Wilton Sankawulo, Sr. argues that it is Liberian artists who substantiate progress, who make it palatable to the average person.

Liberian writers have been accused of failing to produce literature of high quality addressing the burning issues confronting the nation, Africa, and the world. Some of our critics go on to charge that Liberian writers unduly preoccupy themselves with politics as if it were the only subject worth writing about. Three reasons that often feature prominently among the many excuses Liberians give for this failure are the clampdown of our politicians of the old order on press freedom, the nation's lack of colonial experience, and the absence of a vibrant readership due to the high rate of illiteracy in the country. A shortage of writing talent is often excluded from this list because we have many inspired writers, young and old, of the diverse literary genres.

It is true that literature grows substantially where there is freedom of expression. The problem has been our failure to support the production of literature as a priority. Noting that democracy flourishes mostly where the people are literate, President Tubman initiated a universal literacy program in the '50s and the '60s "to make the Republic of Liberia a Reading Liberia." This worthy effort was short-lived and we consequently paid a high price for its demise.

Artists have a rare sensitivity for seeing into the lives of people, with the instinct to identify the underlying causes of their problems, and suggest practical solutions. Liberia does not benefit much from this potential of her artists because artists are not given the needed support to develop their talents. Perhaps it is thought that the solutions to our problems rest entirely with politicians, but politicians can only facilitate progress. Without the backing of the creative imagination, vision, and industry of their people, they cannot accomplish anything substantial.

We have fallen to the depths of ignominy, emerging from which is not simply a matter of political manoeuvring, for most of our politicians are only concerned with their own interests: Once they are not in power, the nation has no peace, and once they come to power they forget the people. But good artists are committed to the truth as revealed to them whether or not it involves their personal interests.

Many of our sister republics that acquired political independence just yesterday are relatively stable and progressive because their artists bear witness of their sources of strength and motivate them to use such sources to improve the quality of their life. When you land on Mohammed Mutala International Airport in Lagos, no one need tell you that you are on African soil because the art works decorating the airport predominantly reflect the African experience. With all their Western education, the Nigerian elite maintain respect for their culture, for they know that culture promotes self-confidence which is the key to the growth and development of the individual as of the nation. The great sacrifice which our African brothers and sisters made to save us from ourselves was chiefly motivated by their love and appreciation for Africa--a phenomenon inspired by the works of their musicians, painters, sculptors, and writers who are forever bringing to light factors that unite them. A Liberian proverb says, “A baby antelope can show its mother a trap.” It is time we swallowed our pride of being the oldest African republic and learn from our younger brothers and sisters who are far ahead of us in development and progress.

Unlike other African countries such as Ghana and Nigeria that maintain viable institutions and programs for developing their arts, Liberia has no organised program or institution for studying and developing its arts. In the sixties, the Ministry of Information, Cultural Affairs, and Tourism tried to redeem the situation by establishing a centre for the arts at Kendejah near Monrovia, but all the emphasis was placed on the performing arts. No effort was ever made to explain or interpret Liberian arts in writing for students and connoisseurs of the arts as well as the general public. It was enough for singers and dancers to entertain guests and government officials. The works of foreign artists continue to decorate our homes; the music heard on our radio stations and the textbooks used in our schools are mostly foreign. No wonder many of our African brothers and sisters do not even consider us as Africans.

It is of great importance that we pay urgent attention to the development of our arts to assure the growth and integration of our society, although the civil war has claimed many of our artists. We have produced great artists whose works could place the nation on the art map of the world. In the absence of comprehensive accounts of their fates, several of our prominent artists were killed in the civil war while others fled the country for refuge. Although his death occurred a year before our civil war commenced, Bai T. Moore, that pioneer of modern Liberian fiction and an ardent promoter of the performing arts, died as a result of the unsettled condition of the country. Shortly after his death, the nation’s most proficient sculptor, Vanjah Richards, was killed by unknown gunmen for political reasons. Tecumsey Roberts, an accomplished musician and entertainer, was murdered during the war. One of our leading singers Miatta Fahnbulleh, resided outside of the country for years, both in search of refuge and an audience. Fatu Gayflor, a distinguished dancer and singer, returned to the country from the Ivory Coast where she had taken refuge during the war, to engage in the uphill struggle of revitalising the performing arts. Ballah, our only comedian, no longer performs due to lack of support. Kenneth Best, a journalist of great renown and newspaper publisher, fled the country to Gambia in search of asylum and to continue with his publishing, although he was most needed at home to help with national reconstruction.

The list could continue endlessly. Indeed, we have numerous professional and budding artists who are ready to spearhead the development of our arts, but they need support, for no aspect of national development comes to fruition spontaneously. The Ministries of Information, Cultural Affairs, and Tourism as well as Education must promote cultural awareness in the country. Indeed, Liberia needs a cultural revolution to unite the people, cultivate in them a spirit of nationhood, release their creative forces for national development, and restore the nation’s good image. Since art and culture have commercial value, their development can be an economic asset rather than a liability. A school for musicians could be built with instructors from such African countries as Nigeria and Ghana, which have made notable progress in art development. Our schools, especially the University of Liberia and Cuttington University College, could maintain arts’ and writers’ workshops for our writers and artists to perfect their talents. The Ministry of Education could either commission established Liberian authors to produce textbooks for our schools or give preference to books written by Liberian authors for the schools’ lists. National awards should be given to the best artists and writers of the year. The government should establish a commission headed by a professional Liberian artist or writer to study the art situation in the country and suggest practical measures to improve it. In addition, as the Ghanaians, Nigerians, and many other African nationals have done, the commission should be empowered to evolve a national Liberian language in addition to English we can identify with. This will abolish the unnecessary shame and embarrassment we experience for being unable to handle the Queen’s English with proficiency.

Liberia has a rich culture but it requires nurturing. It is unfortunate that we perceive our arts as something for the stage alone. Consequently, we have very little knowledge, respect, and appreciation for ourselves and our rich cultural heritage. No wonder we carelessly embarked on a systematic program of self-destruction. Today, we are confronted by a welter of problems which no politician can solve because the key to their solutions lies in self-knowledge and self-motivation which artists are very good at creating. Such problems as corruption, tribalism, mediocrity, and sloth, which have ruined the social, political, and economic fabric of our country, can be solved once we develop our arts to renew our vision and integrate our lives, the only means by which we can achieve a noble destiny.

Our artists, however, should not wait for encouragement or support before committing themselves to the lonely and gruelling hard work and sacrifice required for mastery of their trade. They should courageously give all they have to develop and fulfil their potential and make their productions competitive on the world market, for, in the final analysis, it is quality production that popularises art. Relying principally on inner motivation, our writers must produce first-rate literature; our musicians and dancers must produce their hits; our carvers, weavers, sculptors, and painters must flood the world market with their works. The sacrifice required for such exercise is inestimable because the price of progress requires all that a people can offer.

In the final analysis, it is effective communication that will improve the quality of life in our country. In the West, decision makers have access to their people's analysis and assessment of national issues. No leader however brilliant can solve all the problems of their country without the participation of their people in a search for solutions. Unfortunately, in many African countries the leaders alone must evolve the solutions to all problems, accounting for the prevailing chaos and perennial development problems that beset the continent. This problem is especially true of Liberia. If we continue neglecting the development of the intellectual resources of our country in preference for that of physical infrastructure alone, we will break down tomorrow what we build today. ?

* Wilton Gbakolo Sengbe Sankawulo has published novels, collections of folklore, and non-fiction texts. He has served in the government of Liberia as well as taught English Literature at the University of Liberia and Cuttington College.

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

Ezekiel Pajibo and Emira Woods express their concerns about the proposed U.S. Africa command military structure that could possibly be based in Liberia

Africom – Origins

February 2007, just 2 months after U.S. aerial bombardments began in Somalia, the Bush Administration solidified its militaristic engagement with Africa when the Department of Defense (DoD) announced the creation of a new U.S. Africa Command infrastructure, code name AFRICOM, to “coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the continent.”

President Bush said in a White House statement, “This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa.” Ordering that AFRICOM be created by September 30, 2008, Bush said, “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa” [1]

The general assumption of this policy is that prioritising security through a unilateral framework will somehow bring health, education and development, and that the Department of Defense can best serve as architect and arbiter of U.S. Africa policy. Navy Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, director of the AFRICOM transition team, emphasised that “By creating AFRICOM, the Defense Department will be able to coordinate better its own activities in Africa as well as help coordinate the work of other U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development” [2]

This military driven U.S. engagement with Africa reflects the desperation of the Bush Administration in its efforts to control the increasingly strategic natural resources on the African continent, especially oil, gas and uranium. In what is becoming a multi-polar world with increased competition from China, among other countries, for those resources, the U.S. wants above all else to strengthen its foothold in resource-rich regions of Africa.

Nigeria is the fifth largest exporter of oil to the U.S. The West African region currently provides nearly 20 percent of the U.S. supply of hydrocarbons, up from 15 percent just five years ago and well on the way to a 25-percent share forecast for 2015.[3] While the Bush Administration endlessly beats the drums for its “global war on terror,” the African context underscores that the real interests of the Neoconservatives is less Al Quaeda and more access and control of extractive industries, particularly oil.

Responsibility for operations on the African continent is currently divided among three distinct Commands: U.S. European Command, which has responsibility for nearly 43 African countries; U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya; and U.S. Pacific Command, which has responsibility for Madagascar, the Seychelles and the countries off the coast of the Indian Ocean.[4] All three existing Commands have maintained a relatively low-key presence, often using elite special operations forces to train, equip and work alongside national militaries. [5]
A new Africa Command, based potentially in or near oil-rich West Africa would consolidate these existing operations while also bringing core avenues of international engagement from development (USAID) to diplomacy (State Department) even more in line with U.S. military objectives.
Africom – Liberia?

Africom’s first public links with the West African country of Liberia was through a Washington Post oped written by the African-American businessman Robert L. Johnson, "Liberia's Moment of Opportunity." Johnson forcefully endorsed Africom and urged that it be based in Liberia. Then came an unprecedented allAfrica.com guest column from Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, “Africom Can Help Governments Willing To Help Themselves,” touting Africom’s potential to “help” Africa “develop a stable environment in which civil society can flourish and the quality of life for Africans can be improved.”

Let’s be clear, consolidation and expansion of U.S. military power on the African continent is misguided and could lead to disastrous outcomes.
Remember, Liberia's 26-year descent into chaos started when the Reagan administration prioritised military engagement and funneled military hardware, training and financing to the regime of the ruthless dictator Samuel K. Doe. This military "aid," seen as “soft power” at that time, built the machinery of repression that led to the deaths of an estimated 250,000 Liberians.

Basing Africom in Liberia will put Liberians at risk now and in the future. Liberia’s national threat level will dramatically increase as the country becomes a target of those interested in attacking U.S. assets. This will severely jeopardise Liberia’s national security interests while creating new problems for the country’s fragile peace and its nascent democracy.

The Bush Administration has already been given the exclusive role of restructuring the Armed Forces of Liberia. A U.S. private military contractor, DYNCORP, was tasked to carry out this function. After more than two years in Liberia and an estimated $800,000 budget allocated, DYNCORP has not only failed to train the 2,000 men it was contracted to train, it has also not engaged Liberia’s National Legislature nor civil society in defining the nature, content or character of the new army. DYNCORP allotted itself the prerogative to determine the amount of men/women to be trained and the kind of training it would conduct, (exclusively infantry training), even though Liberia had not elaborated a national security plan nor developed a comprehensive military doctrine. In fact, the creation of Liberia’s new army has been the responsibility of another sovereign state, the United States of America, in total disregard to Liberia’s constitution, which empowers the National Legislature to raise the national army.

This pattern of abuse and incompetence with the U.S. military and its surrogate contractors suggests that if Africom is based in Liberia, the Bush Administration will have an unacceptable amount of power to dictate Liberia’s security interests and orchestrate how the country manages those interests. By placing a military base in Liberia, the U.S. could systematically interfere in Liberian politics in order to ensure that those who succeed in obtaining power are subservient to U.S. national security and other interests. If this is not neo-colonialism, then what is?

The Bush Administration’s new obsession with Africom and its militaristic approach leads to an Africa policy that brings U.S. interference in the affairs of Africa along with more weapons, equipment, and military hardware than schools. By helping to build machineries of repression, these policies reinforce undemocratic practices and reward leaders responsive not to the interests or needs of their people but to the demands and dictates of U.S. military agents. Making military force a higher priority than development and diplomacy creates an imbalance that can encourage irresponsible regimes to use U.S. sourced military might to oppress their own people, now or potentially in the future. These fatally flawed policies create instability, foment tensions, and lead to a less secure world.

What Africa needs least is U.S. military expansion on the continent (and elsewhere in the world). What Africa needs most is its own mechanism to respond to peacemaking priorities. Fifty years ago, Kwame Nkrumah sounded the clarion call for a “United States of Africa.” One central feature of his call was for an Africa Military High Command. Today, as the African Union deliberates continental governance, there could not be a better time to reject U.S. military expansion and push forward African responses to Africa’s priorities.
Africom must be rejected at all cost. Further, Liberia, long suffering the effects of militaristic "assistance" from the United States, would be the worst possible base.

* Ezekiel Pajibo is executive director of the Liberia-based Center for Democratic Empowerment (CEDE).
* Emira Woods is co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.

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

Equatorial Guinea is basking in its new found oil wealth. It is diversifying its economy, modernising its infrastructure and investing in public health and education. But underneath the increased transparency in financial practices, the government is guilty of serious human rights abuses particularly against children and young people.

Equatorial Guinea, a tiny country of 28,000 square kilometres located in Western Africa, has a GDP of US $25.69 billion (2005 est.) and a GDP growth rate (2004 est. average) of 25.7 per cent. With a population of 540,109 (July 2005 est. - same source), its flourishing economy is based on its main natural resources: petroleum and timber.

Because of this, the country has recently become a target of international attention, including from the main world institutions - World Bank (WB) and several United Nations subsidiary bodies; some international organisations – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), European Union (EU); individual state agencies – the United States Department of State; and some big corporations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In recent reports, made public by these observers, the country enjoys 'a spectacular abundance of oil revenues' (OECD); and consequently 'the world’s highest GDP growth between 1995 and 2001' (EU).

According to information provided by governmental sources, 'in 1995, Equatorial Guinea was found to have massive reserves of petroleum. Shortly thereafter, significant reserves of natural gas were also discovered. These findings have generated substantial revenue for Equatorial Guinea (EG), revenue which is being invested in increased transparency in its financial practices, and diversifying its economy, modernising its infrastructure, strengthening its public health system, and promoting education to build a strong foundation for the future of the country'. Impressive as this data appears, the information provided by foreign agencies and country officials should be compared to information provided by locals. Then a clearer picture of the country can be seen.

On February 27, 2007, the website posted a piece of news sent by the news agency EFE with the title: 'Seminar on poverty and conflict resolution opens in EG.' The information says: 'State radio made public today the government’s plan, together with oil companies operating in EG, to organise a seminar to discuss measures to fight poverty and issues related to transparency and technology transfer.'

But not all actions conducted by the government of EG are so public. Many things the government and its ministers get up to receive much less publicity.

For instance, on that very day in the mainland town of Acurenam, a group of children were bathing on the river bank as they always have. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who accompanies President Teodoro Obiang on his pre-electoral tours around the district, took some time off to swim. He ordered some children to wash his car while he went swimming. Afterwards, he noticed his watch and some clothes were missing. The children did not notice anything was missing, since they do not have watches and bathe with only their shorts on as that is all they have.

The deputy minister conducted himself in private that day the same way he conducts himself in his governmental affairs; he threatened to break all the children’ legs if the watch was not returned. When it wasn’t, he took them all in their wet clothes to the police station where some children were tortured, according to reports of the Comisión Ejecutiva Nacional de Convergencia Para la Democracia Social (CPDS) - press release, February 26, 2007 http://www.asodegue.org/febrero27071.htm.

16 children were detained. Most of the children were 15 years old, others were 17, eight, and the youngest was five. A similar number managed to escape. This means that 30 children were able to share in the spoils of the robbery – as a best case scenario: assuming they actually did take the watch.

Then, they could still count on a good US$60 by selling the watch on the black market. This would work out as US$2 per child. Ironically, two dollars a day is the exact amount which most people who don’t happen to be governmental ministers live on in Africa, as estimated by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) scholarly reports.

In spite of this, these children with US$2 each have more than enough to wander through mud-covered streets, to jump over open-air sewage pipes and to play count the few traffic lights and signs. Those are the only games they can play in a land without libraries, book stores and civic centres, or any real public services.

General conditions in EG have been disastrous for its most vulnerable and young population. 44.2 per cent of the population is aged under 15. According to the UNDP Human Development Report, 56 per cent do not have access to clean water. 47 per cent have no proper sanitation infrastructure. In addition, 19 per cent of children under five are not an acceptable weight for their age (1995-2003). 65 per cent of births are not attended by qualified personnel (1995-2003). The country has 25 physicians per 100,000 inhabitants (1990-2004) to deal with these health problems and many others, such as malaria, other tropical illnesses, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

A day out with the deputy minister is not that expensive for the children of Acurenam, especially if you take into account the free transport to the police station, threats, beatings and torture. All these services are covered by the Minister and President Obiang, a very generous leader as we can see. None of this is news to the US ambassador either.

On March 8, 2006, the US Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices in EG states that 'Members of the security forces tortured, beat, and otherwise abused suspects, prisoners, and opposition politicians. Further, security forces continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily and with impunity. Security forces often detained individuals "on orders from superiors" without any further legal process' http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61567.htm.

In other words, the state department quite accurately predicts the deputy minister’s behaviour a year beforehand. This is not a great mental feat since anyone who has seen or, worse, suffered 'conflict resolution' under Obiang, can similarly predict such things. This is something all embassies accredited to Malabo know only too well. The Department of State tells of other similar abuses of power:

'Policemen violently attacked the young people and those accompanying them, hitting them with the butts of their handguns, causing substantial injury to several of them, and leaving some girls in the group undressed in public. At least 10 were detained on police premises. They were released one week later.'

According to some foreign sources, never mind government’s sources, it seems that Equatorial Guinea is moving in the last years, in particular during the oil boom years, slowly but soundly, to higher standards of social and political development. Without doubt, credit has to be given to meetings held by EG ministers and UN high officials, business done by oil companies and cooperation programmes carried out by Western governments. Obiang is also a strong contributor to the wellbeing of his countrymen, mainly through his trips to the United States, France and Spain, where he always finds support for his policies.

But above all, most of the credit rests with foreign journalists. Their almost constant press coverage, and never ending courage to stand up to the oil companies have helped make Equatorial Guinea the household name around the world it has obviously become.

It is a shame that the children of Acurenam are so ungrateful and spend their time stealing from defenceless deputy ministers. Let us just hope that police station visits and their broken legs help them appreciate all that is done by Obiang, his government, and the international press in their name. Then, maybe in years to come they will be able to live on US$2.10 a day.

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

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

The English translation of the article by the author was reviewed by David Anderson, University of Oxford.

This piece was originally published in Cross Currents: http://www.crosscurrents.org.

The idea of the grand debate remains everything but grand in so far as the debate is seen as an imposition by our leaders, to the exclusion of the people, especially the masses, and of course we know that women constitute the bulk.

When I first heard about it, I asked myself a couple of questions which I did not get answers to. First, I asked why it is qualified by the adjective, ‘grand’ when there is really nothing grand about it in either scope or substance.

The idea of the grand debate remains everything but grand in so far as the debate is seen as an imposition by our leaders to the exclusion of the people, especially the masses, and of course we know that women constitute the bulk. There can be nothing grand about the debate so long as its train is moving, and the people, both women and men, are not carried along with it.

One of the next questions I asked myself was: why should we be having this debate in the first place? I would have thought that the question 'to be or not to be' on regional integration is as good as answered; and the questions remain ‘when’ and ‘how’? The question should not be: whether or not. It is a given, and there is no going back. It is a situation of forward ever, backward never. Unlike the OAU, the AU's envisioning for Africa of a peaceful, united and prosperous continent driven by its people lays claim to be a union of African people, and not just a club of heads of states. But how far this is true, we are yet to see.

Our leaders did not stop at theorising. They stepped further by creating new organs like the Pan African Parliament (PAP) and the Economic and Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) through which the voice of the people will be projected to provide room for popular participation by the people in its activities.

The adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights in 1999 signalled one of the preliminary and important steps towards including African peoples, including women, in deciding their own affairs. This was further elaborated with the signing of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa in 2003, and its coming into force in 2005.

The difference between the OAU and the AU is also seen in the AU's highlighting of human rights, which includes gender equality. This is evidenced by its excision of the clause of non-interference in the internal affairs of member nations, for which the OAU was notorious, and also the adoption of the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa of 2004. But the extent to which these have made a difference in the lives of African women, if at all, is not clear.

Speaking of the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality, it struck me that when a document is referred to as being solemn, it simply depicts the deep sincerity underlying its signing and adoption. In all the AU documents I have come across, it is only this very important document that, paradoxically, bears this adjective. I stand to be corrected. The document could anyway have been referred to simply as a ‘declaration on Gender Equality in Africa’, given the little or no attention paid to it by our leaders, thereby connoting neither deepness nor sincerity.

But come to think of it, when our leaders signed the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality, no one held guns to their heads. They were not cornered, threatened or blackmailed into making commitments to it, leaving one wondering why they are now paying lip-service to it. Why they are dragging their feet and why are we having such a hard time getting them to implement it? At the recently concluded G8 meeting in Heilingendamm, our leaders accused the G8 of reneging on their promises to Africa, but many Africans sadly do not see our leaders in the same light.

Not only is the low level inclusion of women noted in the grand debate, the inclusion of the masses generally is rather more than a little disappointing. If most of the citizens are not included in the debate, how then is this situation different from what it was centuries ago, when our forefathers ceded our entire land and livelihood to the colonial masters for mere ‘shoestrings’. Women were not consulted then, as we are not now. How many peoples and groups have had the opportunity to deliberate and contribute to this ‘grand debate'?

Analysing the official AU study on the proposed union government, gender was mentioned in passing as an area of focus, but did not carry with it any substance. It was not clear what is to be done with respect to gender. As a matter of urgency, African women want this to be broken down so as to be sure we are not being ‘offered’ another white elephant. If gender is a crosscutting issue, as it is often said, and all the areas of priority would be viewed through gender lenses, this should not just be done, but be seen to be done.

Apart from African women, civil society organisations should be included to make the debate meaningful. It is recognised that one of the causes of collapse of some previous regional integration arrangements, e.g. the East African Community (1967-1977), was the low level of involvement of civil society in their activities buttressing the fact that the effectiveness and sustainability of regional integration in Africa will be ensured through sustained political will and involvement of the people in the continental integration processes.

Civil society organisations have been challenged severely on what and who gave them the mandate to represent the people, who elected them and what the basis is of their legitimacy. But when patients are referred from government’s hospitals, due to inadequate facilities and expertise or both, to Nairobi Women’s Hospital, no one raises the question of legitimacy.

The AU has secluded itself in this debate so much so that even the legislative authorities at national level and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are left behind in the grand debate, despite the fact that Africa’s integration process has always been government-led. Yet the latter are supposed to be the building blocks on which the foundations of the union are based.

It is essential that involvement in the debate on union government should not stop at jaw-jawing, but include considering the peoples’ interests and opinions, taking them on board, and basing them on the strategic area of focus on shared values and common interests.

They should not stop at just soliciting public participation and opinion, but should also find ways of exciting them, just like it is done in voter education before an election, where political parties state their manifestos, who is contesting and what the electorate stands to benefit.

It is noted that there has been a dearth of information from the media, both of the process leading to it, and also of the debate itself. But that is understandable, such is the inactivity on this question for the media to cover widely and deeply.

I am sure when our leaders started thinking and deliberating on these issues, right from the beginning, they did not foresee that it was not going to be a thorny path. This path hopefully will be in a smooth and straight road. Yet they should remember that they can only get there if they remain dedicated to the cause of the journey and do not waver.

We can see from the experience of the EU that there certainly will be conflicts. We should then, even at this formatory stage, begin to think of the conflict prevention and management that should put mechanisms we want in place without waiting for them to erupt, and we start applying the fire brigade method.

* Roselynn Musa works with African Women’s Development and Communications Network, FEMNET, Nairobi, Kenya.

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

Steve Fake and Kevin Funk argue that in calling for UN intervention as a solution to the Darfur conflict, the Save Darfur movement is not only ineffectual, but is inadvertently propping up the US government’s contradictory posturing between on the one hand condemning Khartoum, and on the other, praising the Sudanese government for its support of the 'War on Terror'. In the end, it is doing nothing.

The United States has substantial ties with the Sudanese government. However, buoyed by a large grassroots movement to 'Save Darfur', Washington has also strongly condemned Khartoum for the crisis in the beleaguered region. The contradiction is striking – on one hand, the United States highly prizes Khartoum for its key role in intelligence-sharing in the supposed 'War on Terror'; yet simultaneously Washington has taken the lead in declaring (for domestic political reasons) that the Sudanese government is carrying out 'genocide' in Darfur. Adding fuel to the fire, Sudan is an area of great strategic interest to the United States, as it seeks to both prevent the consolidation of Chinese influence in Africa, and gain control over Sudan's substantial oil reserves.

It is within this framework of contradictory posturing and US geopolitical motives that are less than humanitarian that the activist movement addressing Darfur operates. Spearheaded by the 'Save Darfur Coalition', a collection of high-profile human rights and civil society groups, much activism has been dedicated to prodding Washington into action, generally through supporting the deployment of UN 'peacekeeping forces'; some commentators have called directly for 'humanitarian intervention' in Darfur. Yet given the strategic and hegemonic interests at stake for the United States in Sudan, salient questions arise about how activists can circumvent Washington's machinations and pursue a truly humanitarian agenda.

Concerns about the coalition

For its part, the Save Darfur Coalition has often legitimated concerns that it is patently unaware or even supportive of Washington's plans for the region, and ignorant of fundamental issues of the conflict. Most prominently, the coalition has at times been guilty of sidetracking Darfurian and Muslim activists, describing the conflict in harshly oversimplified ethnic terms, receiving official sanction from and doling out praise to the Bush administration, and failing to consider Washington's potential interest in a UN deployment or 'humanitarian intervention' – or the potentially dangerous outcomes of such actions. The very size and prominence of the movement is a reflection of its political harmony with centres of power in the United States. Accordingly, while doing much to propel this humanitarian catastrophe onto the national radar, the movement as a whole has demonstrated considerable myopia in both its actions and rhetoric.

This is not to say, however, as suggested by the tone in some left-wing commentary, that just because many Darfur activists have a naïve credence in US benevolence, and fail to recognise that Washington clearly has ulterior motives at stake, that the question of aiding Darfurians should be tossed aside. As the commentator Justin Podur summarises, the real world demands not allowing genuine concern for victims of atrocities to be transmuted by interventionist hypocrites into apologetics for an imperialism that will ultimately produce more victims of more atrocities. But those same victims deserve better than mere denunciations of intervention and its apologists as hypocrites and warmongers.

There are several measures that can be taken with minimal danger of promoting US foreign policy objectives. The extent to which these steps have not been pursued is itself a clear indication of how much substance lays behind Washington's fiery rhetoric on Darfur.

To take but the most elementary point of departure, one would expect that if actually concerned with Darfur, the United States and the rest of the West more generally would shower humanitarian funds onto the aid organisations operating in the region. This, of course, is consonant with the wishes of Darfur activist groups, and is the bare minimum that could be expected of the munificent leaders of Western civilization, renowned as they are throughout commercial media and our intellectual culture as committed to alleviating suffering around the globe.

Returning to Planet Earth, one finds the relief agencies in a similar situation to the Darfurian people – teetering on the edge of collapse. Due to insufficient financial support, services to displaced victims such as health care have been restricted, 'feeding centers have had to be closed, food cannot be distributed, staff are being reduced, [and] teachers in camps are no longer being paid'. At one point, the World Food Programme was forced to cut its food rations in Sudan by half, due to funding shortages – especially serious since the UN estimates that there are some 4,000,000 Darfurians 'in need of aid to survive'.

Impasse over peacekeepers

As frequently recounted in the press, the UN and the West, led by the United States, are at an impasse with Khartoum over its refusal to allow in a force of around 20,000 UN peacekeepers. (Though the latest news is that Sudan has assented to a joint UN-AU force of 17,000-19,000 troops, Khartoum's repeated history of obstructing the implementation of agreements warrants considerable scepticism of this development.)Tellingly, less noted has been the West's position towards the African Union (AU) forces already on the ground in Darfur. Again, if the heated rhetoric from Western capitals contained any meaningful shreds of reality, the AU troops should enjoy boundless support–especially from those declaring 'genocide' in the region.

Yet instead of being met with jubilation and generosity by Western leaders, the AU's own call for its forces to be increased to 21,000 has been greeted by silence, beyond empty moral platitudes, a demonstration of how seriously Darfurian lives are taken in the West. Further exposing the hypocrisy, the former UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Sudan, Jan Pronk, has made the common sense request for the international community to use the funds that would be spent on a UN force – he estimates between US$1 billion and US$1.5 billion to aid the AU peacekeepers. Again, such proposals are studiously ignored, once more demonstrating Washington's unwillingness to actually aid Darfurians.

For its part, the larger Save Darfur movement has generally failed to emphasise the issue of fully funding the AU, demanding more prominently a UN deployment; or, as some have urged, a 'humanitarian intervention'. Yet such advocacy fails to account for several key realities, even beyond the stark implausibility of the United States supporting international action for non-selfish motives.

Even if well-intentioned, it is entirely possible that an intervening force would cause more harm than it could potentially alleviate, especially given Khartoum's disapproval of its deployment, and the possibility of an insurgent movement rising against it. Crowds of Sudanese have demonstrated against a UN presence, and the contention that UN forces would turn Sudan into 'another Iraq' resonates strongly in the region for reasons that should be clear, with Pronk noting that many in Khartoum fear that al-Qaida would be drawn into the country.

Ground invasion nightmare

Indeed, disaster scenarios are not difficult to imagine. Gareth Evans, president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group, observes that 'On all available evidence, a ground invasion would not only be a nightmare to effectively implement, but would lead to the collapse of the extremely fragile north-south CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement], and make impossible the work of the humanitarian agencies in Darfur' – an outcome with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This conception of a UN presence in Sudan also ignores a fundamental element in this, or any 'humanitarian' mission – that sending in troops might stabilise the situation, but without a working political agreement to enforce it will not necessarily lead to any sort of just, long-term outcome to the underlying issues. For example, Pronk, who was ordered to leave the country by Khartoum in October 2006, rightly comments that a 'Military presence in order to keep the peace is a condition, not a solution in itself'.

Aside from the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), which was heavily backed by the United States and deeply unpopular amongst Darfurians, remarkably little interest has been shown in developing a political solution by the United States, nor the Save Darfur movement, which has instead latched onto its cure-all of UN troops. Commenting that those seeking an intervention 'are suffering from a salvation delusion', Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard and a director of Justice Africa, London, criticises the framing of the entire debate about Darfur, arguing that:'A political settlement has been completely overlooked or downplayed by the US. The whole debate has gone off on a red herring—UN troops.'

Darfurians deserve better than a potentially ill-conceived UN intervention, which may plunge the region into further chaos and serve as a vehicle for US geopolitical interests. Their suffering also merits more than the crocodile tears being shed by Washington, or an activist movement which has done much to bring attention to Darfur, but has largely failed to realise that a Western-backed force would not be equivalent to 'the armed wing of Amnesty International'.

Other paths to pursue

In addition to funding relief organisations, which is evidently of less importance to Washington than saber rattling, there are other paths to pursue, if one cares to seek them. Activists must push the West to support negotiations between Khartoum and Darfurian rebel groups, instead of advocating an agreement such as the DPA that does not reflect popular demands.

Pressure should be applied on rich countries to compel them to grant asylum to Darfurian refugees. Washington should be obliged to pay reparations to the people of Sudan for bombing the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998, an attack which killed perhaps 'several tens of thousands', and supporting Khartoum in the 1980s as it waged a bloody civil war that would claim over 2,000,000 lives.

Finally, the West cannot be allowed to continue hampering the AU forces in Darfur; these troops require full funding, a broadened mandate, and a proper opportunity to halt the violence in the region – not to be completely sidelined for the 'red herring' of UN troops. The fact that these steps have not been taken is sufficient to understand Washington's true position vis-à-vis Sudan–a reality that should not be lost on Darfur activists.

For additional commentary, please see

Washington DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, June 20, 2007.

Web location: http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/4314

* Steve Fake and Kevin Funk are social justice activists who are currently writing a book about Darfur. They maintain a blog with their commentary at http://confrontingempire.blogspot.com/. They are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus.

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

Horrific acts of violence were committed against women and children during and after the wars in the Great Lakes region. Dieu-Donné Wedi Djamba points to the pain and other injustices experienced by survivors in order to sensitise the regional communities and authorities to become involved with the healing process of the thousands of women and children 'so the words "never again" can have a meaning.

We want our dignity back! Time to wipe tears and heal wounds of women and girls, victims of wars in the Great Lakes region.

All societies that have faced mass trauma and violence have certain things in common, including the matter of perpetrators, bystanders and victims. Perpetrators usually argue that they obeyed orders; and that their actions were not of their own volition. Bystanders usually claim ignorance; that they did not know these things were happening; that they were not given proper information; and therefore, that they are not accountable. Most important are the victims, most of whom want to heal; and some of whom may even be prepared to forgive. [1] In brief, all three groups need a space in the new post-conflict era, in order to live peacefully vis-à-vis society and their own consciences.

But in the Great Lakes region, while the perpetrators and bystanders are living peacefully and comfortably, [2] [3] the victims, particularly women and girls, continue to experience the same nightmares. They have paid a heavy price for the deadly wars, which have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, refugees and displacements, mass human rights violations such as rape, torture, and other atrocities, burning of houses and the looting of national resources by the different armed groups. [4] An aftermath does not seem to exist for them. Indeed, the post-conflict period is the equivalent of the period of the actual conflict.

This paper highlights the pain and other injustices experienced by women and girls during and after the wars in the Great Lakes region. The aim is to sensitise the Great Lakes region community as a whole and the region’s authorities in particular to be involved in the healing process of the thousands of women and girl victims of wars in the region; so that the words ‘never again’ can have a meaning.

The time of hurt

Although having different roots in each Great Lakes country, wars are the main time during which women and girls have been deeply hurt. Indeed, rapes, abductions, tortures, mutilations or burying women and girls alive were different strategies used by belligerents in the different wars which have affected the Great Lakes region over decades.

Protected as a weak sex, women and girls become a weapon for belligerents to destroy both enemy groups and civilians. In this regard, Amnesty International USA [5] has pointed out that rape, sometimes by groups as large as 20 men, has become a hallmark of the conflict, with armed factions often using it as part of a calculated strategy to destabilise opposition groups, undermine fundamental community values, humiliate the victims and witnesses, and secure control through fear and intimidation.

Louise Nzigire, a social worker, at Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, stated that rape has been a cheap and simple weapon for all parties in the war, more easily obtainable than bullets or bombs: ‘This violence was designed to exterminate the population’, [6] she added. Juliane Kippenberg, co-author of a 2002 Human Rights Watch report The War within the War on sexual violence against women and girls in the eastern DRC, told IRIN: ‘A lot of women [in eastern DRC] were raped in front of their children. They will be affected.’[7]

Moreover, some survivors of genocide in Rwanda grieve that the rapists told them that they had been allowed to live, but only to die of sadness.[8] But rape is not the only component of the nightmare experienced by women and girls in the region. Sexual slavery, [9] abductions, mutilations, [10] tortures and killings [11] number among this macabre series.

The post-conflict situation

After being deeply affected by several years of conflicts, the Great Lakes region is moving towards peace. There are signs such as the elections in the DRC [12], the peace talks between Ugandan government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) [13], the peace talks in Burundi between government and the Forces for National Liberation (FNL), the last Hutu rebel group which refused to be involved to the peace process [14]and the Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes region, signed in December in Nairobi by 12 countries of the Great Lakes region.[15]

The end of every conflict is the beginning of a new life and a moment of rising hope for many victims of the conflicts. But while others are celebrating the new beginning, women and girls are still carrying the heavy weight of tears, sadness and sorrow. A rape victim in the eastern DRC town of Goma told IRIN [16] how she and her eight-year old daughter were raped by ‘military men’ in front of her husband. The husband later rejected the woman, leaving her deal with her trauma alone.

Jeannette Umurerwa, a widow survivor of genocide in Rwanda said ‘… our past is so sad. We are not understood by society...We are not protected against anything… Widows are without their own families, no homes, or money. We become crazy. We aggravate people with our problems. We are the living dead’.[17]

Furthermore, Consolata, 38, also a genocide survivor and widow says that re-marrying would be impossible for as long as she lives. ‘I was raped several times during the 1994 genocide and I contracted HIV/Aids’, she added.[18]

Moreover, while some are carrying physical and psychological wounds of conflicts, others are experiencing violence in their daily life. Many cases of rape and other violence committed by militia and national army or police against women and girls are reported.

In this regard, Monuc (United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo/Mission des Nations Unies en République Démocratique du Congo), the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC [19], reported that the human rights situation in the country continues to deteriorate, as the army and police perpetrate acts of violence against civilians, and the number of reported rapes surges. Monuc also stated that there have been numerous cases in which Congolese soldiers and police have summarily executed and raped civilians, in some cases with apparent impunity. In western Bandundu Province, a policeman with the National Congolese Police reportedly shot a 60-year old woman when delivering a summons to her daughter who had been raped by another policeman.

Other victims are facing stigmatisation in their society. Human Rights Watch [20] has pointed out that the situation of rape victims is made worse by the stigma that is attached to such violence. In many cases these women and girls are ostracised to the margins of society. In some cases husbands have rejected their wives on learning they had been raped, sometimes on the pretext that the woman must have consented to the sexual relations. Thus the word ‘aftermath’ is an empty one for these victims.

The healing process

The pain and sorrow ruining the daily life of the women and girl victims of wars in the Great Lakes region push them to scream bitterly ’we want our dignity back!’ – the dignity which was taken away from them by rapists, tortures, killers, stigmatisation or insults.

It is time to wipe away the tears and heal the wounds. All those injustices women and girls in the Great Lakes region suffer must be corrected so that the long mourning they bear can end. To do this, those responsible for the mass abuses have to be held accountable in order to break the cycle of violence against women and girls, to send a deterrent message to the potential perpetrators, and to heal the wounds of victims. The second step will be the granting of reparations to the women and girl victims of wars.

Accountability for the perpetrators

Accountability for human rights violations is an important instrument in breaking the cycle of violence and impunity. It is an indispensable component of the process of healing the wounds.[21] In this regard, Alex Boraine argues that legal prosecutions have at least three additional advantages: firstly, prosecutions in most cases prevent high-ranking perpetrators from returning to positions of authority; secondly, tribunals and special courts aim to punish those who bear the greatest responsibility for human rights violations and thus assist in breaking the cycle of collective reprisals; and thirdly, due process avoids summary justice.[22]

In the post-conflict era, accountability for mass human rights abuses can be held through a judicial and a non-judicial process. Indeed, mass human rights violation occurred with the involvement of numerous of individuals. Thus it becomes almost impossible to set a trial for all those who were involved. Only those who bear heavy responsibility can stand trial. But still, it is possible to hold all perpetrators accountable by pressing them to recognise their wrongdoing and to show remorse. This can be done through a non-judicial forum, such as a truth and reconciliation commission.

Through a legacy of conflicts and repressive regimes, the Great Lakes region countries are characterised by a judicial system which is in a state of disarray,[23] or which does not guarantee a fair trial. Meanwhile in many of the countries where truth and reconciliation has not already completely failed, as it has in the DRC,[24] truth commission forums are still debatable.

However, the presence of a special tribune such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the last decision taken by Rwandan government to abolish the death penalty [25] are strong signs of the fight against impunity. Indeed, the abolition of the death penalty from its judiciary arsenal will enable Rwanda to capitalise on the fight against impunity. Countries that reject the death penalty will be able to extradite to Rwanda exiles responsible for genocide and also to carry on with the trial after the ICTR ends in 2010.

But if a step is made in the fight against impunity through the Rwandan case, the Great Lakes region still has a long way to go to end impunity. Indeed, in the DRC, despite the mass human rights violations committed during and after the wars, only some isolated cases of trials are mentioned, while many accused of mass human right abuse are awarded in name of peace.[26] In Uganda, the population is waiting for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate abuses in the government army[27], which is accused of having committed many atrocities in northern Uganda. While in Burundi, an agreement about creating a special criminal tribunal [28] for mass human rights violations was reached, though more still has to be done to establish it. A boost to the fight against violence against women and girls may be expected from the UN, which chose the end of impunity for violence against women and girls as theme for the International Women Day 2007.[29]

Reparations

Granting reparations for past abuses will not bring the dead back to life. Nor will it cancel out the harm already suffered by victims. But it will provide them with some relief.

In this regard, Margaret Mathew[30] argues that reparations should be paid to victims as a form of redress to demonstrate that the state recognises the harm done against them. She has argued for broader rehabilitation programme dedicated to healing communities and strengthening the nation’s social-political fabric.

Indeed, women and girls who have been raped and otherwise sexually abused have been psychologically damaged as well as physically injured by these crimes. Many will never fully recover. A significant number of women and girls have become pregnant as a result of being raped. An unknown number have been infected with HIV, dramatically altering their future lives, livelihoods and prospects.[31]

Therefore, the granting of reparations to those who suffered from past abuses boosts the healing process of their wounds. But to be efficient, the reparation process for women and girls victims of violence in the Great Lakes region must be made at two levels: direct and indirect reparations.

Direct reparations will include the granting of money or rebuilding of housing as compensation, and free medical treatment for those who suffer by trauma or any disease such as HIV/Aids. In this regard, the establishment of a special fund by the Great Lakes region countries is a step to be applauded. This fund can be used to pay compensation to the victims of wars. Indirect reparations will include capacity building for all the victims to empower them to face many challenges arising in their post-conflict life.

Furthermore, there is a need for the Great Lakes region countries to work together in policy making around gender issues. A common policy for all violence against women and girls will show real political will not only to end the current and prevent future violence. This step can also boost the healing process of current victims by seeing through the words ‘never again’ to violence against women and girls.

Conclusion

After being a war torn and deeply devastated region through several years of conflicts, the Great Lakes region is moving towards peace. But while others are celebrating the new beginning, women and girls are still carrying the heavy weight of tears and sadness.

It is time to heal their wounds and to wipe away their tears. The long mourning must end. To do so, those responsible for violence against women girls have to be held accountable. Reparations have to be granted to those who have experienced harm.

Thus the word ‘aftermath’ may have a meaning for all the women and girl victims of war in the Great Lakes region.

* Dieu-Donné Wedi Djamba is a lawyer (advocate) at the Lubumbashi Bar association in the DRC, an independent consultant in transitional justice, a human rights activist, an assistant lecturer in a college of law in Lubumbashi in the DRC and a writer.

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

References: see link below.

The recent national strike in Nigeria ended after only four days. Femi Aborisade argues that despite the sudden surrender of the unions, working class people have shown that they are a force to reckon in the process of policy formulation and implementation.

The four-day general strike in Nigeria has once again demonstrated the potentials of the working class to influence the course of history. President Umaru Yar’Adua admitted this much when he said the strike ‘wreaked havoc on economy and our people’ (24 June 2007). Government offices, private companies, petrol stations, ports, airports, schools and hospitals closed down. Commercial vehicles were off the road and major highways became football pitches for youths. Oil exports in all terminals except one were prevented. In short, the strike ‘paralysed’ Nigeria.

While President Umaru mourned the paralysing effects of the strike on crude oil exports, ordinary people saw in the strike an opportunity to express a striving to free themselves from the shackles of poverty. Over 70 per cent of Nigerians, about 98,000,000 people of a population of 140,000,000, live in extreme poverty, with less than a dollar a day. In the midst of pervasive poverty, former President Obasanjo, in the twilight of his tenure, took the following actions: The prices of petrol, kerosene and diesel per litre were increased by ten Naira (^10.00); petrol (PMS) was raised from ^65 to ^75, kerosene (DPK) from ^54 to ^64 and diesel (AGO) from ^54 to ^64. This amounted to an increase of over 15 per cent in the price of petrol/litre, and about 19 per cent increase in the prices of diesel and kerosene. VAT rate was raised by 100 per cent, from 5-10 per cent. In addition, six companies, including the Port Harcourt Refining Company Ltd (PHRC) and Kaduna Refining and Petrolchemical Company Limited were sold to foreign and local private companies without resolving labour concerns. Public sector employees were also agitating for payment of 15 per cent increase in basic pay, which the former President had granted but never implemented.

The poor perceived government actions as punitive measures to compound their agony. The payroll tax, called PAYE (Pay-As-You-Earn) has recently been changed to 10 per cent of gross pay instead of the previous policy of taxing only basic pay, after making allowances for dependants, children and the aged, etc. There are also the following taxes: National Housing Fund (NHF), 2.5 per cent of salary; Pension deductions, 7.5 per cent; National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), 5 per cent. These add up to 25 per cent of the employee’s pay. Workers earning poverty pay would be hard hit by the increase in VAT because they spend the bulk of their earnings on consumption items. Increases in the prices of petroleum products automatically cause increases in the prices of all other goods and services.

The process of increasing the prices of petroleum products was illegal. The Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPRA) was established by the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPRA) Act No. 8 of 2003. Section 2 of the Act provides for the membership of the PPRA Governing Board, which includes representatives of organized labour. Section 7 empowers the Board to determine the pricing policy of petroleum products. Paragraph 1 of the 1st Schedule to the Act prescribes that the Board shall take decisions by majority support. The Board never met. It was the Secretariat of the PPRA that unilaterally increased the prices of petroleum products. The increases were therefore illegal.

Besides, there was no economic rationale for the price increases. Nigeria currently produces an average of about 2.6 mbd (of crude oil) and exports about 2.3mbd. (Udo, 2007: C7). The 2007 budget was prepared on the basis of a benchmark value price of US$30 per barrel. With the price in the international market hovering between US$65 and US$70 per barrel, this translates to between US$35 and US$40 per barrel going into the excess crude oil account.

The privatisation of public enterprises, including the sale of refineries, violates the current Constitution of Nigeria, which provides that wealth shall not be concentrated in a few hands and that the State, not the private sector, shall manage the major sectors of the economy. [Section 16 (4)].

The strike was therefore declared to achieve the following: reversal of the N10 increases in the prices of petrol, diesel and kerosene; removal of 100 per cent increase in VAT, from 5-10 per cent; payment of 15 per cent increase in basic pay for public sector workers, and review of the sale of refineries and power generating plants.

The labour movement gave a 14-day ultimatum, which government treated with levity. In fact, spokespersons of the regime threatened that even if labour embarked on strikes and mass protests for ten years nothing would change (The Guardian, 19 June 2007: 2). The Government declared the strike illegal following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in an earlier case where the court held that the Nigeria Labour Congress had no right to call out workers on strike against general economic and political decisions of the Federal Government because such have nothing to do with breach of individual contracts of employment with various employers as envisaged in the Trade Disputes Act.

While the Nigerian labour law restricts the right to strike and the judiciary goes ahead to declare strike action against general economic and political policies illegal, Nigeria is a member of the International Labour Organization, which recognises the right to strike as a fundamental right. The Abolition of Forced Labour Convention No. 105 of 1957 prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour ‘as a punishment for having participated in strikes’ (Article 1 sub-paragraph [d]). Also, the Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation No. 92 of 1951 states in paragraph 7 that no provision of the Recommendation ‘may be interpreted as limiting, in any way whatsoever, the right to strike’. As a member of the international community, it is incumbent on any country that seeks to acquire the status of a civilised state to give effect to resolutions emanating from an organisation to which it belongs.

In spite of all the pre-strike arrogance of government officials and spokespersons, less than 24 hours to the strike, in a desperate effort to avert the strike, government offered the following concessions: increase in VAT rate from 5-10 per cent was revoked; 15 per cent salary increase to be effected for federal employees with effect from 1 January 2007; the N10 per litre increase on the prices of kerosene and diesel was reversed and reduction of the N10 per litre increase in the pump head price of petrol to N5 per litre.

Labour accepted all the concessions but one, insisting on reversal of the price of petrol/litre to the old rate of N65. The strike then continued until it was called off suddenly with effect from the midnight of 23 June 2007, without winning the demand. Labour capitulated on the basis of a letter by President Umaru Yar’Adua promising not to increase the price of petrol for the next one year. In effect, petrol will continue to sell at N70 per litre. The other concessions contained in President Yar’Adua’s letter included an undertaking to set up expert committees, which would include representatives of labour to examine the issues of petroleum pricing mechanism as well as sale of refineries and power generating plants. Government also undertook not to take any disciplinary action against any worker participating in the strike.

Daily Sun (25 June 2007: 6) explains that the role of traditional rulers, particularly the Sultan of Sokoto, was decisive in the sudden capitulation by the top labour leadership. However, there was a division even within the top leadership. As Sunday Punch (24 June 2007:13) reported, a section of the TUC leadership had threatened to call a Press Conference ‘to express a few reservations on the agreement labour reached with government’. Working class youths were angry about the sudden back down by labour leadership: ‘why embark on strike by rejecting the N70/litre price of petrol which government had offered in the bid to prevent the strike taking off, only to turn round to accept what had been rejected?, they questioned.

Dress Rehearsal Strikes

The anger of working class youths against the sudden surrender by national labour leadership is understandable. Weeks and months preceding the strike, there had been series of threats of strike and actual strikes, as dress rehearsals, preparatory to the nationwide strike. These included strikes by Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) workers, Electricity workers, Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASSU), and protests against the controversial 2007 general elections organized by the Labour and Civil Society Coalition (LASCO). There were also sabotage activities, bombings and kidnappings by militant groups and mass protests in the Niger Delta against exploitative oil companies as well as threats by self determination groups in the South Eastern part of Nigeria to disrupt the hand over program to a new President if key self determination leaders were not released from detention.

What the foregoing shows is that the working class, in several sectors, had been infuriated and imbued with a fighting spirit to protect jobs and improve their overall living standards. That opportunity to express their anger and reverse the privatization process has temporarily been botched by the shocking compromise and sudden strike call off. But it would be a temporary set back. On the basis of a system of exporting crude oil and importing refined products, we do not need a soothsayer to predict that crises lie ahead.

Gains

Regardless of the weaknesses of the strike, the working class has shown that based on a united force of organisations of the poor, it is a force to reckon with in the process of policy formulation and implementation. The strike represents a message to the ruling class that labour will not just slavishly accept attacks on its rights without a fight. No matter how marginal, the reductions in VAT and prices of petroleum products are gains that could not have been won without a fight. Also, contrary to the threat of applying the ‘no work no pay’ rule, one of the agreements in ending the strike was that no worker would be penalized for having participated in the strike.

Weaknesses

However, the basis of the united platform upon which the strike was called was not brought to bear on the strike sufficiently. Whereas the Federal Government made a concession to implement the 15 per cent increase in basic pay, similar commitment was not extracted from the state Governments. This resulted in the continuation of the strike by State organs of the unions in states like Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, etc - after the nationwide action had been called off (See for example Nigerian Tribune, 26 June 2007: 5). Similarly, ASUU, which had started its strike three months before the nationwide strike, had to continue its strike until 1 July because the agreements reached did not touch on their concerns. In the same vein, though workers in the Niger Delta participated in the strike, some militant groups in the sub region openly dissociated themselves from the nationwide strike on the ground that the plight of the Niger Delta people had never been the concern of organized labour.

Reactive or Proactive Struggles?

The 20 -23 June general strike was a defensive strike. Rather than being proactive, the leadership of the strike was reactive and predominantly economistic. The strike was not aimed at bringing about fundamental changes to the root cause of the problems. Instead of addressing the root cause, the strike was essentially about the effects of government policies.

The behaviour of the leadership of the strike fits into Marx description of non-forward looking trade union leadership:

Trade Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organised forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class. (Marx, 1958: 447, cited in Hyman, 1975: 98)

A more pro-active approach would require challenging the policy of reliance on private importation of petroleum products, insistence on investigation of corruption in the management of existing refineries, and advocating local refining through existing and new state-owned refineries.

Central to the fuel crisis in Nigeria is the government commitment to the neoliberal principle of disengaging from economic activity and promoting the private sector in the supply of critical goods. The idea of promoting the private sector, combined with stupendous financial corruption involving about US$550 million in the Turn Around Maintenance (TAMs) of the refineries, results in crippling the state owned refineries, in order to justify reliance on the private sector for importation of petroleum products and sale of the refineries under the guise of inefficiency of state enterprises.

Who Should Control Industries?

As the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, 2001: 7-9) has pointedly posited, the big question for today is: how is industry to be controlled? Given the subsisting capitalist economic structure, the challenge is to interrogate managerial control with a view to accommodating a role for workers who work in each industry, and in the cases of mineral producing areas, the communities, in managing the enterprises. This suggests that working class organizations must reflect and advocate comprehensive solutions to issues regarding production, pricing and distribution of goods in an equitable and ecologically sustainable manner through advocacy of involvement of the trade unions and communities in the running of industries.

Mode of Strike Action and Process of Strike Call Off

That the strike was called off without resorting to the members, organs, and groups that sustained the strike for the period it lasted raises the issue of industrial/trade union democracy. Working class organizations must provide efficient democratic structure and process for carrying on daily struggles for better conditions and pay. The organs that take the decision to embark on strike must also be the ones to decide to call it off. With that kind of perspective, the need for mass protests and rallies rather than a-stay-at-home strike action will be seen.

The stay-at-home strike action renders the rank and file passive participants in the strike process and deprives the strike of the inputs and influence of the members from below in determining the direction of the strike, leaving the decision to call off or continue strike actions to the whims and caprices of the few leaders. In this regard, the Nigerian labour movement has a lot to learn from its South African counterparts that subjected government offers of wage increases to discussions at mass meetings of individual affiliate unions, during a strike that was taking place simultaneously in the two countries.

Indefinite or Limited Strike Action?

The strike also revealed the weakness of ‘indefinite’ strike action. Indefinite strike action is applicable in a situation in which the objective and subjective conditions point to the possibility of the working class taking over political power. Without such a revolutionary situation in existence, the state cannot tolerate ‘indefinite’ action. The situation will have to be resolved one way or the other, in revolutionary change or restoration of political control by the capitalist ruling class. For a working class leadership that completely lacks the perspective of the working class taking power, ‘indefinite’ form of action is a recipe for sudden back down. Therefore, it would be better to base actions on defined, limited number of days or weeks, continuation or discontinuation of action being determined by the mood and preparedness of the working class and the other poor strata, expressed at mass meetings. In other words, an attempt should be made to distinguish the Gramscian moments of ‘war of movement’ (when the actual revolution is ongoing) from moments of ‘war of position’ (when slow but steady preparatory revolutionary work is taking place).

Conclusion

The importance of drawing out lessons of struggles is implicit in a statement by Marx: ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted by the past’ (Marx, 1958: 247). It is hoped the lessons discussed in this paper will benefit future struggles.

* Femi Aborisade is a lecturer at The Polytechnic, Ibadan. He is the coordinator of the Centre for Labour Studies (CLS) & an Associate of the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.

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

For references, see link below.

'...we have to show these people, these abids (slaves, blacks) who is the master here.' Eva Dadrian on the Arabisation of Darfur by Khartoum with a great deal of help from 'the brother from the North, Gadaffi'.

Since 2003, the international community, African heads of states, the African Union, the Arab League, the United Nations, numerous humanitarian organisations and a number of African or non-African 'intellectuals' have debated the meaning of the word genocide, and whether it can be applied 'accurately' to the tragedy that was taking place in Darfur. Whether there were 200,000 killed, or only 20,000, or whether the rebellion or the Sudanese army or the government-backed Janjaweed militias perpetrated the crimes, this kind of debate could go on ad infinitum as Kwesi Kwaa Prah rightly says (Pambazuka News 305).

But as these 'good wishers' were debating, the tragedy of Darfur was unfolding in front of their eyes. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians were killed, raped and uprooted from their homes and villages. Despite a ban on the media, despite the pressure on aid workers, the conflict in Darfur is very well documented, showing how entire communities were wiped out, how more than 800 villages were burnt to the ground and thousands of wells poisoned, mosques desecrated, schools destroyed, cattle slaughtered and crops ruined…

And the debate is still continuing while the people of Darfur are left in hellish IDP camps, in the middle of the desert, struggling to keep their children alive who are subjected not only to hunger, thirst, violence and diseases but also to humiliation for being destitute in their own homeland and having nothing to go back to.

Let’s not re-open this kind of discourse and 'indulge in technicist sophistry, tip-toeing nimbly around the real issues in Darfur' that may again provide 'solace to the Khartoum regime' (Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Pambazuka 305) and to others who persist to view the deployment of an AU-UN peacekeeping force as 'an invasion'. Darfur is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq, nor as a matter of fact Somalia.

Having said that I should emphasise also that Darfur is the microcosm of all the ills that mar the continent: Arab in the north versus Africa in the south. We could of course continue to blame the 'colonial borders' for these problems, but as Africans we had more than 50 years to solve our differences.

From the very beginning of the Darfur crisis, the government of Sudan proved time and again its unwillingness to look 'seriously and genuinely' into the demands of the people of Darfur. The numerous ceasefire agreements have collapsed for the very reason that the government of Khartoum has not kept its part of the deal, i.e. stop all its military operations and especially put an end to the crimes committed by the Janjaweed against the civilian population. The Janjaweed, the government-backed Arab militias, still roam free in Darfur. Driving pick-up trucks with mounted guns, they are 'not being arrested' according to AU commanders. The Abuja peace agreement signed between the government and one faction only of the Darfur rebel movement is not worth the paper it is written on.

Only recently, a small light has appeared at the end of the tunnel for Darfur. In mid-June, the Sudanese government announced its acceptance of the proposal for a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping operation to be deployed in Darfur. Under the new revised plan, the AU will run day-to-day operations while the UN will have overall control of some 20,000 peacekeepers, mostly from Africa. Currently, as we all know it, the 7,000 ill equipped AU troops are overwhelmed by the sheer vastness of the region, the complexity of the conflict and the limitations of their mandate.

'The UN and AU have outlined two options for the size of the force's military component: under one plan, there would be 19,555 troops and under the other there would be 17,605 troops. The police component would require 3,772 officers. The hybrid operation is the third phase of a three-step process to replace the existing but under-resourced AU Mission in the Sudan (AMIS), which has been unable to end the fighting in Darfur.'

Ten days later, Lam Akol, the former southern Sudanese rebel leader turned minister of foreign affairs declared that his government was in complete agreement with the composition of the peacekeeping force, the nature of its operation, its mission and its command 'We are ready to have the force deployed at any time'.

Khartoum’s acceptance for the deployment of this hybrid peacekeeping force is a welcome step but it requires immediate and rigorous pressure from the international community and from Africans in particular, to make it happen.

So far, so familiar. Since the beginning of the conflict (February 2003) Omar el Beshir has disputed accusations, played for time, promised but never delivered and broke more agreements that he honoured. Khartoum has accused everybody except the Janjaweed militias. General Omar el Beshir had until the end of 2006 to disarm the Janjaweed, accept a hybrid AU-UN peacekeeping force in Darfur or face the consequences.

Taking the Almighty as witness, El Beshir has vowed, time and again, he will not allow any UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in Darfur. A year ago, he announced that the situation in Darfur was 'under control'. But the sad reality is that the situation is far from being 'under control'. The same scenario is being repeated again as Omar el Beshir, who has skipped this year’s AU Summit in Accra, not only warned the West, and Washington in particular, not to mess up the handling of the crisis in Darfur, but also declared that calm has returned to Darfur and the IDPs are already going back to their villages 'We can say that most of Darfur's region is safe', and 'The situation on the ground in Darfur is improving. Now IDPs are voluntarily returning to their villages'. In fact, according to witnesses, villages are being repopulated indeed but not by their very former legal owners.

The old ambition of Khartoum successive governments to Arabise Darfur is being fulfilled. The so-called returnees are in fact entire families of the nomadic people who have for so long aimed at taking over the 'green pastures' and the fields of Southern Darfur and Gebel Marra. Not only, the long dream of Khartoum is being fulfilled but also that of Brother Gaddafi, the man with the floating robes and a fat chequebook. Indeed, back in the 1980s our Brother from the North planned to rid Darfur of its African population and replace them by Arabs. As Kwesi Kwa Prah points out the dear colonel while attending an Arab League summit meeting (Amman, October 2000) showed his true colours when he declared that 'two-thirds of Arabs live in Africa and the remaining third must join the other two in Africa...'

Needless to point out that those who refuse to recognise the genocidal plans of the Khartoum regime have neither seen nor heard of the Black Book. Secretly circulating in the late 1990s and very early 2000s, this infamous blueprint provides all the details of the soon-to-happen Darfur tragedy.

Just for information, I myself have seen the Black Book. Back in 1987, I also witnessed the destruction of the Fur villages in Gebel Marra. I have seen the horsemen of the apocalypse armed by Brother Gaddafi, who spread terror and destruction among the Fur community. I have also recorded Fadlallah Burma, Sadiq el Mahdy’s security suprimo, in those days, admitting that the government was arming 'the Arab tribes' and in addition I have also recorded a government official in Nyala telling me 'we have to show these people, these abids (slaves, blacks) who is the master here...'

'The international community simply cannot continue to sit by', said Condoleezza Rice at the end of an international conference in Paris about Darfur (June 2007). Of course this statement comes from a secretary of state who cannot claim to have a clear conscious when it comes to conflicts such as Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, to name just a few. But as Africans we cannot continue to sit by and allow rogue governments to send their troops to kill us, their planes to bomb us, their bulldozers to demolish our homes and their henchmen to intimidate us for the simple reason that we oppose their rule.

* Eva Dadrian is an independent broadcaster and Political and Country Risk Analyst for print and broadcast media.

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

Last week Atlanta, Georgia hosted the first US Social Forum. Sokari Ekine provides some reflective thoughts on the gathering.

10,000 people came together last week in Atlanta to celebrate grassroots activism across the United States (US). This was the first social forum to be held in the US. That it was held in Atlanta Georgia, home of the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King was not lost on many participants. On the downside, there was the overbearing presence of the Market Place; exclusion of some citizens; over-representation of the Latino community and under-representation of other immigrant communities. However as good opportunities to network and some valuable issues emerged, such and the need to be less self-congratulatory and more reflective.

The opening march was attended by about 10,000 people. It was an uplifting experience to be amongst so many mainly African American and Latino activists from across the US. The main focuses were Katrina/the Gulf Coast, immigration, sexuality and social justice. In contrast to the World Social Forum (WSF), the US forum was not hijacked by the large NGOs, though there were a fair number of smaller US based ones present. Still, the majority of participants appeared to be from truly grassroots community organisations.

Logistically the forum was spread out across various hotels as well as the main Civic Center. This made it difficult to move from one workshop to another, with only a 30 minute break allocated between each one. It also felt very strange to be discussing neoliberalism and anti-imperialism in downtown Atlanta hotels, such as the massive phallic design of the Westin, where the only food available was provided by Starbucks. Atlanta is a city dominated by Coca Cola, the headquarters of Coca Cola with its own museum round the corner from the downtown hotels. Similar to the WSF, the issue of exclusion, cost of hiring space for organisational tents (as high as US$1000), exorbitant cost of food and the excessive Forum Marketplace were all features of the USSF. To enter the Civic Center you had to pass through not one, but a group of ‘guards’ who demanded to see your pass, thus preventing local Atlanta citizens, including a large homeless population, many of whom where just round the corner, from participating. Rumour had it that there had been a discussion over searching people’s bags but fortunately this idea was abandoned.

The $15 minimum entry fee also added to the exclusion of the homeless. You had the ironic situation of activists supposedly working with the marginalised communities having to walk past the homeless everyday as if they were a group of invisible men and women. Close by there was a sign reading ‘Commercial solicitation prohibited. No direct verbal address allowed’, presumably aimed at preventing the homeless from engaging with the rest of the public.

Three notable sessions were the on Gulf Coast reconstruction in the post-Katrina era, ‘Race and Immigration – Immigration Rights’, and from the Africa Tent, ‘Zimbabwe: The Way Forward?’. The Gulf Coast panel brought the house down with reports and moving testimonies from all the activists working on the ground. The main issue was that of the ‘Right to Return’, the right to land and housing as per pre-Katrina, and the struggle against developers and forced removal of local people.

Like the Gulf Coast session, these sessions were well attended. However it was clear that the US immigration activists’ movement is very Latino-centric and even within the Latinos it is very ‘Mexican’ centric. This is something that seriously needs to be addressed, as large numbers of immigrants are being marginalised and made invisible within the movement. African Latinos from across South America, people from all parts of the Caribbean, African and Arab immigrants were very much under-represented. A number of participants felt they had no voice whatsoever. Despite their speaking out, one still left wondering whether or not there needs would be addressed.

The discussion on Zimbabwe was excellent, though very polarised between those who supported the Mugabe regime and those that felt Africans and African Americans needed to condemn Mugabe and other dictators across the continent and work towards democracy and human rights, with social movements and civil society groups taking a lead. There was an assumption amongst some people that because Mugabe was condemned by America and the West that Mugabe himself was the victim; rather than of the reality, which is that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe are the victims of Mugabe’s repression and face resultant daily economic misery.

I missed the People’s Movement Assembly but attended the closing ceremony which was basically a couple of hours of self-congratulatory speeches around the forum with very little reflection and self-critique. I spoke with many participants. There were complaints that too many of the workshops were like lectures with short question and answer sessions and not solution orientated and participatory enough. The real success of the forum was outside the workshops, and the networking that took place between groups and individuals. For many grassroots groups this was the first opportunity to meet with people from other parts of the US working on similar issues. If contact between the various movements can be maintained, then there is hope that the forum will be the beginnings of a strong grassroots opposition to mainstream America, neoliberalism, racial oppression and criminalisation of the poor and immigrant population.

Future social forums must seriously address the issue of exclusion whether through the cost of participation, or as in Nairobi and Atlanta, the physical prevention of sections of the local community being refused entry and by virtue of being economically challenged, prevented from eating, let alone having access to water. Water was being sold outside the Civic Center at the USSF for $1 for a small bottle of water – people would not have had to buy this if sufficient water barrels were available. Two friends of mine who had applied for ‘camping space’ from the list of accommodation provided by the USSF website. On arriving they were told by the ‘commune’ that they had to pay $10 each per night – an amount they could not afford. They were then in the position of having to look for alternative space to stay. Eventually they found a household that agreed for them to stay in their backyard but refused them the use of any of their facilities. Thus to use the toilet they had to sneak into the ‘commune’ and use the bathrooms in the Civic Center. This is not acceptable at a social forum whereby so called progressive peoples take advantage of their comrades by adopting the very same market principles that they claim to object to.

Despite all this, I did however feel privileged to have met many US grassroots activists working on a range of issues and from across the country. It is important to know that there are people living in the ‘belly of the beast’ that are fighting from within and are aware of the impact of that beast on the people of the global South.

* Sokari Ekine is online editor of Pambazuka News

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

Recently, Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe was awarded the Man Booker International Prize for 2007. Stephanie Kitchen argues that although the prize is decided by the literary establishment and still embodies the values of the former colonial power, African writers are fighting back as 'active definers and custodians of society’s values'.

‘The colonialist critic, unwilling to accept the validity of sensibilities other than his own, has made particular point of dismissing the African novel…did not the black people in America, deprived of their own musical instruments, take the trumpet and the trombone and blow them as they had never been blown before, as indeed they were not designed to be blown? And the result, was it not jazz? Let every people bring their gifts to the great festival of the world’s cultural harvest and mankind will be all the richer for the variety and distinctiveness of the offerings.
…
My people speak disapprovingly of an outsider whose wailing drowned the grief of the owner of the corpse… One last word to the owners…most of what remains to be done can best be tackled by ourselves.’ – Chinua Achebe[1]

At a ceremony in Oxford on 28 June 2007, Chinua Achebe, Nigeria’s great living novelist, for some, the greatest, ‘the founding father of African literature’, and the founding editor of the groundbreaking African Writers Series, was awarded the second Man Booker International Prize (http://www.manbookerinternational.com/home).

Achebe has written over 20 books, including novels, short stories, essays, collections of poetry and children’s books. Things Fall Apart, published in 1958, has sold over 10,000,000 copies around the world and been translated into 50 languages. Achebe is the recipient of over 30 honorary degrees and numerous awards for his work. Now 77, and paralysed from the waist down in a car accident in 1990, he did not attend the ceremony.

In conjunction with the award, the prize hosted a public panel discussion of the jury, comprising Elaine Showalter (the chair), Colm Toibin, Nadine Gordimer and Ion Trewin, the Booker prize administrator. It was an extraordinary moment, a rare opportunity to listen to Nadine Gordimer, one of Africa’s greatest authors pay tribute to the work of another whom she deeply and publicly admires. Gordimer’s participation on the jury was doubtless instrumental in this much deserved, for many, too long delayed, recognition of Achebe by the international literary establishment.

The Man Book International Prize is intended as a ‘global’ literary prize, awarded to a writer ‘whose body of work has make a major contribution to world literature’, rather than to an individual book. It may be awarded to any writer whose work is available in English and deserves to be better known or more widely translated. In the words of John Carey, chair of the judges for the inaugural prize ‘This new prize will reward high international achievement, but unlike other global prizes, it will target fiction in English, or translated into English, and so will celebrate English-language fiction as a major cultural force in the modern world’.[2] The prize differs from other book prizes in that the judges, not publishers, authors or academics, nominate the candidates. Each year, the jury inherits and may discard or add to the shortlist from the previous year. The prize does not have hard-coded standards or criteria.

This new ‘international’ Booker prize should not bypass debates about its legitimacy unchecked. Once again, it raises questions about the British establishment’s all too familiar tendency to slide from national, parochial literary concerns into uncritical notions of the ‘international’ or ‘universal’ (for which, read London, Oxford, New York, Washington…). Worse, arguably, it plays to colonial and neo-colonial practices of the literary and publishing industries, whereby it is deemed not unethical, at least acceptable and inevitable, for the former colonial power to sit in judgement and exercise power over the books, authors and literatures produced by descendants of the empire. As the prize develops, these suspicions must be kept under scrutiny.

But for the moment, such a happy and imaginative choice doubtless increases the stature of this nascent award in the eyes of the international literary and publishing communities. The International Man Booker may raise lesser known writers out of the ghetto, for example the dubious, and for many discredited - on literary and ethical grounds - Commonwealth Writers Prize (which, for example, has disqualified Zimbabwean writers from entry - imagine, African literature without Shimmer Chinodya, Yvonne Vera, Dambudzo Marachera...), and into the mainstream. No one can be more deserving of that than Achebe after all he has given as enrichment to our different and shared cultures. If the award leads to the revival, promotion, translation and dissemination of all his works, then it will have made its mark.

The jury had begun with a longlist of 70 names, around 250 novels, collections of short stories, which included writers from 29 countries in 20 languages. They had met three times, in Washington, Toronto and Dublin. At the second meeting, the list was reduced to 30 names. At the final meeting, the shortlist drawn up and winner decided. The final shortlist comprised Margaret Atwood, John Banville, Peter Carey, Don DeLillo, Carlos Fuentes, Doris Lessing, Ian McEwan, Harry Mulisch, Alice Munro, Michael Ondaatje, Amos Oz, Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie and Michel Tournier.

The judges were keen to respond to anticipated media criticisms, such as the dominant presence of Anglo-Saxon writers on the shortlist, of their own national prejudices and the fact the list included few authors of books in translation. They asserted that they had made an enormous effort to be as wide-ranging and inclusive as possible, acknowledging the genuine difficulty that whilst one of the missions of the prize is to encourage translation, they could only review writers whose books had been translated into English, reflecting the challenge more generally for more books from languages other than English to be translated.

Nadine Gordimer was keen to keep the discussion focused on the shortlist, the purpose of the prize being to make important works better known, and to give them as much publicity as possible. Anthills of the Savannah has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987; this award gave opportunities for wider promotion of the book. ‘It would be presumptuous to say we chose the greatest writer in the world’, but nevertheless ‘Chinua Achebe’s early work made him the father of modern African literature as an integral part of world literature. He has gone on to achieve what one of his characters brilliantly defines as the writer’s purpose: “a new-found utterance” for the capture of life’s complexity’. Achebe’s books ‘explore the mystery of life…bringing ‘a new found utterance’ to what we are as human beings, to what life is and its changing circumstances’. Additional to the famous trilogy of novels, Things Fall Apart (1958), No Longer at Ease (1960) and Arrow of God (1964), she spoke warmly of A Man of the People (1966), ‘a prophetic book, an exposure of corruption in a newly independent African state after colonial oppression; in its attendancy to the corruption, not only in Africa, also in other parts of the world, eating away at our humanity…preventing the establishment of true democracy’.

The other judges commented on Achebe’s achievement in his original synthesis of the psychological novel, the Joycean stream of consciousness, the post-modern breaking of sequence traditions and arriving at a new prescription thereby out-dating any prescriptivity. They commented Achebe describes changes taking place that are momentous. He had written books that could be given to anyone in the world, to any general reader who loves books. Elaine Showalter described Achebe as ‘a wonderful choice’. It had been ‘the year of judging dangerously…in the current state of the world, we can’t pretend fiction does not have some political repercussions’. Gordimer added that governments feared literature because it makes people think, ‘true thought is a danger to governments that are oppressive in the weight of propaganda’.

The judges stressed they had not been overtly concerned with ‘politically correct’ categories of the gender, sexuality or nationality of the writer. There had been no discussions about ‘balancing the list’. ‘What matters is the quality of writing…writing is the important issue…nor did we sweep anything under the bookcase’. Nadine Gordimer stressed that concerns of sex or race had been irrelevant to the literary question of ‘new found utterance’, and ‘literature being about the mystery of modern life’ – echoing and inversing Achebe’s thoughts on the matter, expressed elsewhere: ‘it is not even a matter of color. For we have Nadine Gordimer’.[3]

James Currey, the eminent African studies publisher and inspirational force behind the African Writers Series (AWS) asked about the extent to which the judges had taken into account the ‘general literary situation of the writer’. After all, Achebe’s contribution to literature had not only been his own books, but the ‘massive contribution he had made to the African Writers Series’. In this sense, the award celebrated not only Achebe, but the body of literature, not always uncontested, he had inspired. Gordimer agreed about the importance of the publication of the AWS, which had brought African literature ‘out beyond the borders’. It had been ‘an assertion of the freedom of expression’ and had served as ‘an encouragement to younger writers’. In the end though, she felt Achebe’s lasting and greatest achievement remained his ‘new found utterance’. It is ‘all there, he synthesises all these things’. From all ideas and thoughts about what it takes to be a writer, ‘there must be some special quality’. For as the writer, you are ‘going to bear the chalk around your eye’. Writers are engaged in the endless task of finding new modes of telling our stories as human beings, and ‘Achebe has gone very far in that’.

Gordimer, now 84 years old herself, is one of the most exceptional novelists and short story writers in English. She won the Booker Prize in 1974, whose work has been translated into over 20 languages. With acute intelligence and her deep, long and intimate understanding of the art of writing and literature, she spoke in almost mythical proportions. For many of us present, and for others throughout the world, she has helped shape and deepen our understanding of apartheid South Africa and the human dimensions of its injustices and horrors. Her now canonical and classic texts will doubtless go on elucidating that period of history and lived present for generations to come.

African literature and its appreciation are currently in rude health from our perspective in Britain. There has been Achebe’s Booker prize award; the passing of Sembene Ousmane to accolades of his massive contribution to literature, film and culture globally; Wole Soyinka’s multitude of appearances in conjunction with his new work You Must Set Forth at Dawn: A Memoir; and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s marvellous success at winning the Orange Prize for her new novel Half a Yellow Sun, and achieving popular status, including TV recognition.

This said, there remains a long way to go to achieve true cultural exchange and dialogue between North and South, ‘…the problem of dialogue which has plagued Afro-European relations for centuries’ that will persist ‘until Europe is ready. Ready to concede total African humanity’. But in the literary domain – involving ‘the active definers and custodians of society’s values…literature giv[ing] us a second handle on reality; enabling us to encounter…the same threats to integrity that may assail...in real life’[5] – Achebe’s prophecy is being fulfilled: ‘I have no doubt at all about the existence of the African novel. This form of fiction has seized the imagination of many African writers and they will use it according to their differing abilities, sensitivities and visions without seeking anyone’s permission. I believe it will grow and prosper. I believe it has a great future.’[6]

Stephanie Kitchen
July 2007

References
1 ‘Colonialist Criticism’ in Chinua Achebe: Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays, New York: Doubleday, 2003 edition, 1st publ. 1989, p. 89
2 Press release of the inaugural prize,
3 ‘Thoughts on the African Novel’, in Chinua Achebe, Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays, New York: Doubleday, 2003, p. 93
4 ‘Impediments to dialogue between North and South’ in Achebe, Hopes and Impediments, p. 23
5 ‘What has literature got to do with it’, in Achebe, Hopes and Impediments, p. 170
6 ‘Thoughts on the African Novel’, in Achebe, Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays, New York: Doubleday, 2003, p. 99

* Stephanie Kitchen is Publications Manager for Pambazuka News.

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

The proposed Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act by the Provincial Government of KwaZulu-Natal is the latest in a long list of anti-poor legislation in South Africa dating back to the period of apartheid rule. Marie Huchzermeyer asserts that the Bill is anti-poor, not in the interest of the 'slum dwellers' and is unconstitutional.

The proposal for an Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act by the Provincial Government of KwaZulu-Natal was preceded by seven years of slum eradication rhetoric. Since the launch of United Nations Millennium Development Project in 2000, which includes as Goal 7 Target 11 to improve the lives of 100,000,000 slum dwellers by 2020, President Mbeki has mandated the national Department of Housing to work towards achieving ‘shack-free cities’. The aim to eradicate informal settlements by 2014 has since been a controversial element of housing politics at national, provincial and city level throughout South Africa.

100,000,000 slum dwellers, the target of the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) was a mere 10% of slum dwellers globally in the year 2000. Why was this modest goal to improve the lives of some slum dwellers translated in South Africa into slum eradication or elimination? Why are Provinces not instead preparing legislation to ensure the improvement of the lives slum dwellers?

The South Africa government are not the only culprits for having misinterpreted a global commitment. UN-Habitat, the United Nation’s Human Settlement Programme based in Nairobi, officially refers to the slum MDG as the ‘Cities Without Slums MDG’. The slum improvement MDG target of 100,000,000 slum dwellers by 2020 was drawn in 2000 from an inappropriately titled programme, ‘Cities Without Slums’, of Cities Alliance, a UN-Habitat and World Bank supported initiative. Its promotional material, which advocates for participatory city- and country-wide informal settlement upgrading, is branded with the ‘Cities Without Slums’ slogan.

As any marketing expert could have predicated, the brand said more than the content. Many country governments have failed to differentiate between the normative principle of the slogan, that cities should not have slums, and the operational target of improving the lives of 10% of slum dwellers. Instead, tragically, the slogan became the target, namely to eradicate slums – through mass evictions in Zimbabwe in 2005 and Abuja, Nigeria, in 2006 and through slum elimination legislation in South Africa in 2007.

Measures taken in most provinces to eradicate informal settlements are not constitutional. Illegal evictions are rampant, be they through the use of force, in the absence of court orders, or in contempt of court interdicts. Very few informal settlement dwellers have access to legal representation and can fight for their rights in the courts. And yet, numerous court records exist to prove the proliferation of illegal and unconstitutional slum interventions.

To improve the lives of slum dwellers in this country requires in the first instance strengthening and enforcement of the legislation that prevents illegal evictions. Any new legislation must focus on ensuring that the state fulfils its constitutional obligations in relation to the right to housing, and in particular, as required by the Grootboom Constitutional Court ruling in 2000, in relation to those living in intolerable conditions.

New legislation should mandate (a) the recognition of informal settlements and other so-called ‘slums’, (b) emergency preparedness and (c) participatory upgrading as promoted by UN-Habitat as ‘best practice’, with relocation as a last resort. Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code provides the methodology and funding for such intervention, including rehabilitation of informally occupied but unsuitable land. This may be land that is waterlogged, threatened by floods, unstable due to mine or refuse dumps or geotechnically compromised through steep slopes, clay or dolomitic soils.

Instead, the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature has approved a Bill that, while mentioning the progressive realisation of the right to housing in passing, introduces draconian measures to remove the phenomenon of informality from the urban landscape and to prevent it from re-emerging in any possible form. Owners of informally occupied land are mandated to institute evictions within a period stipulated by the municipality, and owners of vacant land are mandated to prevent informal occupation through measures such as fencing off and posting of security guards.

These measures were contained in the notorious 1951 ‘Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act’ of the apartheid government. They were unacceptable then, and remain so today. According to UN-Habitat (and Cities Alliance/Cities Without Slums for that matter), the first and most important measure for improving the lives of slum dwellers is to ensure security of tenure, i.e. to put an end to evictions. While the Bill does not recognise tenure insecurity as a criteria for identifying slums (whereas UN-Habitat does), by approving the Slum Elimination Bill the Provincial Legislature has overnight reduced tenure security for millions of slum dwellers in the Province, increasing fear and uncertainty and thereby worsening their lives.

Indeed, most slum dwellers are aware that the Bill is approved. Many official ‘hearings’ were held on the Bill, although none of the objections that were raised were taken seriously by the legislature. The process and content of the Bill, as well as experience of tenure insecurity and illegal interventions, have increased the mobilisation of slum dwellers. Media coverage on the Bill has been extensive and critical, contrasting the phenomenal public relations exercise of the MEC for Housing, who pulled wool over the eyes of the Legislature and of many influential experts and commentators regarding the intentions and measures of the Bill. Slum dwellers, as often argued by Abahlali’s leaders, are the real experts of poverty – and they are rightly living in fear because of the Bill.

The Bill undoubtedly is not in the interest of slum dwellers. It does not recognise insecurity of tenure as a problem and deepens the insecurity of slum dwellers as a first step to eliminating slums. By prohibiting and preventing unlawful occupation of unutilised land or buildings, the Bill pushes responsibility for sheltering the poor onto already under-housed people – relatives and acquaintances living in formal but already overcrowded units. It is they, and not the middle class, that may open their doors in solidarity when informality is no longer tolerated as an option.

Preventing the invasion of unutilised land through fencing off and guarding is exclusionary, and rewards those that hold undeveloped strategic land for speculative purposes. It indicates that despite a decade of Brazil-South Africa dialogue on urban policy (particularly in Ethikwini/KwaZulu-Natal, facilitated at great cost and funfair by Cities Alliance/Cities Without Slums), South Africa has still not grasped the concept of a social function of land, which the Brazilian Constitution and subsequent legal statues use to ensure that strategically located, unutilised, privately owned land is developed for the poor.

What KwaZulu-Natal has also still not learnt from Brazil is that slums, as embarrassing as they may be to city managers, must be understood as temporary relief to the housing crisis, and that improvements must involve the occupants rather than displace them. Instead, the Bill signals scepticism about the viability of improving or upgrading slums. In its preamble, it suggests that formal housing projects require protection from ‘slums’, ignoring the reality that slum dwellers are, more often than not, threatened by housing developments for which they make way, or to which they are forcefully removed and which have little relevance to their lives and economies.

The Bill, if not rejected outright, requires fundamental revision (and renaming) so as to centre on the protection of poor communities from state and market driven displacement. This is particularly pertinent in the wake of the 2010 Soccer World Cup. The Bill needs to be sensitive to what it really means to improve the lives of slum dwellers.

The Bill is as yet not gazetted. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Premier to ensure that the Bill does not contradict the Constitution. Social movements and housing rights groups are already preparing to challenge the Act in court, should the Premier ignore their advice and go ahead with gazetting the Bill.

* Marie Huchzermeyer, School of Architecture and Planning - Wits University

Something is brewing at the Kenya Police Airwing and it’s not smelling too good, writes Mwalimu Mati Documents have come to light regarding the award of a US$12.8 million (Ksh 840 million) contract to overhaul 4 Russian built helicopters operated by the Kenya Police Airwing.

It would appear that 9 years after they were bought in 1998, these 4 helicopters have consumed close to US$ 15 million each and Kenyans are now being asked to spend an additional US$ 12.8 million to overhaul them. This calls for an immediate explanation from the Government of Kenya as to why we are throwing good money after bad, servicing these second hand helicopters which have done nothing to improve either our debt or security situation.

Kenyans are also entitled to know what action is contemplated against the public officers (Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Police Commissioners) over the years who have charged our collective account with what is clearly a bad deal worth over US$ 60 million or Ksh 4.2 billion.

Until these documents surfaced, as far as we knew, the matter of the junk helicopters was at a rest. The position, as we knew it to be, was that as of June 30th 2006, the outstanding debt related to the helicopters remained at just under Ksh 350 million and that this debt was recorded as being owed to J.S. Schroder Bank. It was our hope that the investigations by Kenya Anti Corruption Commission and the special assignment of Price Water House Coopers would eventually reveal the truth about these expensive helicopters, and which public officers and their associates we would be demanding to see punished for the misadventure.

What we could never have imagined is that in 2007, the helicopters would still be used to appropriate even more tax money (actually Ksh 840 million) in what is a dubious contract to overhaul them.

Joseph Yav argues that poverty alleviation requires a holistic approach with cooperation and collaboration between all stakeholders including governments.

In light of the enormous challenges facing the global community to eradicate poverty, the international development community in 2000 adopted specific targets for poverty reduction, now known as the MDGs. The eight MDGs seek to achieve a number of goals: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; fight HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases; increase environmental sustainability; and forge a global partnership for development. The overarching goal is to halve income poverty worldwide by 2015.

Despite the commitments contained in the MDGs, poverty and hunger is on the increase resulting in an ever-growing disparity between rich and poor, between and within nations. Africa exemplifies these particular challenges: the challenge of peace, the struggle against poverty and the struggle for development. It is not enough merely to recognise the fact that there are problems and challenges. The bigger issue is what can be done to respond to all of these challenges.

As many critiques have noted, among the shortcomings of the MDGs, it is always emphasized their insufficient coverage of human rights, gender and employment issues. This paper will address a shared commitment to promoting the interconnected goals of development, peace and security, and respect for human rights.

Human rights and poverty

Despite the international mandate for a human rights approach to poverty eradication, such an approach, though based on venerable antecedents, has tended to be neglected in justifications for the eradication of poverty.

From the human rights point of view, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights. In this regard, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, … or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Therefore, the eradication of widespread poverty, including its most persistent forms, and the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights remain interrelated goals. Human rights may not only be used as an approach to attaining the goods entailed in the MDGs. They are entailed in the goals set by the MDGs themselves in so far as they seek the attainment of a certain minimum way of life for people.

Democratic Governance

Democratic governance is central to the achievement of the MDGs, as it provides the ‘enabling environment' for the realisation of the MDGs and, in particular, the elimination of poverty. The critical importance of democratic governance in the developing world was highlighted at the Millennium Summit of 2000, where the world's leaders made a solemn resolution – “[to] spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development." A consensus was reached which recognised that improving the quality of democratic institutions and processes, and managing the changing roles of the state and civil society in an increasingly globalised world must underpin national efforts to reduce poverty, sustain the environment, and promote human development.

Since then, more countries than ever before are working to build democratic governance. Their challenge however, is to develop institutions and processes that are more responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, including the poor. African leaders should develop a greater capacity to deliver basic services to those most in need. CSOs should assist in doing this process.

Links between development, Peace and security

Peace and security are a prerequisite of poverty elimination. In fact, without peace and security there can be no lasting development and poverty reduction. The lack of, and failures in development can be seen as contributing to instability and the eruption of conflict. Experience demonstrates that poverty, hopelessness, inequity and marginalisation are often among the root causes of devastating conflict. In crisis situations, and in societies emerging from conflict, human rights are often violated. International support for governance mechanisms leading to the restoration of the rule of law is important for the protection of human rights.

Development and security are inextricably linked. A more secure world is only possible if poor countries are given a real chance to develop. In one hand, extreme poverty and infectious diseases threaten many people directly, but they also provide a fertile breeding-ground for other threats, including civil conflict. Even people in rich countries will be more secure if their governments help poor countries to defeat poverty and disease by meeting the Millennium Development Goals. If completed, it will half global poverty by 2015. Consequently, the international community should not only view ‘soft’ threats as part of the development agenda but also be an important component of the peace and security agenda.

On the other hand, with the “blood diamond” effect, one can say that "war has become profitable". People, who are making money out of war, have a financial interest to ensure that conflict continues. Such phenomena are not unique to Africa. Conflict prevention and resolution and people centred development therefore demands a striving for good governance, inter alia, respect for human rights and rule of law, promotion of transparency and accountability in government and enhancing of administrative and institutional capacity.

What is needed is a holistic approach to the peace and security agenda. The root causes for conflict – poverty, human rights abuses, lack of democracy – must be tackled. There is a need for enhancing focus on conflict prevention, which includes both sustainable social and economic development to prevent conflicts in the first place and post-conflict efforts to prevent them from reigniting. While it is often more easy to raise money for humanitarian efforts than longer-term development assistance, it could in fact be cheaper to prevent conflict than to pay for the damage done afterwards.

Conflict after conflict demonstrates the importance of good governance and viable government institutions. Unequal distribution of economic and political power causes conflict, and governance deficits make conflicts unmanageable. The development cooperation should now consciously gear towards contributing to peace building and conflict prevention.

Conclusion

Alleviating poverty is too daunting a task to be just left to government. It needs an integrated and holistic approach of all stakeholders to harmonise their activities at national and State levels for all the peoples of the world. In developing countries, implementation of the Millennium Goals must focus on mobilizing domestic resources, prioritising budget expenditure on the MDGs, and strengthening human rights, democracy and good governance as specified in the Millennium Declaration

We need to link the agenda of development, human rights and extreme poverty, as well as efforts to empower people living in poverty to participate in decision-making processes on policies that affect them.. We cannot have security amidst starvation and we cannot build peace without alleviating poverty and we cannot have either without a better environment. Only a peaceful society can work its way up to creating the institutions ripe for development and free itself from injustices and human rights abuses.

Suffice is to say, every year around the world millions of families' lives and livelihoods are endangered, and entire communities are displaced due to conflicts - over resources like land, water or oil, between ethnic or religious groups, or over political and social control. In many places, addressing issues of hunger, poverty, and suffering cannot begin until conflicts are resolved and peace established. At the same time, peace building efforts must be tied to the very causes of conflict itself – inequities – and result in improvements in people's everyday needs.

* Joseph Yav is a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He works with a network of African research institutes in support of the African peace and security agenda.

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

South Africa has played an intimate role in the recent Nigerian elections. Despite what the ANC government claims, South Africa’s foreign policy towards Africa is not based on Pan-Africanism or anti-imperialism; it is rather based on promoting South Africa’s expanding business interests on the continent. In reality, the South African state’s interests, in both the domestic and African arena, have become fused with those South Africa’s capitalist elite. The ruling party in Nigeria has served the South African capital and the state’s interests well. It has facilitated the process whereby South Africa has become a major economic player in Nigeria in only 8 years, writes Shawn Hattingh.

From the very start, the recent Nigerian elections, which saw Olusegun Obasanjo placing his hand picked successor, Umaru Yar’ Adua, into the Presidential palace, were mired in controversy. The ballot papers for the election, which were printed in South Africa, contained no counter foils or serial numbers – features which would have made vote rigging difficult. In fact, only 40 million ballot papers were even printed; this for an election where over 65 million people had registered to vote [1]. To make matters worse, only 30% of these ballot papers were ever sent to Nigeria; the rest remained lying in a warehouse in Johannesburg on day of the elections [2]. Of the ballot papers that were sent to Nigeria, most were rushed off to areas that were and are strongholds of Obasanjo’s and Yar’ Adua’s ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party. In contrast, areas where there was strong opposition to the government, such as the Niger Delta, did not receive enough ballot papers. On the day of the election, independent observers noted that vote rigging and fraud were rife. Yar’ Adua supporters were even seen stuffing fraudulent ballot papers into ballot boxes at voter stations across the county [3]. Intimidation of opposition supporters was also widespread. In fact, over 200 people, mainly members of the opposition parties, were murdered in the run up to the elections [4]. This situation that led most independent observers to declare the elections deeply flawed.

The South African government, however, had a very different view of the elections. Spearheaded by Thabo Mbeki, it came out and said the elections had been free and fair. Indeed, South Africa was the first country to congratulate and offer support to the ruling party’s candidate, Yar’ Adua, on ‘winning’ the elections [5]. Immediately following this, he was invited to Tshwane to have a personal congratulatory meeting with Thabo Mbeki. The question is: why would the South African government fall over itself to congratulate Yar’ Adua on ‘winning’ an election that was so clearly rigged? The answer to this question lies in South Africa’s policy towards Africa, in the form of New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the relationship that it has with the ruling party in Nigeria, and the expansionist agenda that South African corporations and parastatals have in Nigeria.

South Africa’s policy towards Africa: neo-liberalism and NEPAD

Despite what the ANC government claims, South Africa’s foreign policy towards Africa is not based on Pan-Africanism or anti-imperialism; it is rather based on promoting South Africa’s expanding business interests on the continent. In reality, the South African state’s interests, in both the domestic and African arena, have become fused with those South Africa’s capitalist elite.

In Africa, South Africa has used it hegemonic position, based on leadership by consent and at times coercion, to develop a neo-liberal policy – NEPAD - for the entire continent. The close relationship that exists between the South African state and South African capital is the main reason why NEPAD emerged [6]. Representatives of South Africa’s capitalist class, along with other neo-liberal government advisors, played a central role in developing NEPAD. In true hegemonic fashion, however, South Africa also brought junior partners on board, such as ex-president Obasanjo of Nigeria, so that it could pass its own initiative off as an African initiative.

Nonetheless, South Africa’s control over NEPAD is underpinned by the fact that NEPAD’s headquarters are situated in South Africa. It is also no mere coincidence that Thabo Mbeki’s main economic advisor, Professor Wisemen Nkuhlu, is the executive head of NEPAD.

NEPAD itself is based on some of the classic pillars of neo-liberal economic fundamentalism. It views the private sector as the main driving force of the African economy. As such, NEPAD states that all barriers to companies making profits in African countries, such as Nigeria, should be removed. It explicitly promotes the development of the private sector; privatisation; free trade; financial liberalisation; labour flexibility; and foreign direct investment in Africa [7]. Indeed, NEPAD states that foreign direct investment is its most important pillar. Considering that South African corporations and parastatals are already responsible for the vast majority of foreign direct investment in Africa, it is very clear who stands to benefit. In fact, all of NEPAD’s neo-liberal pillars are creating a climate that facilitates the expansion and profiteering of South African companies in Africa. The reality is that NEPAD aims to further entrench the neo-liberal policies that the IMF and World Bank imposed on Africa, only this time the South African government hopes it will be to the advantage of South African multinationals [8]. Wisemen Nkuhlu stated as much in 2003, when he said:

“South Africa’s self interest in the socio-economic development of the continent is well understood by business. South Africa needs markets for her products and access to raw materials that are not produced in South Africa. Countries like Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and many other countries have resources that are of economic interest to South Africa…. Supporting and sponsoring NEPAD, places South Africa in a strong position to become the preferred development partner by a number of African countries”[9] .

The South African state has not only opened up Nigeria’s economy to South African investments and exports through NEPAD, it has also done so through bi-lateral agreements and a Bi-national Commission.

South Africa’s bi-lateral interventions in Nigeria

Prior to 1999, South Africa had a poor political relationship with Nigeria. At the time, Nigeria was ruled by a military junta that was politically hostile towards South Africa. This, however, dramatically changed with the end of the military government and the election of the People’s Democratic Party’s leader, Obasanjo, as the Nigerian president in 1999. From that point on, the South African state built a strong, but unequal relationship with the People’s Democratic Party government under the leadership of Obasanjo and Yar’ Adua. This relationship was also helped by the fact that Thabo Mbeki had formed a strong friendship with Obasanjo and Yar’ Adua when he was in exile in Nigeria from 1976 to 1979 [10].

In 1999, the South African and Nigerian governments signed bi-lateral agreements on trade and investment. These agreements, amongst other things, aimed to increase the amount of trade and investments between South Africa and Nigeria [11]. Along with this, the agreement on investments specifically protected South African companies’ investments in Nigeria, which included protection from any possible future nationalisation [12]. Indeed, the agreement on investments was highly favourable for prospective South African investors in Nigeria. Added to this, the two governments also signed an agreement on eradicating double taxation. This meant that South African companies that paid tax in Nigeria would not have to pay tax again on profits that were, and are, repatriated to South Africa [13]. Such measures were aimed at increasing the attractiveness of Nigeria for South African investors.

In October 1999, a South Africa-Nigeria Bi-National Commission was also established by the South African and Nigerian governments. The Bi-National Commission has been meeting twice a year ever since, and aims to increase the amount of trade and investment between South Africa and Nigeria. The Deputy Presidents of South Africa and Nigeria head up the commission. Representatives from all government departments attend the meetings along with top South African business people. At the meetings, trade and investment opportunities in Nigeria are identified and plans are put in place so that they can be realised. In this way, many deals that have proved very lucrative for South African companies and parastatals have been facilitated through the Bi-National Commission.

The South Africa-Nigeria Chamber of Commerce also arose out of the Bi-National Commission. Some of the largest South African companies that have investments in Nigeria are members of the Chamber, such as MTN, Standard Bank, First Rand, Imperial, Johncom, Massmart, Nampak and Sun International [14]. The main goal of the South African-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce is to identify investment opportunities in Nigeria for South African corporations [15]. Added to this, the South African-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce also provides information on Nigerian government policies and how to do business in Nigeria. It also conducts market research for South African companies wanting to invest Nigeria. The Chamber receives strong support from the

South African government. On many occasions the President, Deputy President and other government officials have addressed and offered support to members of the Chamber. Linked to this, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) launched the South African-Nigeria Business Investment Forum to assist South African companies wanting to invest in Nigeria [16].

The South African High Commission in Nigeria also provides massive assistance to South African companies investing, or wishing to invest in Nigeria. In fact, it works closely with the South Africa-Nigeria Chamber of Commerce and the DTI to further South African business interests in Nigeria. It also provides various services to prospective South African investors in Nigeria, including providing contacts and information on Nigeria’s business climate.

All of the above measures have been extremely valuable in furthering South Africa’s business interests in Nigeria. Indeed, the South African state has used its diplomatic power and the relationship that it has with the Nigerian government to assist South African corporations and parastatals to become big players in the Nigerian economy.

South African corporations and parastatals have become big players in Nigeria

Prior to 1999, there were only 4 South African companies operating in Nigeria [17]. This situation has dramatically changed with the assistance of the South African state, and the signing of bi-lateral agreements and the establishment of a Bi-National Commission. Today there are now over 100 South African companies doing business in Nigeria [18]. Within a mere 8 years, South African companies have become major players in almost every sector of Nigerian economy.

The biggest investment by South African companies in Nigeria has been in the telecommunications sector. In 2001, MTN was awarded a license by the Nigerian government to operate a cell phone network in the country. In return, MTN had to pay licensing fees of over US $ 285 million. Added to this, MTN has spent a further US $ 1 billion on setting up its operations in Nigeria [19]. Currently, MTN is the largest cellular network company in Nigeria and has over 10 million subscribers [20]. This has seen MTN making massive profits in the country. In 2004 alone, MTN recorded an after tax profit of over R 2.4 billion in Nigeria [21]. Such profits have led other South African telecommunications companies to also set up shop in Nigeria in a bid to get a piece of the very lucrative pie. This year, Telkom announced that it was buying Multilinks, which operates a wireless network in Nigeria, for US $ 200 million [22].

South African companies have also become dominant in Nigeria’s construction sector. Entech, a Stellenbosch based engineering company, headed a consortium of South African companies that were awarded a tender worth R 2.1 billion from the Lagos State government to redevelop the Bar Beach and Victoria Island area outside of Lagos. The idea is to turn the area into a complex akin to the V&A Waterfront [23]. Another South African construction firm, Group Five, was awarded a R 585 million deal to build a power station in Nigeria for the Ibom Power company [24].

Many large South African companies have also invaded the tourism and leisure sector in Nigeria. Under NEPAD, the South African parastatal, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) has become one of the largest investors in Nigeria’s tourist sector. To date it has invested over US $ 1.4 billion in tourism and telecommunications ventures in Nigeria [25]. Another major player in the tourism sector is the South African company Bidvest. Through its subsidiary, Tourvest, it has purchased one of the biggest tourism companies in Nigeria, Touchdown Travel. The biggest development in the Nigerian tourism sector, however, is the massive Tinapa Project in the Cross River State. This project falls under the auspices of NEPAD and has the full backing of the South African and Nigerian governments. The project entails the construction of a massive entertainment complex, consisting of 4 shopping centres, 5 bulk warehouses, 4 hotels, and a casino, and is set to cost over US $ 300 million [26]. The major stakeholders in this development are South African companies, such as the Standard Bank, Tsogo Sun, Broll, Johncom and Southern Sun. Indeed, the centre pieces of this development will be a 300 room hotel owned by Southern Sun and a casino owned by Tsogo Sun. Another South African company, Broll, will be the leasing agents of the complex. The South African state has provided direct assistance to these companies so that they can carry out this project. Indeed, the state owned IDC has provided finance, and has underwritten these companies’ investments in this project.

In the Nigerian retail sector, South African companies also loom large. Massmart and Shoprite have opened a number of stores in Nigeria. Added to this, Johncom has established a number of stores selling books, CDs and DVDs in Nigeria [27]. A number of South African companies have also entered into the fast food business, including Famous Brands, St Elmo’s and Nandos. In fact, South African companies control almost 50% of the international fast food franchising industry in Nigeria, and have out competed companies from both the European Union and the United States. Considering that the fast food industry in Nigeria is worth over US $ 2.5 billion a year, this control over the fast food franchising business in Nigeria has meant that South African companies have made super profits 28]. The South African property management group, Broll, has also landed a deal to manage 594 retail fuel stations across Nigeria [29]. This deal too is worth millions of dollars.

South African companies are also heavily involved in Nigeria’s media and entertainment sector. DSTV is a major force in the television industry and accounts for 90% of the viewers that watch satellite TV in Nigeria [30]. This has seen DSTV growing into the sixth largest company listed on the Lagos Stock Exchange. Johncom has also eagerly entered into the Nigerian entertainment sector. It has established cinema complexes throughout Nigeria. One of these cinema complexes, in Lagos, cost US $ 40 million dollars to develop [31]. Along with this, Johncom has purchased one of the largest daily newspapers in Nigeria, Business Day [32]. South Africa’s parastatals have also ventured into the entertainment industry. For example, Arivia.com was provided with a contract worth R 140 million by the Nigerian government to assist with the running of that country’s lottery.

Since adopting NEPAD, the Nigerian state has been accelerating the privatisation process in the country. South African parastatals have been one of the major beneficiaries of this process. Indeed, through its parastatals, the South African state has become directly involved in accumulating capital in Nigeria. For example, as part of the move towards privatisation, the Nigerian government provided Umgeni Water with R 350 million contract to manage Port Harcourt’s water services for 3 years. At the moment, this contract could possibly be extended to 20 years [33]. If it is extended, it would be a massive money-spinner for Umgeni Water and the South African state.

As part of the privatisation of the energy sector, the Nigerian government allowed the state owned ESKOM to buy a 51% stake in the Nigerian Electric Power Authority (NEPA). With this, ESKOM received contracts worth US $ 165 million from the Nigerian government. Eskom has also entered into a partnership with Shell in Nigeria to upgrade and operate gas powered power stations. The Nigerian government has granted Eskom and Shell a US $ 540 million contract to operate power stations in Port Harcourt [34]. It is very interesting that ESKOM, a company owned by the South African state, wished to enter into a partnership with Shell considering Shell’s appalling human rights and environmental record in Nigeria. Indeed, Shell has destroyed the environment of the Niger Delta and has been directly responsible for over 3 000 oil spills in that area since 1976. Added to this, Shell, along with the Nigerian government, has been implicated in the murder of over 2 000 activists in the Niger Delta since the 1980s [35]. Clearly, the South African government and ESKOM are not interested in this; what they are interested in, however, is profit.

Prior to 1999, the Nigerian government awarded all of the oil concessions in the country to companies from the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy. As a result, companies from the Northern imperial powers dominated Nigeria’s oil sector. After 1999, this situation began to change, in part because of the close relationship that the new Nigerian government had, and has, with the South African government. Companies from the Northern imperial powers, although still dominant, no longer have a complete monopoly over the oil concessions in Nigeria; companies from South Africa, China and India have also got a piece of the action. One of the first actions of Obasanjo’s government in 1999 was to award the South African state the right to market 50 000 barrels of Nigerian oil a day. In 2003, Thabo Mbeki intervened to ensure that this was increased to 120 000 barrels of oil a day. However, the South African government has selected to pass on the rights to market this oil to a shadowy company, the South African Oil Company, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. The South African Oil Company in the Cayman Islands is 70% owned by a Nigerian-American businessman, Jakes Lawal. Who owns the other 30%, however, is a mystery [36]. Indeed, the Cayman Island law system protects the identity of the shareholders that own the other 30%. Lawal, however, has close connections with leading ANC figures. In fact, the Mail and Guardian, reported that rumours have been circulating that the ANC directly benefited from this deal. Indeed, it is interesting that the Cayman Island’s South African Oil Company also has a sister company registered in South Africa. It is perhaps no co-incidence that some of the shareholders in this sister company happen to be leading ANC figures. These shareholders are:

• Nomusa Mufamadi, wife of Sydney Mufamadi
• Hintsa Siwisa, brother-in-law of the Eastern Cape Premier
• Miles Nzama, leading figure in the ANC Fundraising Trust
• and Brian Casey, a confidant of Penuell Maduna [37]

Other, more genuine South African companies have also enjoyed receiving oil concessions from the Nigerian government. Ophir Energy, owned by Tokyo Sexwale’s Mvelephanda Resources, has been given the right to drill for oil in several blocks in Nigeria. This is bound to add to Ophir’s current value of over R 14 billion [38]. The parastatal PetroSA has also been given the right to drill in a number of oil blocks. Added to this, PetroSA owns Brass Exploration Unlimited in Nigeria. Through this company, PetroSA and the South African state have a 40% interest in the Abana oilfield off the Nigerian coast. Currently, the Abana oilfield is producing 22 000 barrels of oil a day [39]. Some South African companies have also entered into partnerships with well established multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria. For example, SASOL has entered into a 50/50 partnership with Chevron to develop a gas to fuel plant at Chevron’s Escravos oil terminal [40]. This plant will cost US $ 1.3 billion and is planned to come on line this year [41]. It will initially produce 33 000 barrels of fuel a day, but this will be increased to as much as 120 000 barrels a day over the next 10 years [42]. A number of South African firms have also become involved in providing services to the oil multinationals in Nigeria. Most notably, Grinaker established an oil-rig fabrication yard in Port Harcourt in 2000. It assembles and services the oil rigs that multinational oil companies use in the Niger Delta at that facility [43].

The Nigerian people have not benefited from South Africa’s expanding investment

Despite all this investment, the people of Nigeria have not benefited. This is partly because South African corporations operating in Nigeria are allowed to repatriate the profits that they make out of Nigeria. Added to this, many of Nigeria’s economic sectors have become completely foreign owned, which has had negative implications for the country’s sovereignty. The majority of South African corporations also source most of the products that they use or sell in Nigeria through South Africa and not locally. This means they operate in an enclave and do not promote the creation of up stream or down stream industries in Nigeria. South African companies operating in Nigeria have also created very few jobs. The jobs that they have created have tended to be casual. At many South African owned companies in Nigeria, workers have been denied the right to join trade unions [44]. For example, despite its massive profits, MTN has only created 500 permanent jobs. Most of its employees are casual or temporary workers, and it has denied all of its workers the right to join a trade union [45].

South African companies have also been involved in blatant profiteering and looting in Nigeria. Indeed, MTN charges the highest rates in the world for cellular phone calls in Nigeria [46]. Along with this, some South African companies have implemented heavy handed tactics to recover revenue owed to them by Nigerian consumers [47]. In fact, ESKOM/NEPA has hired 10 South African companies to collect the debt that it was, and is, owed by Nigerian consumers . Some South African companies have even been involved in, or were complacent in, human rights abuses in Nigeria. For example, in 2005 there was a community protest outside of the Escravos oil terminal where Chevron and SASOL are establishing their gas to fuel plant. Representatives of these companies at the Escravos oil terminal called in Nigerian security forces to break up the demonstration. On arrival, the Nigerian forces opened fire on the crowd, killing one person and injuring a further 30. Some of the protesters were then severely beaten with rifle butts and other weapons. Added to this, access to the healthcare facilities at the Escravos terminal was denied to the injured protesters. The result was that it took several hours for the injured protesters to find their way to a hospital [48].

Conclusion

From the above, it is clear that the ruling party in Nigeria has served the South African capital and the state’s interests well. It has facilitated the process whereby South Africa has become a major economic player in Nigeria in only 8 years. Indeed, South Africa has joined the older imperial powers in looting Nigeria’s resources and dominating its economy. It is, therefore, no wonder that the South African government immediately offered its congratulations to Obasanjo’s hand picked successor, Yar’ Adua’ directly after the elections. Indeed, Yar’ Adua has vowed to continue with the Obasanjo’s policies, and inevitably this will include serving South Africa’s interests well in Nigeria; even to the detriment of the Nigerian people. For as long as Yar’ Adua carries out policies that favour South African capital and the state, he can count on the backing of the Africa’s own imperial power, South Africa.

For references, see link below.

* Shawn Hattingh Works for ILRIG in Cape Town

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

Since 1999 there has been a consistent deterioration in the conduct of Nigerian elections. Abdul Raufu Mustapha assesses the impact on Nigeria’s recent fraudulent elections on the future political and economic development of Nigeria.

Nigerians have not forgotten the June 12th 1993 Presidential elections which were annulled under controversial circumstances by General Babangida, plunging the country into political crises. Similarly, Nigerians are unlikely to forget the state and national elections of April 2007. There was much hype in anticipation of the 2007 elections: US National Security Adviser, Negroponte testified before Congress that these were the most important elections in Africa in 2007, while Nigerians themselves trumpeted the fact that this was going to be the first time that a civilian-to-civilian transition took place in the country.

The elections have come and gone, trailed by near universal condemnation. But we need to pause and ask, what do the elections mean for Nigeria’s future? The problems with the elections can be classified into three broad categories: incompetence and deliberate bungling by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); widespread use of thugs and the security forces against voters; and the flagrant abuse of the powers of incumbency.

The Electoral Commission’s catalogue of illegalities included the flouting of court orders; illegal/unconstitutional disqualification of candidates; refusal to include the names and pictures of major opposition candidates for the gubernatorial elections in Anambra State in spite of subsisting court rulings; the late arrival or non-arrival of voting materials in many places followed often by no voting, yet results were announced; in some states, the INEC headquarters announced a result when the Resident Electoral Commissioner in situ said there was no result; declaration of results while collation and counting of votes were still going on; and a month after the April polls ended, three INEC staff were caught thumb-printing ballot papers meant for the election at Igarra, Edo State, in a bid to manufacture supporting evidence for their already declared result. These can hardly be said to be the actions of a competent and fair arbiter in an electoral contest.

INEC’s commissions and omissions were compounded by the widespread use of violence in the party primaries and during the actual elections. Patterns of the systematic use of violence included the use of thugs, bombings and assassinations during the party primaries to select party candidates; the use of the police and soldiers to intimidate voters and in many places they were also observed to have participated in the seizure of ballot boxes; the use of thugs to perpetrate violence with impunity, leading to the killing of 260 people on April 14, according to Amnesty International; the assassination in a Kano Mosque on April 13th Sheik Jafar Adam, an act possibly aimed at provoking ethno-religious rioting; the attack by the so-called ‘Taliban’ on April 17th on the police in Kano and the subsequent killing of 21 policemen; and post election political assassinations in Ondo state.

Finally, there was the blatant abuse of incumbency particularly by the PDP-controlled Federal government, including the sudden declaration of a two-day public holiday to frustrate the judicial process involving opposition candidates; the unannounced closure of Kaduna airport the day before an opposition party was to hold its congress there; the block booking of hotels in Abuja to frustrate another opposition party from holding its convention; the use of the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) to announce controversial results, such as in Jigawa State where the NTA reported that the opposition ANPP had won and two minutes later, reversed itself and awarded victory to the PDP; and finally, the physical assault on the Abia State Resident Electoral Commissioner by PDP party leaders.

Weeks before the presidential election on 21 April 2007, local and international pollsters predicted a tight race, all putting the opposition ANPP candidate Mohammadu Buhari slightly in front. In the end, INEC announced the victory of the Obasanjo protégé and PDP candidate Umaru Yar’ Adua with 24.3 million votes, with Buhari garnering 6.6 million votes and Action Congress candidate and Obasanjo antagonist, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, trailing with 2.6 million votes.

These elections have been roundly condemned by local and foreign observers, with the exception of Baroness Linda Chalker. Condemnations and strong reservations have come from the Nigerian Bar Association, Nigeria Labour Congress, Trade Union Congress, Nigeria Union of Journalists, Academic Staff Union of the Universities, and a host of local NGOs and religious organizations. Similar condemnations have come from international bodies, including the National Democratic Institute, National Republican Institute, European Union, Economic Community of West African States, the Commonwealth, COSATU, International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the committee of 48 Nobel Laureates, the Canadian parliament, and even Hilary Clinton. The EU observer delegation reflected generally held opinion when it concluded that the elections:

"were marred by poor organisation, lack of essential transparency, widespread procedural irregularities, significant evidence of fraud, particularly during the result collation process, voters' disenchantment at different stages of the process, lack of equal conditions for contestants and numerous incidents of violence."

Implications of the Elections: Perils of Succession Politics

Some have argued that all elections in Nigeria have been rigged. 2007 is therefore not any different. While it may be true that rigging has been a recurring feature of Nigerian politics with all parties guilty of different degrees of undemocratic conduct, 2007 nevertheless represent a qualitative difference in election rigging in Nigeria. To miss this point is to miss the danger that the 2007 elections represent.

In previous elections, you needed a minimum level of social support and acceptance to rig; there was a sociological foundation to rigging. Where rigging took place without the necessary social support, as in the Western Region in 1965 and Ondo State in 1983, widespread violence often followed. Scholars of African elections like Staffan Lindberg have argued that were repeated elections are held, they tend to entrench democratic norms. Repeated contestation between parties is seen as leading to the gradual sedimentation of democratic norms and practices. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s experience of elections since the return to civil democratic rule in 1999 contradicts this observation.

Between 1999 and 2007, Nigeria has held three elections, and there has been a systematic and persistent deterioration in the quality of the elections; 1999 was not problem-free, but it was better than 2003 which was itself better than the 2007 elections. These observations are supported by a comparison of election monitors’ reports from 1999. In 1999, there were some complaints of old-style ‘competitive’ rigging as the different parties sought to press home their advantages in different constituencies across the country. Most observers remarked that the 1999 elections were peaceful, and that despite the perceived problems the announced outcome was roughly consistent with the wishes of the Nigerian electorate, even if the margins of victory had been inflated. In 2003, however, we begin to see the systematic deployment of organized thuggery, violence and the brazen manipulation of party congresses and the actual elections in few states, particularly in the Niger Delta and the South East. In 2007, this violence and brazen manipulation was broadcast across much of the country. In 2007, Nigeria decisively moved from ‘competitive rigging’ to ‘coercive rigging’; from elections, no matter how flawed, to brazen ‘selection’.

Under ‘competitive rigging’, your supporters simply stuffed some more ballot papers for their preferred candidate and party thugs sought to intimidate the opposition. But the law enforcement agencies generally tried to stop the thugs and maintain a semblance of public order. In some instances, the sanitary inspector, the local authority police, or the Emir’s courts were used to harass opponents of the ruling party. Under ‘coercive rigging’, there is the outright resort to state-sponsored violence, the blatant abuse of the electoral machinery, and the deliberate undermining of the courts. Cudgels, guns and administrative subterfuge have replaced the microphone as the preferred instrument of political communication. When Obasanjo said the elections were going to be a ‘do-or-die’ affair, most Nigerians missed the import of that statement for he must have meant exactly that. It is therefore not surprising that guns and ammunitions were imported for the election even when basic electoral material had not been provided!

It is little wonder that the declared winner, Yar’ Adua, claimed that he won ‘fair & square’, rather than ‘free & fair’. God he said gives power to whosoever He wants! I thought elections were about citizens’ choice? Between 1999 and 2007, there has been the gradual constriction of democratic space, as ‘selection’ of candidates replaced ‘elections’. If this trend is not corrected, future elections in Nigeria have the potential of degenerating into widespread social conflict as the opposition will quickly learn that ‘preparing for elections’ means training your own vigilante groups and thugs as counter-terror confronts state-sponsored terror. Yar Adua has rightly promised electoral reforms in tacit acknowledgement of the gravely flawed process that brought him to power. Without these promised reforms, democracy, or even the continued existence of the country, will be severely put at risk. Nigerians are lucky in that the current sharp political divisions do not correspond to the entrenched cleavages of ethnicity, region and religion. The country may not be so lucky in future, if it continues with the culture of shambolic elections and impunity. The simple message is that there can be no democracy without respect for voters’ choice; if this basic fact is not quickly grasped, Nigeria faces the peril of succession politics in subsequent elections.

After 2007, What Next?

There has been some suggestion that once the transition to another administration takes place, things will quieten down and the much-trumpeted economic reforms of the Obasanjo presidency will resume. This desire for reform continuity in the West is often exacerbated by the politics of oil supplies. Let no one have any illusions: 2007 has sown the seed of insecurity and instability and things will not get back to normal until that ghost, like the ghost of the 1993 election, is addressed.

Such has been the enormity of the assault of the 2007 elections on the collective psyche of the nation that it could easily have provided the pretext for military opportunists to begin plotting to seize power. The National Party of Nigeria’s rigged ‘landslide victory’ in 1983 provoked the Buhari/Idiagbon military regime. In earlier times, therefore, we could safely assume that some factions within the military are already planning some mischief. I doubt though that a military coup is a possibility today for various intra-military and extra-military reasons. And if, out of national misfortune, one were to happen, it is likely to cause more problems than it will solve. It is therefore gratifying that the opposition Action Congress recently slapped down a military chief who hinted that in the post April election situation, the military will not fold its arms if there is widespread breakdown of law and order. All Nigerians must resist the temptation of seeing the military as a solution to the current political crisis.

If we remove the military from the equation, then we have three other factors to ponder: the response of the opposition and Civil Society groups to Yar Adua’s ‘(s)election’; ex-president Obasanjo’s intentions and his real ‘exit strategy’; and the likely trajectories of Yar Adua’s administration.

Opposition & Civil Society
When the opposition failed to get the proposed mass action going on May 1st 2007, many felt that Nigerians had accepted the fait accompli of the enthronement of the new administration. In the face of belligerent threats from the police, many activists felt that they could not put themselves at risk for the benefit of unreliable opposition politicians. Ordinary Nigerians probably wanted to get on with their struggle to eek out a living. It would be wrong, however, based on the inaction of May 1st, to conclude that Nigerians have now accepted the Yar Adua administration. Importantly, a number of significant actions continue to signify widespread displeasure. For instance, the Nigerian Bar Association conducted a successful boycott of courts in protest at the elections and has suggested the likelihood of conducting a judicial review of the elections to document what happened; the Nigeria Labour Congress carried out a partially successful 2-day sit-at-home protest, and refused to serve on the presidential inauguration committee; there was also the unprecedented demonstration by the ‘Women in Black’ in Abuja and similar demonstrations against the elections have been held in London and 10 American cities. Nigerians United for Democracy (NUD), an umbrella group of prominent pro-democracy activists and politicians has given Yar Adua an ultimatum to quit office, while prominent opposition figures like Wole Soyinka have testified before a committee of the American Congress and demanded that Yar Adua set up a panel to investigate the failed elections which he blamed on the ‘criminal quartet’ of Obasanjo, INEC chair Iwu, former Police chief Ehindero, and PDP chair, Ahmadu Ali. Meanwhile, the legal challenge by opposition politicians in 11 states and the federal level continue at various election tribunals.

These actions may not be as dramatic of mass action, but collectively, they cast a dark shadow of illegitimacy on the Yar Adua administration. It is this obvious lack of legitimacy that made it difficult for ex-president Obasanjo to pay a proposed farewell visit to Washington just before his departure from office. Both Britain and the US sent relatively lower ranking officers to Yar Adua’s inauguration; for the inauguration of the President of Liberia, the US sent a delegation led by Laura Bush and included Secretary of State Rice. For Yar Adua’s inauguration, it was left to the State Department, not the White House, to send a low-key delegation led by Jendayi Frazer. It is speculated that Obasanjo might loose his membership of the club of ex-presidents and Prime ministers, Interaction, and his invitation to serve on Tony Blair’s Africa Panel has been publicly challenged in the British media. Blighted by its heritage and lacking both domestic and international legitimacy, the Yar Adua administration is vulnerable.

Obasanjo’s Intentions
A second important piece of our jig-saw is ex-president Obasanjo’s real intentions in foisting Yar Adua first on the PDP, and then on Nigeria as a whole. Under Obasanjo, the PDP changed its rules so that only he can be the leader and ‘conscience’ of the party. Candidates on the party’s platform were also compelled to sign contracts of ‘obedience’ to the party, and the rules have been changed so that the party is said to be supreme to its elected members in public office. Ladipo Adamolekun recently pointed what he called the ‘dangerous doctrine of party supremacy’ that now pervades the PDP as Obasanjo’s presidential term came to an end. Central to this syndrome was the equation of loyalty to the PDP to loyalty to the Nigerian nation, and a division of labour by which the party under Obasanjo’s control decided policy, while the elected governments under the party’s platform, including the Yar Adua administration, are given the role of policy implementation. There is no doubt that Obasanjo is seeking to entrench his influence in the new administration. But to what ends? One reason may be to defend his back as he moves off the centre stage of presidential power? Or to tele-guide Yar Adua from behind and consolidate his alleged status as the ‘founder of modern Nigeria’? Obasanjo’s real intentions will influence the stability of the Yar Adua administration for while Yar Adua is likely to be willing to defend him, it is not clear if Yar Adua is willing, or can afford, to be a tele-guided robot.

Yar Adua
The final piece of our jig-saw is Yar Adua himself. He has so far given contradictory signals with regard to his intentions. Will he be an Obasanjo robot? Or will he unfold an independent agenda once he consolidates his hold on power? On the one hand, he promised to only marginally tinker with the personnel and policies of Obasanjo’s government. On the other, he has promised a ‘servant-leadership’ style, which can only be taken as an oblique criticism of Obasanjo’s proverbial high-handedness; he has also promised a programme of national ‘restoration’, another Freudian acknowledgement of his tarnished inheritance.

Much of what we have heard about Yar Adua is that he is taciturn, ascetic and relatively incorrupt. These are good leadership qualities by Nigerian standards. We should also remember, however, that he is equally capable of political ruthlessness. For examples, he forced out all the five leading members of the Katsina State PDP after he became governor in 1999; he successfully frustrated Aminu Masari, influential Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives from running for Katsina governor under the PDP in 2007; force and violence were freely used against the opposition in Katsina and Daura in the 2007 elections. We are clearly not dealing with a bumbling saint, but it remains to be seen if he has the will and determination to resist being turned into a puppet.

The stability and security of post-election Nigeria will therefore depend on three critical factors: what the opposition and civil society do; what Obasanjo’s real intentions are; and Yar Adua’s capabilities and response to both. If out of vulnerability, Yar Adua sticks with Obasanjo and the PDP, he is likely to face increasing civil protest and rely more on the coercive apparatus set up under the Obasanjo presidency. If, on the other hand, he decides to be independent of Obasanjo, then he is likely to confront opposition from entrenched forces from within the PDP. Significantly, two people are already on record as saying that Yar’ Adua will ‘deal with’ Obasanjo: General TY Danjuma and Alhaji Makama, PDP Kaduna State Chairman. Whichever direction Yar Adua turns, he is likely to be confronted with stiff resistance, at least in the next 12 to 15 months. Those who think that reforms will continue once the transition to a new administration has taken place may well be mistaken. Nigerians live in the proverbial interesting times.

The Future of Democracy.

It is understandable that most Nigerians are disappointed and traumatized by the 2007 elections. There is no doubt that INEC’s conduct has brought dishonor to the country.

This current disappointment is coming on top of a long-run decline in support for the democratic administration since 1999. According to Afrobarometer surveys between 2000 and 2005, support for democracy in Nigeria has gone down from 81% of those surveyed in 2000, to 65% in 2005. Over the same period, ex-president Obasanjo’s approval rating plummeted from 84% to 32%. The ‘(s)election’ of April 2007 further aggravates this growing disillusionment. Under the circumstances, it is easy to understand the air of despair that pervades the country.

Nigerians however need to remind themselves of some of the positive things that came out of the 2007 experience. Firstly, Yar Adua was not Obasanjo’s first choice; Obasanjo’s first choice through term elongation was Obasanjo himself. The political will that defeated the sit-tight design under the ‘third term’ can also be mustered to defeat ‘the son of third term’. Secondly the judiciary and the media have largely been beacons of hope. In the Ararume and Atiku cases that went to the Supreme and Federal Appeal courts, we see a judiciary committed to the rule of law and worthy of respect and support. This was certainly not the case in the electoral debacle of June 12th 1993. Thirdly, important organs and personalities of civil society have shown that they remain unbowed in the face of authoritarianism. Fourthly, General Buhari, in his statesman-like conduct, and Atiku, through his dogged reliance on the courts, have shown that they can still make useful contributions to the entrenchment of democratic norms in Nigeria. Finally, it should also be borne in mind that this was also the election in which the middle classes came out in post-colonial Nigeria to stand for something new and refreshing: Utomi, Agbaje, Oshiomole, Bugaje, and Fayemi.

It will be important for the opposition and civil society to use the courts, the media, and all peaceful avenues to force Yar Adua to redeem his promise of electoral reform. Nigerian democracy, or even the country itself, will not survive without serious and urgent electoral/constitutional reforms. Logically, it would seem that the correct strategy would be to put enough pressure on Yar Adua to make him sit up and redeem his pledge, but not so much that his only source of succour is the bosom of the Obasanjo-controlled PDP. Only Nigerians can save their country from the scourge of impunity which the sham elections of 2007 represent.

* Abdul Raufu Mustapha is a University Lecturer in African Politics & Kirk-Greene Fellow, University of Oxford.

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

On July 2007 the ordinary Assembly of Heads of State of the African Union will meet to discuss the nature of the continent’s integration agenda and the progress that has been made. This is the next, and probably the most important step to date in what started off as a desire to create continent-wide ministerial portfolio and has now grown into a full-scale drive to establish a Union government for the continent. This intergovernmental forum will assess the state of the Union and attempt to map a way forward in terms of nature, scope and time frame of a continental arrangement. In the lead-up to the grand debate there has been substantial consultation among interested parties at country and regional level across aimed at soliciting and articulating the views of the African people on the proposal for a continental government.

It is within this context that civil society groups met in Midrand, South Africa to first and foremost reaffirm the need for broad based consultation and input of the peoples of Africa. The meeting underlined the importance of the Pan African Parliament in seeking out and representing the views of their constituencies in the matter. The meeting stressed the primacy of democracy and rights-based governance. The groups also emphasized the need for governments to facilitate the input of their citizens on the issue. Of equal importance was the free movement of citizens of the continent through the abolition of visa requirements as well as exploring mechanisms for economic sustainability.

Nigerian civil society groups echoed these views when they met in May. The meeting concluded that whereas the idea of a Union government was desirable, there were challenges that needed to be overcome before the vision became a reality, such as common political and cultural values, identity, citizenship integration and state power. Again the issue of democracy and human rights was highlighted as an area of grave concern, and although fora such as theirs were taking place there was a need for greater attention to maintaining the vital link between the leaders and the people they represent in as far as the latter’s views were expressed and taken into consideration. Needless to say, this is a major challenge given that there still is a dearth of true democratic representation on the continent.

In June civil society groups in Kenya met to discus the proposed union government. In addition to echoing calls for greater attention to democracy, governance, human rights and free movement and economic participation for citizens across the continent, the meeting called for public access to information about the process, principles of good governance within the AU and African peoples sovereignty over the continent’s natural resources.

Debate in Ghana focussed on the institutional implications of the Union Government, as well as the need for the people of Africa to participate fully in the process. Concern was raised about foreign interest in the process, as well as the risks inherent in modelling western constructs of integration. As one speaker put it, “if indeed Africa has to come together in a continental and economic bloc, we all have to go back to school and unlearn what we have learnt in order to connect top the peculiar circumstances of Africa”.

Two schools of thought seem to emerge in the discussion. One favours a rapid formation of a Union government as a clear sign of intent and determination that will drive the process on. In other words, the political will involved in forming the union will provide the necessary impetus to ensure success of the venture, and advance the goal of a United States of Africa from a nebulous dream cherished since the heady beginnings of Pan-Africanism to a concrete reality. The other seems to favour a more gradual process based on strengthening the existing framework of the AU to ensure before creating a full-fledged United States of Africa. This school of thought is cognisant of the shortcomings of the AU as it exists today, and the challenges faced even at the level of regional economic communities in trying to forge greater integration.

African scholar Demba Moussa Dembele point to the lack of political will as evidenced by numerous agreements on regional integration dating back as far as thirty years that still remain unimplemented. He attributes this to a lack of willingness of leaders to put the interests of the continent above the personal and national. It is however impossible to have this discussion without considering the legitimacy of Africa’s leaders and whether their authority stems from the their own people. Dembele mentions external and internal factors that challenge the process, and states that the external factors both take advantage of, and aggravate the internal ones. He emphasizes the need for a leadership that both listens to its citizens and stands up to foreign domination.

At the Kenyan consultation forum Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem stated “it is better to have imperfection with ownership than perfection without any ownership”, underlining the primacy of the African peoples in the process. Whereas not all governments provide a voice for their people, other equally important channels continue to open up, through various national and trans-national civil society groupings that are increasingly articulating the views of the people. These channels must be encouraged and given voice. Whereas there have been various consultations, clearly this is by no means sufficient or widespread enough as far as the continent is concerned. Suffice it to say that there is a commonality of views raised at these meetings in terms of the issues affecting the rest of the continent

The debate has begun already and the voices of the people clearly say that they must lead and the governments follow on the road to a United States of Africa.

Useful links and Further Reading:

1. Grand Debate on the Union Government

2. Pambazuka News AU Monitor
http://www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor/
3. Communiqué from Kenyan Public Forum to popularise and inform the Government’s position on the AU proposal on Continental Government.

5. Involve the masses in the fight for African unity. Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem
http://www.africa-union.org/comments.htm
6. The Untied States of Africa: The Challenges. Demba Moussa Dembele

8. Africa needs to look at the past to forge ahead. Dr. Mammo Muchie
http://www.africa-union.org/comments.htm
10. Afrimap – Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project http://www.afrimap.org/research.php

* Joshua Ogada works with Fahamu and is Links and Resources editor of Pambazuka News
** Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

From the 1-3 July 2007, African leaders will meet in Accra, Ghana at the 9th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union. The major agenda item is the proposal and plans for the United States of Africa. Africa’s underdevelopment as manifested in its public health catastrophe is not on the AU summit agenda. This raises the crucial question of the kind of unity African leaders wish to achieve. Significantly the debate about the proposed union has revolved mainly around political issues without commensurate attention to the development issues which were no less important to the founders of the Pan African movement.

It is now six years since Heads of State of African Union member states pledged in Abuja in 2001 to commit at least 15 per cent of national budgets to health. To say it is tragic that in 2007 only two out of fifty three AU member countries (Botswana and Seychelles) have clearly met that pledge does not even begin to describe the situation. It is beyond tragedy.

In these past few weeks, all roads led to the G8 Summit in Germany. In what has become an annual ritual since the turn of the century, international campaigners Bono, Bob Geldof and an impressive assortment of Development and AIDS related organisations led the calls for more aid to Africa, and for Africa not to be forgotten in the clamour over climate change. As usual, selected African leaders turned up with begging bowls and for photo calls. Leading international campaigners have since described the aid pledged by the G8 this month as 'a farce' and 'grossly inadequate'.

We know that many of the more developed countries have played historical roles in under developing Africa. 400 years of industrial scale slavery, in addition to colonialism, ruthless exploitation of Africa’s resources, cynical ‘interventions’ and the debt burden have cost Africa dearly. The ‘foreign’ aid to Africa is a percentage of what has been taken out in human and natural resources, and is but a small step towards repairing the damage done to Africa.

But we also know that African leaders cannot seriously expect other countries to commit to, or meet pledges to ‘save’ Africa when they themselves appear indifferent to Africa’s future. To be going forward with plans for African unity without simultaneously meeting the most fundamental commitment to African development – that of health - is misguided to say the least.

It is comical for us to be calling on the G8 countries to meet the recent Gleneagles pledges when the vast majority of AU member states have not met their own Abuja 2001 pledge. This is not a pledge we can afford to pass unfulfilled. The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance (APHRA) and its '15% Now!' Campaign revealed on Human Rights Day (December 10) 2006 that by crossing continental, sub regional, country, health, disease specific and development information from a wide range of agencies and institutions we computed that an estimated 8,000,000 Africans are dying annually from preventable, treatable and manageable diseases and health conditions – mainly Malaria, TB, HIV, child and maternal mortality. This figure does not include organ related disease (heart, liver, kidney and lung diseases), an assortment of cancers, vaccine preventable diseases and so forth which could very easily add another million – or more. The consistency of these figures over the past six years alone means that Africa has suffered an estimated 48,000,000 preventable deaths since 2001.

By coincidence, the dream of the United States of Africa is planned to be actualised by 2015, the same year the Millennium Development Goals are to be met. If Africa’s health catastrophe continues unabated we could loose another 72,000,000 lives by then. This is the equivalent of whole nations dying out within a year or a decade. Many African countries (such as Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Namibia and Swaziland) have populations of between 1-8,00,000. Most of the island countries have populations of less than a million. Even Africa’s most populous countries (DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan - with the exception of Nigeria at 130,000,000) all have populations of between 30-80,000,000.

It would therefore not be an exaggeration to describe over 120 million preventable deaths between 2001 and 2015 as genocide – by inaction. In this case and for every life lost, government indifference to Public Health is the equivalent of an Interehamwe machete or Nazi gas chamber. If we were set up memorials to the preventable deaths from one year alone, we would need 100 stadiums in Africa with the capacity to each host 80,000 skulls – each a stadium of shameful silence, and a monument to government without responsibility.

Africa Must Unite! But for it to be a meaningful unity it must not be a unity of the dead. It must not be unity as a continental graveyard.

Meeting the 15 per cent pledge will be a significant indication that African leaders care for their countries and are prepared to live up to their primary responsibility of keeping their citizens alive and healthy. No meaningful and sustainable development of Africa can happen without sustainable financing for health care. Indeed the status of public health is the most significant indicator of social and economic development. This is why the Right to Health is the most crucial Right of all – we all have to be alive and well to exercise any other Rights. The dead have no Rights – except perhaps the ‘Right to a decent burial’.

To postpone the meeting of the 15 per cent pledge to the future is to accelerate the death of Africa. We call on the African Union to place the 2001 15 per cent pledge on the July 2007 summit agenda and at the very least to introduce it as urgent business [under item vii, AOB]. We further call on them to make it a major agenda item of the next summit or to call a special summit dedicated to meeting the 15% pledge. This should be preceded by a special summit of Finance and Economic Development Ministers

To further illustrate the full scale of Africa’s health disaster, it is not enough to demonstrate only the unprecedented scale of preventable death. It is also crucial to demonstrate the scale of Africa’s impotence and one example will suffice.

Without health workers, no amount of free medicines can be delivered to citizens, and all ‘foreign’ AID is meaningless. Yet many African governments have no clue how close to death their countries are due to shortage of health workers of all categories.

The DRC with a population of 57 million, roughly equivalent to the populations of UK, France and Italy has only 5,827 doctors compared to the France’s 203,000, Italy’s 241,000 and the UK’s 160,000. But it is not just a case of the most developed countries being able to train more health workers, or to poach from Africa to make up their shortfalls. Cuba with a population of about 11 million has roughly the same population as Malawi, Zambia or Zimbabwe. But Cuba has 66,567 Doctors compared with Malawi’s 266, Zambia’s 1,264 and Zimbabwe’s 2,086. Not surprisingly, Cuba has roughly the same life expectancy (77 years) as the G8 Countries, the Scandinavian and other developed countries while the average life expectancy for African countries compared to it here is 37 to 40 years. The success of Cuba in the areas of health care and education demonstrates it can be done. Despite issues with the Castro government, western countries have visited Cuba to study how they have achieved their health success. To come anywhere near meeting the World Health Organisation recommended health worker’s to patient ratio or meeting the health based MDG’s these African countries compared to Cuba will need to train and retain roughly 59,000 Doctors each in 8 years. The DRC will need to train and retain at least 150,000. The numbers for nurses, pharmacists and most categories of health workers are comparable across board. This should be Africa’s priority.

In other words, there is no alternative to long term in country sustainable financing to rebuild Africa’s Public Health systems including health workers and improved working conditions and remuneration for them, adequately equipped clinics and hospitals, improved sanitation and environmental health, clean drinking water and so forth. Without these Africa may achieve its dream of continental unity, but it will be a fools paradise.

We are for a United Africa. But it must be a unity of the living, and of a healthy African people – able to enjoy full civil, social, economic and political Rights - not a unity of the diseased, dead and dying. Successfully unity can only be based on successful development of which health is the corner stone.

The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance and its 15 per cent Now campaign calls on you to join the undersigned below in signing the petition calling on AU member countries to fulfil their 15 per cent Abuja pledge as the first genuine step towards a healthy United States of Africa.

* Rotimi Sankore is Coordinator, Africa Public Health Rights Alliance and its “15% Now!” Campaign.

Popularise the Union, its time has come
Interview with Bougouma Diagne, Cultural Association for Social and Educational Self-Promotion.

Without free trade and free movement, no need for Africans to unite
Interview with George Adhanja, The Kenya National Council of NGOs

No continental union without peace and security
Interview with Joseph Yav is a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Give room for civil society participation before adoption
Interview with Sanusi Ibraheem, The Intellectual Group, Nigeria

Democratic political leadership: pre-condition for continental union
African Union Monitor
Interview with Arnold Tsunga, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

The United States of Africa: The challenges
Demba Moussa Dembele

Demba Moussa Dembele examines the external and internal challenges faced by Africa in the face of globalization and the US led war on terror and asks if the current African leadership is up to building the United States of Africa in the present global environment.

English:
French:
French:

This paper attempts to re-visit the history of African unity and highlight the reasons for the current impetus toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s current inter-governmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set out conditions for its success.

The upcoming mid-year African Union (AU) summit of heads of state and government has as its primary agenda a ‘Grand Debate on the Union Government’. The ideological differences present in the first three decades of Africa’s political independence seem to have been rendered irrelevant due to the current ascendancy of neoliberalism as the only valid ideological basis for economic organisation both within national political-economies as well as globally. But new political distinctions have emerged - in part due to the emergence of the so-called ‘new breed’ of African leaders following the end of apartheid in South Africa and the movements towards political pluralism elsewhere. Such leaders have posited themselves as both able and willing to speak and act on behalf of the rest of Africa - Africa presented as being determined to re-birth itself as encapsulated in the concept of the ‘African renaissance’. Similarly, economic distinctions are now also clear - in part as a result of the economic directions initially pursued post-independence, in part due to variations in both the presence and utilisation of mineral and other natural resources and in part due to governance.

The result is that certain African states are, in effect, positioned as metropoles for the other African peripheries. Such African states, worried about the potential impact of union on their national political-economies, are hesitant about the potential for immediate union. Other African states, seeing nothing but advantages from a union, argue that, given Africa’s diversity, there will never be an ideal time and now is as good a time as any. Others are simply sceptical.

The scepticism is not unwarranted? Has the time come for union? Is Africa’s leadership genuinely ready for what union would entail?

The ‘Grand Debate’ in (fittingly) Accra this June seems set to answer these questions. While idea of the ‘Grand Debate’ may seem incredible given the lack of popular awareness of (let alone informed debates around) the process leading up to it, its potential impact on Africa and African peoples’ is not in question. But the process leading up to it is informed by motivations and rationales that are not as incredible. In fact, an exploration of these motivations and rationales reveal the process leading up to the ‘Grand Debate’ as somewhat inevitable - informed both by history and by the current context of Africa within the global political economy.

This paper thus attempts to re-visit that history and highlight the reasons for the current impetus toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s current intergovernmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set out conditions for its success. In so doing, the paper sets out and critically assesses the study which will inform ‘the Grand Debate,’ and drawing from debates within African civil society (including the African women’s movement) on the experience of the AU to date. It also assesses the financial proposals made by the study from the perspective of theory relating to processes of integration.

It concludes by noting that the time frame given in the study is too short. The low level of public awareness about the study, its recommendations and the upcoming ‘Grand Debate’ are bound to militate against implementation of the recommendations - even if the idea of pan-Africanism is an idea that has long been aspired to. The recommendations will be seen as imposed on African populations from the top-down, rather than arising from a consultative process which all Africans buy into and support. In addition, the financial proposals in particular cannot be achieved (as the study itself notes) within the nine years. Technical questions aside, they hinge on critical pre-conditions for success such as, at best, African citizenship (including African women’s autonomous citizenship rights) or, at least, freedom of movement across the continent - the achievement of either which will be difficult to implement given the varied economic performance of individual African states as well as the persistence of internal conflicts across the region.

This is not, however, to suggest that the study’s recommendations are unfeasible. True, the experience of the AU to date paints a picture of somewhat inconsistent and patchy progress that is more incipient than felt on the ground. But it also points to a significant shift towards meaningful collective action that bodes well for further intensification of the regional integration agenda.

But for the study’s recommendations to be achieved and the clarion call ‘Africa Unite’ to be realised, political will will need to be built up at the highest and lowest levels. Enhanced delivery by the AU as currently constituted is critical. While working towards an aspirational framework within a more reasonable timeframe, the focus should now be on resolving the gap between the AU’s normative framework and institutional and programmatic or project delivery.

* This paper was commissioned by, and reproduced here with the kind permission of, the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP), a project of the Open Society Institute (OSI).

* L. Muthoni Wanyeki is a political scientist based in Nairobi, Kenya.

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