Grace Kwinjeh argues that unless the MDC is prepared to “dismantle the exhausted patriarchal model of liberation” the new Zimbabwe will simply be a continuation of the old albeit with different faces.

"I appeal to my fellow war veterans not to let your suffering be used by selfish and greedy politicians who caused your suffering. This will not benefit you at the end of the day. Comrades, you should stand up and be a watchdog of the government. If you do not, you will have fought for nothing," freedom fighter and former independent MP Margaret Dongo. But after first being elected in 1990, Dongo almost didn't make it back into office. She lost in the 1995 elections as an independent candidate after rampant voter fraud in her district had been engineered to ensure her defeat. When she set a nationwide precedent by taking the government to court, many called Dongo "mentally unbalanced" and said she was simply carrying a grudge against President Robert Mugabe.

The Republic of Dongo: Parliamentarian Margaret Dongo, By Joyce Jenje-Makwenda, Zimbabwe History has a way of repeating itself in mysterious ways. The Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Tendai Biti recently signed a letter dissolving the Women's Assembly of the party. The same heroic Biti 12 years ago, joined other activists in fighting Zanu PF's intransigence, when the party fired vocal politician Margaret Dongo - from its ranks. With the support of pro- democracy activists Dongo challenged Zanu PF in the Harare South constituency and the courts and won.

Activists united in Harare South to campaign for Dongo, for many reasons with the main one being she had been a voice of reason within the Zanu PF structure saying things (her crude description of Mugabe loyalists) " Mugabe's wives" could not say.

"I'm saying this because I was in that parliament. I endured a lot of hardship under a one-party monopoly. You stand up and try to reason with him, and one tells you, "You are a bitch, go and cook in your house." Or tells you to sit down, that you are a minority..." said Dongo in an interview with Frontline World.

Thus she became a symbol of defiance against a system many feared and at the time thought was invincible, as has been the case with most post-colonial African States. She lit a candle of hope that the one party system could be challenged and dismantled, bringing the possibility of new political organisations with a different value system to that of Zanu PF.
I want to posit here that the Harare South battle should therefore be viewed in the context that it was an extension, of the whole process that led to the formation of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) in 1998 and subsequently the MDC in 1999.

It is however important to rewind this particular tape a little bit to understand the dynamics that played themselves out at the time within Zanu PF and their relevance to the political discourse today, within the MDC. I will use various theoretical positions and traditions to explain Dongo's battle in view of what Lucia Matibenga is up and against in the MDC vis-à-vis the question of intra-party democracy and women's empowerment as a pre- requisite of good governance.

Writing in the Financial Gazette of 11 October, Clemence Manyukwe gave an account of some of the victims of Zanu PF's internal dictatorship among them are Dzikamai Mavhaire and his famous "The President must go" speech, Frederick Shava, and Edgar Tekere. While all these have since been neutralised or silenced none made a mark in our collective conscience the way Dongo did.

The battle in Harare South was important and still has a relevance to us today especially for those whose political activism was then propelled by Dongo's victory. What was the principle behind the overwhelming support for Dongo's battle against the Zanu PF'chefs'? It was a brutal and lonely fight for Dongo. Zanu PF put all its resources in campaigning for Vivian Mwashita who had been Dongo's best friend. They had the control of the media, government resources, top politicians went into Harare South to de-campaign Dongo. Senior Zanu PF female politicians for their own political survival took sides with the men.

It is against this background that Matibenga's battle in the MDC, is important for us activists who were inspired and greatly influenced by Dongo in our political activism. The above scenario is repeating itself in a rather bitter manner. Reading Biti's statement after the High Court ruling on Matibenga's challenge of her committees dissolution, in which he claimed 'victory' and 'vindication', my heart sank. The statement represented several tragedies and dangers for those of who have been engaged in the protracted struggle for democracy.

While our interpretation of the judgement passed by the High Court is that only the Women's Congress can dissolve its leadership, the MDC leadership seems to have their own.

The first concern is to do with moral leadership, what lessons can the MDC learn from the 'struggles within the struggle' during the war of liberation as documented by the late Masipula Sithole? Sithole does not rule out the possibility of conflict in political organisations, however what matters is how the leadership responds and handles the conflict. The 70's 'struggle within the struggle' claimed lives, one of them of highly esteemed politician Hebert Chitepo. How were these developments a precursor of the kind of party Zanu PF is to today? Dictatorship? Violence?

"The Zimbabwe liberation movement has been torn apart by tribalism and regionalism, but rarely will this be admitted in public by the leadership and organisations in question, preferring distant Marxist ideological explanations. Those who may be tempted to think ideology is the answer to tribalism and regionalism will do well to remember that in both 'bourgeois' and 'proletariat' societies, national cohesiveness and consciousness are achieved through power sharing and management of representative institutional structures," wrote Sithole.

In a prophetic letter after the assassination of Chitepo his brother Ndabaningi said, "I cannot be indifferent to the death of a man such as Chitepo for political expediency. It is immoral and wrong. I am in this struggle because of moral quality otherwise I would have nothing to do with it."

Is there a moral value in Matibenga's struggle within the MDC? The late Sithole answers this by saying "In the long run, morally right actions will triumph over politically expedient actions. Just watch and see." Indeed we have not only watched but many of us are victims of that Zanu PF system of dictatorship and tyranny which birthed itself during our liberation struggle.

Still on the leadership question writing after being sacked as South Africa's deputy minister of Health, Nozizwe Madlala – Routledge said in an article entitled " Seeking servants of the people", 'When we choose leaders, we need not give up our own power by putting them on pedestals that distance them from those that they lead. We need not accord them hero worship or fear them so much that we cannot tell them what we think or feel, that we can only tell them what they want to hear. We need not allow them to think they have the last word and that they may not be challenged. True leadership is about giving people the feeling that they can be heard, regardless of who they are and how junior they may be."

The uneasy feeling one gets in supporting Matibenga's cause is of being at war with the leadership with the consequence of serious political backlash.

I want to argue further that the MDC is faced with these problems because of the failure to dismantle the exhausted patriarchal model of liberation as espoused by Horace Campbell and others . A model whose main characteristics are sexism, dictatorship and cronyism, the way the nationalists integrated themselves into the colonial systems, the MDC and other social liberation movements such as the Movement for Multi-party Democracy in Zambia have become hybrids of these models.

Of this system Campbell says, "instead of liberation becoming the foundation of a new social order, the militarist and masculinist leadership turned the victory of the people into a never ending nightmare of direct and structural violence."

The failure to break from colonial and nationalist politics can be described as another instance of what Frantz Fanon called 'false decolonization' or 'political decadence'. "In its beginnings, the national bourgeoisie of the colonial country identifies itself with the decadence of the West. We need not think that it is jumping ahead; it is in fact beginning at the end."

Fanon goes further to say and this explains the prevailing status of the MDC, "It is already senile before it has come to know the petulance, the fearlessness, or the will to succeed of youth."

And so Biti goes further to state in his statement, "Contrary to the opinions of others, the decision was not based on patriarchy, chauvinism or contempt of the feminist movement." What Biti seems not to understand is that the authority he has to actually write this statement derives itself from patriarchal privilege, one that he and his cohort do not have the ideological sophistication to articulate in order to dismantle it. That is the tragedy. Thus the commission investigating the conduct of the women's assembly for instance is made up of three men in a party that is blessed with so many well meaning and capable women. Biti sees nothing wrong with this. Not to mention again that the National Executive and National Council of the party were never informed of this decision.

In fact like Dongo and Mwashita in Zanu PF then, MDC women are placed in the ridiculous situation of acting like wives in a polygamous union. Those in such unions will tell you that when you ' talk too much', you are denied conjugal rights and other benefits until you behave. And so measures are put in place in the MDC system to regulate the behaviour of leaders especially how women respond to patriarchy and chauvinism. Even more telling is the fact that their opinions are regarded as those of 'others' they are not part and parcel of the party's common vision and understanding, of what constitutes intra-party democracy on the one hand the emancipation of women on the other.

The fact that the 'feminist movement' is just another and not part and parcel of the revolution as advanced by great revolutionaries like, Oliver Tambo or Thomas Sankara who said, "May my eyes never see and my feet never take me to a society where half of the people are held in silence.' Or Samora Machel who said, "The idea that we can wait until later to emancipate women is wrong, because it means leaving reactionary ideas to grow so that they are harder to fight later."

The great pan - Africans proposed a liberation model that sought to restore black woman of her dignity so viciously stripped of her by the settler colonialists. Their concept of revolution was not just political for instance placing certain men in power it was also social, meaning a total break-down of all institutions of power and oppression.

Just to advance my thesis further on the relationship between intra-party democracy, women's emancipation and good governance, I will use the example of Mozambique's FRELIMO which has produced not just some of the greatest women in Africa, lets take Graca Machel, but one of the best governments too. Fresh from winning the inaugural 5-million-dollar Mo Ibrahim Award for African Leadership, former President Joaquim Chissano, denounced autocratic rule saying it has no room on the African continent anymore.

For the MDC women I will leave them with the advise of late the nationalist Oliver Tambo to ANC women in 1981, "Women in the ANC should stop behaving like there was no place for them above the level of certain categories of involvement. They have a duty to liberate us men from antique concepts and attitudes about the place and role of women in society and the development and direction of our revolutionary struggle."

And so I will conclude by saying the fact that today when we speak out we are 'othered' called 'whores' and have to defend what we stand for gives us an insight into the 'New Zimbabwe' we are fighting for.

* Grace Kwinjeh is a visiting scholar with the Centre for Civil Society and writes in her personal capacity.

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

Everything small is beautiful these days. NGOs, busy with micro finance and micro politics for the poor, are small, beautiful -- and powerless. Meanwhile, the beast of markets and States can continue to dominate macro economics and politics. This neat division into micro and macro sustains the unjust power relationships that perpetuate impoverishment, inequality and injustice, says John Samuel

Small may seem beautiful. But is this beauty enough to take on the beast? These days there is a great deal of talk about micro-this and micro-that -- as if it were the most desirable thing. But can micro beauty challenge and change the macro beast of market and State? At the core of this is the question is power: what kinds and modes of power relationships shape social and economic policies? How differently does power operate in its micro and macro dimensions? How is power derived and sustained? Our predicament is that power can create the delusion of ‘empowerment’ and the subjugation of the ‘empowered’ at the same time.

Why is it that in spite of all the magic of micro credit and the perceived ‘empowerment’, the poor and marginalised fail to influence the macro politics of Bangladesh or for that matter any country? Why is the celebrated hero of micro credit ending up a zero in the macro party politics of Bangladesh? Why is it that in spite of a long history of ‘civil society’ initiatives and grassroots ‘empowerment’ by organisations like SEWA and many Gandhian organisations in the state of Gujarat in India, thousands of people were massacred in broad daylight, with the complicity of the State? Why does most of ‘civil society’ fail to respond to the uncivil behaviour of organised political forces and State power? Why is it that the so-called ‘social capital’ in southern Italy failed to counter the rise of fascism? This is where we need to understand the limitations of micro politics and micro finance.

The crux of the matter is that it is often macro power relationships and macro economics that call the shots, while micro politics can perpetuate a false sense of power. Micro politics and micro finance may offer a sense of power. But such power is no more than a delusion when it is subservient to unjust power relationships that perpetuate injustice, inequality and impoverishment. Often micro power and micro politics are simply bulldozed or consistently subverted by the macro power of the State and market -- the beasts of macro politics and economics -- deriving their power from a coercive army, a media that manufactures consent, and markets that masquerade as the messiah.

These days we hear a lot about micro finance, micro enterprises, local governance and empowerment at the grassroots level. The new stress on the rights-based approach to development, civil society action, civic virtues, community-based mobilisations and grassroots empowerment all seem to stress largely on micro and very little on macro. Micro is for the poor and excluded and macro is for the rich and powerful. Micro finance and micro politics can be subcontracted to NGOs while macro politics and macro economics will be controlled by organised corporate and market power along with the political elite. This is where the delusions of power and the delusions of development begin.

What is the problem? The problem is that while the so-called NGOs or Civil Society Institutions are busy ‘empowering’ the grassroots, establishing micro finance, strengthening local governance or ‘delivering development’, the organised macro economic and political powers continue to play their power games of macro finance, macro economics and national, international and global governance. They capture markets, natural resources or countries through laws, advertising campaigns, finance capital markets or bombs as and when they like! While every good soul seems to be focusing on the grassroots and local development or empowerment, the rich and powerful seem to be busy capturing markets, consumers and governments.

The logic of this neat division of politics and finance into micro and macro often helps to sustain and strengthen hegemonic and unjust power relationships that perpetuate impoverishment, inequality and injustice. While civil society organisations can claim the ethical or political high ground, they simply fail to influence anything about the war in Iraq or the policies of the World Bank or IMF or for that matter the nature and character of a coercive State, whether in Ethiopia or Zimbabwe or the USA.

So micro finance looks good as long as you ignore the macro finance which drives it. So we can celebrate Grameen and forget about Citibank or American Express or finance capital markets. Micro enterprises look good as long as you ignore macro economics; local governance is a favoured option as long as national and global governance continues unchallenged as the terrain of the political and technocratic elite. While influencing micro power relations and micro politics is a worthwhile effort, it is also a means of creating and sustaining delusions of power when macro politics and macro economics are left to control and manipulate power in business corporations, rich countries and their institutions.

The fact of the matter is that in spite of years of community mobilisation and grassroots empowerment and local governance in many of the countries of Asia (Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and to some extend Nepal), macro politics is often shaped by a mix of larger political forces and interest groups along with the coercive power of the army. Most of the countries in Africa and Latin America also show the same pattern. In the so-called democracies of Europe and America too the situation is more or less the same. In spite of all efforts, it is State power that decided to launch a preemptive and disastrous war in Iraq.

This is not to argue that micro politics or micro power is not important. On the contrary, micro power and micro politics are very crucial for individual empowerment and women’s empowerment at the level of family, community and local power relations. Indeed, transforming micro politics and the injustice that is embedded in gender relations and challenging feudal power structures and historical marginalisation require change in unjust and unequal relationships within the family and communities. However, the problem is that larger power structures, political forces and corporate interests are so organised in terms of their interests, networks and control over the institutions and interests of the military, market and media. The institutionalised power of macro politics can make the power of micro politics redundant in the larger power play. One of the key reasons for this is that micro politics is most of the time dispersed, disorganised and disoriented in the larger context of the political economy of power and institutions. Hence, micro politics do not translate into collective power that can challenge and change macro power and the institutions that control and reproduce such macro power and macro economies. The key reason for this is the hegemonic power paradigm that influences and shapes power relations.

At any given point of time there is a hegemonic power paradigm that operates through the political economy of institutions, interests, knowledge, technology and State. Even morality and moral tools like human rights are often defined by the political economy of the hegemonic power paradigm. Hence a moral tool like human rights is often misused in the most immoral way by those who control the power paradigm. This paradigm is still controlled by the power of military, media and markets and sustained by the State and its various institutions at the national and international level. While such a power paradigm gives incremental space to civil society or civil society organisations or social movements or NGOs (in the name of human rights or democracy) to influence public policies, this ‘invited’ or ‘designed’ space is largely within the hegemonic power paradigm. That is why such efforts have to depend largely on the goodwill of the media or institutions of the State in spite of and irrespective of their moral and political claims on behalf of the poor or citizens. In fact, one can argue that even such ‘invited spaces’ are little more than accommodative arrangements to create delusions of power for civil society.

Even international campaigns initiated by civil society or INGOs to challenge the politics of the State and market largely depend on the highly corporatised media for attention and legitimacy. Often anything that happens in cities such as Washington, New York, London or Brussels qualifies an action as ‘global’. Anything that appeared on BBC or CNN is ‘global’. Any book that is published in London or New York or reviewed in Time or Newsweek or Economist is supposed to have ‘global’ influence. Any theory or knowledge that is manufactured or processed in the Northern universities or think-tanks is supposed to have ‘global significance’. By the same token cities of the South, knowledge from the South and the media in the South are still ‘local’ or ‘national’. This too creates a false sense of power based on the location and delusions of power. Little wonder then that even civil society or NGO campaigns are vulgarised into cheap media stunts, high-profile seminars and communication circuses in the Northern cities (privileged by the hegemonic power paradigm), based more on brand- building and less on mobilising or transforming political power or power relationships at the micro or macro level.

We must understand the character and nature of the hegemonic power paradigm and challenge and change the very paradigm of the 3 Ms (Military, Media and Market) to reclaim the State as well as governance for the people and the billions of poor and excluded both in rich and poor countries. This requires a much more nuanced understanding about the uses and abuses of power and a political strategy based on a long-term approach to the power paradigm as well as social transformation.

Power is a contested concept, as much as it is about contestations. Power is also a very slippery notion, with multiple manifestations, processes and histories. The notions of ‘Power over’, ‘Power to’, ‘Power within’ and ‘Power with’ often capture different dimensions and modes through which power operates, transforms and manifests itself. Power can have both positive and negative connotations. Power can be visible or hidden. It can have symbolic as well as institutional dimensions. Power is often negotiated through and by different social, political, economic and institutional dimensions as well as through cultural, historical and technological modes. The questions are how power is derived, how it is used, how it is manifested and how it is reproduced or regenerated. The ‘how’ aspect of power is often more important than the ‘what’ and ‘why’ aspects.

Power can manifest itself in terms of aesthetics, coercion, consensus, control or networks. The power to create can in many ways signify the primordial notion of power and often the very basis of the omnipotence of the notion of God is derived from the ‘power to create’. Later on, religions as formal institutions transformed this ‘creative power’ to the ‘power to control’. Power can be termed the process, instruments and ability to create, communicate, choose, decide, influence, convene, sustain, control and destroy. Power has an individual as well as institutional dimension. The personal is indeed political. However, it is the institutions of family, religion, State and market that often define, sustain and reproduce power relationships. Often such institutions legitimise the ‘control’ and ‘coercive’ aspect through ‘power over’. Patriarchy is the most manifested form of power as control. Power is often derived from and through guns as well as gender; books as well as battalions; ethics as well as economics; religions as well as rockets; tactics as well as technology; liberty as well as law; love as well as language; crime as well as punishment; people as well as profits; media as well as mediation; war as well as peace; values as well as visions; community as well as creativity; advocacy as well as armies; missionaries as well as markets and democracy as well as desires. In fact, a hegemonic power paradigm operates through the control of all these modes as well as expressions of power. It operates through the control and coordination of the military, law and order, technology and even the political economy of desire (the manufacturing of new desires and demands through advertisements), democracy (by corporate funding of political parties and political elites), human rights and civil society initiatives (either through State patronage of development aid or through corporate funding). Hence the Knowledge of Power is as important as the Power of Knowledge.

The delusions of power through individual empowerment or through the empowerment of the consumer to choose, through the empowerment of local governance or through the ‘invited’ space for civil society, can give a false sense of hope about the whole project of development and human rights. It is far less complicated to address the micro dimension of power. Hence, the hegemonic power paradigm (which is patriarchal in nature) will not have much of a problem initiating affirmative action in favour of women’s political participation and leadership in local self-government. This is the same for other excluded groups. However, there is tremendous resistance to allocation of 30% or 40% of seats in a nation’s parliament for women or excluded sections.

It is the same with NGOs. As long as NGOs are small and beautiful, the hegemonic power paradigms of the State or market will not have any problem supporting micro credit or micro enterprises. The fact of the matter is that most NGOs or Civil Society Organisations derive power from their institutional sources and through communicative action based on moral premises. However, the very institutional and communicative sources are often located on the periphery of the State, market and media. This is true of fundraising as well as of media strategies. Such a sense of power derived through institutions, networks, communicative action, knowledge and technology can be effective to a certain extent at the very grassroots level through community mobilisation or delivery of the service. With the advent of information and communication technology and media-driven campaign strategies, they may also have a visible presence or profile at the global level. But such presence and ‘invited spaces’ do not necessarily mean the power to influence or change. Because of the very character and nature of the institutional premises, located in markets as well as in the periphery of the State, many such initiatives can at best be progressive reformism or token instrumentalism. Hence, unless such Civil Society Organisations think of a new political strategy as well as political theory and praxis of action at all levels of micro and macro power relationships, the chances of transforming the hegemonic power paradigm are few. In fact, after 25 years, many of the present local and ‘global’ initiatives for change may prove redundant. Many of these small and beautiful efforts and institutions may very well be swallowed by the beasts of market and State.

In fact the major challenge for the present hegemonic power paradigm comes from the emergence of postmodern identity politics. The notion of ‘class’ is getting increasingly mixed with ‘identity’. Unprecedented urbanisation, migration, inequality, combined with the new markers of identity based on location, religion and ethnicity can unleash new political forces that can subvert the present state of the hegemonic power paradigm. This can very well be reactionary political forces as distinct from a progressive or transformative political force. The new identity politics has individual, micro and macro dimensions as well as the subversive capacity through new forms of military action and terror tactics. This poses a great challenge to both the beauty and the beast.

At the moment the beauty and the beast seem to have established a complacent and conciliatory relationship based on mutual benefit and the desire for self-preservation. Such a complacent coexistence of the beauty and the beast creates the delusion of power as well as development as the beast is busy bombing the lives and livelihoods of the people. However, the new identity politics and the new hegemonic power paradigms at the global, national and international level may rock the applecart. The beast may change colour and even language. It may shift its primary location from Washington to elsewhere. However, the beauty cannot afford to be complacent with ‘micro’ power. There is indeed a need to create something big as well as beautiful that is relevant at the local, national and international level.

There is a need for a new renaissance and a new flowering of creativity in the form of new poetry, cultural expression and politics to build a new aesthetics of power and empowerment that can be relevant both at the micro and macro level. Small may be beautiful. But all beautiful things do not necessarily need to be small -- particularly when there is a beast that can easily swallow the small beauties of civil society at their convenience for either breakfast or dinner. We need to outgrow the delusions of power and confront the hegemonic power paradigm by creating new sources of power and politics, through broad-based mobilisations, new forms of communicative actions, new forms of local and international alliances, new forms of knowledge creation, distribution and reproduction and new forms of democratisation. We need a new imagination to go beyond the three-year project cycles or five-year thematic strategies of ‘empowerment’ to build a new vision for a new world -- a just and joyful world -- through new actions and through innovative institutional approaches. Delusions of power lead to delusions of development. And such frustrations may lead development actors to go in search of new approaches and strategies for poverty eradication, without being able to challenge and change the hegemonic power paradigms that perpetuate inequality, injustice and consequent impoverishment.

This piece was first published in InfoChange News & Features, June 2007

* John Samuel is a human rights activist and is currently International Director of Actionaid, based in Bangkok.

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

Mary Ndlovu presents some hard truths about life in Zimbabwe and questions those Pan Africanists who fall for Mugabe’s “anti-imperalist rhetoric”. She asks if there is hope? Yes there is but only if Pan Africanism is “turned on it’s head” and “seized by the people” away from leaders not just in Zimbabwe but across Africa who have consistently betrayed the people.

Thanks to Rotimi Sankore for blowing aside the smokescreen which obscures the real issues in Zimbabwe for many well-wishers of a Pan Africanist persuasion. President Mugabe is very clever in his use of anti-imperialistic rhetoric to attract the loyalty of many unsuspecting supporters throughout Africa. It saddens Zimbabweans to see how easily people can be misled by words and ignore the true facts on the ground, thus failing to reach a meaningful understanding of our tragedy. Perhaps their perspective could be improved by a few hard realities:

Zimbabweans have a lower material standard of living now than they have had since the 1940's up to one quarter of the population has fled the country, due either to political harassment and torture or to inability to survive and feed their families tens of thousands of Zimbabweans are dying of treatable diseases because the health system has collapsed teachers earn less than the cost of their transport to work; their monthly salary will buy ten litres of petrol, but none can afford a car chiefs, discredited during the liberation war as supporters of the Smith regime, are being restored and elevated, imposed on the rural population as unelected leaders, and placed on the government payroll a small elite of ruling party cronies, families and relatives, without any evidence of working for it, live at a standard far beyond the expectations of most middle class professionals of the developed world Anyone who wishes to study the situation honestly will have to admit that none of this is caused by western "sanctions".

Our government has systematically destroyed an already troubled economy, for the purpose of staying in power. Rather than respond falling living standards in the 1990's by devising rational policies which could serve the people - or alternatively admitting failure and allowing the opposition to try their own solutions - the government panicked, determined to stay in power at all costs, put politics ahead of economic sense, and the whole descent into repression and chaos resulted.

It is an insult to Zimbabweans to expect that, faced with declining living standards, they would not seek to change a government which might bring them something better. Why should they be used by foreign exploiters - any more than the nationalist movement of the 60's and 70's was being used by communist meddlers?

Here are better explanations of the current Zimbabwean crisis:

There is a shortage of food because government forcibly stopped the most knowledgeable and skilled farmers from growing food there is a shortage of almost everything, including food, medicine, transport, manufactures and services because government has forced everyone to sell their goods and services at less than the production cost people are dying of starvation because government would prefer them to die than to lose control of food distribution to donors Bulawayo, a city of a million people has no water because government, since Independence in 1980, has not constructed a single new source for a population which has multiplied five times; it would prefer to kill a city which has the reputation of being an opposition stronghold those who dare to protest publicly that the situation is intolerable are arrested, battered, tortured, and thrown into lice, flea and excrement infested cells It is also true that there were poor rains in 2007. There have been poor rains before, and much of Zimbabwe is drought-prone. It is the responsibility of governments to deal with this type of problem and develop contingencies. If the government has not found out in 27 years how to deal with recurring drought, then they do not know how to fulfil their responsibilities.

Imperialists have been around for at least two centuries. If government has not found out how to deal with modern day "imperialists" (or globalisation) to protect their own people, they do not know how to lead an African nation. No amount of rhetoric is going to change the world order. But the rhetoric, along with the repression that has destroyed the economy, the society and the polity has killed a once vibrant nation full of hope. The dismemberment of families and the moral and material destruction of an entire society may have kept our government in power; it will never solve the problem of imperialism.

It is one thing to analyse what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe. It is quite another to take action which will promote positive change. Zimbabweans once (only seven long years ago) naively believed that leaders in Africa would understand the true nature of the tragedy which has struck us. No longer. It is now crystal clear that they are cast in a similar mould. Problems in their own countries stem from some of the same causes. If other governments in the region faced the same strength of opposition as Zimbabwe did in 2000 and 2002, they might look very similar to ours. We have only to watch the repression of protesters over housing and service provision in South Africa to understand the true position. Yes Mbeki may succeed in forcing some kind of accommodation between the MDC and ZANU PF. It might just improve the sad lot of Zimbabweans in some small way. But let us not fool ourselves into believing that it will promote any kind of social justice.

Opposition parties are cut from the same cloth and in countries where they have gained power have yet to show that they can deliver to the people Our nationalist movements for independence were led by intellectuals, by petty bourgeoisie, by labour aristocrats frustrated by their own lack of opportunity. They gained the support of the peasantry and the workers. But once in power they became distracted by the comforts of office, the self-importance of command and the prospect of fabulous wealth through corruption. Africa as a whole has been betrayed by nationalist movements, by governments, by liberation movements, and even by the new elite- the NGOs. So let us not expect much from our "leaders". They are not going to bring us social justice, whatever elite-pacting may take place in the secret places behind closed doors.

Where, then lies the future? Must we stop hoping and trying? Does Pan Africanism have any role to play? Of course it does. But only if we claim it away from the rhetoricians and the charlatans and the leaders who have betrayed us. We must turn it on its head and seize it for the people. Only through Herculean efforts of the social movements who demand a share of the wealth, and respect and comfort for the people will we make progress. And for this purpose we must form cross-border alliances at grass roots level to counter those alliances of corrupt leaders that the AU and SADC have become.

No one said this could be easy. Just as the liberation struggle was long and hard, so will this one be. But this time we must be more aware of the reality of not just potential but probable betrayal by leaders. We must develop new styles of leadership based on service not power and privilege. Then we can support each other across Africa, and step by careful step build a new Pan Africanism based on social justice for the people.

* Mary Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist.

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

Onyeka Obasi believes it is up to Africa’s youth to “revive the vision” of the founding fathers of Africa’s Independence – nation building, development and democracy. In this article she assesses the recent PAYLF held in Accra in June this year.

Can Africa survive today with its present leadership? Notably, there has been a dramatic shift in the value system since 1970. Looking at what democracy means in Africa today and tomorrow, one cannot help but think about the dreams of the founding fathers of this great continent. When the Organization of Africa Unity (OAU) was established, African leadership was committed to nation building. Therefore, the future of Africa will be determined by present policy formulation and agenda setting. What has been lacking from development agendas in the African context has been a systematic and unified approach to tackling the continent's challenges. Development goals often have short-sighted projections and do not conceptualize long term plans for the continent's future. A systematic and long term plan for Africa is absolutely essential for the future and the mobilization of Africa's youth is imperative to its inception and execution. It is left for the African Youth to revive that vision, bearing in mind that democracy is crucial for the economy of the continent. Key to achieving this is working towards gaining recognition in the important channels of decision making through organizing and proactive involvement. Enabling youth involvement in African political discourse must entail the appropriate training and education.

It was with this in mind that the first Pan African Youth Leadership Forum (PAYLF) was convened. The week-long, international event, held in Accra from June 18-25, 2007 brought together a diverse group of some of the continent’s committed young leaders and afforded them the unique opportunity to offer their expertise in addressing key issues relevant to the youth, democracy, and development on the continent. The international forum was organized by Friends of Africa International (FAI), an international non profit organization dedicated to promoting social justice, human rights, democracy and good governance in Africa.

During the week-long interactive debates and dialogues with key stakeholders and resource persons, the youth delegates in attendance demonstrated deep and insightful perspectives on youth issues, while offering innovative insights on best practices for promoting democracy and development. The forum concluded with the drafting of a comprehensive action plan which articulates the vision of the youth delegates of the PAYLF and which will guide the future activities of the youth network that was established over the course of the deliberations.

To read the full article, follow the link below.

* Onyeka Obasi is President, Friends of Africa International

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

Forget the Green (Springbok Rugby Special) Revolution – What we need is a Red Revolution “bottom-up, participatory, accountable democracy, worker-control of the product of their labor, the socialization of land, state control and public ownership of the major means of production”

Referring to the Springbok mania that is currently gripping South Africa as "The Green Revolution" is but just another example of how the mass media appropriates the language of justice for ends that have nothing to do with the real issues represented by the struggle lexicon. As the big wigs of world rugby and corporate capital smile to the bank-and the Springbok’s victory shift the focus away from the team’s lily-whiteness, the poorest of the poor, the working class and the rural and township majority return from the merry-making ceremonies to squalid, unsafe and unhealthy living and working conditions. Reality dawns upon them that South Africa and the world is far away from the realization of the real green revolution, which among others entails:

•Sustainable development of communities through equitable allocation and distribution of power, wealth and resources and people’s participation in designing, implementing, evaluating and reviewing policies and programmes geared towards their development.

•A break from policy programmes that sacrifice labor-demands and the welfare and wellbeing of society and the environment to profit-maximization, the deity of economic growth and the tyranny of the market.

•Taking tough measures against the ravages of big industry, high finance and corporate and speculative capital on the ecosystem and the economies and cultures of peoples of the world.

•Zero-waste initiatives promoting recycling, energy conversation and nature preservation, environmental awareness programmes at the grassroots, promoting responsible motoring and encouraging the use of public transport. Making big industry to pay reparation to the communities that are victims of their environmental terror.

This green revolution will not be possible without the red revolution: bottom-up, participatory, accountable democracy, worker-control of the product of their labor, the socialization of land, state control and public ownership of the major means of production(the commanding heights of the economy) and equitable redistribution of the wealth and resources of the land. Only when this is achieved will we do way with unequal social and power relations, and therefore be able to close all the doors of prejudice, which is the foundation upon which true integration and a South Africaness that transcends the boundaries of creed, color, language, ethnicity and gender shall be built. Real integration will be possible when access to quality arts, sports and cultural facilities, social amenities and social services, quality health services and good education does not depend on the socio-economic status, and racial background of individuals or their gender.

In other words, real integration will be realized when all the socio-economic factors and institutional and structural arrangements that work against workers and the rural and urban poor, the women, the disabled and Black people have been done away with. In the absence of these conditions the rainbowism that we suddenly fall in love with when the Springboks lift up the world cup only serve to give people a false sense of unity and one-nationess which ignore class contradictions.

Most importantly, the green revolution rainbowism put the enormous gap in the quality of life of the under-classes and the elites and upper-classes, the laborers and employers, and the poor and the rich under the carpet. This is a typical example of using popular sport as an opium, feeding the masses illusions of joy and happiness that distract their attention from issues such as the lethargic pace of transformation in rugby, the fact that in material and economic terms Black people and the poor have no real stake in rugby or 2010, and that the real beneficiaries in the world cup tournaments are the rich and the propertied. We are made to forget that the chances of poor Black hawkers selling at rugby match in South Africa are zilch as much as they will not be able to be within the reach of the stadiums during the 2010 football world cup.

The phantom display of a nation united behind the green banner and the national flag will not change the fact that invariably South Africa is two worlds in one country: the world of utter want, abject poverty, rampant disease and de-humanizing and brutalizing squalor and the world of raging consumerism, shameless opulence and decadent pomp. As Steve Biko put it, integration cannot be imposed on a people, it will automatically happen when all doors of prejudice have been closed. As of now, we are far from achieving what Biko posited as the struggle’s glittering prize: bestowing upon South Africa (and the world) a more human face.

* Mphutlane wa Bofelo is a creative writer, performance and social critic, and is currently the national General Secretary of the Muslim Youth Movement of South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.

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

“The latest global maternal death statistics indicate that of the 536,000 women that died in 2005 of childbirth related complications, about half or 261,000 were African women. These figures also indicate that Africa is the only region where maternal deaths have increased since 1990 up from 205,000.

Africa Public Health Rights Alliance Issues Maternal Death Scorecard At Start of Women Deliver International Conference on Investing in Women’s Health.

Relentless Increase in African Maternal Death Could Be Equated To Genocide By Inaction – Says Africa Public Health Rights Alliance “15% Now” Campaign.

* Health financing Scorecard indicates that average annual per capita health expenditure of $13.5 in bottom 10 countries is equal to a night’s cinema expenses in the top 10 countries.
* Health worker scorecard indicates that more developed countries that steal health workers from less developed countries instead of training theirs are culpable for maternal deaths.

In a statement ahead of it’s scorecard to be launched on the second day of the Women Deliver International Conference on Investing in Women’s Health holding in London from 18 to 20 October, Rotimi Sankore Coordinator of the Africa Public Health Rights Alliance “15% Now!” Campaign stated that:

“The latest global maternal death statistics indicate that of the 536,000 women that died in 2005 of childbirth related complications, about half or 261,000 were African women. These figures also indicate that Africa is the only region where maternal deaths have increased since 1990 up from 205,000. Maternal deaths dropped in every other continent over the same period. In Europe from 4,800 to 2,900, and in the America’s from 21,000 to 16,000. We are very concerned that the prevalent maternal death risk also reflects a much bleaker picture of overall reproductive health in Africa.” “The scorecard based on the 2005 figures and latest comparable global health financing and health systems data[1] shows that in the bottom 10 countries globally - all of which are African except Afghanistan, maternal death risk is between 1 in 7 (Niger) and 1 in 15 (Mali). In the top 10 the risk is between 1 in 47,600 (Ireland) and 1 in 13,800 (Switzerland). Possibly every family in the bottom 10 countries will suffer 1 maternal death. Overall 1 in 23 African women have a lifetime risk of maternal death compared with 1 in 2,300 in Europe. This is not acceptable and African governments have to act without delay to end this waste of African women’s lives.” Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi, Director of Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC) and APHRA 15% Campaign partner underlined that: “The scale of maternal death anywhere is tied to two key factors: overall levels of sustainable health financing, and the ratio of health workers to the population especially midwives, nurses and doctors. The scorecard shows graphically how lack of both combine to undermine the lives of African women. In the top 10 countries, government health expenditure far surpasses private expenditure, while in the bottom 10 citizens are mostly left to fend for themselves. If deliberate state action to exterminate a social group is interpreted as genocide, its difficult not to infer that persistent inaction could mean the same. The practice of government without responsibility in Africa must stop” “International human rights law calls for health systems that are available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality. Governments must make it an urgent priority to build and support public health systems that integrate primary and reproductive health care with guarantees of sexual, reproductive, and all other rights of women. This is the only way we will turn the tide on maternal deaths,” emphasised Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer, of Physicians for Human Rights and APHRA 15% Campaign partner.

“It is also crucial to highlight that women’s health is not only about Maternal Deaths” added Felicita Hikuam Global Programs Manager of the Worlds Aids Campaign and APHRA 15% Campaign Partner. “There is a direct link between lack of sexual and reproductive health and rights and a wide range of issues including HIV and AIDS which is now one of the leading killers of women. Women are still not able to universally uphold their rights to: choose their partner, decide to be sexually active or have consensual sexual relations, have consensual marriage or decide whether or not to have children. Lack of education, economic dependence, poverty and lack of legislation to protect women in many parts of the world means that women, especially young women, are still very vulnerable to sexual abuse, and subsequently, HIV infection. These issues must be addressed alongside issues of maternal deaths and as part of reproductive health and rights.” Key Notes for Editors:

One of the key MDGs is the reduction of maternal death by 75% between 1990 and 2015. The APHRA 15% Campaign scorecard not only shows how bleak the present situation is, it also indicates what needs to be done if the lives and dignity of African women are to be protected and the MDG target for reducing MM is to be met.

The Scorecard underlines that to reduce their disease burden and improve overall public health including reproductive health, African countries must drastically raise investment in health to :

* Meet the 2001 Abuja pledge to allocate 15% or more of annual budgets to health (excluding external resources)

* Increase annual per capita expenditure on health to a minimum of $1000 over 5 years in the first instance.

* Increase and maintain percentage government expenditure on health (as against private expenditure) at between 50% and 90% (excluding external resources) in order to approach similar levels in top 10 countries.

* Ensure that a minimum of 10% of GDP excluding external resources is spent on health.

On Health Systems / Workers - Invest in infrastructure, training and retention of personnel towards ensuring: ü A minimum density of 3 doctors per 1000 between now and 2015.

* A minimum density of 10 nurses per 1000 between now and 2015.

* A minimum density of 1 midwives per 1000 between now and 2015.

* A minimum density of 1 pharmacist per 1000 between now and 2015.

* Appropriate levels of dentists, public health, community health, scientific and technological staff.

The most developed countries must show sincerity in their offers of development aid and:

* Stop subsidising their health systems with African health workers and professionals and immediately end official policies recruiting health workers from where they are most needed.

* Raise their own domestic expenditure on health, education and training to meet domestic needs.

* Ensure that dependency is ended sooner by asking African governments to match aid by meeting the Abuja 15% pledge to ensure sustainable health financing.

* Ensure that health development aid is holistically targeted at the intertwined problems of reproductive health, child mortality, HIV and AIDS, TB and malaria.

ENDS Support the Africa Public Health Rights Alliance 15% Now campaign for sustainable financing for health in Africa -

For Further Information Please Contact the Following: Internationally / At the Conference in London: Africa Public Health Rights Alliance “15% Now! Campaign Int. office: +44 207 424 5744; Or Africa Office +234 1 4925568, email: 15percent[at]africapublichealth.org.

In the United States: Physicians for Human Rights Barbara Ayotte, Director of Communications w) [617] 695-0041, ext. 210 , email: bayote[at]phrusa.org In South Africa: World Aids Campaign Tel: + 27 21 466 7827, (Or Netherlands International Office Tel: +31 20 616 9045), email: waccapetown[at]worldaidscampaign.org

In Nigeria: Women Advocates Research & Documentation Centre (WARDC):
Tel: +234 1 8197344 , womenadvocate[at]yahoo.com or wardc[at]womenadvocates.org

The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance [and the “15% Now!” campaign] launched on December 10 2006 - International Human Rights Day - is the first to articulate Public Health for Africa as a Rights and Development issue across Africa and beyond. It brings together actors from various key sectors of civil society.

The Campaign is based on the premise that “we all have to be alive and well to exercise any other rights in any meaningful way” and therefore that Right to Health and to Healthcare is arguably the most crucial right of all as articulated by both the constitution of the World Health Organisation and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Current social development and health indicators from international and African institutions show that over 8 million African lives are lost annually to preventable, treatable and manageable health conditions and diseases. Child Mortality, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Maternal Mortality, and TB mainly account for these.

Any loss of life to disease is bad enough. The annual loss of populations equivalent to entire African countries - and over a few years greater than the losses from all modern day global wars and conflicts combined is both unacceptable and unsustainable, and brings Africa closer to the slippery slope to collapse of society and extinction.

The key objective of the Alliance is to engage the African Union, sub-Regional Economic Communities such as the East African Community (EAC), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) etc, their institutions / member countries, and the African public towards: 1) Promoting greater awareness and understanding of African Health Issues and; 2) Adopting Comprehensive Health Policies based on a Public Health Rights and Development philosophy - and mobilising and committing resources for sustainable implementation.

The Alliance will also engage global stakeholders and actors including donors, the UN, EU and their institutions, World Bank, IMF, and international Non-governmental Institutions and organisations especially those concerned with health, social and economic development.

[1] Health Finance, Health Systems and Maternal Death Data from WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF and World Bank. Latest comparable figures are for 2004 and 2005 respectively. Figures have been computed by sources to ensure comparability and are therefore not necessarily official statistics of individual countries, which may use alternative methods.

* The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance (APHRA)

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

"One of the key predicaments of the ongoing social and political transition in the world today is the subversion of language and ideas to create political smoke screen or delusion or to give a semblance of social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse.” John Samuel argues that the use of the term Civil Society is being used as a smokescreen to give “social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse".

Words are like flowers. Flowers have their own colour, texture and smell. Not every kind of flower blooms in every climate or soil. It's the same with words. Their colour, texture, smell and meaning arise organically from a particular socio-historical and cultural milieu. When demand exceeds the supply of flowers, there arises a market for manufactured flowers. Plastic flowers need neither soil nor climate; they transcend space and time. They may sometimes look like the real thing. But they can never feel like the real thing.

So it is with words in the postmodern condition. There are all too many plastic words, good for decoration and intellectual pleasantries, and little else. One of the key predicaments of the ongoing social and political transition in the world today is the subversion of language and ideas to create political smoke screen or delusion or to give a semblance of social and political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse. Often progressive-sounding words and phrases are used to conceal the reality on the ground or to create a virtual or projected sense of select images and discourse. The reshuffling of meanings and the subversion of political semantics has become the order of the day. This has become a part of process of creating the new pornography of politics. The very term Civil Society is major protagonist in the post-modern politics of delusive power-plays and elusive semantics. They together often create political and policy mirages.

The term ‘Civil Society’ is contested terrain. Over the last fifteen years it has been used to denote everything from citizens’ groups and activist formations to highly institutionalized non-governmental organisations and foundations. There is another dimension to this process of subversive politics of words from the point of view of the history ideas and the political economy of knowledge.

Civil society as a concept originated in 18th-century Western Europe. It was a theoretical construct useful in analyzing and understanding the emerging socio-political economy of the industrialized west in the 18th and 19th centuries. The concept was resurrected in the late-'80s amidst the ruins of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe. It was born-again in the manufacturing shops neo-democratization ventures in the North. During the second coming of the concept, more stress was laid on producing and marketing the civil society in different colours and shapes, rather than on reflecting the very validity of the idea in relation to real-life situations and experiences. The civil society is being paraded as the new panacea for issues such as poverty, human rights, gender equity and `good governance'.

What is this civil society all about? Whose civil society are we talking about? There is no one answer or even set of answers. The colour and smell of the term will change according to the convenience of the various proponents. As a result of such ambivalence, the second coming of the civil society conceals more than it reveals. Civil society, we are told, is synchronous with democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, good governance and opportunity for economic growth. But what do all these goodies entail? Whose democracy? Whose freedom of expression and choice are we talking about?

The new holy trinity of the State, Market and Civil Society can be capable of concealing the structural inequalities, marginalization and patriarchy, and reduces complex reality into neat spaces. There is an underlying tendency to homogenize the world according to an idealized notion of governance that skips the entire historical process of marginalization and unequal distribution of power in the socio-economic and political arena. The problem with such an ahistorical theorization is that anything and everything outside the market and the State can be considered civil society. So the Islamic Taliban, Sangh Parivar in India and all such fundamentalist formations as well as small self-help groups, neighborhood associations or professional groups can be considered part of civil society. A mega-million non-profit organisation with huge corporate structures and tens of thousand of staff or a mega billion Foundation is as much part of civil society as a small NGO or a small community organisation. This is an interesting logic wherein sharks, sardines and shrimps all say we are fish, though the sharks would like the freedom to swallow sardines and other small fish.

This nebulous concept had its origin in western political theory. The pre-18th century concept emerged in the tradition of Aristotle, Cicero and modern natural law. Till the 18th century, civil society was considered "a type of political association which placed its members under the influence of laws and ensured peaceful order and good government". The discourse on civil society took a critical turn in the 18th century, as a corollary to the discourse on emerging capitalism as well as liberal democratic movements. The ambivalence of this concept is partly because it was an analytical tool used by both the proponents and critics of modern capitalism. On the one hand it served as a convenient tool to legitimize the market outside the sphere of an authoritarian and mercantile State and on the other; it was a tool to rationalize the sphere of individuals and associations to assert their freedom and rights.

One can see three broad varieties of definitions and interpretations of this term. There is a tradition that can be traced back to John Locke, Thomas Paine and De Tocqueville -- the liberal tradition. Though there are differing nuances within this tradition, one of the significant aspects is that civil society is considered a `natural condition' for freedom, and a legitimate area of association, individual action and human rights. Thus the notion of civil society came to be seen in opposition to the State: it allowed space for democracy and the growth of markets.

The classical political economy tradition of civil society emanated from the works of Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith and J S Mill. This stream of thinking perceived civil society as a sphere for the satisfaction of individual interests and private wants. This perspective stressed the primacy of individualism, property and the market. The third stream of civil society discourse can be traced back to Hegel, Marx, Gramsci and Habermass. This stream can be seen as a critique of the liberal and classical political economy tradition. This perspective interpreted civil society as a historically-produced sphere of life rather than the natural condition of freedom. This tradition questioned the notion of an idealized civil society and recognized the internal contradictions and conflict of interests within civil society. For Hegel, civil society was sandwiched between a patriarchal family and the universal State. Though Hegel questioned the idealized notion of civil society, he tended to idealize a universal State. By challenging the idealization of both State and civil society, Marx argued that the contradictions within civil society are reproduced within the State. For Marx, the State is not merely an external force that confronts civil society, but the reflection of it, wherein different interest groups penetrate the State to rule. Both Hegel and Marx pointed out the role of the elite in defining the character of civil society. Gramsci emphasized civil society as the realm of public opinion and culture. It is the public sphere where hegemony is created through consent and coercion.

In the second coming of the civil society in the late-'80s and through the '90s, the predominant trend has been a resurrection of the tradition of Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith, with a doze of De Tocqueville's liberalism. The new civil society discourse is often misused as a poaching ground by the New Right to rationalise and legitimize the privatization of the public services and to reduce the State as a support mechanism to the market.

The other part of the story is that the Civil Society is also being used to denote new democratization, grassroots politics and new way for citizens’ participation and engagement in the process of governance and affairs of the state. While the term Civil Society has broader social and political connotations, the tendency is often to equate the Civil Society with NGOs. The very world of NGOs themselves are very heterogeneous and with multiple institutional, social and funding power relations at play. The NGO world is increasingly looking like an Orwellian Animal Farm, wherein everyone is supposed to be equal but some are more equal than others. This becomes all the more problematic given that many of the new-generation NGOs are more like private enterprises in the public domain. The problem occurs when such groups or entities develop a universalistic claim based on an imagined or assumed legitimacy.

The various political and knowledge traditions behind the term Civil Society co-exit w and often intermingle to create new sense and meaning to the term civil society. This often makes the concept fluid and ambivalent.

The new civil society discourse is also a symptom of the crisis in social theorization. Instead of looking for fresh theories to address the profound socio-political and economic transition, the tendency is to resurrect concepts and theoretical frameworks from the residue of the Enlightenment in the 18th century...

We are in the transitory phase of a new epoch. The notions of nation-state, market, civil society, reason and progress that emerged during the Enlightenment are beginning to get transformed. In the new paradigm shift, we once again go back to the lived experiences of communities and individuals to search for new ways of looking at the transition of the world. We need a new language, a new set of insights and a fresh sense of humility to look at our past, present and future. What we need is to rediscover ethical communities within our societies and the world. We can still question injustice or rights violations based on the whole range of humanizing ethical traditions.

When we have the potential to grow our own beautiful flowers and organic words, why must we be deluded by plastic flowers and words?

* John Samuel is a human rights activist and is currently International Director of Actionaid, based in Bangkok.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/324/43776-Sankara.jpgKoni Benson and Mukoma Wa Ngugi interview Aziz Fall, Co-ordinator of the International Campaign for Justice for Sankara (ICJS) on the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Thomas Sankara.

President Thomas Sankara, affectionately referred to as Africa’s Che Guevera was assassinated in Burkina Faso on October 15th, 1987. Twenty years later, his assassins remain in power and continue to reverse the revolutionary changes Sankara initiated.

We interviewed Aziz Fall, the co-ordinator of the International Justice Campaign for Sankara (ICJS) who has been receiving ongoing anonymous death threats since December 2006. He has been co-ordinating 22 lawyers from France, to Senegal, Canada, Togo and beyond, dedicated to using legal means to find the truth behind Sankara’s assassination.

We started the interview by asking Aziz Fall about the death threats against him and his family, and about ICJS and the UN judgements on Sankara’s assassination. We then asked him about some of Sankara’s achievements in relation to the emancipation of women, education, and neo-colonialism in the 1980s, and then moved onto questions about power, politics, and policies in Burkina Faso under President Blaise Compaoré who has been in power since Sankara's assassination in 1987. Lastly, the interview reflects on Sankara’s legacy and his continuing relevance in this age of globalisation.

Aziz, Can you please tell us the nature of the death threats? What do they say? Do have an idea of where they are coming from? Are they from the government? Third parties? Is it one person or several people etc?

Thank you. I’ve received four death threats since December 2006. Three letters in bubble envelopes left in the mailbox at my front door. The first one was simple and said “stop or be stopped,” the second was similar but didn’t mention my name, and the third was a little more explicit, mentioning my name, asking me “to commit suicide or face execution.” I filed a complaint with the police in March 2007.

Then, in April, after the screening of a film on Thomas Sankara in Montreal, a young Burkinabé journalist, Sam Kah, who appeared in the film, received a threat, according to the organising committee of the Thomas Sankara 20th anniversary commemorations. The committee had invited both of us to their activities which take place Oct 11-15th, 2007. Following the threat against Sam Kah, I decided to tell the committee members about my own death threats, which I had previously hidden from them because I was worried it would have a demobilising effect.

They issued a press release concerning the threats against the two of us. A couple of days later, I received another threat, this time by phone. A man with a strange accent warned me that neither the police nor my lawyers would be able to protect me, and that since I still didn’t understand, my family would be targeted first, then me.

At about this time, someone tried, unsuccessfully, to break into my home through the back door. This was discovered as we were installing an alarm system.

We don't know exactly who is behind these threats. But we have good evidence that a Frenchman and two Africans have something to hide, because they have been caught in a number of lies and contradictions. The police and CSIS, Canada’s spy agency, are still investigating. That’s all I can say at this point.

It is unacceptable that as an advocate of freedom and justice, I am being physically threatened in a country that promotes these basic values around the world. We have approached the Canadian authorities about this situation, and we have great hope that they will do everything to solve the matter.

Can you briefly talk about the International Campaign Justice for Sankara (ICJS) and GRILA? How does the United Nations judgement (in which the Committee considers that the refusal to conduct an investigation into the death of Thomas Sankara, the lack of official recognition of his place of burial and the failure to correct the death certificate constitute inhuman treatment of Ms.Sankara and her sons, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant) affect the search for justice on behalf of Sankara?

Sankara's widow, Mariam Sankara, and his two sons never abandoned their call to the international community to take action to bring his assassins to justice. Ten years ago, the Group for Research and Initiative for the Liberation of Africa (GRILA, an internationalist and panafricanist group) answered that call by creating an international campaign with a twofold strategy involving a political component and a legal one. I had the honour of co-ordinating a team of 22 lawyers, which put together a case for a full investigation into the murder of President Sankara and a dozen of his colleagues.

The government of Burkina Faso, under the presidency of Blaise Compaoré, along with a highly compromised judicial system, blocked all efforts by the Campaign to bring the case to court. After exhausting all possible legal recourse within the country, the Campaign brought the case before United Nations Human Rights Committee. Just over one year ago, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled in favour of the International Justice for Sankara Campaign, and demanded that the government of Burkina Faso take action to shed light on the circumstances of Sankara's death.
(See )
That was actually a world first, and certainly a legal precedent in Africa, creating a breach in the cycles of impunity that characterize the political life of our continent. There is also a link between the Sankara case and the trial of Charles Taylor, the former Liberian head of state, who plotted with Compaoré in the assassination of Sankara. We expect the final UN judgement to be announced later this year and really hope that it will represent a major step forward in the global struggle against impunity.

What were some of Sankara's achievements, be it in the emancipation of women, education or rolling back neo-colonialism?

Our organisation (GRILA) and the revolution in Burkina Faso are the exact same age and we have many things in common. So we may sound pretty subjective when it comes to our assessment of what was achieved in those three years. Sankara tried to put into practice most of the key elements of our own philosophy; among other things, the destruction of all forms of racism and ethnocentrism, with the Bambaata summit and the anti-apartheid struggle; the respect of collective and human rights; the struggle against regimes allied with imperialist interests; a balance between rural and urban incomes; food self-sufficiency; the fulfilment of basic needs. A key issue for Sankara was the political, economic and social emancipation of women and the transformation of sexist mentalities. That particular aspect was crucial in a very traditional society where sexism was so with entrenched. Men were invited to go to the market once a week, women were appointed to key State positions, and civic rights and the constitution granted women important advantages.

While there were mistakes and contradictions due to the weakness of his alliances, Sankara was steadfast in focusing on other key issues as well, issues that are still cornerstones to our own work, namely, popular and civic participation, popular democracy and the promotion and empowerment of Africa's youth. Sankara promoted self-reliant, ecologically sustainable development, and invited locals and foreigners alike to plant trees; the emergence of regional panafricanist states that were politically and economically accountable to their citizens, as evidenced by his attempts to unite with Ghana. Sankara was committed to fighting corruption, and personally served as a very modest example, refusing to live a life of luxury and reigning in any tendencies by those within his government toward ostentatious consumption.

Are some of these changes still visible or has the Compaoré government managed to erase all of them?

While the Sankarist regime laid the ground for stability and a better form of development, it is clear that the international order ensured that Compaoré's regime did not take the same path. Compaoré’s regime was also involved in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean crises and wars, generating tremendous wealth for itself. The government has become very wealthy, which has allowed it to bribe some of the opposition elite, while intimidating or killing others. Within the framework of the neo-liberal agenda and the French zone of influence among its former African colonies, the regime has been able to establish a formal democracy and to reproduced itself, and in so doing has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Compaoré has recently amended the constitution so that he can run for a third term which means he will have been in power from 1987 to 2012.

A very common phenomenon in Africa indeed. It's a pity, but history will judge. Killing your comrades and opponents and tailoring the constitution to fit your needs is nothing new. Even if the population is frightened, and busy surviving the harsh conditions of unequal development, there is no doubt that one day it will rise up against this.

How do the people of Burkina Faso regard Sankara today? Is he still part of the political imagination?

In general, people have a lot of admiration for him despite of the regime’s anti-Sankara propaganda and intimidation. The teenage generation doesn't know him well, and many may just know him as an icon. However, it is heartening that at the African social forum in Bamako, Sankara was chosen as a leading model. As my comrade Ameth Lô wrote, “The Sankarist alternative remains, therefore, entirely relevant in addressing issues surrounding development and lasting sovereignty. It is a panafricanist socialist alternative, focused uniquely on meeting the needs of the African masses, impoverished by decades of structural adjustment programs that had no results other than to ensure continued payments to shameless creditors for the so-called debt that's not only immoral—since a third of the initial debt has been repaid—but also because the borrowed funds were never injected into the economic and social fabric of these countries.” (see http://www.grila.org/e_forum.htm)
We'll see how the population will react on October 15, but it is clear that Sankara is going to be celebrated in many countries this year, which has been named Sankara Year by his supporters. That is surely a great sign of vitality and political imagination!

How does Sankara challenge the idea of revolution today? What is his legacy? What is his continuing relevance in this age of globalisation?

I think that GRILA is living proof of that legacy, and that the struggle that is at stake, in this process of so-called African union and various attempts at integration, has to consider what we are still advocating, namely: democracy and progressive strategies that focus on self-reliant and popular development. Africa should rely more on its own forces, within a socialist and panafricanist perspective, and develop strong ties with other third world countries. This form of development entails subordinating external demands to internal needs. A consciousness that is increasingly homogenised by the dominant values of today's globalized world system, however, is incapable of envisaging such a path. As the Burkinabé revolution was trying to achieve, GRILA's task as well as that of any other progressive political force in Africa, should be to contribute to re-politicizing the discussion around development, fostering a new political consciousness, and channelling the efforts of an organic intelligentsia that will be capable of building an alternative to the disorder now ravaging Africa.

How are these challenges being addressed today—locally and internationally?

For us it is important to continue the work. We will not be intimidated. Locally the Sankarist movement, despite numerous factions, is more united and better organized. In many African countries and in the Diaspora, Sankarist clubs and associations are mushrooming. A lot of people expect that history will repeat itself in a cyclical fashion. But each society is confronted with new challenges, and will take different roads. It appears to me that as long as the contradictions of capitalism deepen, and societies continued to be destroyed by the capitalist way of life and production, we have no choice but to invent more progressive and internationalist paths in order to tackle the barbarism of globalisation and the forces that dominate it.

* Koni Benson is a researcher at the International Labour Research and Information Group in Cape Town.

* Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Hurling Words at Consciousness (AWP, 2006) Conversing with Africa: Politics of Change (KPH, 2003), and editor of the forthcoming, New Kenyan Fiction (Ishmael Reed Publications, 2008). He is a political columnist for the BBC Focus on Africa Magazine.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43669-Sankara-4.jpgMukoma Wa Ngugi celebrates the lives of Thomas Sankara and Che Guevara, and in doing so, asks us to remember all our other leaders and heroes who died at the hands of colonialism and apartheid.

In April this year, we celebrated 50 yrs of Ghana’s Independence. This October, in addition to remembering the revolutionary promise of Che Guevara executed forty years ago, we will also be remembering that twenty years ago, Thomas Sankara was assassinated – a stark reminder that we are still in the state Odinga Oginga called Not Yet Uhuru. We will be remembering that if Africa suffers today, it is because yesterday its best political minds, and its most fiery and committed sons and daughters were assassinated. All for thirty pieces of silver, for tea, coffee, oil, diamonds, gold, cobalt, uranium and African sweat.

But we should also remember the living. Aziz Fall, the co-coordinator of the International Justice Campaign for Sankara (ICJS) has been receiving anonymous death threats since December 2006. They tell him “stop or be stopped” “commit suicide or face execution” and in the last one, he was informed that his family would be targeted. His crime? Coordinating 22 lawyers dedicated to using legal means to find the truth behind Sankara’s assassination.

The ICJS helped Mariam Sankara, Thomas Sankara’s widow, take her case to the United Nations after, predictably, the legal system in Burkina Faso stalled each time she appeared in court. Finally, in March 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Sankara’s family has “the right to know the circumstances of his death.” The Committee also argued that failure to correct the natural death entry on Sankara’s death certificate, refusal to investigate his death, and “the lack of official recognition of his place of burial” pointed to “inhumane treatment of Ms. Sankara and her sons” contrary to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Dictators and your torturers all over the world take note! Article 7 declares: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In a strange way, the death threats against Aziz further validate the UN ruling.

Victoria Mxenge, Ruth First, Steve Biko, Amilcar Cabral, Samora Machel, Chris Hani, Mhodlane, Kimathi and many others dead at the hands of colonialism and apartheid. But what makes the assassinations of Sankara, Lumumba or Maurice Bishop of Grenada all the more painful is knowing that they were betrayed by those closest to them Then, without exception, they were succeeded by less able people- to say the least. Their successors are egregiously guilty of violently pulling back their societies miles behind the starting line.

After Lumumba, Mobutu –a common thief who under the guise of a shallow nationalism - maimed, killed and stole in the Congo. In Grenada, Bernard Coard’s bloody counter-revolution allowed a predatory U.S. to invade Grenada. And in Burkina Faso, each day we see what President Blaise Compaore has done with the Sankara revolution.

Life expectancy is 47.9 years, adult literacy, 21.8 percent and Burkina Faso now has the dubious distinction of being ranked the 3rd poorest country in the world with 80 percent of its 13 million people living on less than two dollars a day. In November of 2007, Compaore will be running for presidency, again. I say give him five more years to see if he can do it – Let him get Burkina Faso the coveted first place title of poorest country in the whole world!

For a nation to heal, it must know and come to terms with the truth of its past. And it must make good with the promise of that past. In Kenya Dedan Kimathi was hanged and buried in an unmarked grave in Kamiti Prison by the British in 1957 where the post-independence government left him. Having set Kenya on neo-colonial rails and rewarded the collaborators with land, then turned their backs on Mau Mau veterans, both Kenyatta and Moi wanted what Kimathi stood for forgotten. Compaore is afraid of the truth because Sankara is a reminder of how far he has fallen from the promise of the revolution. Compaore knows we know he cannot make good on Sankara’s promise.

We have to remember our dead. But our presidents prefer gold monuments and statues. Sometimes they cultivate heroes’ acres without growing freedom. Better the monument be societies that are free and egalitarian. Instead of grand monuments, it is better we have nations that would welcome the revolutionary dead. Because truth be told, Nkrumah would not have been welcomed to Ghana’s 50 year celebrations. Kimathi would not be welcomed in today’s Kenya and Sankara would be assassinated again in today’s Burkina Faso.

What if Sankara had grown old with us? Would he have become a dictator as we have seen with many? We do not know. But we know how he lived, we know what he died for and his promise. That is what should matter.

Koni Benson, a friend and agitator, named her son Sankara because, she said, “What Thomas Sankara did, tried to do and what happened to him, should not be forgotten. Sankara is the history and the future of the continent. He dared us to invent the future.”

As we remember our dead – Let us also remember the living. We have to dare to dream again. We have to dare to remember the past. And we have to dare to act.

* Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Hurling Words at Consciousness (AWP, 2006) and Conversing with Africa: Politics of Change (KPH, 2003), and editor of the forthcoming, New Kenyan Fiction (Ishmael Reed Publications, 2008). He is a political columnist for the BBC Focus on Africa Magazine where a shorter version of this essay first appeared.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43667-jena-6.jpgIn the Black American experience the act of defending one's community has always been viewed as subversive and any attempt to assert your own justice in self-defence will be criminalised. The case of the Jena 6 is one that has been repeated throughout the history of Black America from lynching whether as a genocidal act or in this case a symbolic one.

One of the main implications of the case of the Jena 6 is one that has sent countless activists to prison. The implication—if you dare to remove yourself from the role of a victim and attempt to assert justice yourself, you will pay a heavy price. The notion that six young Black men responded appropriately by not allowing an environment of terror to exist in their lives and their community enrages a society that does not want to see Black people recognizing and acting on the understanding that we alone will change our conditions. This case would have made countless people considerably more comfortable if these young brothers did not engage in a physical encounter with the white student. Many would have been appeased if we as a community continue to appeal to a legal system that has made it clear that it doesn't place much, if any value on the lives of Black people.

The Jena 6 engaged in an act of self-defense and their actions reflect our reality. Lynching, a genocidal act that occurred with the consent of the government, has long been a part of Black Experience in North America.
In a petition submitted to the United Nations in 1951, titled "We Charge Genocide", Paul Robeson and other prominent Blacks, documented that at least 10,000 Black people had been lynched since the abolition of slavery.
The exact number of people murdered can never be known. The horrendous act of lynching did not stop with the Civil Rights movement and our communities remain intimately familiar with the legacy of the noose.
Countless numbers of Black people have been killed throughout recent history with the legal system failing to prevent similar cases from reoccurring.

The call for justice in this case must include the dismissal of all charges against the Jena 6 and the immediate termination of prosecutor Reed Walters. Any call for decreased charges affirms the notion that Black people can do anything to struggle against white supremacy/racism except for physically defending ourselves.

Our history of struggle in North America has always had the importance of defending our lives as a fundamental pillar. The act of defending ourselves as a community has always been criminalized. This process of criminalization is an attempt to dissuade communities at large from becoming self sufficient in their own security. Former Black Panther Party member, Jalil Muntaqim stated, "We are our own Liberators"; our path to liberation must be decided and executed by us in the manner that we determine. It is this act of self-determination that is considered to be the most dangerous by government officials. The legacy of the Black Liberation Movement was rooted in this ideology and was responded to viciously by all levels of law enforcement, which routinely attacked and murdered activists. Thus we have the many political prisoners and prisoners of war in the united states today. Nationally we have a responsibility to call for the freedom of all political prisoners in the united states who have been found guilty of simply defending the lives of Black people.

We are pleased to hear the many calls for people to pay attention to Jena 6s in our own towns. We must recognize that we all live in Jena. The same people who boarded buses from all corners of this country must organize against the mass criminalization of our youth, militarized law enforcement and participate in the work for self-determination and the unconditional release of the political prisoners and prisoners of war in the United States.

Self Respect, Self Defense and Self Determination We will defend our freedom fighters To find out how you can participate in the movement to free political prisoners, please contact:

Jericho amnesty campaign
Hands Off Assata campaign
Free the San Francisco 8 campaign
[email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43666-remove-RM.jpg“The democratic forces in Zimbabwe will not be sincere if we conclude that the problem of women is the same as that of men. The same stereotypes that should have been buried with past generations are rekindling and this is not an allegation but an honest observation.” Chipo Mutuma warns that unless women’s rights are integrated into all aspects of society in the post-conflict era, “freedom will have to wait for another day”

THE challenge that has affected black people at large and Africans in particular has always been that of gender equity. Like the wording itself, the question of gender has belonged to varying morphology or should I say the various interpretations of that morphology. Words such as gender streamlining, gender sensitivity etc have been used as the rallying call for the fight for the advancement of women in a particular society.

Yet the struggle for the advancement of women has historically and unfortunately been hosted in other more pronounced often generic struggles for emancipation. Thus historically the universal suffrage movement tended to give effect to the rights of the commoner to vote and yet in so doing it became a precursor to the right to be extended to women as well.

Similarly the rights of black women in America in the 1960s found itself concealed if not cocooned or even totally eclipsed in the black consciousness movement of that time which in essence was the debate for the rights of black men to be accepted as equals in the American society……in itself largely androcism and not feministic.

Although women like Rosa Parks became the immediate and posterior symbolism of the struggles of that time her heroism was within the fighting for the generic rights of all black people. Her heroic figure translated later into the change of belief among black American males that black women were in fact capable of equalling them in several spheres of life. Well it came much late in the day though as women in black communities would still be subjected to violence even as America was opening up to Afro-Americans.

Similarly in the Zimbabwean context we have women who have come to symbolise heroic struggles against oppression. Mbuya Nehanda easily comes to mind and so other than iconic figures such as the late Pedzisai Mazorodze, Sally Mugabe, Joice Mujuru, Grace Kwinjeh, Margaret Dongo and others. Their roles mainly were on an agenda that sought to bring change to the entire community rather than one section.

Yet in some instances people often forget to accommodate the other views that they may represent; and to me this is where the feminist agenda comes in. On so many occasions I have had the chance to speak to my cousin Julius Mutyambizi-Dewa on how the issue of women is being tackled in the transitional period between now and the new Zimbabwe given that he is senior in the Movement for Democratic Change.

One of the issues we have touched on is the danger that these issues can easily be diluted or totally forgotten in negotiations as people tend to look specifically at broad themes such as in Zimbabwe's case land; citizenship rights, the economy etc all of which are important but are still not free from the inherent risk that if they do not address the pieces within they will explode with unfulfilled yet important constituent issues that were not addressed on time.

I have two cases in point. The Chilean case and the Iranian case, both of which represent strong women participation during the revolutions yet after the revolution women found themselves worse off than they were during the dictatorships. In Iran women were better during the time of the Shah as he was opening up the space for genuine participation of Iranian women in the governance of the country.

Ironically it was Iranian women who kick-started the revolution that expelled the Shah but as soon as the Islamic Revolution succeeded they found themselves having to operate within the confines of Sharia law that allows them to be killed for adultery while the adulterous man only has to make do with a little canning. It is total injustice and bad salaries for heroes! Similarly I am not so sure whether the issue of women was ever discussed at the Lancaster House Conference.

The delegates were predominantly male and the women cadres were in fact represented by the late Josiah Magama Tongogara for ZANLA and Lookout Masuku and Dumiso Dabengwa for ZIPRA. Worse still ZANU's Women's Wing was a very late phenomenon with the effect that its voice may not have been heard at that time. Issues that purely affected women as represented by cadres and those in war zones were not addressed and the chimbwidos who had ended up carrying unwanted babies from the struggle were left alone, abandoned in a society that quickly developed new stereotypes for women who had participated in the war.

Wearing jeans and trousers for the first time in predominantly black communities they were prostitutes first and foremost and parents discouraged their sons from having affairs with ex-combatants, a problem that later faced Umkhonto we Sizwe women in South Africa in 1994. Those who had babies were worse off as they did not know their babies' fathers. Confined to the unshakable stereotypes of an unforgiving society they found themselves filling beer-halls as prostitutes as they could not get jobs and unlike their male counterparts it was very difficult for one to be employed in the then integrating army or police force if you were a mother.

These stereotypes continue even in this era. The democratic forces in Zimbabwe will not be sincere if we conclude that the problem of women is the same as that of men. The same stereotypes that should have been buried with past generations are rekindling and this is not an allegation but an honest observation. For example it is people's mentalities that those girls and women who are active in politics and Civil society in Zimbabwe and at the Vigil and MDC UK and Ireland here in the UK are loose yet this is an unfortunate stereotype.

We will need an intervention from the Party that recognises this fact and approach issues of equity within this sphere of thinking. One hopes that the leadership of women in the Party will be able to consult widely to get input and then transform that into any post-conflict arrangement that shall emerge through whatever processes. The feeling that one has is that the legacy of the MDC should be that almost every issue was tackled.

This calls us to action and address as a matter of urgency unfortunate abuses that are going on in Zimbabwe as the social fabric falls apart, cases of women who are abandoned by husbands who flee to seek greener pastures but in most cases end up founding other families, cases of daughters who are being sacrificed by families seeking to survive the current scourge of economic hardships and all other related issues.

My feeling is that these things need to be discussed now and not tomorrow; an approach is needed that sets the tone for the future and realistic development of a truly equitable Zimbabwean society which has as its focus the total development of both men and women. Unless this is done it is my feeling that this current transition will be incomplete and total freedom will have to wait for another day.

* Chipo Mutuma is the secretary for the MDC UK and Ireland Women's Branch. She is writes in her own capactity. Email|: chipomutuma at yahoo dot co dot uk

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

Link to Remove Robert Mugabe Campaign -

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/authors/Joseph-Yav.jpgThe exploitation of natural resources has played a central role in the conflict in the Great Lakes region and the DRC. Joseph Yav, offers a perspective on how to transform conflicts by using resources as “tools for reconciliation and and reconstruction in the Great Lakes region.

“I hope they don’t discover oil. Then we will be in real trouble”. [Blood Diamond]

Introduction

To adapt an old metaphor, one could say, when the Great Lakes Region of Africa sneezes, the entire world including Africa catch a cold. Several interconnected elements shaped conflicts in the Great Lakes region, including the interests of neighbouring countries, competition over natural and economic resources concerns over instability and lack of security, and ethnic chauvinism, to name but a few.

The oil prospects of the Great Lakes region appear at once more dangerous. Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo are sitting on what prospectors believe could be oil reserves of up to one billion barrels in the Albertine Basin which they share. At the time of writing, the oil region of the eastern DRC was the theatre of clashes culminating in killing of civilians and militaries by the Ugandan and Congolese armies. This is now leading to fears that the lake Albert conflict may spread and make a renewed cross-border conflict involving other negative forces and countries.

This may lead to another case of conflict over resources and well described in a recent movie named “ Blood Diamond” where the old man sighs: “I hope they don’t discover oil. Then we will be in real trouble”.

Yes, one could say that the old man of the above-mentioned movie is right; the Great lakes region of Africa is in real trouble. If realistic possibilities for conflict resolution and transformation are to be developed, concerns about oil and other resources will have to be addressed. This article will focus only on the issue of resources as a source of conflict or a resource for peace and reconstruction and will offer a perspective on how to transform conflicts by using resources as tools of reconciliation and reconstruction in the Great Lakes region.

History of conflict over resources in the Great Lakes Region

One of the most perplexing issues in the Great Lakes region of Africa and especially in the DRC conflict has been, and still is, that of the exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources. Illegal exploitation of the DRC’s mineral resources has been a constant feature in discussions about the war in general and especially in the eastern part of the country. There is a debate about whether the exploitation of mineral resources is a main aim for foreign intervention or whether mining initiatives is a way of financing the war effort. It has long been established that the exploitation of these resources, including ‘coltan’ (columbite-tantalite), gold, and diamonds in the eastern Congo, and diamonds, copper, cobalt, and timber in central DRC, contributed to and exacerbated the conflict in the country. Concerned with reports of pillaging of resources by the foreign forces, the UN Security Council mandated an independent panel to investigate these allegations.

In fact, in its presidential statement dated 2 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/20), the Security Council requested that the Secretary-General establish a Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the DRC. The objective was to research and analyze the links between the exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of wealth in the DRC and the continuation of the conflict. In its four reports, the UN Panel of Experts has named senior Ugandan and Rwandese armed forces officers and senior government officials and their families, who are allegedly responsible for illegal exploitation of the DRC's natural resources and other abuses.

It has also proposed that measures be taken against the states, individuals and companies most implicated in the exploitation, including travel bans, financial penalties and reductions in aid disbursements. In January 2003, in response to complaints raised by companies and some governments, the Panel's mandate was extended to 31 October 2003. In its final report from October 2003 the Panel largely documented the nexus of economic exploitation, arms trafficking, and armed conflict, stating that illegal exploitation remains one of the main sources of funding groups involved in perpetuating conflict. The Panel of Experts also listed companies based in Belgium, China, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, the UK, and the United States, that were allegedly involved in the illegal arms trade in the DRC.

Regional actors have been accused of aggression and ‘foreign adventurism’ with regard to Congolese territory and natural resources. In other words, while parties to the conflict in the DRC may have been motivated originally by security concerns, their continued presence in the DRC can be attributed to economic gains derived from the DRC. The report further stated that criminal groups linked to the armies of Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe and the Government of the DRC have benefited from such conflicts. This is critical to the peace process, because according to reports, these ‘groups will not disband voluntarily … they have built up a self-financing war economy centred on mineral exploitation’.

The rationale for intervention by neighbouring states became self-enforcing and the localised conflicts became regional. As such, the conflicts within and among the countries of the Great Lakes region require regionally based and targeted solutions, along with the cooperation of other, relevant neighbouring states.

Current situation: Oil wars in the Great Lakes of Africa?

Uganda and the DRC share Lake Albert, which has become an important new frontier in the search for oil on the continent. Lake Albert, also Albert Nyanza and formerly Lake Mobutu Sese Seko, is one of the Great Lakes of Africa. It is Africa's seventh largest lake, and ranks as the world’s twenty-third largest lake by volume. It is located in the center of the continent, on the border between the DRC and Uganda. It is the northernmost of the chain of lakes in the Great Rift Valley; it is about 160 km long and 30 km wide, with a maximum depth of 51 m, and a surface elevation of 619 m above sea level. In 1864, the explorer Samuel Baker discovered the lake; he named it after the deceased Prince Albert, consort of Queen Victoria. The late and former Congolese president Mobutu temporarily named the lake after himself.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/322/43557_oil.jpgConflict is arising over oil found in Lake Albert. Reserves are estimated at less than 100,000 barrels a day for about 10 years when production starts. Tensions began to rise at the end of July beginning of August when a unit of Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC), captured four Ugandan marines who had apparently strayed towards the Congolese west bank of Lake Albert. But on August 3, the situation grew serious. FARDC soldiers patrolling the lake attacked an oil exploration barge belonging to Canada's Heritage Oil Corporation and killed a British contractor working for Canada's Heritage Oil Corp. The Ugandan army retaliated and a Congolese soldier died in the short shoot-out while a Ugandan soldier was wounded.

Since then, tension has been mounting along that part of the Uganda-Congo frontier that runs north-south down the 160 kilometre-long lake - although the alignment of the border has never been precisely defined. Following the discovery of oil in the Albertine Basin, both the Ugandan and Congolese armies have been deploying heavily around the shores, with some observers saying there is now a threat of all-out war.

To ease the tensions, Congolese president Joseph Kabila and his counterpart, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, held a one-day summit meeting in Tanzania on September 8 in an attempt to sort out the border dispute. They signed an agreement to immediately pull back their troops 150 kilometers from the border to ease tensions over an oil-rich border lake. They agreed to work together to explore and exploit oil in the Lake Albert area and to lay a joint pipeline to distribute any oil and they signed the agreement in the presence of Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, diplomats and journalists. They also agreed that a joint team will begin work to demarcate the contested area of the lake. Further, they agreed to meet once a year and to raise their diplomatic missions to ambassadorial level to help improve relations.

However, few days after the meeting and agreements another military clash erupted on the lake on September 24. Reuters reported that six civilians were killed when Ugandan soldiers opened fire on a Congolese passenger boat on Lake Albert. In a conflicting version of the shooting incident, Uganda's military reported two soldiers killed, one from each country, in what it said was a gunfight during a dispute over an oil exploration vessel working on the border lake.

There is therefore an urgent need of transforming resources from source of conflict to options for reconciliation and reconstruction in the Great Lakes region.

Concluding remarks: Transforming the Oil concern from the Source of Conflict to a Resource for Peace in the Great Lakes Region
Reconciliation and reconstruction are essential elements of peacebuilding. The key to transforming conflicts is to build strong, equitable relations where distrust and fear were once the norm.

In the Great Lakes region, as in many other African countries, violent conflict has become the ‘normal’ state of affairs. Control of economic resources has become an important factor in motivating and sustaining armed conflicts. Complex political economies, which often hide behind the outward symbols of statehood and national sovereignty, have been rooted in the pursuance of conflict. The challenge therefore is to transform regional and national political ‘parasite’ economies that rely on violent conflict into healthy systems based on political participation, social and economic inclusion, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Accordingly, any attempt at transforming conflicts to ensure reconciliation and reconstruction in the region requires stimulating positive developments in the region. Such developments will reassure the affected countries that their security and economic interests are better served through fostering stability and improving relations with their neighbours than through allowing their neighbours’ turmoil to deflect them from their objective of peace, reconciliation, democracy, and economic development.

Moreover, in terms of ensuring security, ignoring the tensions and misunderstanding among the DRC and Uganda will have far-reaching implications for the stability and socioeconomic development of the region because resources will be diverted from human and economic development to warfare. For this reason it is important for these countries to cooperate towards the restoration of peaceful dialogue and cordial interstate relations. In this regard, armed incursions and clashes can lead to rising tensions and full-blown interstate armed conflict which, if not promptly addressed, will affect the long-term well-being and socioeconomic development of both populations.

The Great Lakes region is rich in the natural resources that are at stake for many actors in the conflict. However, natural resources also harbour potential for post-conflict rehabilitation and development. Countries should therefore examine ways of limiting the exploitation of such resources -especially oil in this case- for the purpose of funding conflict. They should furthermore seek to identify and promote the means by which such resources can be safeguarded and managed in a way that will reduce conflict and ensure benefit to the population. Equally, there is a need to develop institutions and frameworks for the integration and transformation of the informal economy to a formal economy, governed by a reasonable rule of law, transparency and efficiency, without marginalising local and regional actors.

* Dr. Joseph Yav is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo. He is also the executive director of the CERDH (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche en Droits de l’Homme, Democratie et Justice Transitionnelle/Centre for Human Rights, Democracy and Transitional Justice Studies.) and Coordinator of the UNESCO Chair for Human Rights. Email: [email][email protected] and [email][email protected]

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/authors/Pius-Adesanmi.jpgPius Adesanmi questions the omission of African feminists scholars from the Norton Anthology** and challenges the editors as to why “an entire continent is seen to have produced nothing of feminist theorizing “I am interested in the conscious and the subconscious processes that led you to the conclusion that Africa, an entire continent of fifty-four countries and over a billion people, has contributed nothing, absolutely nothing, to five centuries of feminist theorizing. After all, as seasoned academics in the United States, you both know that exclusions tell much louder stories than inclusions.”

Dear Sandra and Susan, I salute you both in the name of feminism, women's liberation, gender equality, and, most importantly, global sisterhood. The publication of your much-anticipated Feminist Literary Theory and Criticism: A Norton Reader is such an epochal event that I must interrupt the blissful and well-deserved eternal sleep that was eventually accorded me when the people and government of France, ever so fatherly and motherly when it comes to taking care of poor Africa, graciously returned my brain and backside to the South African government for burial in my ancestral homeland a few years ago. I join the American and the global feminist family in congratulating the two of you on the publication of this truly wonderful volume. It is obvious that feminist intellectual labor will never ever be the same again. Resounding success, I must say, has become synonymous with the long history of intellectual collaboration between the two of you. Afterall, The Mad Woman in the Attic, the first gift of your collaborative efforts to humanity, has remained the only inevitable, unavoidable bible of feminist scholarship ever since it was published.

The reference to the magnanimity of France in returning my remains to the government and people of South Africa should have given my identity away by now. However, it is always safe and wise to swear by the natural invisibility of Africa and Africans in matters of global import. And in your immediate context in the United States, it is outright foolish to assume that anybody considers anything about Africa worth knowing. Except, of course, hunger, starvation, poverty, wars, AIDS, famine, and Western charity or "giving" (apologies to President Bill Clinton). I must therefore assume complete ignorance of my identity and introduce myself. I hope you will find it in your hearts to pardon my presumptuousness if you are both already familiar with my story.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/322/43548.jpgMy name is Sarah Baartman, also famously known internationally as "the Hottentot Venus". I will spare you the sassy details of my story and focus only on the essential. I was lured to London in 1810 where I soon became a prisoner of Europe's rapacious and capitalistic voyeurism. I'm sure I don't have to tell you the story of 19 th century Europe and its treatment of its Others in Africa and other places. No doubt, you still remember your Orientalism - Edward Said has been a very good friend since he got here. The Europe of this period was also a formidable theatre of all kinds of exhibitions.

Zoophilism was in the air. The colored Other needed to be displayed publicly and regularly in London, Paris, and Lisbon as colonial fauna.
As fate always manages to arrange these things, I was what Europeans called – and still call- an "African tribeswoman" gifted with an exceptional backside. Europe's science promptly concluded that my buttocks suffered from a biological deformity known as steatopygia.

The lips of my womanhood were also considered to be too huge and elongated for the civilized global standards determined by the labia of white women. And so from Britain to France my backside and the lips of my womanhood became objects of visual consumption in the public spheres of White patriarchy. For an extra fee, White men could even touch my behind while I was on display.

Death eventually came calling. You must know that where I come from in Africa, death is no finality. I merely transitioned to ancestor hood in the worldview of my people, hence the reverence with which Africans treat the dead. Not so Europeans. They took their knives and carving objects, carved out my brain, the lips of my womanhood, and my backside, put them in bottles, and kept them in public display at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris. Yes, I can see you cringe. You should. All sensitive feminists should. The idea, just the idea! The bitter tragedy of a woman's most vital parts captured by men, carved out of her dead body by men, and stored in the Museum of Man! Of all places!

My parts remained in public view in that museum, ultimate evidence of patriarchy's victory over feminism, until 1974 when they were withdrawn into a private sanctuary. Finally in 2002, France returned her precious conquest to the people of South Africa.

Dear sisters, the significance of my story to the feminist cause and to global feminist intellectual labor should be quite obvious by now.
For nearly two centuries, I was an international feminist cause célèbre, the very embodiment of patriarchal control over African female sexuality, black female sexuality, and, I daresay, female sexuality. Let me be clear: the story of my body in the international economy of meaning is the story of your own bodies, the story of every woman's body. The difference lies merely in the detail or what your postmodernist colleagues would call local particularities.

Given the fact that my narrative has become one of the most formidable sites – I hate it when I sound like you academics! – of global feminist contestation and intellection, it stands to reason that any reasonable person would expect me to make a grand, celebrated entrance into your Norton volume through the work of any of the numerous African feminist scholars of international repute who have written about me. At the risk of sounding immodest, nobody would expect to pick up a summation of five centuries of feminist intellectual labor – which your Norton anthology represents - and draw a blank with regard to the story of Sarah Baartman. After all, I've been theorized, postcolonized, and postmodernized in all the faddish versions of feminisms out there. I didn't think it was possible for me to be disappeared in any serious historiographical account of feminist theory. I didn't expect to be Ralph Ellisoned.

Trust me my dear sisters, I was not motivated to write you by any narcissistic self-indulgence. You will admit, from what you now know of my story, that I am quite used to being silenced, being disappeared. I am actually more worried by the broader, deeper ideological implications of your having disappeared me softly from your Norton volume. I am interested in the stories told – or untold – by your editorial choices and options, the instinct to include and the impulse to exclude. I am interested in the conscious and the subconscious processes that led you to the conclusion that Africa, an entire continent of fifty-four countries and over a billion people, has contributed nothing, absolutely nothing, to five centuries of feminist theorizing. After all, as seasoned academics in the United States, you both know that exclusions tell much louder stories than inclusions. I know we are on the same page here.

Some people may praise you for making this volume truly global and representative by including the multi-layered voices of the Other.
They would be right if they did that. After all, you included essays by bell hooks, Hortense Spillers, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, and Audre Lorde, evidence of your awareness of Africana feminist voices and practices; you included essays by Gayatri Spivak and Chandra Mohanty, evidence of your awareness of the expansive field of Third World/postcolonial/transnational feminist voices and practices; the entry by Paula Gunn Allen saved the day for Native American feminisms; Gloria Anzaldua – another good friend of mine here – thankfully guarantees the presence of Chicana feminisms in your volume. In essence, the presence of these Other voices, strategically sprinkled in the text, is a laudable proof of the fact that you paid attention when Hazel Carby screamed in an article: "White Woman Listen"! You listened. You agreed with her that feminism could and should no longer be the gospel of the White western female according to Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Kate Millett, Judith Butler, Diana Fuss, Elaine Showalter and others too numerous to mention. You agreed with Carby that the narratives of the French delegation – Simone de Beauvoir, Luce Irigaray, Hélène Cixous, Monique Wittig, and Julia Kristeva – should no longer be deemed universal. You agreed that Chinese women are probably better positioned to speak for and about themselves than be represented and spoken for by Julia Kristeva's About Chinese Women.

It is your awareness of these things that makes your excision of African feminist theories and theorists from your volume all the more alarming. Could it be that you imagined that the voices of the African American women you selected adequately speaks for those of their continental sisters? Possibly. If this is the case, I must tell you that African American women cannot be made to stand in and speak for continental African women. According to an African proverb, the monkey and the gorilla may claim oneness, monkey is monkey and gorilla gorilla. Perhaps you imagined that African women would be better served to find some space inside the Third World/postcolonial/transnational feminist umbrella you represented with the voices of Gayatri Spivak and Chandra Mohanty? Possibly. Could it be that you are simply unaware of the considerable body of African feminist intellection, right there in your back of the wood in the US academy? Possibly. Could it be that you just simply elected to disappear them like you disappeared me? Possibly.

I'm sure you know that Bill O'Reilly, the famous rightwing fundamentalist talkative on Fox News – has only just discovered in 2007 that African Americans are capable of eating properly with fork and knife, you know, like real, normal people. Now, I don't want you to travel that path. I don't want you to discover, in 2007, that continental African women have been theorizing feminism for a very long time in US academe and have produced a considerable body of work, one or two of which should deservedly have passed through the eye of Norton's needle. Since you included work by Alice Walker, I take it that you both know how well her theory of "womanism" has traveled in US and global women studies programs and departments. Trouble is, in 1985, before Walker used the term, Chikwenye Okonjo Ogunyemi, a US-based Nigerian feminist scholar, had published an essay in Signs entitled: "Womanism: The Dynamics of the Contemporary Black Female Novel in English". Now, Signs is not a journal the two of you could have missed. It's the most prestigious peer reviewed journal of feminist studies in the United States. But let's assume you somehow missed it, Ogunyemi subsequently published a very important book, African Wo/Man Palava, with the University of Chicago press in 1996.

Did you also miss that? We're talking U of Chicago Press for God's sake!

There is also Obioma Nnaemeka, a formidable feminist theorist based in Indiana University. Her reputation is global. Secure. Frankly speaking, her essay, "Feminism, Rebellious Women, and Cultural Boundaries" has no business not making your Norton Reader. There is of course her formidable work on female circumcision in Africa. By the way, isn't female circumcision in Africa – genital mutilation in Western parlance – supposed to be a subject of sensational predilection for western feminists and NGOs? If not a single excerpt from Obioma Nnaemeka's edited volume, Female Circumcision and the Politics of Knowledge: African Women in Imperialist Discourses, made it into your volume, don't you think that something is awfully wrong?

There is also Oyeronke Oyewumi, an important US-based feminist theorist. The University of Minnesota Press published her book, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses, to critical acclaim in 1997. Not even a chapter in this book is worthy of inclusion? There is also Ifi Amadiume. She teaches at Dartmouth. Her Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender in an African Society is a priceless classic. Did you also miss that? There are Molara Ogundipe and Nkiru Nzegwu. How about the Egyptian, Nawal El Saadawi and the Algerian, Assia Djebar? These two global figures of women's writing and feminist intellectual labor have written nothing that could have made the cut and rescued an entire continent? You will notice that I have refrained from mentioning any of the numerous important feminist thinkers based in Africa. I do not want to bore you. It is also better to cite those whose alterity in US academe one would have believed you couldn't conceivably have missed.

I read sadly in your preface that "our own conversations about the construction of this book has been enhanced by many colleagues and friends who have shared syllabi with us, discussed their teaching practices, and made suggestions about possible inclusions". A long list of names follows and this is where the sadness lies: that not once in all these conversations with this expansive cast of consultants did my story and the story of Africa's contribution to feminist theorizing crop up. Not one person, not one colleague across the feminist studies landscape in the US pointed out this ominous oversight – if indeed it was an oversight – to you? Obioma Nnaemeka is Susan Gubar's neighbor in Indiana for Christ's sake!

There is some good news though. There won't be a shortage of happy African intellectuals who will query the wisdom of even expecting Africa to have been included in your work in the first place. Why do we always whine and complain when Westerners ignore us, they will say?

It is not their responsibility to include us. We should include ourselves by creating our own structures, period! After all, Oyeronke Oyewumi, as if anticipating what would happen with your Norton project, had edited African Gender Studies: A Reader in 2005. Such opinions would of course ignore the simple fact that your work has a universalizing underpinning in terms of its historical breadth and its thematic scope and Africa has been excluded from this picture. They would ignore the fact that this is Norton and who says Norton says canons! They would ignore the fact that even if we were to adopt the reductionist approach that all you have done here is to reflect the multiple voices that have inflected feminist, gender, and women studies in the American academy over the years, the end product conveys the fallacious message that no African woman has been part of this process.

I know you are already wondering how an African woman, who died so many years ago with no evidence of having attended any University, happens to be so familiar with academic language and procedure. You should know the answer to that: I'm now an ancestor, a spirit. I'm not human. I'm supposed to know everything. That is what sanctions my intervention in the affairs of you mortals!

Peace and love, Sarah Baartman

**Feminist Literary Theory and Criticism: A Norton Reader (Paperback)
by Sandra M. Gilbert (Author), Susan Gubar (Editor)

* 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 ( www.projectponal.com

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

Rather than proposing techno-fixes to problems of agricultural development in Africa, donors could better assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

It is a common saying that when a man has a hammer in his hand every problem appears to be a nail. It takes a wise man to know that a hammer is just one of the tools in the craftsman’s box. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made money from technology. It is understandable that they should think that problems can always be solved with a technological fix. Nor is it surprising that the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations should plan to jointly plough $150,000,000 into their so-called Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Tragically, the biotech solutions proposed by AGRA are likely to deepen rather than solve problems of hunger, poverty and malnutrition in Africa.

The Gates Foundation has recently taken on scientists from the biotech industry. It is expected to fund projects in areas such as biotechnology to improve seeds and crop yields; fertilizer, irrigation and other farm management systems; access to markets; and advocacy for improved agricultural policies. They may claim otherwise, but the idea of AGRA is anchored around agricultural modern biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Yet, genetically modified crops, on the admission of the US Department of Agriculture, do not give better yields than conventional crops. In addition, the plan’s entire framework would turn African farm practices on their heads, wiping out local knowledge and creating more poverty, hunger and strange new diseases.

What is not being said is that people are not going hungry today because of insufficient food production. Indeed, it is generally agreed that there is enough food in the world to meet everyone’s basic needs. An action plan adopted in March by ministers of the Economic Community of West African States admits that food production in West Africa has doubled over the last 20 years and that only 19 per cent of food needs are met from imports.

So what is the real reason behind the emphasis on biotechnology? The biotech industry has invested hugely in attempts to penetrate Africa – through food aid channels and other channels of assistance, as well as through commercial routes. However, the food aid channel blew up in the face of the industry and that of the World Food Programme in 2002 when Zambia rejected genetically modified corn as food aid.

AGRA’s biotech thrust is wrong-headed: rather than solving problems of hunger and poverty in Africa, it will deepen them. Genetically modified crops create dependence on chemicals such as herbicides as some varieties are engineered to be herbicide tolerant, which often leads to the emergence of super-weeds. Efforts at popularising GMOs have been carried out by both USAID and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in circles that have excluded critical opinion. Wherever contrasting views have been elicited, local people and farmers generally reject this technology. AGRA’s suggestion that Africa needs a 'green revolution' does not appear to have considered the many pitfalls of that revolution.

Efforts at introducing GMOs in Africa have so far yielded poor returns. To take just one example, that of cassava engineered to overcome the cassava leaf mosaic disease. This has so far failed. There are already non-GM varieties that do withstand the disease. Why waste resources that could be better used to strengthen agricultural production in Africa, drawing on the rich pool of local knowledge and ensuring food sovereignty, as demanded by farmers and civil society groups at the recent forum in Selingue, Mali? Africa is not seeking handouts in order to improve its agricultural production systems. And certainly not a push towards a so-called green revolution baptised in chemical fertilizers and other imported inputs. African farmers, along with peasants around the world, are seeking respect for their right to decide on what to plant and how to plant it, as well what to eat and how.

Agriculture means far more than the mechanical multiplication of seeds. It is the basis of the African’s life. It provides the platform for cultural, religious, economic and even political relations. If the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations wish to extend the hand of fellowship to the African continent, they should move away from strategies that favour monoculture, lead to land-grabs, and tie local farmers to the shop-doors of biotech seed monopolies. Instead, they can assist in the development of rural infrastructure such as roads and water supplies, and education to empower the younger generation in the study of useful science.

This article was first published in Alliance [http://www.alliancemagazine.org/">

* Nnimmo Bassey is Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria.

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

Equatorial Guinea produces a barrel of oil per person per day. In 2005, it had a budget of US$2 billion" more than sufficient to raise the standard of living of it’s 400,000 citizens. The country also has aid links: with school students in the United States, and church schools and small municipalities in Spain. Agustin Vellos argues that the so-called 'development cooperation' between Spain and Equatorial Guinea is nothing more than political rhetoric that supports the corrupt practices of President Obiang’s government and acts as a smokescreen for failed Western development models.

Development cooperation between Spain and Equatorial Guinea is an exercise in political rhetoric. Fine for soothing the consciences of sensitive citizens. Useful to dissemble the policies of both countries' governments. The citizenry think they are 'helping' the poor. While politicians cover up the way cooperation is useless for the African country's development; but good for increasing the scandalous wealth of the Obiang ruling clan, and for contributing to Spanish political and business expansion.

Some people think international cooperation and official development aid are matters of foreign policy. In the pre-democratic years, the governing class argued that Spain had been generous during its colonial era; and that the proof of this was the spread of Catholicism and civilization, as well as miscegenation. However, that generosity was not enough to produce doctors and engineers, or to leave a political and social infrastructure in Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea. So. when independence came, frustrated in the Saharawi case, development cooperation was obligatory for Equatorial Guinea.

The same happened with the other colonial centres, England, France, and Portugal. They left nations independent politically, but not culturally or economically. Colonialism became neocolonialism. The powerful could no longer directly exploit the weak as before. But they worked out new systems: conditional loans, unfavourable trade deals, e.g., the Lomé Convention of 1975, exorbitant charges for services, the fiscal policies of the IMF, World Bank projects, and so on.

From independence in 1968 until approximately 1995, when the oil exploration years began, Spain worked on development with Equatorial Guinea in the fields of politics, economics, the armed forces and education. Ironically, one of the first agreements signed in 1979 was the Protocol on Cooperation on Hydrocarbon Matters.

It is surely surprising that cooperation between the tenth world power and its former colony of just 28,000 square kilometres, 400,000 inhabitants and abundant natural resources has not managed to pull the colony up from among the lowest rungs of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index in its first 30 years of independence. It is more surprising still when one considers the development cooperation from the United States, France, China and other countries, without counting the international bodies and agencies: the United Nations, The World Health Organisation, UNESCO, UNICEF and the European Economic Community.

Beginning in the last years of the previous century and the first years of the 21st century, Equatorial Guinea experienced unparalleled rapid growth. The reason was gas and oil: 81,000 barrels a day in 1998, 300,000 a day in 2004 and 420,000 barrels a day in 2005.

This led the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to grow 18 percent in 2000, 66 per cent in 2001, 20per cent in 2002, 10 per cent in 2003 and 25 per cent in 2004. Per capita income has gone from some US$600 in 1998, US$2000 in 2000, to US$5300 in 2005.

The oil sector makes up 97 pr cent of the country's exports and 92 per cent of its GDP. But in addition there are timber, cacao, minerals, fisheries, agricultural produce and tourist potential. Once again, it is surprising that a country able to produce a barrel of oil per person per day, that can count on other resources and is a trade partner of the richest countries in the world, also depends on aid links with school students in the United States, and with church schools and small municipalities in Spain. All these links indicate what is commonly understood as development cooperation by rich-country citizens concerned for people in poor countries.

Karen Miller, former secretary of the Hatcher primary school (Kentucky, USA) moved to the capital of Equatorial Guinea, Malabo, and emailed her friend Jenny Johnson about the school needs in the country. The world's fifth largest oil company, Marathon Oil (www.marathon.com), which operates in Equatorial Guinea, published Jenny's response:

'I felt the need to help. I knew this was something God wanted me to do. I put up posters in the school. The only problem was making sure the books donated by teachers and pupils arrived. I want to thank all those who have helped with this project. First of all to God, our Father, for making this happen, to the school community and especially to Marathon for starting this aid project for the students of the island of Bioko.' The estimated cost to the company was some 35,000 Euros.

Last April, the municipality of Alcorcón, close to Madrid, signed a permanent cooperation agreement with the Organization of Ibero-American States. The fact that Equatorial Guinea is not exactly located in the ibero-american area does not stop the municipality saying: 'we are very proud as a city to join this project of a meeting between cultures. Material cooperation with Equatorial Guinea, initially of 60,000 Euros, will enable the start up of a reading project on the one hand, with school libraries and on the other hand, teacher training in Spanish and local languages and in mathematics'.

In the first week of June, the church schools of Monforte organised a solidarity fair to raise funds for their colleagues in Equatorial Guinea. According to a local daily paper, 'the jumble sale, dinner and dance and donations raised 7,794 Euros'. Unlike the reports above, no mention is made of the uses made of the money.

Perhaps the teacher, the mayor and the religious teaching staff are unaware that the government of Equatorial Guinea, with a budget of US$2 billion in 2005, could well afford to pay for some text books and school libraries.

Preoccupied with prayers, meetings and brunches, maybe they have not had the chance to get to know the reality of the country; but instead have collected over 100,000 Euros. Even if that sum reaches Equatorial Guinea, which may be unlikely, that money does not even come close to the 380,000 Euros paid for a Lamborghini sports car acquired in 2005 by Teodoro Nguema. a son of President Obiang and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, according to a report in the South African Cape Times of July 20, 2007.

It can be argued that a similar effort by 16 other solidarity groups could match the money that Nguema might have used to benefit his people. This last alternative seems more likely to benefit the development of Equatorial Guinea, except one might prefer that people not live dependent on the charity of others. 27 solidarity groups with similar fundraising ability would be needed to match Nguema's penchant for luxury cars, since the same article reports he also spent 800,000 Euros that year buying a Bentley Arnage and a Bentley Mulliner.

Even so, it is hard for the good will of development workers, donors, sponsors and volunteers to keep up with the pace of spending: the US Forbes magazine, specialising in listing the world's wealthiest people, reported that on June 5, 2006 Nguema also rented the yacht of Microsft co-founder Paul Allen, the fifth wealthiest man in the world, for 600,000 Euros.

Teodorín, as he is known, has a mansion and a recording studio in the United States and various properties and interests in other countries. Global Witness, an organisation dedicated to uncovering corruption in countries rich in raw materials, reports that the mansion is worth US$35,000,000.

Although ordinary citizens are unaware of these facts, the government knows them very well, but still maintains cooperation links. With regard to state development aid, there is abundant information in various official and quasi-official sources, such as political parties, institutes and foundations

The Spanish State Secretariat for International Cooperation declares 'the government...bears collective responsibility for respecting and defending peace and human dignity and equality at the world level. Poverty reduction is an ethical duty for the world's most prosperous citizens and a political obligation for all the governments on the planet'.

Lofty aims that perhaps don't marry up too well with military spending of 17 billion Euros in 2007, 15th highest in the world, while expenditure on development aid is 3 billion. Loans that create more debt, debt forgiveness and so on must be subtracted from the latter amount. While that first figure for defence can be left out of the equation altogether until someone proves the link between arms spending and development.

Spanish development aid to Equatorial Guinea devoted nearly 4.5 million Euros to healthcare in 2004-5, spread over various projects: control of endemic diseases, water purification, community health and health workers. With that sum, President Obiang would have struggled to purchase his two mansions in Maryland in the US.

But we may say: It is not a matter of tracking down every last cent. These African countries are known for their idiosyncrasies. No one is perfect. Well, in that case, take the example of quality healthcare. Spain, for example, is placed 21st in the Human Development Index. Shile Equatorial Guinea is placed 121st. Per capita spending on healthcare is US$1,640 and US$139 respectively.

Development cooperation, galactic style, to use a fashionable term, would ensure that people in Equatorial Guinea enjoyed the same level of health care as people in Spain. Multiplying 450,000 people by US$1,640 works out at a little more than US$700 million. Coincidentally the same amount Obiang transferred to personal accounts in the unexpectedly extinct Riggs Bank, based, by the way, in the United States and, as luck would have it, the main investor in Equatorial Guinea.

We can look at it another way. Obiang spends about US$70,000,000 a year on 'security', a figure to be treated with caution, since the actual sum is unknown, even to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (www.sipri.se). But it can be inferred from purchases of war equipment. Spain, the United States and Israel have all sold Obiang military materiel and trained his troops and police. In ten years of oil exploration, it is not unreasonable to think that Obiang could have increased his people's life expectancy with such a sum. But life expectancy remains about half that of Spain's: 43.5 and 79.5 years respectively.

Or again, we could argue, development cooperation is very much more than money. According to Spain's International Cooperation for Development Law, drawn up in 1998, 'development processes will be promoted with respect to the defence and protection of human rights, basic liberties and economic and social welfare needs...'

Those processes do not exist as Spain knows very well. Although the Minister for Foreign Affairs omits to mention it and prefers to talk about other things. Parliamentarians who visited the country in 2007 'found improvements and returned optimistic'.

Political declarations, projects, reports and aid workers abound. But this is not development cooperation. To talk as if there were development cooperation is an insult to the people of Equatorial Guinea. In fact, we should talk about a development cooperation fraud.

* Agustin Velloso. UNED, Facultad de Educacion, Paseo Senda del Rey, nº 728040-Madrid, Spain.

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

This paper was presented to the Africa University Annual Conference on the 'Commemoration of the Legacy of Dag Hammarskjöld', held in Mutare, Zimbabwe, 24-26 September 2007. The author, Henning Melber, was prevented from participating in the event, since the Zimbabwean embassy had informed him a day before his departure from Sweden that the immigration authorities in Harare had turned down his visa application.

During a visit to India in early February 1956, Dag Hammarskjöld presented one of the very rare impromptu speeches of his career as second Secretary General to the United Nations (1953-61) when addressing the Indian Council of World Affairs. Prompted by a moving encounter with local culture performed in his honour earlier on, his mainly extemporaneous speech explored the dimensions of human universalism. A commonality beyond Western – or, indeed, any other culturally, religiously or geographically limited – ideology or conviction.

'It is no news to anybody, but we sense it in different degrees, that our world of today is more than ever before one world. The weakness of one is the weakness of all, and the strength of one – not the military strength, but the real strength, the economic and social strength, the happiness of people – is indirectly the strength of all. Through various developments which are familiar to all, world solidarity has, so to say, been forced upon us. This is no longer a choice of enlightened spirits; it is something which those whose temperament leads them in the direction of isolationism have also to accept.'

Isolationism is a phenomenon guided by a lack of reality, or by selective perceptions, found often by leaders and their followers. It is a universal feature, and not confined to any particular society or group. By no coincidence it was the British Lord Acton, who stated, within the society considered to be one of the cradles of the modern day political system called democracy, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Former liberation movements, who, after long and painful sacrifices by the oppressed people fighting against colonial occupation ultimately secured the fundamental right of self-determination and seized the legitimate political power based on popular vote, are not protected from these temptations. As a result of such 'limits to liberation', Zimbabwe is in the midst of an ongoing crisis. The 'political economy of decline' can hardly be ignored by anyone living in or having insights into the social and political realities. Even though Zimbabwe has frequently denied the freedom of movement and the freedom of expression to those seeking to form or to articulate a view on the ground; just as the apartheid settler colonial regimes of Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa had done during earlier (and definitely not so good old) days.

Notwithstanding such disturbing features of limiting the freedom of individuals, to which numerous (and much more serious) incidences against its own people over the years since the Gukurahundi of the mid-1980s in Matabeleland have alerted us, some maintain the impression that ‘business as usual’ exists (- and maybe it does?). There remain ‘professional denialists’, who continue to dismiss any such notion – even if the authorities of a state without any serious crisis of legitimacy could afford to allow visitors to enter their country freely. Zimbabwe’s ambassador to neighbouring Namibia (where an increasing number of Zimbabweans are seeking refuge and thereby testify to the ongoing crisis at home) stated in an interview to the state-owned daily newspaper as late as mid-September 2007 that, 'Zimbabwe […] is a peaceful paradise and politically stable since 1980'. Asked how the political situation in his country can be resolved, he answered: 'The question is misleading because it assumes that there is a political problem in Zimbabwe. This is not the case. There is no political situation in Zimbabwe.' According to most others, and in direct contradiction to the diplomat’s view, there clearly is.

These more critical views do not have to be a part of or closely affiliated to any of the organised political rival groupings contributing to a chronic state of protest, unrest and repression spiralling the country’s people further into misery and suffering. The sub-regional body, SADC, has officially acknowledged the need to mediate, with the goal to bring the decline to a halt and the country back on track towards a peaceful future in stability. The Communiqué of the Extraordinary Summit of the SADC Heads of State held, because of the Zimbabwe crisis, on 28-29 March 2007 in Dar-es-Salaam, however, provided a classic example of a dilemma, when it 'reaffirmed its solidarity with the Government and people of Zimbabwe'. In this case, obviously, one can hardly have it both ways.

It is fair to assume that Zimbabwe 'has posed fundamental questions about the extent to which SADC members can and should intervene in the internal affairs of other member countries for the sake of regional interests. […] SADC has been slow to respond to the crisis. It has failed to replicate the positive solidarity that SADCC members once levelled against apartheid South Africa.'

Notwithstanding the reservations provoked by the ongoing double-bind message by SADC as the sub-regional organisation as well as individual SADC member countries, the latest assessment of the International Crisis Group (ICG) concludes that the regionally negotiated solution would be the most feasible option for Zimbabwe:

'The next few months present a moment of truth. […] SADC and its member states have the capacity to reverse a downward spiral which increasingly threatens the region’s stability but they must be prepared to support the initiative they have begun and Mbeki’s mandate. This means using economic leverage, conditioning a recovery package on performance and making clear that if there is no cooperation they will not hesitate to call the initiative a failure and reject elections that are not a product of their mediation and do not comply with SADC’s own democratic standards.'

Such pro-active policy is a kind of interference, which corresponds with the new political realities and a common understanding as codified in the currently applicable documents guiding African continental politics. The Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) deviated in a substantial paradigm from the fundamental principles of the earlier Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

The non-intervention into matters of member states had been a hitherto holy principle, on which the OAU based its continental policies. The AU constitution has replaced this by a clear notion of collective responsibilities, which under grave circumstances even justify joint intervention into the internal affairs of the member states. This new approach has already provided results by means of a visible implementation on several occasions.

Along similar lines and despite all critical analyses - justified with regard to the reluctant pursuance of the noble goals defined - The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) have created a corresponding new paradigmatic framework for good governance and the commitment by African states to comply with such defined standards. It could do no harm to measure those governments not volunteering to this screening exercise according to similar criteria and seek their application. Similarly, as suggested by SADC at its last ordinary summit in August 2007 in Lusaka, a few among the growing number of voluntarily retiring elder statesmen and former presidents might be a suitable task force to seek negotiations with an aging autocrat reluctant to give up power.

But seeking a lasting solution for Zimbabweans means more than entering into a negotiated compromise in terms of power sharing among segmented political elites representing different interests, while offering guaranteed protection for perpetrators if they comply with such controlled change. In an analytically remarkable Pastoral Letter released by the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference on Holy Thursday of 2007, the internal, class-related roots of the current Zimbabwean crisis were highlighted:

'Black Zimbabweans today fight for the same basic rights they fought for during the liberation struggle. It is the same conflict between those who possess power and wealth in abundance, and those who do not; between those who are determined to maintain their privileges of power and wealth at any cost, even at the cost of bloodshed, and those who demand their democratic rights and a share in the fruits of independence; between those who continue to benefit from the present system of inequality and injustice, because it favours them and enables them to maintain an exceptionally high standard of living, and those who go to bed hungry at night and wake up in the morning to another day without work and without income; between those who only know the language of violence and intimidation, and those who feel they have nothing more to loose because their Constitutional rights have been abrogated and their votes rigged.'

This insight is of relevance not only for Zimbabwe. It is relevant for all societies marred by antagonistic forces culminating in extreme social disparities, where a privileged few feast at the expense of the marginalised majority. This includes (though is anything but confined to) the societies in (southern) Africa, who for both external as well as internal limiting factors have not managed to overcome the colonial legacy and its fundamentally unjust and discriminating social structures and corresponding mental dispositions.

This paper opened with a quote from a rather spontaneously motivated speech by Dag Hammarskjöld in 1956, documenting his firm belief in the unity of humankind and its shared values and norms. Much remains in this world, even half a century later, as a continuing challenge to enhance such understanding. A challenge, which clearly embraces the need to reduce the gross imbalances, which, in a very concrete and lasting material sense, prevent the full implementation of such universal ethical and moral norms to the benefit of most, if not all, in this world of the early 21st century.

But the lack of progress does not mean that Hammarskjöld’s words and visions were neither practical nor realistic. For him, the work of the United Nations should build on the commonality of humankind, its conduct and experience:

'With respect to the United Nations as a symbol of faith, it may […] be said that to every man it stands as a kind of "yes’ to the ability of man to form his own destiny, and form his own destiny so as to create a world where the dignity of man can come fully into its own.'

These words should continue to serve as an invitation to jointly turn all corners of this world into a better one to the benefit of the ordinary people. 'In such a world', the late Secretary General further clarified in no uncertain terms, 'it is impossible to maintain the status of "haves" and "have-nots", just as impossible as it has grown to be inside the nation state'. The challenge to turn his words into social and political realities remains on our agenda. It includes the southern African region in general, and, in particular, Zimbabwe.

Such a demand is by no means a Eurocentric fantasy of neocolonial or imperialist interventions, as so often claimed by those local elites under siege, simply because they are measured and judged against universal standards and values relating to fundamental and undivided human rights based principles and norms: the same principles and norms, they claimed to be fighting for, when fighting against settler-colonial minority regimes denying them those rights. The same rights they are now denying to so many among their 'liberated' people. The current necessity to take sides is by no means drawing a dividing line along race or the North-South axis, as relevant as such criteria for historically rooted privileges, identities and interests might generally be. Instead, such dismissals of human rights-related notions are nothing more than a smokescreen, a constructed escape route for those, who try to get away with cheating again the 'wretched of the earth'. As a pan-African human rights campaigner clarified:

'I have heard some people argue that the "enemies" of Africa now crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with such luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale slavery, colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its peoples. In other words, that ‘white farmers’ deserve some of their own medicine. Not only does such thinking reduce Africans to the moral bankruptcy of colonialists, it also fails to understand that it risks granting unlimited and indefinite power to Africa’s actual and imaginary liberators such that we may all end up being shackled by them. Africa’s liberation movements drew their moral strength from the fact that on the balance, they fought for social justice, human rights, equality and democracy – for all […].'

The 25-year old unemployed Harare woman Ndakaitei captured the sentiments after three chimurengas on behalf of a frustrated post-independent urban youth when she cried out: 'We desire a future that is not like the present!'

Notes and references

I owe this information (and the quotes) to the fascinating manuscript submitted by Manuel Fröhlich on ‘The Unknown Assignation’. Dag Hammarskjöld in the Papers of George Ivan Smith for forthcoming publication with the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in its new Critical Currents occasional paper series. This will then – like many other publications - also be available on the Foundation’s web site:

Dag Hammarskjöld, ‘The United Nations – Its Ideology and Activities. Address before the Indian Council of World Affairs 3 February 1956’. In: Andrew W. Cordier/Wilder Foote (eds), Public Papers of the Secretaries-General of the United Nations. Volume II: Dag Hammarskjöld 1953-1956. New York and London 1972.

Henning Melber (ed.), Limits to Liberation in Southern Africa. The unfinished business of democratic consolidation. Cape Town: HSRC Press 2003.

Suzanne Dansereau/Mario Zamponi, Zimbabwe – The Political Economy of Decline. Uppsala: The Nordic Africa Institute 2005 (Discussion Paper; 27).

A recent volume included a variety of case studies from SADC countries ranging from better to worse practices with regard to state presidents (not) leaving office, including Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe; see Roger Southall/Henning Melber (eds), Legacies of Power. Leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics. Cape Town: HSRC Press and Uppsala: The Nordic Africa Institute 2006.

Rotimi Sankore, ‘Pan Africanism and the Zimbabwe Crisis’, Pambazuka News, no. 319, 12 September 2007.

* Henning Melber came to Namibia as a son of German immigrants in 1967, where he joined the liberation movement SWAPO in 1974. He was director of The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek (1992 to 2000) and research director at The Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala/Sweden (2000 to 2006). He is presently the executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

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

Keith Goddard of the organisation Gay and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) suggests that attitudes towards LGBTI rights are a 'litmus test for any democracy'. Human rights must be all inclusive in protecting 'minorities from the excesses of the majority as they protect populations from excesses of the state'.

It is reassuring when one can assume the protection of a large body of international instruments espousing values about rights and freedoms for all members of humanity. But how do these noble documents translate into the lives of ordinary people, in particular the lives of the poor and powerless who need the greatest protection?

They seem particularly abstract and remote at the moment for the lives of most ordinary Zimbabweans, many of whom are struggling to merely survive, or are scrambling to escape from the prevailing political chaos. And in Zimbabwe, it is not only the poor and powerless who are disadvantaged - it is everybody.

The severe deterioration in the human rights record of Zimbabwe has led to a situation where no one’s rights are any longer guaranteed. With the breakdown of law and order, any rights afforded are done so at the whim of the state. Government appears invincible, and no one, inside or outside Zimbabwe, seems able to hold it to account. At present, it appears there is little else that we can do other than sit tight, hope for the best, and when the worst happens, make a plan.

But human rights organisations such as GALZ cannot become dormant; they exist and are responsible for bringing about change for the better.

It is easy to argue that GALZ is unique in that it is the only organisation specifically catering to the needs of LGBTI people in Zimbabwe. Ergo GALZ is too small to make any significant impact within the broader environment. But if GALZ disappeared over night, would it make any noticeable difference?

Luckily, the answer is yes, at least for the few hundred members of GALZ, most of whom, according to an evaluation conducted by the Dutch agency Hivos of the Southern African LGBTI programme, feel that their confidence has been boosted since joining the association. They have ‘learnt something’ and have benefited from the association’s services. But as members of the general population, the quality of life for GALZ members is surely still deteriorating.

Within broader society, GALZ has certainly made significant inroads into being at least ‘tolerated’ within the NGO world, although there is often still a reluctance to mainstream LGBTI issues within these organisations' programmes, not necessarily because of any overt homophobia but because of fears of reprisal from the state.

Marginalising of GALZ is unfortunate, although it does make the organisation even more relevant to those it serves. As far as government is concerned, GALZ is at an impasse and has basically given up.

GALZ may seem small and insignificant but human rights are not about numbers. In fact, human rights exist as much to protect minorities from the excesses of the majority as they do to protect populations from excesses of the state. The struggle for the promotion of a human rights culture is not a linear process. Small and often unforeseen victories often turn out to be as important as any major breakthrough. Just hanging on in there and waiting for a chance to seize is a valid enough reason to exist.

It could be argued that attitudes towards LGBTI rights are a litmus test for any democracy: the burst of government attacks on gay and lesbian people, starting in early 1995, marked the start of a new phase in the serious national decline we now find ourselves in. They ought to have been a warning signal that things were about to get worse.

Human rights organisations should never remain inert, even in the face of apparent demoralising failure to achieve anything positive. They need to be strong, refuse to capitulate and instead espouse a culture of hope, even if this is only among a limited few.

With the worsening humanitarian crisis in the country, GALZ has tried to be imaginative and seek the best ways in which to remain relevant, both to the lives of its members, and within broader society. It has been equally cautious to avoid encouraging feelings of dependency amongst its membership, which in the long term benefit no one.

In recent years, the organisation has also fought against its detractors using the LGBTI issue to deflect attention away from the real problems of Zimbabwe, preferring not to be reactive towards homophobia, but instead proactive in putting out positive publicity about LGBTI issues, albeit it in a limited way.

A welcome break came in 2006 when GALZ was introduced by the Kosmopolis Institute of the University for Humanistics in Utrecht to the 'Capability Approach' developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. This is a conceptual framework which attempts to measure the ability of a human being to enjoy his or her life, both in terms of drawing on what is available within the broader social environment, and in terms of an individual’s personal capacity to benefit from his or her surroundings.

The Capability Approach is not an alternative to the human rights discourse: it could be described as the flip side to the same coin. As its name suggests, the difference lies more in the approach, focusing as it does on the way in which human rights translate into meaningful experience. The ten basic capabilities are particularly relevant to situations where human rights are denied. They help measure an individual’s ability to cope and perhaps even flourish under difficult circumstances. They are summarised as follows:

- Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living.

- Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.

- Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.

- Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason - and to do these things in a 'truly human' way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain.

- Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having one's emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)

- Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one's life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.)

- Affiliation. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.)

Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin.

- Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.

- Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.

- Control over one's Environment:
Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one's life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.

Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human being, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.

Although it is problematic in Zimbabwe to maintain ‘control over one’s environment’, this in no way diminishes the relevance of the other nine capabilities to the work of an organisation such as GALZ. It is precisely because of the lack of political freedoms that Zimbabwe is now in crisis and plunging into deeper decline and poverty and why other measures of progress need to be taken into consideration.

The GALZ social empowerment programmes, Skills for Life and the Women’s Scholarship Programme, are obvious examples of the application of the Capability Approach, although the organisation adopted them prior to its being aware of this philosophy.

Although it could be argued that the 'Positive Image' access to treatment scheme has encouraged dependency, it has nevertheless saved and given extended quality to the lives of those who would otherwise have died of Aids.

It may seem trivial for a philosophy to incorporate the ability to laugh, play and enjoy recreational activities. But in an oppressive political and homophobic climate, merely offering safe space to relax in is not something to be denigrated. The very existence of the GALZ Centre and the safe space it offers is an encouraging symbol of hope, although there are questions about whether it is enough to provide just a place to drink and dance. To balance this, GALZ has now instituted a programme of entertainment, including sporting activities designed to provide greater variety in members’ lives.

In 2006, GALZ started to move away from serious workshops which, in the past, it has felt obligated to provide as part of fulfilling a mandate that was seen as serious. Although workshops still have their place, the more informal, relaxed group discussions have proved highly popular, since most participants see these opportunities to talk and share ideas as liberating and a chance to express opinions freely, and be treated with respect. And just listening to the experiences of others trying to cope with family pressures can be more helpful than a formal workshop on relationships when it comes to dispelling feelings of confusion and doubt.

The emotional development of a human being is as important as his or her physical protection. The increasing professionalism of GALZ’s counselling services means that members are receiving meaningful help in dealing with emotional problems. By the same token, the annual women’s retreat has proved an invaluable space in which women can open up, often about painful emotional experiences, and gain support from others. But it is often the casual conversations in the health department or the recreational activities of a retreat that help the most.

In all, the Capability Approach is proving useful for determining the ability of GALZ members to reach their full capacity as humans, whether or not they are denied fundamental freedoms such as freedom from hunger and freedom of expression. Many members have used GALZ as a stepping stone to make significant improvements in their lives. Those who have escaped and sought asylum elsewhere can be included in this. This is at it should be. In the wider context, if GALZ were to disappear overnight, LGBTI people in the rest of Africa and the world would be devastated: they would have lost a close member of the family and a strong source of inspiration to continue fighting for justice for all LGBTI people throughout the world.

* Keith Goddard is a human rights defender and a member of GALZ Zimbabwe.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/320/43383.jpgVincent Kitio argues that the recurring famine across Africa cannot simply be blamed on a lack of water. On the contrary, he suggests that a number of traditional low cost, water lifting technologies for irrigation, that have been used in various arid and semi-desert regions of the world, would go a long way to alleviate famine across the continent.

Recent images shown on Kenyan television could not fail to move even the most stone-hearted among us to tears. It was heart wrenching to see women hopelessly cuddling the lifeless bodies of their children, victims of merciless famine that swept across the country. Many appeals were made by government, churches, and even the corporate world, to help mitigate against the disaster.

Across the continent and to my home country of Cameroon, a similar event recurs almost every two years. Appeals are usually made by those in authority seeking food to help the victims. These are some the issues that leave me pondering how my fellow learned Africans and I and I can contribute to alleviate the suffering our people have been undergoing.

The problem of recurring famine goes deeper than the often touted reason of lack of water to help grow food or for animal use. The water levels available in Kenya are enough to sustain a hunger-free nation. In some parts of Cameroon, people suffer famine despite that country having the distinction of being home to the wettest climate on earth.

Examples abound of how others have managed to overcome famine. Despite the scarcity of water in semi-desert and arid lands of North Africa, the Arab World, the Mediterranean countries and part of the South East Asia, farmers there enjoy better food security, compare to sub-Saharan Africa. This is not because their economies are better off to enable them to easily pump water for irrigation. Long before the discovery of fossil fuel, most of these countries already enjoyed food security. In fact, in order to cope with the harsh climatic conditions with little rains, inhabitants of these dry lands developed traditional knowledge of water lifting techniques to exploit streams, rivers and underground water for irrigation to increase food production. As a result, farmers are able to harness available water to grow crops and harvest up to three times a year. In this process, all available forms of energy are put into use, such as human power, animal power, water power and wind power, to lift water for irrigation.

These ancient water lifting technologies that have been used in Europe, the Arab World and part of Asia for centuries are still ignored in sub-Saharan Africa. Farming in Africa depends heavily on rainfall and human labour; and therefore, agriculture is vulnerable to the weather. As part of a lasting solution to the recurrent drought and famine, there is a pressing need to document, adapt and transfer these technologies to areas suitable for their application.

Famine in Africa has reached unprecedented and disproportion levels. Images of malnourished children, weak adults and carcasses of livestock are portrayed in the mass media every day. All the sub-Saharan Africa countries are affected by this drought, which many people argue could have been prevented or minimised.

Many attribute the origin of this preventable situation to poor governance, corruption, over population, climate change and dependency syndrome on food aid from foreign assistance. The root causes of famine remain the dependency of African agriculture on the weather, particularly the rain. This heavy dependence not only reduces the number of harvest per year, but also gives little freedom to the farmer for proper planning. Several years ago, rain-fed agriculture was not an issue in Africa, since entire communities could migrate from drought areas to greener pastures. This is no longer the case as no free land is available any more.

Globalisation is also contributing to the burden of famine: cheap crop imports dominate some local markets to the detriment of local crops. This situation is worsened by the fact that agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa depends heavily on human labour as opposed to mechanisation. As a result, farmers need to provide more and more effort for little output. The application of irrigation methods in African agriculture remains very limited due to the water drudgery associated to it. The percentage of land irrigated in Africa is the lowest of the world.

It is therefore time to seriously explore other alternatives and affordable ways of improving traditional farming systems. Africa is endowed with permanent rivers that flow undisturbed to the sea, passing through hectares of idle lands suitable for agriculture. Using some of these rivers and streams to irrigate lands will be very beneficial to present and future food security in Africa.

The high operational cost of motor pumps to increase productivity through irrigation is simply not affordable to the majority of African farmers, and the high cost of the pump itself is prohibitive. Drilling boreholes is another solution, but again it is very expensive and costly. It is common knowledge that people living in arid land have developed irrigation techniques that have ensured them food security for centuries. This is the case of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and many other Arab States, India, China and Israel, just to mention a few. Fortunately, despite the advance of modern technology, some of this traditional or indigenous knowledge are still in use today after thousands years of operation.

In the city of Medinet El Faiyum, also known as the Garden of Eden, situated 100km south of Cairo, over 40 waterwheels, known as Noria, are used to lift water from the river Nile for irrigation. In this ancient city known as a garden in the middle of the desert, farmers are able to harvest three times a year despite the fact that the region receives only three days of rain a year. In addition, El Faiyum Governorate is considered as the main granary of Cairo. Ef Faiyum waterwheels were introduced several centuries ago by Ptolemic engineers. They are still working today side by side with electric water pumps to grow olives, vegetables, fruits, nuts, sugar cane, rice and wheat.

The Noria, is a simple wooden waterwheel with buckets which use the flow of the river to lift water to an irrigation aqueduct above the river: water by gravity is directed to several farms. The noria works round the clock, seven days a week, all year round, provided that there is a flow of water. This time-tested technology, invented more than two thousand years ago, most probably by the Romans, has survived up until to today because of their efficiency and effectiveness on food security. Thousands of them are still in operation in Spain, Portugal, Syria, Iraq, Mexico, China (in China, they are made out of bamboo tree). The city of Hama in Syria is very famous for its different norias, built along the Orontes River, some of which are still used to irrigate urban agriculture while others, national heritages, attract thousands of tourists every year.

The Romans relied on irrigation systems to ensure food security in the empire. Roman architects and engineers developed different techniques as described by Vitruvius in 01BC in his Ten Books on Architecture to support their agriculture. Some of these irrigation systems have survived up until today. In 1913, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary gave this definition: 'Noria - a large water wheel, turned by the action of a stream against its floats, and carrying at its circumference buckets, by which water is raised and discharged into a trough; used in Arabia, China, and elsewhere for irrigating land.'

The Norias found in Spain were introduced during the Islamic domination and have double sets of buckets on each side of their rims, other have two wheels on the same shaft. This allowed the system to increase the amount of water lifted. Spanish priests introduced Norias in Mexico during the colonial period. Some of them are still in operation in farms located in the northern part of the county. Their buckets are made of plastic material as oppose to clay pots or wooden buckets.

Another living testimony of this magnificent time tested technology is the largest noria (over 20 metres) known as Al-Mohammediyyah in Hama, Syria. It was the subject in one of the famous American television programme called Ripley's Believe it or Not! It had the title: 'A water wheel on the Ornotes River in Syria is still working, although it was built in the year 1000.'

Some farmers in Hama use Noria in urban agriculture, and occasionally when the water flow is not enough to turn the waterwheel, up to five motor pumps are needed to lift water to the aqueduct. This age-old technology is very much appropriate to the African rural lifestyle, especially with the fuel price increase that is already impacting negatively on the economic growth.

Persian wheel

The Persian wheel, also known as Saqiya, is a water-lifting device made of two gear wheels and an endless chain of pots or buckets, capable of lifting water from both shallow and deep well. The system is powered by one or two animals (donkey, horse, camel, bullock, buffalo). Person wheels have been used since time immoral to supply water for irrigation in Egypt, the Mediterranean countries, India and China.

Animals revolve around the first wheel and generates horizontal rotations, which are transferred into vertical rotations through gears and, bring up the chain of pots (buckets)that carry water from the well and empty into a conduct. Since animals do not like the boring revolution walk, they are blindfold. This technology has been in use for over 2,000 years. An American geographer, who visited Egypt in 1727, estimated that there were over 200,000 Persian wheels in operation driven by oxen for agriculture purposes.

In the region between India and Pakistan, Persian wheels, known as Rahat in Urdu, are traditional tools used for irrigation. Before their introduction in the region, irrigation was a very tedious and inefficient activity, as it is today in rural African countries, where people have to walk long distances to fetch water. The introduction of this technology improved agricultural productivity substantially in medieval India. As a result of a successful rural electrification programme across India, electric pumps are gradually replacing this time tested device. Despite the availability of modern energy, Persian wheels remain popular in the Indian region of Rajasthan. It is estimated that one Persian wheel can irrigate up to one hectare of land.

Sakia

Another water raising device that is worth to mention here is the Sakia. Sakia is an ancient water-lifting technology that has been in used intensively in Egypt, where it originated from time immemorial. The device is efficient and effective widely used in the Nile Valley and Delta. Sakia is made of a large hollow wheel with scoops around its periphery, and water discharges at its centre. The diameters of the Sakia range from 2-5m; and they lift water from 0.8-1.8m respectively.

Sakias originally made of wood, are now made from galvanized sheet steel with gears system that convert the horizontal rotation into vertical rotation. There are mainly powered by animal, but recently some are using electric or gasoline motors. According to the Egyptian Hydraulic Research and Experimental Station, more than 300,000 Sakias are in use in the Nile Valley and Delta mostly driven by animals. A Sakia of 5m diameter will lift around 36m3/h of water, while a 2m diameter model will lift 114 m3/h.

Wind pump

Simple wind pumps as opposed to the sophisticated and costly ones that are occasionally seen in some African rural areas are another appropriate solution for irrigation. In the mountain plateau of Lassithi in Crete, Greece, simple wind pumps have being used for over 400 years to irrigate land that produces crops mainly vegetables, fruits and wheat. These wind pumps, manufactured locally by village craftsmen, were originally made of wood and cloth. Wood was later on replaced by metal steel in order to extend the lifespan. A decade ago, over 10,000 windmills could be found in the plateau, each farmer owning at least one of them to supply water for irrigation. Today, less than 2,000 are in operation, as a result of European Union’s agricultural subsidy policies to purchase farmer’s implements. Traditional windmills are gradually being replaced with electric pumps. Model windmills are sold to tourists as souvenirs. When there is wind, each windmill pumps water from a well to a tank, and the water is later used by the farmer to irrigate their gardens by gravity. African coastal areas and hilly regions with permanent winds are ideal place for the application of this technology.

Conclusion

This clean and affordable technology for water lifting remains unknown to sub-Sahara African farmers. If thousands of them are introduced in the continent along its many rivers and streams to irrigate idle lands, food will be soon in abundance on the local markets, in just three months: the average time to grow and harvest vegetables badly needed to stop the spread of malnutrition.

Food aid should not be seen as a long-term solution, people should be empowered with affordable technologies that can help them to overcome present and future period of food shortages.

All this traditional knowledge of water lifting techniques can be domestically manufactured with local material: no imported part is required, no fossil fuel is needed and human power is saved.

This technology may seem very old, but its efficiency surpasses those of the imported motor pumps. It is regrettable to note that despite the 21st century high-tech society, one in six people have no access to clean water. Therefore any affordable solution that can bring water closer to people should be considered as an innovation rather than an attempt to bring development back.

To make famine history in Africa we need to introduce these affordable, tangible, proven, and traditional knowledge from the arid world to African farmers. The creativity of Africa's informal sector will innovate and adapt the technology to different local social and economic conditions, aiming at ensuring lasting food security.

While exploring modern technology to address the famine situation in Africa, it will be wise to consider the know-how that is in the public domain and does not require any copyright to be negotiated. Since the technologies described here are in operation, as we speak, in Egypt and Syria, it would be highly appreciated if stakeholders in the fight against hunger in Africa visit Medina El Faiyum in Egypt and Hama in Syria to witness how these simple traditional technologies can turn arid land into forest. This will be the beginning of the end of famine in Africa.

* A Cameroonian national, Vincent Kitio is an architect and expert in renewable energy and appropriate technologies for sustainable development, working at the Nairobi headquarters of UN-HABITAT, as an energy advisor.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/320/43380.jpgMartin Legassick argues that the high-handedness of the South African housing minister, Lindiwe Sisulu, towards residents of the Joe Slovo informal settlement is 'reminiscent of old apartheid ministers. Her behaviour is a symptom of the arrogant, aloof, and self-satisfied unwillingness to listen to ordinary people that increasingly characterises the Mbeki government'.

Since the launch in 2004 of N2 Gateway, housing minister Lindiwe Sisulu’s pet ‘flagship’ project has run into problem after problem: delayed delivery, cost over-runs, above all lack of consultation. In their 2004-5 report the Development Action Group, an NGO, wrote 'The top-down approach in the N2 project undermines its overall sustainability…the casual, continued and increasing practice of excluding people from decision making about development processes that directly affect their lives is an obstacle that communities are unlikely to tolerate for much longer'.

Their prognosis was vindicated this week when the discontent of Joe Slovo residents boiled over. They closed down the N2 freeway at peak time on Monday morning. After the fire in January 2005, which destroyed 3,000 shacks and made 12,000 people homeless, Joe Slovo residents were promised priority in the allocation of N2 Gateway housing. But they were not accommodated at all in the allocation of the phase 1 flats. Now in 2007, they face being forcibly removed to Delft on the outskirts of the city to create space for the building of phase 2. Not for them, but for those better off. They have lived in Langa for years and do not want to be removed to the margins of the city far from job opportunities. What the Joe Slovo residents are asking for is RDP [low cost] housing to be built in the area for them. They have a plan as to how this can be done without any forced removal at all.

Incredibly, as a result of their occupation of the N2, they have instead been threatened by Lindiwe Sisulu with being struck off all housing waiting lists because they refuse to 'cooperate with government' in their eviction. Additionally, she said she had consulted with lawyers about 'legal avenues to compel' their removal.

Sisulu’s first threat, of course, violates the constitutional right to housing enjoyed by every South African. 'She has declared we are not South African', says the Joe Slovo elected task team member, Sifiso Mapasa, echoing the famous words of Sol Plaatje about the segregationist 1913 Natives Land Act, that it turned Africans into 'foreigners in the land of their birth'.

Moreover housing allocation is a provincial not a national competence, and Sisulu’s action is therefore additionally illegal. As well, at the whim of the minister, her declaration punishes each resident for refusing to cooperate with government, without even giving them a hearing - a third constitutional violation! Sisulu is losing her senses.

The Western Cape and the City of Cape Town waiting lists are anyway, in the words of regional COSATU general secretary Tony Ehrenreich, 'a joke'. There is a backlog of some 400,000 houses in Cape Town. Yet Dan Plato says there are only 3,060 names on the city’s waiting list!

There are not more than 20,000 houses being built each year in the whole Western Cape, barely enough to meet population increase, let alone the backlog. How many people have been waiting 20 years and more on the lists? The government could put the 4-8 million unemployed to work on a crash programme to build homes, were it not wedded to the capitalist profit system.

Sisulu claims that Joe Slovo residents 'would have to make way for people higher up the housing waiting list'. But Phase 1 N2 Gateway housing was not allocated on the basis of waiting lists because very few people could be found who were economically eligible. Instead, advertisements were placed in police stations to attract new applicants. What reason is there to expect any difference with Phase 2, which is so-called ‘gap’ housing for those earning between R3,500 and R7,500 a month? Rather than allocation by waiting list, she is moving out the poor to make way for the better off.

Some people ask why Joe Slovo residents are objecting, since they are only being ‘temporarily removed’ to Delft. But the national housing director-general has admitted that the plans are only to build houses for 1,000 people on the Joe Slovo land; whereas there are presently 6,000 residents. Thus, even if each one of those 1,000 were a Joe Slovo resident, 5,000 would still be stranded in Delft. But, since the projected phase 2 is ‘gap’ housing, most Joe Slovo residents (and most of those on housing waiting lists) will be economically excluded anyway.

Transport MEC Marius Fransman maintained that it was 'unacceptable' in our democracy to blockade the N2 when 'we have the opportunity to access the government'. But Joe Slovo residents have tried many times to 'access the government'. On 3 August 2007, they marched to parliament to present a memorandum to Sisulu and asked to meet with her. It was received by her personal assistant, who promised a reply within a week. In fact the only reply from Sisulu was a disdainful one reported in an article in the back pages of the Weekend Argus of 25 August 2007. Sisulu did not even have the courtesy to deliver her reply to those concerned. Thus she undermined our democracy.

In her reply, she accused Joe Slovo residents of being 'unwilling to accept that communities of the future would cut across race and class'. If that is what she wants, then why does she not 'cut across race and class' and, as Ehrenreich suggested, move them to Constantia? She claimed she wanted to 'eradicate slums'. But what she is doing is merely moving the Joe Slovo ‘slum’ to Delft and installing better-off people in their place.

Sisulu does not like the term 'forced removal'. But what substantive difference is there in her present search for means of 'compulsion', from the apartheid government of the 1970s wanting to forcibly evict Crossroads residents out of Cape Town altogether?

I was an eye-witness to the events of Monday morning from 4am, having been invited to observe by the task team. What I saw, even in the dark, was a peaceful protest interrupted by a police riot. Contrary to some news reports, no guns were fired at the police. Nor were stones thrown, until the police had wounded some 12 people with rubber bullets. Riotous police behaviour was witnessed by reporters again later in the morning when police opened fire on a crowd including old people, children and women with a mere 20 second warning, and wounded many more. As of today, the police are still occupying Joe Slovo and arresting people at will.

On Tuesday, two leaders in Joe Slovo were arrested on charges of 'public violence' for daring to ask the police for permission to hold a general meeting! This too was a constitutional violation. There is a police-state atmosphere of intimidation in Joe Slovo, which is in no way compatible with the democracy talked about by MEC Fransman.

Sisulu’s refusal to meet Joe Slovo residents makes her responsible for these injuries and actions. She now has the blood of women and children on her hands.

She claims that Thubelisha, project manager of N2 Gateway, is responsible for interacting with residents and that she has 'the fullest confidence' in them. Thubelisha was established to build houses, and lacks people-management skills. Residents of Joe Slovo have met with Thubelisha management several times; to no avail.

At the same time as these complaints from Joe Slovo, the N2 Gateway phase 1 residents also have their grievances. Selected as beneficiaries, at preparatory workshops they were suddenly told that rent would be increased from the R350-R600 advertised, to R650-R1,000. Desperate for housing, and given no time even to read the long contracts, they signed. They moved into the flats - only to find cramped accommodation, serious structural problems, cracks in the walls and hopelessly defective plumbing.

Later they discovered that some people were paying the old rents, which, even Thubelisha admits, is an ‘anomaly’. Thubelisha has not addressed their problems to their satisfaction. They have launched a rent boycott in protest, and also marched to parliament on 17 July to present a memorandum to Sisulu – to which she again responded only in the media. They also are threatened with eviction.

The N2 Gateway ‘flagship’ project has become a fiasco.

The high-handedness of Sisulu in all this is reminiscent of old apartheid ministers. Her behaviour is a symptom of the arrogant, aloof, and self-satisfied unwillingness to listen to ordinary people that increasingly characterises the Mbeki government. Sisulu talks of frequent 'consultation' with communities over N2 Gateway. But this 'consultation' has not involved listening, but rather telling communities what they should do.

Minister Sisulu must come to her senses. By delegating the handling of her pet project to others, she has acted like a coward. Instead of issuing ultimatums from afar, she needs, above all, to meet with and listen personally to Joe Slovo residents (as well as those of N2 Gateway phase 1). Then it will become clear to her that both communities are united in their demands, and that they can suggest answers to their problems. Both communities are insistent that any attempt to forcibly evict them will be challenged in court, and, if necessary, physically. But there is a way out of this conflict, if Sisulu lives up to her responsibilities.

This article was originally published on Abahlali baseMjondolo -

Martin Legassick is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of the Western Cape. For pictures of the blockade and the police attack, as well as a small archive of Joe Slovo task team press statements click here.

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

Africa appears to plunge from one corporate nightmare to another. Just as we begin to come to terms with the colonially-sponsored corporate conquest of our oil resources, along comes a new wave of 'green' companies turning fertile African lands to Northern 'gold'. Senegalese president and agrofuel promoter Abdoulaye Wade has called this 'a new revolution in Africa'. Others have likened it to 'the new scramble for Africa'.

The first impression of the global agrofuel movement was that of a 'win-win' scenario. The rationale offered by the global North was the reasonable sounding desire to minimize dependence on traditional fuel sources such as oil and coal by investing in renewable energy source from plants. This, the argument continued, will ensure that carbon contained in fossil fuels remains safely stored in the earth, thereby reducing the impact to the earth's climate. Furthermore, fuel crops grown are supposed to provide a 'carbon sink' by capturing and storing carbon dioxide and assisting with balancing concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere. The global South was promised that agrofuel would lead to climate-related benefits and an increase in revenue derived from selling the crops to growing green markets. New evidence has, however, challenged each of these presumptions. In the face of reckless new targets, large-scale land conversion for energy crops, increasing food prices and damning scientific reports, government's actions are increasingly being labeled by environmentalists as fraudulent.

A recent study published by the Africa Biodiversity Network (ABN) provides compelling evidence from Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Benin that the misguided scramble for projects could lead to an environmental and humanitarian disaster on the continent. For instance, Timothy Byakola reports that a plan is underway to convert a third of Uganda's prime rainforest reserve, Mabira Forest, into agricultural land on which sugarcane will be planted for ethanol production. According to Byakola, President Yoweri Museveni has vociferously supported this controversial project, ignoring community opposition to it. The consequences of the deforestation of 7,100 hectares of one of the key water catchment sources for the Nile River and Lake Victoria, and the implications for the communities around Mabira which depend on the forest as a source of livelihood, are potentially enormous.

All the other countries in the study report similar situations in which large tracts of arable land are being sold off to the highest bidders with little regard for the repercussions on local populations livelihoods and food security. Furthermore, an environmentalist from Ethiopia reports that there are plans to introduce the new 'wonder' plant, Jatropha, which will be grown as an agrofuel in fertile lands. Apart from emerging criticism about use of the plant as an agrofuel, this is controversial because Jatropha was promoted precisely because it is a hardy plant that could grow in drier lands and minimize use of the arable land that is needed by local populations.

The ABN report also indicates that there is a lack of engagement within the countries studied on the potential impact on rural communities and on food security. In South Africa, however, the draft strategy on biofuels/agrofuels has been vigorously opposed by a variety of stakeholders who fear that rural communities will be compelled to bequeath their lands over to industrial producers of oilseed rape, maize and soy. The government is currently revising the strategy and it is due for comment again in June next year.

As with carbon trading, the agrofuels issue brings climate justice questions to the fore. In 2004 climate change activist George Monbiot warned that rising demand for biofuels will result in competition for food between cars and people. 'The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are, by definition, richer than those who are in danger of starvation.' He goes on to argue that the reason Northern governments are enthusiastic is because they don't want to upset car drivers. He argues that biofuels 'appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an illusion sustained by the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our national total.' In the latest UK budget announced in June, the tax rebate on biofuels was extended. From March 2008 all suppliers in the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is derived from plants. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of a penalty of 15p (USD.30) per litre sold. The quota is set to increase to 5% in 2010 and by 2050 the government hopes that 33% of fuel will come from crops. The US is setting similar targets. In response to such moves, both Monbiot and the organization Friends of the Earth have called on governments to halt support of agrofuels. In a recent press release Friends of the Earth argue that 'more attention should be focused on reducing energy demand and improving vehicle efficiency, as this will cost less than subsidizing inefficient new sources of supply like agrofuels.' But this will be difficult to achieve with the market growing as it is. According to US research consultancy Clean Edge, the global market for agrofuels is set to grow from $20.5 billion in 2006 to $80.9 billion by 2016. Recent media reports in the South African press suggest that investors in Africa have already pledged billions of dollars for production plants that will derive bioethanol and biodiesel from crops like sugar, maize and soy in Africa. Talk in the North is already focusing on imposing guidelines to mitigate the problems that arise from agrofuels. Ultimately, the challenge for Africa will be to map its own path for sustainable development and not to be swept away by the current wave of potentially ill-conceived 'green' schemes.

* This article first appeared in ISS Today on 13th September 2007.

* Trusha Reddy, Researcher: Corruption and Governance Programme, ISS Cape Town

* Please send comments to or comment online at