV. We Call;

On all people from Kongo to remain calm and vigilant;
On elders to perform social catharsis by organizing a reconciliation process;
On solidarity towards those who have been affected by the massacres. We hereby call on local NGOs to act as intermediaries in this process.

We offer our deepest condolences to those families who have been affected

For the Kodya dia Moyo

Prof. Ernest Wamba dia Wamba

The National Constitutional Assembly strongly condemns the arrogance being displayed by the Zimbabwean government and President Robert Mugabe for being at liberty to authorize who will come and observe elections this March.

President Mugabe has already hinted that he will invite only his friends and those perceived to be enemies of the state will not be welcome to come and observe.

The Zimbabwean leader was also recently quoted as saying those in the European Union and Commonwealth were not invited to come and observe elections. The NCA is worried that Mugabe is taking his elevating personal feelings about own foes ahead of national interests.

The NCA is worried that because Mugabe had differences with the Commonwealth he is taking those differences to an election which himself is a competitor and dictate who is supposed to come and this contradicts his gospel of patriotism as he is putting personal interests above everything.

Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi told diplomats in Harare on Thursday that the government had selected 47 foreign observer teams, "on the basis of reciprocity, objectivity and impartiality in their relationship with Zimbabwe."

"Clearly, those who believe that the only free and fair election is where the opposition wins, have been excluded since the ruling party, Zanu PF, is poised to score yet another triumph," Mumbengegwi said.

It is the feeling of NCA that such moves by the government already jeopardize chances of those elections being legitimized by the international community and traditional supporters of ZANU PF will obviously endorse the elections as free and fair just like in the past.

NCA wants to notify all concerned in the upcoming 29 polls that the coming elections should not be reduced to a birthday party where only friends are invited but that it is a national election which should be open to scrutiny from diverse societies.

Already signs of rigging are set in place, the voters' roll is in shambles, the delimitation of constituencies was done in a patronage base and these signs coupled with manipulation of state resources for campaign purposes such as the reserve bank, national youth militia to intimidate opposition supporters will even make this election worst and far from being legitimate.

The NCA reiterates its long standing point that only a new people driven democratic constitution in Zimbabwe will make it a point that an Independent Electoral Commission will be responsible for accrediting who comes and observe elections in the country.

Currently the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission which obviously is dominated by ZANU PF stalwarts and sympathizers is failing to independently execute its duties as there is massive interference from the foreign affairs and presidency department.

The NCA calls on SADC, AU and all concerned parties to condemn such activities which are being demonstrated by the Robert Mugabe regime in trying to secure yet another victory through controversial means.

State media said Russia was the only European country invited while 23 African and several Asian nations would also monitor the polls, along with teams from regional economic blocs.

All 13 SADC states (Angola, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, South Africa, Mauritius, DRC and Madagascar) have been invited alongside 10 other African countries, namely Senegal, Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Libya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan.

Five Asian countries -- China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran -- and four countries from the Americas -- Brazil, Jamaica, Venezuela and Nicaragua -- will observe the elections.

African regional organisations invited are SADC, the African Union, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, NAM, the Economic Community of West African States, Pan African Parliament, Economic Community of Central African States and East African Community.

Among the invited sub-regional organisations are the Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific, Association of South East Asian Nations, MAGREB Union, Community of Portuguese Speaking (Lusophone) Countries and Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.

South Africa has indicated it will send an observer mission with 54 members drawn from government, the parliament, the political opposition and civil society.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) deplores new public statements by the commander of a state institution which ostensibly exists to impartially protect the safety and integrity of all people of Zimbabwe, regardless of their political persuasion. This comes in the light of the intemperate and unlawful utterances made by the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF), Constantine Chiwenga, which were published in The Standard on 9 March 2008.

According to The Standard report Commander Chiwenga stated that two of the presidential candidates, Morgan Tsvangirai and Simba Makoni, were “sell outs”, reiterating that:
“Elections are coming and the army will not support or salute sell outs and agents of the West before, during and after the presidential elections. We will not support anyone other than President Mugabe who has sacrificed a lot for the country”

Upon further enquiry as to the role of the army in a democracy the ZDF Commander is reported to have asked:
“What is wrong with the army supporting the President against the election of sell outs?”

These statements echo similar threats made just two week ago on 29 February 2008 by the Commissioner of the Zimbabwe Prison Service, Retired Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, which ZLHR has already condemned, in which he stated that:
“If the opposition wins the election, I will be the first one to resign from my job and go back to defend my piece of land…We are going to the elections and you should vote for President Mugabe. I am giving you an order to vote for the President.”

ZLHR again expresses its concern over a developing trend where senior members of influential state institutions such as the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the Zimbabwe Prison Service and the Zimbabwe National Army resort to intimidating their subordinates, the electorate and ordinary Zimbabweans prior to elections for the purposes of manipulating their vote in favour of the incumbent President and ruling party. Uniformed forces’ influence over the electoral process is generally unacceptable under national and international law.

These statements intimidating the electorate go back as far as the run up of the 2002 Presidential elections when the Commissioner of Police and then Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces Vitalis Zvinavashe made similar pronouncements.

This conduct essentially amounts to an attempt to use the cover of the electoral and other democratic processes to establish de facto military control, and are thus inconsistent with any of the principles of democratic rule.

According to Section 133B (c) of the Electoral Act, it is a criminal offence to intimidate people with the effect of compelling or attempting to compel them to vote for a particular political party or candidate. Section 134 (3) (b) goes on further to prohibit and criminalise any undue influence, whether duress or threats, upon a voter which influence seeks to make them vote or not vote during an election. The SADC Principles and Guidelines governing Democratic Elections also impart upon member states, including Zimbabwe, the obligation to ensure that elections adhere to the principles of freedom of association and political tolerance. Commander Chiwenga’s statements serve to directly intimidate both members of the ZDF and the electorate, through implied threats of violence, from voting freely for a presidential candidate of their choice, as is their right.

It is therefore clear that the ZDF Commander is in breach of the law and the regional guidelines, and should be prosecuted by the appropriate authorities forthwith.

ZLHR is also concerned by reports that members of the armed forces are allegedly being sent to their rural homes to campaign for the ruling ZANU PF party. ZLHR wishes to make it clear that the use of such a state institution as the army, which is supposed to be a non-partisan arm of the state, for party political purposes is clearly an abuse of state resources, moreso where such resources will be used to intimidate the people from voting freely.

ZLHR urges the law enforcement authorities and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to take action and speak out against these continuing statements which will surely create an environment of fear and intimidation in the run up of and during the March 2008 Elections, depriving the electorate their right to exercise their choice and cast their vote freely.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Madhuku Lovemore argues that Simba Makoni is hijacking the Zimbabwean struggle and will only entrench ZANU-PF type politics and suggests that no matter how flawed, Tsvangirai represents the best chance for change.

The emergence of the Simba Makoni "initiative/project" has raised justifiable questions about the direction of the continuing quest by Zimbabweans to end the dictatorship of the ZANU-PF regime and usher in a genuinely democratic dispensation.

One such question is: how should civic society relate to the initiative? More fundamentally, should it be the business of civic society organisations to pronounce their preferences among contesting presidential aspirants?

I have decided to take a few hours from my activist work and put pen to paper to address some of the pertinent issues arising from the Makoni "initiative/project".

In doing this, I am neither wearing the hat of an academic nor putting on the spectacles of the proverbial analyst. I am here articulating the views of a civic society activist who, since 1997, has been part of a movement that has certain beliefs, values and principles.

Accordingly, the views and positions expressed herein are partisan in that they are controlled by the beliefs, values and principles for which I have been an activist in the past 10 years. The starting point is to put my cards on the table. Based on the values and beliefs of the movement I belong to, the Makoni "initiative/project" is fundamentally misconceived. It will fail. It has no grassroots support. It misunderstands the nature of the responses required to address our deepening political crisis.

The founding stone of the initiative is the March 29 harmonised election. The planners believe that on March 29, Makoni will capture power from President Robert Mugabe through an electoral process presided over by none other than the President himself. To them, the reason why President Mugabe is still in power is because those who have challenged him in previous elections did it prematurely and lacked the requisite credentials, support and strategies. The time has now come, a person with the requisite credentials has been found and the support from appropriate circles is also available. According to them, President Mugabe is a democrat who respects electoral processes and will hand power to whoever is elected on March 29.

Makoni and his backers believe that peaceful street protests, stay aways and grassroots meetings advocating fundamental reforms such as a new, democratic and people driven constitution are inappropriate and misguided. All that matters is a carefully planned electoral strategy that "ambushes" (President) Mugabe and takes power away from him through the ballot.

The response to this approach is simple: the March 29, elections are being conducted under a defective constitution whose raison d'etre is to preserve the status quo. Elections under the current constitution cannot deliver change whatever the credentials of the contestants and however sophisticated their strategies.

Until Zimbabweans put their energies together and push the current regime to embrace a genuine and people-driven reform process that leads to a democratic constitution, power will not change hands through a mere election. Participation in the elections on March 29 cannot be for the purpose of winning power. It can only be for any other good reasons.

This brings me to the question of the day: if power cannot change hands under the current constitution, why are all major civic groups, including the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), urging people to go and vote on March 29?

Different civic groups may have different reasons for urging people to go and vote. For the NCA, March 29 will not deliver a new President but it provides a platform for Zimbabweans to make a statement against the Mugabe regime's sins, which include being the author of the suffering of the people and above all, its refusal to embrace democratic reforms.

Casting a vote against (President) Mugabe on March 29 is a peaceful protest against dictatorship and a key step in the post election agenda of confronting that dictatorship and advocating for genuine democratic reforms. But the vote on March 29 is not just against (President) Mugabe. It must be a statement in support of a set of values, beliefs and principles, which guide our post-election struggle for change in Zimbabwe.

It is in this context that the presidential candidature of Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) gains a windfall. The MDC was launched in September 1999 as a result of the deliberations of a Working People's Convention of February 1999. That Convention was convened by the ZCTU and was attended by most civic groups. The NCA played a key role at the Convention. At its launch in September 1999, the MDC had two main parents: the labour movement and the constitutional reform movement.

The MDC was formed as a political wing of these two movements to pursue, as a political party, the values and principles that these two movements represented. For example, the ZCTU would expect the MDC, as a political party, to fight for labour friendly policies. Similarly, the NCA expects the MDC to advocate for a new, democratic and people-driven constitution.

Thus, since 1999, there has existed a family: the labour movement, the constitutional reform movement and the political party mothered by these two movements. Each member of the family is a separate entity and independent from the others. The MDC is partisan.

The other movements are non-partisan. Like every other family, certain core family values are shared. In this particular family, the most important value is that Zimbabwe's political system must be transformed through people-driven processes and that a new, democratic and people driven constitution must anchor that transformation. The family is convinced that a "reformed ZANU-PF" is not the answer because it does not seek transformation.

The family has had its own problems. The MDC has not been consistent in defending family values. On many occasions, it has disappointed the family. There are two most recent disappointments. The first is its support for Amendment 18. It is common knowledge that the other family members were outraged by that misguided endorsement of piecemeal constitutional reforms. The second disappointment is the MDC's participation in this election under a defective constitution. The family's preference is "No elections without a new, democratic and people-driven constitution".

However, notwithstanding these disappointments, the family is agreed on the bigger picture of transforming Zimbabwe through people-driven processes. Whatever his weaknesses, Tsvangirai's presidential candidature symbolizes the founding values of our movement. Elections on March 29, being held under the current constitutional arrangements, will not make anyone other than (President) Mugabe, the president. Accordingly, a vote for either Morgan Tsvangirai or Simba Makoni can only be for other good reasons. For our family, our good reason is to support our kind of politics. It is to demonstrate that our kind of politics has the greatest support in the country and must therefore be vigorously pursued in the post-election period.

Our good reason is to use March 29 to set the agenda for the post-election period. As these elections cannot deliver a change of government, the competition between Tsvangirai and Simba Makoni is, to be blunt, "for No. 2 position." President Mugabe's "No. 1 position" is secured by the absence of a free and fair election. He has no genuine support. However, the competition for the "No. 2 position" is serious business. Making a choice between Simba Makoni and Morgan Tsvangirai is a big political statement, reflecting one's position as to the way forward in the current crisis. Morgan Tsvangirai represents the route we have been following since 1997. He is, as a person, not the answer. He represents the answer and must be supported.

A vote for Tsvangirai's presidential bid is a statement against a "reformed ZANU-PF" agenda. It is important that this statement be made against Simba Makoni and his group because their set of beliefs distorts our post-election agenda of a total assault against the system. This group does not believe in transformation – all they want is to replace (President) Mugabe. These ZANU-PF reformists have no post election agenda because they only have one plan: to win and govern. They are irrelevant in a post-election setting focusing on transformation. They do not believe in our methods. Fortunately, because of our grassroots presence, March 29 will show that the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans support a total transformation of the system presided over by (President) Mugabe and not a mere tinkering with it They will reject the Simba Makoni initiative. Makoni will be a distant third in the presidential race. The situation will remain what it is today with one solution – pushing for a genuine people-driven transformation and free and fair elections under a new democratic constitution.

*Lovemore Madhuku is the National Constituent Assembly chairman in Zimbabwe.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Salma Maoulidi looks at the mining research report, "A Golden Opportunity? How Tanzania is failing to benefit from Gold Mining” and argues that it builds a powerful case for continued activism in trade and economic justice in line with various Human rights instruments that call for a country’s wealth and natural resources to benefit primarily local communities.

Following intense scrutiny over suspect investment contracts by the government and investment companies, a consortium of activist organization and religious communities launched in Dar es Salaam a research titled “A Golden Opportunity? How Tanzania is failing to benefit from Gold Mining”. The report is authored by Tundu Lissu, a lawyer and long time environmental activist from Tanzania and Mark Curtis and independent author and journalist affiliated to a number of academic institutions in Europe.

The research in a critical policy area is a product of a year long initiative by activists and religious leaders to add moral weight to the mining tragedy that looms in Tanzania. Various human rights violations have been recorded including killings and displacements mainly resulting from conflicts between small miners and large scale multinational miners over mining rights. “It is not just about the mining companies but also highlighting the role of rich governments who remain silent over this injustice and in some instances have invested heavily in these companies reaping the benefits from an immoral tax structure”, says Fredrik Glad Jernes, Norwegian Church Aid Tanzania Country Representative.

The report makes grim reading about the governance and practice of mining companies in Tanzania. Mining is the fastest growing sector in the Tanzanian economy but the growth of the sector is not comparable to its contribution to the GDP at just about 3%. Part of the problem lays in the structure of the tax laws that is overly favourably to mining companies and not to Tanzanians.

The situation is attributed to the World Bank financed sectoral reform project begun in the mid nineties which became the basis of laws that inform the tax and mining regimes in the country. The royalty paid to the Government for gold is only at 3%. Tanzania posses around 45m ounces of gold which at the current gold prices means the country is worth USD39 billiion yet it is categorized as one of the poorest countries in the world. In the last 5 years Tanzania exported gold worth more than USD2.5 billion but whereas the government has only received an average of USD21.7million in royalties and taxes on the exports Mining Companies record handsome profits out side of Tanzanian on their websites and company audits presented to shareholders.

Two main companies were scrutinized on the basis of activist work done by the Lawyers Environmental Action Team headed by Tundu Lissu- Barrick Gold a Canadian Company operating mines in Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Tulakawa and AngloGold Ashanti a South African company with British links which operates mines in Geita, the largest gold deposit in the country. The researchers estimate that mining companies have earned about USD2.5 billions from exports but Tanzania only records about USD100 million from gold earnings. The researchers estimate that Tanzanian is loosing more than USD400 billion from tax concessions as well as tax evasion e.g. non payment of corporation tax and waivers on income tax on expatriate workers.

The impunity reigns in part because there is no parliamentary scrutiny over mining contracts. Also the government does not have the capacity to adequately monitor the sector. For example, there are wide discrepancies between statistics published by the companies and those issued by the government pertaining to the sector suggesting discrepancies in record keeping. In some instances the researchers have found under reporting of earning to local governments but the tendencies to inflate the amounts of investments made. Rarely is there an indication of the environmental hazards committed and likely to be committed from mining operations. In addition the investments to local communities are negligible with companies being obliged to contribute not more than USD200, 000 to local governments.

The research is published by the Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT) the National Council of Muslims in Tanzania (BAKWATA) and the Tanzania Episcopal Conference (TEC). It was funded by the Norwegian Church Aid and Christian Aid, the latter having done similar research in Zambia looking at the Copper Sector leading to the Zambian government declaring its intention to review the terms of investment contracts governing its mining sector. This is the first time the religious community in Tanzania have been involved in high profile advocacy against the government and multinationals.

The Bomani Commission, a presidential commission created to investigate the mining sector is expected to publish its findings by the end of March. “The report will provide us with sound reference on some of the recommendations” declared Hon. Zitto Kabwe who attended the launch. The Commission was constituted following the call in parliament by opposition member Zitto Kabwe for a probe committee into the suspect dealing of the Ministry with regards to Buzwagi Mine where Barrick Gold plans to open another mine in the midst of a review process of the mining sector. This triggering uproar from civil society organizations and opposition parties creating the impetus that ultimately saw the former Prime Minister Edward Lowassa resigning and his cabinet being dissolved a few weeks ago.

While the report can be criticized for lacking a gender analysis, and narratives (not just descriptions) of how mining operations are devastating lives in local communities where mining operations take place, it provides a powerful reading. It also builds a powerful case for continued activism in trade and economic justice in line with various Human rights instruments that call for a country’s wealth and natural resources to benefit primarily local communities.

* Salma Maoulidi is an Activist/Executive Director of the Sahiba Sisters Foundation in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The East African sub-regional women's collective calls for a comprehensive peace plan that is cognizant of how violence affects women.

We, members of the regional women’s voices for peace initiative from Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia, Tanzania and Uganda gathered here in Nairobi on the 15th February 2008 bring women’s voices and solidarity messages to the people of Kenya. We take cognizance of the exceptional suffering that has been meted out on the most vulnerable members of the population especially women and children. We know what war can do to a country and its people, and we urge Kenyans to stop the actions that will take the country down that road.

We renounce the violence that erupted across Kenya following the election in December 2007. As women many of us have suffered with different experiences of violence and war in various countries in the region. We are aware that in Kenya women have been widowed, buried children, been raped and witnessed the rape of daughters. As women of the region, we express our deep pain, grief and shock at the unfortunate retrogression in the political situation in Kenya. As mothers we are tired of violence and war, Africa is suffering. Enough is enough!

We also recognize that the youth who are paying the ultimate sacrifice are our children and the future hope of the nation and continent. We also recognize that large numbers of people are now displaced from their homes and land. Many of these are women who have endured gender based violence and lost access to basic care, medicines and food supplies.

We appreciate the on-going mediation processes and urge the parties involved to look beyond the immediate political interests and take into consideration the interests of all Kenyans.

The regional women’s voices for peace initiative is concerned that while the broad issues of democratization, human rights and business interests may be addressed in ongoing efforts to finding a solution to the crisis; it is important to articulate women’s voices on the effect and impact of the crisis and the search for solutions.

Recommendations:

We hereby call for:

1. A total end to the violence, including addressing the underlying and deep rooted causes of the conflict,

2. Medical, humanitarian and psychosocial support to female victims of sexual and gender based violence,

3. Speedy political settlement including the active implementation of UNSCR Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, the AU Peace and Security Protocol, the EAC Treaty provisions on peace and security and the Great Lakes Conference on Peace and Security,

4. Political and legal reforms that will bring on board women in political leadership and other high-level positions of governance,

5. Truth, justice and reconciliation mechanisms and other national healing processes,

6. Retributive justice including compensation that pays attention to the special circumstances of women.

7. East African Community and other regional blocs to seriously address the Kenya issue which has the potential to jeopardize the regional integration process.

We call upon the people of Kenya, to desist from acts of violence, promote tolerance and peaceful co-existence. The instruments of peace will be the people of Kenya themselves.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The following memorandum was prepared by members of the Merti Range Users Association in northern Isiolo, Kenya. It expresses their concern about concessions recently granted to a Chinese company to prospect for oil in the rangelands. It illustrates the potential threats of this kind of external investment on the ecosystem and local livelihoods, and the lack of transparency in the negotiations.

Memorandum submitted by the Merti Range Users Association of Isiolo, Kenya, in relation to a Chinese company undertaking oil prospecting activities in the area

To: Hon. Kiraitu Murungi, Minister for Energy
Hon. Mohamed Abdi Kuti, MP Isiolo North
The Director, NEMA
The District Commissioner, Isiolo District
All Councillors, Isiolo County Council

Whereas Rangeland Users Association is an institutional framework developed for the purpose of the welfare of the pastoralist people living in Merti division of Isiolo district;

Recognizing that pastoralism is the mainstay of the economy of the area and thus the majority of the population are therefore members of the association;

Further noting that a Chinese company is now said to engage in undertaking oil prospecting activities in the heartland of the rangeland on which the pastoralists raise their livestock and manage the environment, its fauna and flora;

Apprehensive that the said prospecting activities will lead to massive environmental destruction, thereby destabilizing an already fragile ecosystem that is constantly pressurized by the vagaries of ever-changing climatic conditions;

Further noting that the said Chinese company is undertaking these activities in total exclusion of the local people and its leadership;

Realizing that this oil prospecting activity will ultimately lead to not only destroying the existing ecosystem, its economy and the people depending on it but have serious long-term negative effects on the environment on which we derive our livelihood;

And having further realized that the said Chinese company is not willing to engage the local population, its leadership and institutions on any of the issues,

We therefore submit the following:

1. That an urgent immediate action be taken by the elected leadership to engage the relevant government organ/department to ensure the above-raised concerns are addressed in the following manner.
2. That the Chinese company is practising unethical labour procedure in total contravention of international labour conventions, Kenyan labour laws and rules of natural justice. This they do by engaging persons without any signed papers, not informing them of their renumerations, working long extensive hours without commensurate overtime payments, tight social restrictions bordering on enslavement and human rights abuse. This is all supposedly happening in your own country and village. This must be urgently redressed and corrected.
3. That any further employment opportunities must be given to the local people unless such expertise cannot be sourced locally.
4. All sourcing of goods and services must also be given to the local people as propriety.
5. That the oil company should pay for the havoc they will cause to the local economy in view of the destruction their activities are going to occasion to the environment, economy and infrastructure in the area such as roads.
6. That the process of granting concessions and rights by the government must involve the local pastoralist communities whose livelihood depends wholly on this land and the natural resources found thereon.
7. That these are grave matters touching on lives and livelihoods and should be addressed with the urgency they deserve.

*Signed for and on behalf of 68 elders representing all the localities of Merti division, Diba Golicha Galma, Chairman, Range Users Association, Merti.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The recently concluded SOAWR pre-summit meeting reflects on the achievements to date and charts a way forward

The SOAWR Review and Agenda Setting Meeting was held at the United Nations Conference Centre, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 22 - 24 January 2008 on the theme: Building an Accountable African Union: Perspectives of the African Women’s Movement. The meeting reflected on the national and continental campaign experiences on the rights of women to date with a view to laying down continental strategies for the full ratification and the effective implementation of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa by Member States.

Having deliberated on past achievements, challenges and lessons learned, and realising the African Union and Heads of State and Governments’ commitment to promoting women’s rights through the adoption and signing of the Protocol and other related international human rights instruments do call on the member states to honour their obligations to make these rights a reality for women.,

Deeply concerned about the post election conflict situation in Kenya the meeting resolved to issue a separate communiqué on the conflict in solidarity with Kenyan women and appealing to the government, political parties, African Union, civil society organizations and the international community to act to urgently resolve the crisis,

Applauding the progress made by the African Union Commission in facilitating the realization of women’s rights in the continent, reaffirm our commitment to continue working with the African Union Commission as a key partner, in the pursuit of actualizing the rights provided in the Protocol,

Appreciating the speed at which the Protocol came into force; nevertheless express concern about the slow pace of ratification by the remaining thirty countries (Algeria, Botswana , Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Rep. of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda and Zimbabwe) and domestication and implementation of the Protocol by the twenty-three countries ( Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, The Comoros, Djibouti, The Gambia, Ghana, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia) that have ratified the Protocol,

Reaffirming our commitment to sustain the efforts for the ratification, domestication and implementation of the Protocol; hereby call on state parties to;

- Ratify the Protocol without reservations and speedily domesticate and implement the provisions of the Protocol to ensure women enjoy all the rights therein

- Maintain gender mainstreaming within the African Union in the truest spirit of having gender equality and hence ensure the 50/50 representation at all levels of the African Union Commission as provided within the Constitutive Act (Article 4)

- Ratify the Protocol Establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and in the true spirit of human rights promotion and protection in Africa, follow the example of Burkina Faso and sign the declaration as provided in article 34(6) of the Protocol thereby removing the restriction on direct access to the court by individuals and civil society organisations

- Take a common stand on trade negotiations with the European Union and refrain from bilateral/unilateral Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which will compromise Africa’s development and in particular negatively impact on the lives of women and children.

- Open the African Union summit spaces for the civil society organizations, by means of accreditation thereby enabling them to effectively play their role as partners in development and human rights promotion. This would hence translate into the AU being truly an African peoples’ union!

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Una Kumba Thompson talks about the special challenges facing Liberian women and calls for greater solidarity amongst African women.

For over two years Africa and the world has seen and witnessed the rise and fall of Liberia. Starting from the 1800s with the arrival of free slaves to the shores of West Africa, leading to the declaration and independence of Liberia in July 26, 1847.
 
Since that time, Liberia has served as a beacon of hope for Africa, until 1980 when this “proclaimed” peaceful country experienced its first calamity of a bloody coup de tait. The country thereafter degenerated into anarchy and chaos, with rampant corruption, human rights abuses and bad governance as its hall mark. 

1990 civil war was the final result of one hundred and forty years of rule of successive governments. It is estimated that over 250.000 Liberians and other nationals died in this crisis; including raping of women/girls, sporadic killing, execution of civilians and destruction of millions of dollars of property, infrastructure and a complete break down of the rule of Law.  Liberia became a “no mans” land with its people fleeing and seeking refugee in various African, European countries including America; thousands languishing in refugee camps. The once beloved nation, one that African countries strived to emulate had become a sad story. 

Just as everything must come to an end, so it was that the civil crisis came to an end in 2003.The ushering in of another interim government with the support of regional and international organizatons, countries lead the process of the general elections of Liberia.

The election of 2005 saw again the transformation of Liberia, setting once more a record in African history as the first African country to elect a woman as their President H.E Ellen Johnson – Salieaf.  

Liberia is once again on the rise, showing to Africa and the world at large that indeed women are capable of leading their nations. African women as well as Liberian women are now singing the song “this is our time” while African men are now realizing that times have changed and that women also can be Heads of state.  

Fingers are pointing to, heads are turning towards, and eyes are focused on Liberian not in pity but in admiration- setting the pace once more for true democracy  in the African continent.

DEFINING A NEW ERA FOR LIBERIAN WOMEN

Liberian women have felt the tied of woes over the years, paid the price of successes, failures in blood, tears, sacrifice even unto death. Their sufferings are untold, their numerous contributions, yet not recorded. 

Today, Liberian women are more conscious of their rights to political, social and economic inclusion and their significant contributions. It is in recognition of these rights that their issues are identified in order to correct the wrongs and rebuild Liberia for sustainable and lasting peace. 

There are many issues that women are faced with in Liberia that were never considered National issues, but norms of the society and community. This orientation is a major cause of women marginalization, discrimination, exclusion and human rights abuse. 

Some of the prevalent issues that are of grave concern are; Gender Based Violence (GBV) { rape, domestic violence, Sexual exploitation), Harmful Cultural practices, particularly FGM, the lack of marketable vocational and technical skills, illiteracy and access to Justice. 

Before the civil war, women/girls were seen as sex objects, to provide sex for the pleasure of men be it by coercion, force, exploitation, mutual agreement or violence. Sexual abuse was never a topic to be discussed in private or public. The Liberian government and society perpetuated a culture of violence against women that saw the escalation of rampant sexual abuse against women and girls during the war. Even though the guns are silent, women and girls continue to suffer sexual violence. 

The lack of political will to implement laws to protect women/girls and the acceptance of harmful cultural practices,( FGM, beatings, killings, arranged child manages, incest, rape, dowry or bride price) are major contributing factors to the high rate of illiteracy, violence and vulnerability of women in Liberia. 

For this and many other reasons, WOLPNET- Women of Liberia Peace Network, a non political, governmental organization, has joined the vanguard to promote women’s rights and to advocate for the adherence to and implementation of national conventions such as the AU Protocol to support, protect and enhance women social economic, civil, liberty and political development. 

With the collaboration and financial support from regional and international organizations, WOLPNET is engaging communities, public and policy makers through its program/projects to sensitize and highlight these issues affecting women Advocating for change in policy, ending violence against women, elimination of harmful cultural practices (Female Genital Mutilation), right to dignity, life, and integrity. 

Through its media program, Women Agenda, WOLPNET is spreading the message of positive change; a change that is transforming and defining politics in Liberia; a change that must also be realized in the lives of women by the elimination of vices that impede women progress, calling for full implementation of; Article 2 elimination of discrimination against women ,Article ¾ rights to dignity, life integrity and security of the person Article 8, Access to justice and equal protection before the law by the AU Protocol on Human and peoples rights on the right of women in Africa. 

To my sisters and women, I urge you to say no to male supremacy, superiority, political domination, exclusion, discrimination and Violence against Women (VAW). Stand for peace, justice, equality and unity.  

The road is rocky and very rough right now, but my sisters, it has been for a long time before now. Like Liberian women, you have been excluded, abused, misused, disgraced, discriminated against and persecuted. 

Nevertheless, stand firm. Liberian women can do it you can do the same .Do not go down but stand up fighting for women’s right; your bodies may be broken but do not allow you sprit and minds to be broken. Remember, many are called but few are chosen- to lead the cause for justice and equality.   

*Una Kumba Thompson is CEO of Women of Liberia Peace Network (WOLPNET).

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
                       

Linda Osarenren writes a hard hitting essay on the ways and means African cultures perpetuate sexism, patriarchy and violence against women

INTRODUCTION

The Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices IAC is an international network NGO and works in 28 African countries through its National Committees (NCs). It has 16 Group Sections in Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and USA.

The Vision of IAC is to see a society in which African women and girls fully enjoy their human rights to live free from harmful traditional practices (HTPs).

The Mission is to contribute to the improvement of the health status, Human Rights and quality of life of the African women and children through elimination of harmful traditional practices and promotion of beneficial ones.

Documented evidences, observations and statements confirm that millions of women and girls world-wide are systematically subjected to violence in the name of tradition and respect for culture and identity.

Even the worst forms of violence continue to be tolerated as inevitable and women bear life-threatening acts with apathy and silence as part of their tradition.

The prevailing patriarchal system built on the ignorance and economic vulnerability of women encourages and preserves practices that are gruesome in order to subjugate women.

The socializing process of boys and girls is constructed to instill a feeling of inferiority and fear in girls and women and this process is fiercely guarded as part of Tradition maintained for social cohesion.

While this reality is a world-wide phenomenon what vary are the degree of gravity and forms of suppression from community to community. If we take the practice of female genital mutilation and the justification advanced, the picture presents itself as follows:

FGM is practiced for reasons such as:

- Preservation of virginity
- Avoid promiscuity
- Ensure fidelity in marriage
- Social integration and to be marriageable.

All these reasons show the constituted norms of social relationship between men and women. As a result of internalized value system, women have, for far too long, accepted FGM.

Female Genital Mutilation and all other harmful traditional practices are addressed in Article 5 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”.

FORMS OF TRADITIONALLY CONDONED VIOLENCE AGAINST WONEN AND GIRLS INCLUDE:

PREFERENCE OF SONS OVER DAUGHTERS:

The preference of a male child over a female is violence against girls in Africa within the family. Son preference is favoritism towards male children with concomitant disregard for daughters. This discrimination in many cases occurs before the birth of a girl-child.

For a young couple in some African communities prayers for fecundity would either wish for sons only or for “sons and daughters” with sons taking precedence over daughters. It is always “sons and daughters”, never “daughters and sons”.

At the first sign of pregnancy, a woman receives unsolicited prayers from her family-in-law for the safe delivery of a baby boy. Many husbands on their part secretly or overtly express to have a male child as the first-born. Inadvertently the expectant woman would also wish for a male child as her first born in response to attitudes and behaviors that reinforce women’s subordination.

Scientific data on the prevalence of son preference is difficult to obtain. According to WHO countries in Africa where son preference is most apparent are Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Cameroon, Liberia, Senegal and Madagascar. Oppressive patriarchy and male dominance in all African societies mean that in all countries, there is some form of son preference and discrimination against girls.
Although cases of female foeticide, infanticide and sex-selective abortion are not common in Africa, couples desiring sons have been known to adopt the billings method to ensure the conception of sons.

The roots causes of son preference among African families include he social roles ascribed to men and to women. Sons are preferred in order to perpetuate the family name while a girl loses her identity with marriage. Even in societies where girls retain their fathers’ names in marriage, son preference is still the norm. The responsibility for the care of aging parents often falls to sons who also perform their parents’ burial rites. Thus not having a son is a source of vulnerability for parents while having daughters only is a social stigma.

The effects of son preference ripple into other spheres such as nutrition and education. In the traditional African homes sons would be given better food than daughters and are more likely to be enrolled in schools and encouraged to finish. When funds are short, a girl is likely to be withdrawn from schools so as to make allowance for a son to be educated irrespective of whether the girl is naturally intelligent and the son is dull.

A mother who has had four daughters consecutively is likely to keep on bearing more children than initially planned hoping to have a son, with the attendant consequences of high parity on mother and siblings.

Son preference reinforces a girl’s low self worth, low self-esteem, depression and eventual low productivity in adulthood.

- LIP PLATE:

Girls and women in parts of Ethiopia wear lip plates for protection and marriageability. In some cases, the hole is so big that it can pass through the head of the woman.

- TROKOSI:

Young girls are given to fetish shrines, forced under threat of death to live as domestic and sex slaves. They are girls paying for crimes they did not commit, crimes linked to family members who committed petty offense generations ago before the girls were born. (Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria)

- WORKLOAD ON WOMEN AND GIRLS:

In almost all of African homes, household chores and care-giving fall almost exclusively on the shoulders of daughters and their mothers. Hardly do sons participate equally in domestic work. Girls take on household and care giving tasks in addition to or instead of going to school.

A typical house-help (a girl) would rise very early and retire last and go late to bed. On top of this, the house girl is scolded or beaten fairly regularly for any misdemeanor in addition to receiving very poor or no pay for her services. The poor, harsh treatment and forced labour constitute violence against girls in the family.

Women without house helps take on these duties, giving care at home while working full time in offices outside of the home. Overburdening of women and girls take a toll on their health and social life.

- FORCED FEEDING:

Young girls are fed by force to make them gain weight, and obese to be attractive to husbands who consider this as beauty. The health consequences include hypertension, malformation of the bones and diabetes. (Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Mali. In some communities, relatives, to make women who have newly given birth, gain weight and “be healthy” feed her forcibly.

- VIRGINITY TESTING:

In order to present a woman as a virgin on her wedding day, she is subjected to pressure and put under control by her family in obedience to the norms of the society. However a man is free and never made to be tested for virginity. A virgin woman on the first night of marriage is respected while the non-virgin is shamed and sometimes returned to her family (Somalia).

- WIDOWHOOD AND WIFE INHERITANCE:

At the death of a husband accusing fingers are pointed at the widow suspecting her of being the cause of death directly or indirectly. She is compelled to undergo certain rites some of which could be very harsh and dehumanizing. Besides, at end of the rituals she could be forcefully inherited against her will. Articles 20 and 21 of the Protocol address this harmful tradition.

- FORCED CHILD MARRIAGE:

Child marriage is “any marriage carried out below the age of 18 years before the girl is physically, psychologically and physiologically ready to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and childbearing” (Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices-IAC).

The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights sets 18 years as the minimum age of marriage in Article 6 (b)

All child marriages including abduction for purposes of marriage are invariably forced and violate the right of a girl to choose her spouse.

The prevalence of child marriage in all of Africa is difficult to determine. In some selected countries such as Mali, Mozambique, Niger and Chad the prevalence of child marriage is between 70 and 80 percent (DHS 1996 – 2001 cited in child marriage Hotspots).

In some African communities girls are betrothed in infancy and married as early as 7 years. Young adolescents are abducted and forcibly married while others have their marriages arranged by their fathers and given to much older men. In Ethiopia in a study conducted among 227 wives, 60% said they were abducted before 15 and 93% before age 20. (UN OCHA/IRIN Publication 2005 page 64.)

Child marriage is violence against girls. Marriage automatically imposes the status and responsibilities of an adult on a young girl thus denying her the protection of childhood by family members and community.

Poverty and ignorance seem to be the main reasons for child marriage where parents desire material gain in form of bride price. Other motives include controlling a girl’s sexuality, curbing promiscuity and out- of -wedlock pregnancy. Child marriage and abduction are forms of gender-based violence with multiple consequences. Some of these are sexual assaults due to the power inequities between older husbands and child brides. These girls also stand the risk of physical violence from their husbands and in-laws.

Pregnancy, childbirth and childcare are risks and burdens for any married under-aged girl. Fistula is closely linked with obstructed labour during child bearing among girls between 10 and 15 years of age. In Ethiopia where child marriage is prevalent, doctors at the Fistula hospital in Addis Ababa operate on approximately 1,200 girls a year (UNICEF report 2001).

Child marriage denies a girl of formal education and self-development with all the benefits accompanying good education. Victims of child married are often invariably trapped in a cycle of poverty and low self-esteem for life.

Unfortunately legislative provisions in some countries such as Algeria, Chad, Libya, allows a rapist to be pardoned if he marries his victim even if victim is a minor. Abduction of minors where men consummate the marriage with rape is permitted in some rural settings in Ethiopia irrespective of the legal provisions outlawing abduction.

- FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION:

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) encompasses “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons.” (WHO 1995).

According to UNICEF estimate, about 140 million women and girls have undergone FGM worldwide, and a further 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing the procedure every year.

There is no specific prevalence rate for all of Africa. However the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices (IAC) has documented evidence of the prevalence of FGM in 28 African countries. The national prevalence rate in Africa varies from approximately 5 percent in Uganda to over 90 percent in Somalia.

Whatever the type of FGM practiced, the sustaining factor is gender inequality, a desire by society to subjugate women and control their sexuality in the name of desirable tradition. Thus FGM is clearly one of the most obnoxious traditionally condoned violence against girls in the family and society. A female circumciser in Kenya sums up the main reason behind FGM thus: -

“When you cut a girl, you know she will remain pure until she gets married, and that after marriage, she will be faithful…. But when you leave a girl uncut, she sleeps with any man in the community”.

All other reasons advanced for FGM including mysticism, spirituality and linking it with Islam are additional reinforcement to sustain the practice and be acceptable to prospective suitors. Thus women for the benefit of men uphold FGM. These are the social factors of acceptability as well as economic factors for the benefit of the circumcisers and the parents whose circumcised girls attract higher bride price.

Perhaps another silently sustaining factor is political. In some communities, the votes of women circumcisers can be a crucial deciding factor in the success of a political candidate. Thus some government hierarchies are unwilling to talk against FGM and instead dine and wine with circumcisers.

The consequences of FGM could be immediate causing bleeding; infection and death while the long-term effect include urinary tract infection, infertility, psychosexual malfunction and likelihood of HIV transmission.

The desires to restrain a girl’s sexuality have blinded practitioners to the consequences of FGM. Attempts to ameliorate the health hazard have led to “medicalizatiion” of FGM whereby orthodox health personnel undertake the operation in hygienic environment, using sterilized instruments.

FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls who ought to be protected against any bodily harm by the State as demanded in many relevant international legal instruments including the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa’.

HOW IAC ADDRESSES FGM AND OTHER HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES:

IAC applies different entry points using holistic and integrated approach in its campaign against FGM and other harmful traditional practices. These methods include:

- Training: of trainers, of peer educators, legal bodies, traditional birth attendants, media professionals, curriculum developers
- Information and Sensitization: raising awareness among different target groups
- Advocacy and Lobbying: with policy makers, legislators, religious leaders, community leaders, and traditional rulers.
- Empowerment of women and ex-circumcisers through micro credit and vocational training.
- Service provision for victims and would-be victims of harmful traditional practices (HTPs)
- Research: on different aspects of FGM and HTPs for better program planning

VISIBLE PARADIGM SHIFT:

We have recorded measurable impact since IAC’c programs to eliminate FGM and other HTPs began. At national/community Level:

- Youth stand up against FGM
- Excisors lay down their knives to take up alternative means of income generation
- Religious leaders openly condemn FGM
- Women join hands against FGM and make public declarations against the practice
- There is legislation in 16 countries

AT REGIONAL LEVEL:

- Adoption and ratification of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of women in Nov. 2005. (Articles 2, 5, 6, 20 address traditional practices)
- Adoption of the Solemn Declaration by AU Heads of States and Governments in July 2004

AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL:

- The UN General Assembly Declaration
- Resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights
- Appointment of Special Rapporteurs on (a) Violence Against Women (b) Harmful Traditional Practices (HTPs)
- EU expression of concern about FGM and other HTPs

THE WAY FORWARD:

In order to mobilize communities against FGM and other harmful traditional practices, IAC in 2003, organized an international conference on Zero Tolerance to FGM to share experiences, synthesize actions among all key players in the campaign and to devise forward-looking strategies to address the FGM phenomenon and other traditionally condoned violence against girls and women. Going by the Millennium Development Goals, the target date for elimination is 2015.

The International Conference adopted February 6 as the international day on Zero Tolerance to FGM as well as adopted the Common Agenda for Action.

POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS:

Violence Against Girls constitutes a fundamental violation of the Human Rights of girls as stipulated in several international Human Rights Instruments: -

1. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women “States should condemn violence against women and should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination” (Article 4)
2. Convention on the Rights of the Child “undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and to take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children”
3. The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Articles 2, 5, 6, 20)
4. Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
5. Provisions by individual countries in Constitutions, legislations, Penal codes among other measures.
6. The UN general Assembly Declarations and resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights
7. Legislations and Penal codes in several countries

CONCLUSION:

Legal provisions have not proved to be sufficient deterrents. Therefore, considerable attention should be given to raising awareness among girls, families, and communities

Governments should take compulsory girl-child education as a priority. This would on the long run alleviate much of the poverty that is at the root cause of most of the gender-based violence suffered by girls. On the whole, men need periodic training and refresher courses on gender and power relations.

“Putting an end to gender-based violence will bring us that much closer to a stage of human social development in which the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of individuals will not be determined by the fact of being born male or female. The goal is to create a world where all people regardless of gender are free to achieve their full potential” (Broken bodies, broken dreams, UN OCHA/IRIN publication 2005).

*Linda Osarenren is a Senior Program Officer at the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices (IAC).

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Mary Wandia and Neelanjana Mukhia reflect on the struggle to free women from violence, the ravages of HIV/AIDS and the effects of conflict

Women and girls encounter violence in their homes, communities, schools, workplaces, streets, markets, police stations and hospitals. Violence, or the threat of it, not only causes physical and psychological harm to women and girls, it also limits their access to and participation in society because the fear of violence circumscribes their freedom of movement and of expression as well as their rights to privacy, security and health. The epidemic of violence against women has been a key focus for women’s rights movements for many decades. The movements for a long time fought to have violations of women’s human rights in the private sphere recognized knowing too well that it is within this space that the most insidious and vicious violations of women’s rights take place. They were aware that women’s empowerment and gender equality in all spheres cannot be achieved unless violence against women, the tool used to control, dominate and subordinate women and girls by men is not eliminated.

African women did not wait; they have been part and parcel of that fight that culminated in the 1993 United Nations Declaration ‘Women’s Rights are Human Rights’ and called for the elimination of violence against women in Vienna. The international community acknowledged that violence against women is a human rights violation that women experience at all stages of their life cycles in peace time and war. African women also joined global women’s movements in Beijing in 1994 where women’s human right to be free of violence and the threat of it was identified as one of the critical areas of concerns and actions for all stakeholders.

By the turn of the century, African women seized the opportunity to ensure that the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003) supplements the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and domesticates the Vienna and Beijing agreements on violence against women. The protocol breaks new ground in calling for African countries to protect women from all forms of violence through legislative measures, public awareness, and support in the form of health services, legal assistance, counseling and vocational training.

Beyond setting the legal and normative frameworks above, women went back to their communities, nations and regions to sensitize them to end violence against women through campaigns on ‘zero tolerance to violence against women’. They expended a lot of energy and creativity to develop different strategies to suit different contexts.

Unfortunately, their communities, nations and governments did not heed the campaigns. The onset of the HIV/AIDS pandemic found a bosom friend in the pandemic of violence against women. The intersection of the two pandemics remains a testimony of the cost of ignoring calls to end violence against women. The HIV/AIDS pandemic now wears a woman’s face. It remains a stark reminder that violation of rights in one sphere leads to more serious violations in other spheres resulting into compounded situations.

Human rights are interrelated and interdependent. That fact is brought home by the intersection of HIV and violence against women in Africa. Today, African women are bearing the brunt of the HIV pandemic –in sub-Saharan Africa an estimated 1.7 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2007, bringing to 22.5 million the total number of people living with the virus. Unlike other regions, the majority of people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa (61%) are women [2].

There are a number of reasons for this – women’s sexual physiology increases their risk of HIV; but much more importantly it is their social, economic and sexual subordination that increases their risk. Women are unable to negotiate safe sex or refuse sex with men because of violence or the fear of violence. They are at the receiving end of coercive sex. Women’s and girls’ economic subordination, lack of economic opportunities and choices may also contribute to their resorting to transactional sex.

Just as violence against women increases their risk to HIV, it is also a consequence of HIV sero status. HIV positive women as a result of their status are more likely to face stigma, discrimination, and violence and rights violations from their intimate partners, families, communities and states. There have been cases reported of HIV positive women being denied their sexual and reproductive rights by health practitioners merely because of their HIV status. HIV positive women also face the possibility of disinheritance and dispossession from their families. Gender inequality and violence against women often inhibit women’s and girls’ ability to take full advantage of crucial – even life-saving – services. A recent UNFPA/WHO report notes that, in the context of AIDS, “violence against a woman can interfere with her ability to access treatment and care, maintain adherence to antiretroviral therapy or feed her infant in the way she would like” [3].

In situations of conflict, the intersecting human rights and health crises of HIV and violence against women are exacerbated in situations of conflict. We know that the incidence of rape skyrocket during conflict as it is used as a weapon and tactic of war. Women and girls are targeted strategically for rape, sexual slavery and violence. HIV in combination with rape, violence and sexual slavery increases women’s risk exponentially. In Rwanda, it was reported that close to 500,000 women and girls were raped during the genocide.

In Rwanda, the WHO reports, “the HIV prevalence rate in rural areas dramatically increased from 1% before the start of the conflict in 1994 to 11% in 1997. In a survey of the women who survived the genocide, 17% were found to be HIV-positive. In another survey carried out by the Rwandan Association for Genocide Widows (AVEGA), 67% of women who survived rape had HIV” [4]. Women are also disproportionately affected as a result displacement, dispossession and collapsed health, law enforcement and other social infrastructures. A case in point, during the recent conflict in Kenya, HIV positive women were unable to access life saving ARV drugs because of displacement. And those who were raped could not access PEPs on time.

There has been attention given to violence against women by many stake holders for many decades. This is in large part due to the actions and advocacy of the global women’s movements. However, when it comes to the intersection of violence against women and HIV, and the increasing risk of women and girls to HIV, there has been little concerted effort. Governments have acted to address the HIV pandemic with many interventions – some of them have worked some have not. However, they have been largely blind to the reality of women’s risk to HIV and its key driver – violence against women. This blindness is not restricted to governments in Africa, multilateral agencies and bilateral donors in charge of defining the global AIDS response have been equally blind to the intersecting crises.

For the last couple of decades, these international agencies and national governments have put money, time and effort in to the ABC paradigm of HIV prevention. An intervention that disregards the reality of inequality and subordination women and girls face. Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condomise does not begin to consider the endemic violence against women and girls. Research has established that a large proportion of girls’ sexual initiation is coercive and that many women do not have control over whether or not they will use condoms during sex. Indeed many women cannot negotiate consensual sex. Given this reality those in international agencies and governments should have asked the question a long time ago – does ABC really work for women? Or for that matter do other HIV interventions work for women; have they been designed informed by the differential access women have to health services?

In order to bring greater attention to and action on the intersection of violence against women and HIV&AIDS by all actors at the international, regional and national levels, a campaign was launched in March 2007 – the Women Won’t Wait. End HIV and Violence against Women. NOW. The Women Won’t Wait campaign is led by a coalition of organizations and networks committed and working for many years to promoting women’s health and human rights in the struggle to comprehensively address HIV and end all forms of violence against women and girls now. Women Won’t Wait seeks to accelerate effective responses to the linkages of violence against all women and girls and HIV by tracking and, where necessary, calling for changes in the policies, programming and funding streams of national governments and international agencies [5].

Funding for programmes that focus on violence against women and girls in connection to HIV remains inadequate and inconsistent. Research conducted as part of the Women Won’t Wait: End HIV and violence against women and girls. Now. campaign entitled Show Us the Money: is violence against women on the HIV&AIDS donor agenda? illustrates the lack of concerted funding efforts aimed at fighting the twin pandemics. Released in March 2007, the report analyses the policies, programming and funding patterns of the largest public donors to HIV&AIDS: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR/US), and the UK Department for International Development (DFID), along with the World Bank, and UNAIDS (the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS). In an era of increasing accountability, Show us the Money aims to hold donors responsible to basic health and human rights standards in their policies, programmes, and funding streams.

According to the report, whereas issues around violence against women may be acknowledged in HIV policy documents of major donors, such a focus is often absent from programming on the ground. HIV programme efforts rarely cite violence against women and girls as a major driver and consequence of the disease, nor measure its occurrence statistically. Separate funding streams for each create an ineffective and dysfunctional split in intervention efforts, which do little to address the root causes of either pandemic. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to track resources targeting their intersection, as none of these donors specifically track their programming for and funding to violence eradication efforts within their HIV and AIDS portfolios.

Having assessed the gaps in policy, programming and funding on the intersection, the campaign developed key demands of bilateral, multilateral and technical agencies; and national governments:
• Prominently, publicly and consistently underscore that violence against women and girls is a major driver and consequence of HIV&AIDS
• Significantly increase current funding for programmes to prevent and redress violence against women and girls in addition to broader and increased investment in sexual and reproductive health and rights
• Establish concrete targets on the elimination of violence against women and girls as a part of the Universal Access Process
• Achieve universal access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services by 2010; and rapidly scale up integrated SRHR and HIV services
• Achieve universal access to PMTCT+ services by 2010 by fully supporting and funding national PMTCT+ plans
• Expand training to 50% of all health care service providers by 2008 (with particular attention to those providing PMTCT) to recognize and respond to the signs and symptoms of violence as a routine part of HIV&AIDS testing, treatment, care and support, rising to 80% by 2010.
• Rapidly and massively scale up education about and the provision of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and emergency contraception to survivors of sexual violence. These services should be available on demand at 50% of each country’s emergency care facilities by 2008, rising to 80% by 2010.
• Rapidly expand the distribution of female controlled prevention methods, including the distribution of the male and female condoms to women, men and transgender people. These services should be available on demand to 50% of all requesting it by 2008, rising to 80% by 2010.
• PMTCT+ services should be available on demand to 80% of those in need of PMTCT+ by 2008, rising to universal access to PMTCT+ services by 2010.
• Anti-violence education programmes operating in all communities where gender-based violence occurs.

Overall, the first year of the campaign has been a productive one; with several of the agencies we reviewed having taken bold steps toward making their operations more “gender-sensitive.” It is hoped that “gender-sensitivity” for these agencies includes a complex analysis and consistent effort to grapple with the intersection of HIV and violence against women and girls. The most significant steps were taken by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (and its effort to engage in a more gender-sensitive response to the three diseases) and UNAIDS. Indeed, among the agencies we reviewed, UNAIDS was the only one to introduce new activities specifically designed to confront violence against women and girls in the context of the HIV pandemic by including violence against women in their the 2005-2008 estimation of the Global Resource Needs.

We hope that other agencies will follow their lead in recognizing this dangerous synergy and taking action. Moreover, while we welcome the positive changes in policy and programming, one of the central problems identified in Show Us the Money remains: the means of measuring, tracking and quantifying support to violence against women and girls within HIV portfolios continues to lag far behind policy and programming efforts.

The waiting must end. Women’s movements throughout the world have long fought for concrete action to promote and protect the human rights of all women – including the rights to be free from violence, coercion, stigma and discrimination, and the right to achieve the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health. However, this global standard is rarely translated into policy and practice. In the case of the links between violence against women and girls and HIV, resulting in a deadly failure in policy and an abrogation of governments’ and donors’ accountability to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all.

Pius Adesamni looks at the recent Raila Odinga visit with Obasanjo and argues that African ruling classes are so prodigious in the production of political farce that all one needs to do is read African newspapers for absurd realities that no African writer has as yet to match.

Give it to politicians, the military, and other professional hijackers of the state in Africa! They are able to squeeze the juice of comedy out of the stone of unspeakable tragedies they routinely visit on their people and the continent. The most unfortunate victim of the inexhaustible creativity of the African political class, their cynical mastery of the resources of the proscenium, is African fiction. The political class in Africa constitutes the most potent threat to the health of African literature. Simply put, our politicians are driving our writers out of business.

Why do I need to spend my hard-earned money on Wizard of the Crow and Petals of Blood when Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki have manufactured realities in Kenya that Ngugi wa Thiongo’o’s brilliant imagination simply cannot match? All I need is regular internet access to Kenyan newspapers to avail myself of a direct taste of Kenya according to her politicians.

Why do I need Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People and T.M. Aluko’s One Man, One Matchet in my seminar room when the blood and flesh versions of Chief Nanga and Benjamin Benjamin in Abuja have turned Achebe and Aluko into dwarves in the business of fiction? The Nigerian ruling class is so prodigious in the production of political farce that all I need do is read Nigerian newspapers for quotidian realities that no Nigerian writer has the imagination to match.

That African politicians are constantly and permanently ahead of hapless African writers was brought home by two recent events. Ogaga Ifowodo, one of Nigeria’s best poets, wrote an essay in which he imagined a meeting between Mwai Kibaki and Umaru Yar’Adua. What did Yar’Adua tell Kibaki, Ifowodo asked? To create his hypothetical situation, Ifowodo deployed the full arsenal of his trade: sarcasm, hyperbole, allusions, and the like. At the end of the essay, Ifowodo was sure he had delivered his message effectively and unambiguously: the Nigerian presidency is so diseased, so morally compromised, that the possibility of the Nigerian government having a say in the Kenyan debacle can only exist in the realms of fiction and the most outrageous imagination. Given the rotten political pedigree of the people in charge in Abuja, Nigeria’s involvement was so improbable that Ifowodo treated it as fiction, something better left as material for the exclusive use of the African writer.

As is sadly often the case in Africa, Odinga, the politician, was miles ahead of Ifowodo, the writer. Odinga did not wait for Ifowodo’s ink to dry before hopping on a flight to Nigeria last week. His mission? Wait for it: to consult with Chief Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria’s immediate past president) and persuade him to convince Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua, current president and Obasanjo’s puppet, that it was time Nigeria got involved in fashioning an African solution to Kenya’s political impasse! It has taken Ogaga Ifowodo more than twenty years of sustained production of brilliant poetry to establish his reputation as one of Africa’s leading users of the imagination. Raila Odinga and his Nigerian hosts have eclipsed this record in a couple of hours.

When I read about Odinga’s trip to Nigeria, I had a tough choice between laughing and crying. I settled for the former. To grasp the tragedy in all its unpleasant ramifications, one has to unpack Odinga’s company in Nigeria: Obasanjo and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) machinery. Of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the least said the better. Writing about Obasanjo here would turn this piece into an exposé on unbridled corruption and the defoliation of Nigeria’s destiny in two tragic installments: 1976 – 1979, and 1999 – 2007. Whenever tails are mentioned in a discussion, the toad hurriedly suggests changing the topic and moving on to other issues! So, let’s leave Obasanjo and move on to Yar’Adua and the PDP.

History’s final verdict on African political parties would be hard pressed not to record the PDP as the most vicious, most corrupt, and most visionless political organization ever to bestride the Nigerian – and African political landscape. It would be sheer travesty of justice if the National Party of Henrik Verwoerd and Pieter Botha fared worse than Nigeria’s PDP in the reckoning of history. Ever since its unfortunate formation, the PDP has been home to the worst elements of Nigerian humanity. Although it loves to delude itself as Africa’s largest political party, the truth is that the PDP is Africa’s largest assembly of funny characters with zero moral capital. Excellence in political thuggery, treasury looting, and election rigging are key attributes of membership and upward mobility in party ranks. It is significant that in a supposedly democratic dispensation, the PDP has surpassed Sani Abacha’s record of unresolved political assassinations. The rate of intra-party assassinations became so breathtaking at a point that the inimitable Wole Soyinka baptized the PDP as a “nest of killers”. Soyinka forgot to add that the PDP is also a lair of Africa’s most gifted thieves. To go through the list of party leaders – Party Chieftains in Nigerian parlance – is to be in stark contemplation of the tragedy of modern Nigeria: Olusegun Obasanjo (self-appointed Father of modern Nigeria), Olabode George, Ahmadu Ali, Lamidi Adedibu (stark illiterate, recently designated Father of the PDP!), Andy Uba, Chris Uba, and thousands of other birds of similar feather, looting the state dry in rigged political positions.

That these low-quality characters and their scions have hijacked the Nigerian state is a precise indication of the abysmally low depths to which Nigeria has fallen. Among the many sins of this dishonorable cabal and their dishonorable party, the 2007 election pretty much takes the cake. Nigerians are in agreement with the international community that the PDP’s 2007 electoral heist ranks among the worst in human history. It is unnecessary to rehash the details here. Suffice it to assert that Umaru Yar’Adua, Nigeria’s current president, is the morally compromised custodian of a purloined mandate who has been unable to rise above the debased values of his cabal and do the right thing. Rather, he has ignored the festering leprosy his diseased party has foisted on Nigeria while hypocritically making a show of his determination to cure negligible ringworm infections.

This is a snapshot of the kind of company Raila Odinga went to keep in Nigeria. The story of Nigeria’s sorry pass in the gangrened grip of the PDP cartel is globally ubiquitous: not even a blind and deaf kindergarten pupil in Siberia can claim ignorance of the Nigerian situation. What part of this narrative did Raila Odinga not understand? The ways of the African politician are truly perplexing! How did Raila Odinga arrive at the conclusion that Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar’Adua and his PDP government, morally compromised perpetrators of the worst electoral heist in human history, are in any position to advise him on the way forward in Kenya? How did he determine that Nigeria’s forty thieves deserve a place at the table of serious African conversations on credible elections, good governance, and democracy? Who are Odinga’s handlers in Kenya? How could all of them have missed the fact that the people he was going to consult in Nigeria practice a version of democracy that consists in assassinating your opponent or rigging your way to political office? Do we need to translate “nest of killers” to Swahili before Mwalimu Odinga can understand that simple expression? By going to consult the worst Nigeria has to offer, Odinga has spat on the graves of the Kenyans who have lost their lives so far and added to our frustration and helplessness as ordinary Nigerians.

Nigerians are in a particularly sensitive phase of their national life. We are a beautiful country of beautiful people who have had the extraordinary misfortune of being held hostage by the worst among us. Although we once contributed exemplary characters to Africa’s leadership pool during the nationalist and immediate post-nationalist eras, we have never known democracy in any real sense. The closest we came to it was on June 12, 1993 when ‘we, the people’ voted in the only free and fair election we have ever known. Our hopes and aspirations were quashed by the same vicious enemy-cabal that aborted our dreams of post-independence nationhood and have held us hostage ever since. Sometimes, this cabal comes in army fatigues; sometimes it wears flowing civilian robes but it is the same rotten organism that perpetually recycles itself. When people who should know better invite the worst we have to offer to the table, the wound cuts deep in the Nigerian psyche. It reminds us painfully of Frostian roads not taken. And in this case, we are much more certain than Frost of what could have been had the right people taken the roads not taken.

It bears repeating: the Nigerian state, currently held hostage by a dishonorable cabal and a bloodthirsty, kleptocratic political party, does not qualify to be consulted or invited to the table when good governance and credible elections in Africa are in the agenda. If Raila Odinga was so desperate for Nigerian advice, all he needed do was ask and we would have supplied him names of Nigerians who qualify to be at the table. Nigeria has more that a hundred million names that could have given Odinga advice from an eminently moral high ground since members of the dishonorable enemy-cabal are, thankfully, in the minority and in no way represent what we have to offer as a people. If Odinga had consulted serious people before embarking on his worthless trip to Nigeria, one would have given him such meritorious names as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe, Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, Gani Fawehinmi, Patrick Utomi, Edwin Madunagu, Odia Ofeimun, Okey Ndibe, Omoyele Sowore, just to mention a few. These are among our very best, the kinds of people who still make it possible for Nigerians to defy the rape of their humanity by the jokers in the PDP and identify proudly with their nation.

If, however, Mwalimu Odinga insists on getting his advice on how to move Kenya forward from discredited African sources, we can also help him. Let him return to Nigeria and consult with all the corrupt PDP governors currently facing embezzlement charges. On his way back home, he may want to stop over in Libreville and Yaounde for consultations on credible democracy with Omar Bongo and Paul Biya. A stopover with Eugene Terreblanche in South Africa will spice up things nicely. He may then return to Nairobi and tell Kofi Annan that he has received superior advice from more credible sons of Africa!

* Pius Adesanmi is Associate Professor of English and Director, Project on New African Literatures at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Apart from his academic work, Dr. Adesanmi publishes opinion articles regularly in various internet fora. He runs a regular blog for The Zeleza Post where this article first appeared. He has contributed to Counterpunch, Slepton and Chimurenga online.

** Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org This article first appeared at The Zeleza Post.

Pambazuka News is pleased to bring you this interview with the directors of the documentary 'Dear Mandela', Christopher Nizza and Dara Kell. 'Dear Mandela' deals with the growing contradictions in post-Apartheid South Africa where the majority black poor continue to be victimized by the state through measures such as forced evictions. Abahlali baseMjondolo, a new social movement of shackdwellers is challenging the conditions as well as the state of democracy itself in the country - what one the respondents in the documentary calls "new apartheid". You can see a clip of this important and timely documentary at "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZWIZX_8ub8.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: The first question is on the title - Why 'Dear Mandela' and not Mbeki?

CHRISTOPHER NIZZA AND DARA KELL: ‘Dear Mandela’ examines how the lives of the poorest South Africans – those who had the most hope when Apartheid officially ended in 1994 – have changed in the 17 years since Mandela was released from prison. . Again and again, we heard appreciation for what Mandela did – that he sacrificed twenty-seven years of his freedom for the freedom of South Africans. The name ‘Dear Mandela’ emerged after spending time with shack dwellers who told us they saw Nelson Mandela as a ‘second Jesus Christ’. For many South Africans, when Mandela was released from prison, a ‘better life for all’, which became the rallying cry for the newly elected ANC government – finally seemed possible. The people we interviewed often wondered how Mandela would feel if he was allowed to visit the informal settlements, if he saw that conditions have not only failed to improve since the end of Apartheid, they have worsened. Mandela seemed to many of the people we spoke to, to be the one person who could change things, and so this short film almost takes the form of a plea – not just to Mandela, but to the world – to see what has been deliberately kept from view by a current South African government intent on creating ‘world class cities’ in preparation for the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk to PZN about the evictions? How are they reminiscent of the apartheid government? Or is that too much of a stretch?

CHRISTOPHER NIZZA AND DARA KELL: While we were filming in Durban with Abahlali baseMjondolo, we spoke to many shack dwellers who were facing eviction. Zamise Hohlo, a sixteen-year-old girl who was born and still lives in the Shannon Drive informal settlement, told us that municipal workers came and demolished her shack while she was at work. Sitting amidst the wreckage, she told us that she was at a crossroads: she could rebuild her shack, but the municipal workers had informed her that if she rebuilt, they would just come and tear it down again.

We have found that there are stereotypes about shack dwellers that go against all of our experience in the time we spent with them. These stereotypes make it easier for the public to turn a blind eye to what is happening them, and make it easier for municipal workers to do their job of ‘clearing the slums’. One of the reasons we want to make this film is because by letting the shack dwellers speak for themselves, their dignity is respected, and our hope is that viewers will be able to see the shack dwellers not as illegal squatters who should be pushed out of the city, but as citizens of South Africa who have the same rights to housing under the Constitution.

Yes, in some ways the evictions are reminiscent of evictions during the Apartheid era. The notorious new ‘Slums Act’ certainly evokes the Native Land Act of 1913, The Group Areas Act of 1950, The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951- acts which remove people from their communities and place them far away from the city, away from work, school, clinics. Some shack dwellers told us that what they are experiencing is a ‘New Apartheid’ between the rich and poor. Indeed, several people we interviewed said that life was better under Apartheid. The statistics suggest that life for the poorest of the poor was better under Apartheid - a UN study showed that the number of people living on less that $1 a day has doubled since 1994. These charges are sure to stir controversy and that is one of the motivations we have to continue on this project, to illuminate the rarely told story of post-apartheid South Africa’s most marginalized.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk about the role of film in bringing about change?

CHRISTOPHER NIZZA AND DARA KELL: In much of the world, the way we communicate is visual. The visual medium is a language that everyone understands from advertisements on the street to television to a growing use of the Internet. While we are working towards a longer film, we posted the 6-minute version of ‘Dear Mandela’ on YouTube and were able to share the insights and struggles of South African shack dwellers instantaneously. Within days, hundreds of people had watched the film. In an age where the gap between rich and poor is increasing globally, there is a need for stories which show not just the plight of the poor, but the fight that they are engaged in. This is one of the main ideas behind Sleeping Giant, our media collective/production company. The corporate media and even some prominent left academics tend to stereotype the world’s poor as being this unruly mass of dangerous, lazy, uneducated people unable to contribute to discussions about issues affecting them most. Through film and video projects produced involving groups like Abahlali we hope to smash those stereotypes by providing a space for people to tell the story of their plight and fight thus projecting a more realistic portrayal.

Those who are struggling to survive while organizing for a better life need our encouragement and support. The film is a celebration of the work of Abahlali as well – of the almost sacred meeting space they have created, where old and young are welcomed and respected; of their refusal to accept the broken promises of the government; of their continuing to march in peaceful protest in the face of intimidating police brutality. And so while many of the stories in ‘Dear Mandela’ are disheartening, what we want to portray is a community that is figuring out the real meaning of democracy – democracy that is a far cry from ‘one man, one vote’ – it’s what Abahlali calls a ‘living politics.’

We’ve done research, and some preliminary filming, and the six-minute film ‘Dear Mandela’ is the culmination of that effort, but we intend to return for a much longer time, where we aim to interview government officials and other relevant players, to show many more sides of a very complex situation

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What other films have you made/are making?

CHRISTOPHER NIZZA AND DARA KELL This is our first venture into the world of feature documentary filmmaking. We have both worked as editors on other documentaries, like the Academy Award-nominated Jesus Camp, State of Fear, and others. We have also led filmmaking workshops for community leaders, to both encourage the use of media in their political work and transfer the skills required to produce media.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What can other Africans and international friends do to help out?

CHRISTOPHER NIZZA AND DARA KELL: From what we could see a major problem for Abahlali is lack of resources. We witnessed how they maximize literally every rusted nail and every tattered piece of wood. This goes on to money that is raised as all funds are decided by collective how to be spent. We saw this as some money came in following the tragic Christmas night shack fires at the Foreman Road. Very careful and respectful consideration goes into how all monies are spent. It is much different then donating money to an NGO where the people living in struggle are more often not the ones making decisions. People interesting in supporting can get some ideas here (http://www.abahlali.org/node/269) on the Abahlali website. The website is also extremely rich with days worth of wonderful reading for anyone interested in this extremely important and courageous work.

*Dara Kell is a South African documentary filmmaker.  She divides her time between South Africa and New York, where she edits documentaries and leads grassroots video-making workshops. 

**Christopher Nizza is a New York born, bred and based director and editor.  He also has worked on a project in the U.S. called the University of the Poor which works to provide education and exchange in a variety of disciplines to organizations working in the struggle to end poverty forever.

***Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Blessing-Miles Tendi argues that because Britain lacks the moral authority to comment on or interfere in Zimbabwean affairs, it would serve the Zimbabwean search for freedom and justice by keeping away.

Since 2000, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe government has cast the Zimbabwe crisis as a struggle by Britain, an ex-colonial power, to re-colonise its former colony by supporting and funding the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party. Britain has blindly walked into Mugabe’s anti-colonial trap consistently, which has exposed Zimbabwe’s internal opposition to harmful labels such as ‘sell-outs to the imperialists’.

Britain has expressed its frustration with Southern African leaders’ unwillingness to censure Mugabe publicly and to force him into retirement. A number of factors explain Southern African leaders’ stance on Mugabe and chief among them is that for a long time the MDC was distrusted by regional leaders and perceived as sell-outs to new-imperialism. Britain bore responsibility for this false perception of the opposition in Zimbabwe because its anti-Mugabe stance made Zimbabwe’s opposition easy prey for Mugabe’s anti-colonial constructions. Britain is partly responsible for the failure of a democratic opposition to replace the undemocratic Mugabe in elections since 2000.

Mugabe has also proved adroit at articulating British double standards on global human rights promotion to bolster his refutation of Western criticism of his government’s human rights record. Britain dilutes its moral authority when it calls for its national cricket team to boycott tours of Zimbabwe because of the country’s poor human rights record but remains silent when its national team tours Pakistan, which is also a grave human rights violator. Britain’s condemnations and targeted sanctions against the Mugabe government would command more moral authority if the same human rights standards were applied everywhere evenly. Failure to apply human rights standards evenly results in staunch claims to sovereignty in the non-Western world. The danger lies in the fact that some of these claims are merely pretexts for internal repression – something Mugabe is guilty of.

After Britain’s involvement in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq its moral authority is at its lowest ebb internationally. Thus, it is breathtakingly naïve for the Foreign Secretary David Milliband to insist, as he did in Oxford this month, that despite Britain’s failures in Iraq, Britain has ‘a moral duty’ to intervene in undemocratic countries – and by force if necessary – in order to spread democracy internationally. Very few countries still look up to Britain as a champion of human rights and democracy, and none in Southern Africa will countenance its involvement in their internal affairs. ‘We are tired of being lectured on democracy by the very countries which, under colonialism, either directly denied us the rights of free citizens, or were indifferent to our suffering and yearnings to break free and be democratic’ – remember these utterances by the Tanzanian government, one of Britain’s favoured donor recipients in Southern Africa, in 2004?

Britain has, as a starting premise, the logic that its modern day standing as a developed democracy automatically confers the moral authority to censure what it considers to be less democratic countries such as Zimbabwe. But its flawed history of intervention and interference in Zimbabwe has left it with little or no moral credibility there. Britain granted Rhodesia’s white settler community ‘responsible self-government’ in 1923. However, the country remained a British colony and Britain retained the right to veto legislation affecting the black African majority. Rhodesia’s white minority passed various laws that subjected the blacks to treatment as subhuman. Not once did Britain exercise its veto power to strike down Rhodesia’s dehumanising and racist laws.

In 1965, Rhodesia severed ties with the British crown by declaring the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Britain was called upon to use military force to rein in the rebellious UDI government’s perpetuation of white minority rule. Prime Minister Harold Wilson ruled out the use of force. He chose to impose sanctions and declared that the UDI government would survive the sanctions for no more than 6 weeks. Rhodesia weathered the sanctions until black majority rule was attained in 1980, after a peace settlement a year earlier, which brought to an end one of the most bloody and bitterly fought liberation wars in Africa.

In the 1980s, Britain venerated Mugabe while he massacred 20000 civilians in Zimbabwe’s Matabeleland province. The reason? According to Roger Martin, Deputy British High Commissioner to Zimbabwe (1983-86), ‘no British government wanted a couple of hundred thousand British citizens appearing with cardboard suitcases at Heathrow, the sudden expulsion of whites if we had pulled the rug on the aid [to Zimbabwe] and as it were denounced Mugabe [for the massacres].’

In spite of assurances Britain made to the Mugabe government at independence, to fund the redress of racially biased land distribution in Zimbabwe, in 1997 it declared that it did not accept ‘a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe’. 3 years later a violent programme of land seizures from white farmers without compensation began to unfold. Zimbabwe is what it is economically today partly because of these land seizures.

Foreign Secretary Milliband has called for international monitoring of Zimbabwe’s 2008 elections, saying conditions for the poll are ‘far from free and fair’. But Britain should be the last to speak out and it should desist from prejudging the forthcoming elections publicly because this is exactly what Mugabe wants Britain to do. Already, Mugabe has said his party’s 2008 election campaign will focus on resisting Britain’s regime change agenda in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has set his anti-colonial trap for Britain and if Milliband’s comments are anything to go by, Britain is walking into it once again. Britain would better serve the struggle for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe by taking a back seat in the country’s elections next month because it has no moral authority in Southern Africa. Groupings such as the European Union and the Southern African Development Community should take the lead not Britain because it risks aiding Mugabe’s re-election bid.

*Blessing-Miles Tendi is a researcher at Oxford University.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Former finance minister and member of the Zanu PF politburo, Simba Makoni is challenging Robert Mugabe later this month for the leadership of Zimbabwe. Sehlare Makgetlanen tackles the question of whether he represents a break from the past or more of the same.

Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mugabe is facing fundamental governance, democracy and development challenges. It has failed to ‘‘legitimately exercise power and authority over the control and management of the country’s affairs in the interest of the people and in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, accountability and transparency.” Mugabe has prevented some members of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) from expressing their governance, democracy and development policy preferences through democratic means to be the president of ZANU-PF and the country. He regards himself as the only leading judge of what best serves the national interests of Zimbabwe which include governance, democracy and development demands, needs and interests of the country and its people.

Mugabe has threatened to be the stumbling block for ZANU-PF to win free and fair elections and for the resolution of Zimbabwe’s governance, democracy and development problems. Processes and issues leading to true national self-determination should not be left into the hands of one leader irrespective of the unquestionable content of his or her commitment to the liberation cause and that the political leadership including the leadership in the political administration of the society is the collective process in which no individual is indispensable. He has in the process mobilised some members of ZANU-PF to implement their decision to use their strength and resources in challenging him not only as the president of the party but also as the president of the country. Those theirs is hostility to the new leadership of the party and the country as required by the present situation – the struggle fought for under the pretext of defending the unity of the party – must be democratically fought against. It is not in the interest of the country and its people in defending the unity of the party if its president is against the popular national interests – the governance, democracy and development demands, needs and interests of the country and its people.

Whether they will use this development to have collective leadership and the democratic means capable of adequately appropriating Zimbabwe’s problems for their confrontation and resolution remains to be seen. These problems have intensified. This development led Simba Makoni to challenge Mugabe in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections. What is the present state of Zimbabwe’s national situation? “The Zimbabwe of today,” according to Makoni at the launch of his election manifesto in Harare on 13 February 2008, “is a nation full of fear, a nation in deep stress, a tense and polarised nation, a nation also characterised by disease and extreme poverty.” It is a nation in which “immediate and urgent tasks to resolve the food, power and fuel, water and sanitation problems, resolve health and educational services” should be undertaken.

Highlighting the gravity of Zimbabwe’s socio-political and economic situation, Makoni in his 5 February 2008 announcement that he would challenge Mugabe in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections as candidate pointed out that he shares “the agony and anguish of all citizens over the extreme hardships we have all endured for nearly 10 years.” Admitting the role played by the national leaders on the development of the national situation, he told reporters that he also shares “the widely held view that these hardships are a result of failure of national leadership and that change at that level is a prerequisite for change at other levels of national endeavour.” He was denied opportunity to a “renewal of the leadership in the ZANU-PF and country” to end economic crisis and “national despair.” It is for this reason, among others, that what he is “offering is the chance for hope” to rid Zimbabwe of fear and poverty. The point is that “we believe that solving these problems will not be intractable, once we remove the barriers and impediments that bar the expression and pursuit of our common interest and common purpose.” If elected, he promises that he would “address national issues that separate and divide us as a nation and institute a process of national healing and reconciliation.” Having been expelled from ZANU-PF, he is standing as an independent presidential candidate in the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 29 March 2008. He calls upon Zimbabweans particularly members of the party to join him in his struggle to prevent Mugabe from winning a sixth term in office. “I particularly invite those compatriots who have been pushed into despair and despondency, but have the qualities of leadership, to please enter the race. I also invite those in ZANU-PF who share our yearning for renewal to contest the election as independent candidates under our banner.” He is contesting elections under the banner of the movement called Dawn (Mavambo/Kusile), whose logo features a rising sun. “The time for decision has come. Jump off the fence, climb out of the false comfort zones.” Contrary to Makoni’s position, members of the ruling alliance are not in “the false comfort zones.” Theirs are structures of wealth and privileges.

There is essentially nothing new Makoni has pointed out since announcing his decision to challenge Mugabe in the elections. He has repeated statements opposition political parties and their critics have been saying about the country’s problems and how to resolve them. On the atrocious abuse of power and public resources and use of violent measures to deal with dissent and opposition including within the ruling party, he maintains: “Zimbabweans are experiencing stress and tension because of the siege mentality in the state, with the state resorting to violence to suppress dissent, a lack of respect for the law and gross abuse of state resources.” He continues: “National institutions have been corrupted, privatised and politicised. We are seeing a scourge of the politics of patronage and gross abuse of power and a culture of chiefdom.” He has served as a senior participant in creating and sustaining this democracy practice. He continues stating what has been attributed not only to the ruling party, but also to two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). “There is lack of a national vision and agenda on the basis which all Zimbabweans could be mobilised for national reconciliation and revival.” What is his vision and agenda on the basis which Zimbabweans could be mobilised to serve as social agents for development and progress of their country is the strategic question which he has so far failed to answer. Predicting a landslide victory in the elections, he is basing his campaign platform on the revival of the economy and the restoration of political freedoms and property rights. He claims that this strategy will “restore our people’s independence, dignity and confidence.” This strategy will continue, if he wins elections, in managing the inequality of power relations between the rulers and the ruled of the country.

As it happened in the past, members of ZANU-PF were denied their democratic rights and opportunity to fight for nomination during its December 2007 congress so as to stand as the party’s candidate in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections. It endorsed Mugabe as its sole candidate. This decision ensured that he should not be challenged within the ruling party in his attempt to be re-elected as the president of the country. Makoni was defying this decision in announcing that he would challenge him as the ruling party’s candidate in the elections. He maintains that at the December 2007 congress, some party members including himself were prevented from seeking nomination as its presidential candidate. In his words: “I would have very much wished to stand as (ZANU-PF) official candidate. Unfortunately, as we all know, that opportunity was denied to other cadre who would have offered themselves to serve the party and country.”

While Makoni’s announcement is viewed by some individuals as a substantial and welcome addition in the arsenal against Mugabe, the MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai and civil society organisations aligned to it regard him as the ruling party agent deployed to divide the opposition vote in the elections. Tsvangirai dismissed him as “nothing more than old wine in a new bottle.” Lovemore Madhuku was more harsh and brutal. He dismissed him as the part of the ZANU-PF-state institutional machinery and its project guilty of many years of its rule. As usual, the ruling party viewed him as the traitor and agent of imperialist interests. Questions are raised as to whether he is honest and sincere in his declared challenge to Mugabe. Is he the intelligence project by supporters of Mugabe designed to identify senior members of the ruling party who are Mugabe’s opponents he maintains support his campaign? Some are of the view that his aim is to split the opposition vote – most importantly urban voters who have supported the MDC in the previous elections.

Why did Makoni decide to challenge Mugabe? At what time did he seriously convince himself that he should summon his courage to challenge Mugabe? Why did he announce his decision so late? Is it because his wish to be the ruling party’s official candidate was rejected? Was he forced to make his decision? If he was forced, who forced him, for what strategic and tactical reasons? The announcement of his decision raises the key question as to whether he is a shrewd politician capable of effectively challenging Mugabe. What are his strategy and tactics to win elections and to effect the democratic transformation of the state and society? Is his campaign individual or collective effort? Can the majority of Zimbabweans regard it as their proud national product? Who within the ruling party are supporting his campaign? Have they participated in the creation and sustenance of the current situation? Are they now convinced that Mugabe is threatening their interests and therefore he should be replaced as the country’s president for their interests to continue being protected? Why they have not publicly articulated what they stand for – particularly how and for what strategic and tactical ends Zimbabwe should be governed? He initially stated that he was standing as an independent presidential candidate within the ruling party challenging Mugabe. He refused, given his loyalty to the party, to end his relationship with it. He was embracing leaderless illusion that the party will not end its relationship with him. As the party correctly pointed out, he expelled himself from it by making his announcement. He continues, after expulsion from the party, refusing to provide a critical analysis of the party and how it ruled the society and articulating this to Zimbabweans so as to with their support for him to solve problems they have been facing as he claims to be his key reason why he decided to contest elections. He continues refusing also to use opportunity to substantiate in practice that he is independent from the ruling party.

Makoni has so far failed to provide failed to provide alternative vision and agenda of the future Zimbabwe to that offered by ZANU-PF and two MDC factions. Despite acute problems confronted by the masses on the daily basis, his strategy and tactics have failed to meet their demands and needs. The consequence is that they do not recognise them as expressions of their own experience. Briefly, they failed to capture their imaginations. Is he for the authentic national popular democratisation of the society and the state for the masses of the Zimbabwean people to be the main authority in achieving, maintaining and expanding their interests? Unless the power to determine the form and content as well as the timetable of the change is in the hands of the masses of the people through the leadership of those who have surrendered their being their representatives to their cause, unilateral declaration of independence of leaders from the people will always be the negation of the popular principle, “we are our own liberators.”

The strategic tasks confronting the masses of Zimbabweans are political. Who should be their national president and why? How should be their national problems be resolved? What should be the nature of the future Zimbabwe’s relations with its regional and continental African countries and the rest of the world particularly developed countries? How best and effectively to improve the material conditions of the millions of Zimbabweans? These are some of the questions which should be answered to the satisfaction of the majority of Zimbabweans.

*Sehlare Makgetlaneng is the head of Southern African and SADC Desk at the Africa Institute of South Africa.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

These following notes, written by Daniel Volman, are based on the Conference on “Transforming National Security: Africom—An Emerging Command” Organized which was organized by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy of the National Defense University in Virginia from 19-20 February 2008.

Although the conference was open to the public, it was immediately clear that it was very much an “in group” affair explicitly held to bring together people from all the different agencies and African governments that will have to coordinate their activities to make Africom work. Thus, the conference itself was part of the process of organizing Africom. Technically, the conference was held under the NDU rules of “non-attribution,” i.e. participants can quote statements made at the conference, but are not supposed to identify speakers. I’ve complied with the rule in this memo, but just let me know if you want to know who said what.

About half of the audience of approximately 300 people (they said that this was the largest meeting devoted to Africom that has been held so far) were from the U.S. military services, mostly from the various agencies and departments that have been working through Eucom up until now and will now have to begin working with the new Africom HQ staff in Stuttgart. Most of the ones that I talked to were actually from Defense Intelligence staff, i.e. the people who decide to do with the intelligence information collected by the DIA and other agencies.

Then there were a substantial number of people from other departments, not just DoS and AID, but also Agriculture, Commerce, Judiciary, and others, since they all have programs in Africa that they will have to coordinate with Africom. And finally, there were a number of people from African embassies and governments, including both political and military personnel.

The conference was part of the ongoing effort of the Pentagon to actually get Africom going and to bring other countries into the structure, including by bringing their personnel into the Africom structure. I know that they organized a parallel conference in London, at the Royal United Services Institute, on 18-19 February to bring the Brits in, and I assume that they have/will do the same kind of thing to bring in the French and other European countries.

The conference was very much a nuts-and-bolts discussion of all the practical matters of making Africom work.

The first interesting thing was the discussion of how they define Africom’s mission. The presentation on this were based on internal DoD presentations, so they were much more honest and revealing than the kind of thing that comes from the public pronouncements. The presentation specifically cited the challenge of preventing disruptions in African oil production and exports as one of Africom’s six chief missions, along with meeting the challenge of China, controlling ungoverned regions and transnational extremism, dealing with instability in the Horn of Africa, dealing with instability in the Great Lakes region, and dealing with the situation in Chad/Sudan.

When one of the African representatives asked about China, they backtracked and said that Africom doesn’t see itself as a response to China and will seek to cooperate with China in the future. Africom is scheduled to produce a posture statement outlining its mission and intentions in March 2008.

A couple of other interesting points they made was to say that they saw the Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (the people who are spearheading U.S. involvement in Somalia and Ethiopia) as a model for what Africom could do in the rest of the continent. They admitted that they had made no attempt to consult with anyone at the UN while they were developing Africom and hadn’t really consulted with anyone in Africa either.

It was clear from their statements that they were very surprised and unhappy about the public response from Africans to Africom and that this was the reason that they were going to have to keep the Africom HQ in Stuttgart for the time being, although they will continue to look for African hosts and will also work on ways to station Africom staff people in less obvious and provocative ways like sending small groups to liaison with selected African military forces. They want to believe that this is just a problem of public relations and that they just have to do a better job of explaining themselves. One of the new buzzwords in Africom is “active listening,” i.e. pretending to care what other people think.

Finally, on a purely practical matter, there was considerable discussion about just how much trouble they are having finding adequate personnel and developing the kind of linkages and working relations with the agencies they will have to depend upon to actually do anything. This is all taking them a great deal of time and it’s clear that they will not really be ready when they become operational on 1 October. They’re worried that the difficult process of organizing Africom may actually disrupt U.S. military activities in Africa because the transition process itself will confuse everything.

* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, and the author of numerous articles on US security policy and African security issues.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org