In flight to Nigeria, Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem encounters a howling young man being deported from the United Kingdom. How is it that the youth of African countries will do anything to leave their place of birth and slave away in poorly paid jobs in rich countries? What kind of societies are being constructed in African countries when remittances act as the only method of survival for whole commmunties?

Today is Africa Day and I wish to share a very painful story with you.

One has heard or read many horror stories about detentions, forceful removals, and deportation of Africans accused of being 'illegal immigrants' or failed asylum-seekers, almost always from one European country or the other. Most people are not likely to encounter this directly. In February this year I came face to face with the inhuman way it is done.

I was travelling to Nigeria with a former radical lecturer, mentor to several generations of Nigerian students and intellectuals, Dr Patrick Wilmot. In 1988 he was kidnapped by security officials of the IBB regime (government of Ibrahim Babangida) and forcibly removed from Nigeria, a country in which he had lived in for almost 2 decades and despite the fact that he was and still is married to a Nigerian.

Wilmot's 'crime' was allegedly, 'teaching what he was not paid to teach'! Wilmot is of Jamaican origin but has lived longer in Nigeria than in Jamaica and is better known to Nigerians and considered 'one of us' by many. Yet in one night the military government yanked him away from his family and academic community and landed him in the United Kingdom, a country in which he had never lived in before and had nothing but a painful historical link of slavery and colonialism. Britain finally gave him legal residence and later citizenship and London has remained his home since 1988.

In spite of fears and anxiety by friends and colleagues unsure about the selective efficiency of the African state when it comes to real and imagined 'enemies', Wilmot was happy to be returning to a country from which he was deported. I was never officially deported from Nigeria but have become expert at being 'prevented to leave or enter the country' throughout the military regime and even under the current 'democratic' order. My travelling with Wilmot was both a personal and political assurance that we could face any trouble together and tough it out.

From checking in and boarding you know you are Nigeria-bound and in many ways feel like you are already in the country. As loud as Nigerians are infamous for, that evening there was an unusual noise coming from the back of the plane, distinct from the racket of voices around. The voice grew more disquieting as we sat so I went to check in the next cabin.

At the back of the plane was a young Nigerian man, definitely not more than 25 years old, sandwiched between two bully-built white British police/immigration officers and handcuffed to both of them. I made enquiries from the airhostesses since my initial attempt to talk to the man's captives was rebuffed. The hostess casually informed me that it was nothing unusual, that these things happen fairly regularly, that the man was being 'removed' and assured me that his noise would reduce as soon as the flight settled.

Meanwhile, the removal police were trying their best to calm down the howling young man as they would 'calm' an aggressive dog or cat. On his part he was just crying, howling, swearing, and whining like a trapped animal. It was so dehumanising and I felt humiliated for him and for Africa. Even sadder still was the general indifference of most of the other largely Nigerian passengers. Many of them have become inured to this kind of routine humiliation of fellow citizens. One even advised the whaling young man to 'shut up and try again when you get home'.

Here was Dr Wilmot, happy to return to a country from which he was unceremoniously thrown out, on the same flight with a young man being unceremoniously returned home. One got the impression that if he was left unshackled he could attempt jumping out of the plane. He wanted to be anywhere but home.

How bad can it be that a young man who should have his whole life ahead of him should be so frightened of going back home? What kind of society have we created where our young people see no hope in remaining in Africa and would do anything to leave it? We are even beginning to valorize poor jobs, bad pay and immigrant insecurity by gleefully talking these days about how important 'remittances' are to the welfare of Africans trapped in poverty at home. This actually makes it imperative for many young people to devise even more desperate means to opt out of Africa in order to become Western-Union life-savers to their families. Some countries are now even trying to launder that exploitation as part of Overseas Development Assistant (ODA)! And some of our own organisations in the name of Diaspora initiatives are directly or indirectly offering justification for this by only looking at the 'contribution' that remittance is playing instead of the wider conditions and the long term negative impact of whole communities dependent on handouts.

We do not tell the truth about the degradation, racism and exploitation that most of our people suffer in those 'shitty jobs', 'early morning and late night' that makes our peoples the last to go to sleep and the first to wake up!

These horror stories about immigration are repeated everyday across Africa and the world. Some of our own governments, despite being responsible for the economic and political conditions that are making many Africans leave home, even connive in the routine humiliation in their forcible return from different countries in Europe. Some of them are willing to accept payments from European countries in exchange for taking fellow Africans (not necessarily their citizens) that are deported from Europe.

Who says slavery is dead? This is official people trafficking by any other name and it is done with impunity by countries who have signed all kinds of international conventions allegedly protecting human rights. The same countries that are forcing us to globalise, open up our economies and markets, but are unwilling to open up their markets for our goods and our labour.

In spite of the humiliations many more people from across this continent will do anything to get a visa to go to the West and if that fails, anywhere else but Africa. Many years ago I had written about this phenomenon and suggested then that were a slave ship, properly labeled, to appear in any port city in Africa, people would rush into it proclaiming that they were fit to be slaves! It is worse today; we are in many ways financing our way into slavery both at home and globally.

As if the bad treatment from others was not enough, intra African trade and free movement of peoples are denied through branding of fellow Africans as 'aliens', 'foreigners', 'non indigenes' and 'settlers' even inside the same country. Pan Africanist entrepreneurs delivering goods and services to African people as when and where needed are criminalised as 'smugglers'.

They say Rome was not built in a day.

Today being Africa Day, we need to ask ourselves: if Romans were not there who would have built Rome? You need to ask yourself whether by your action or inaction you are part of the problem or part of the solution.

Happy Africa Day!

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

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

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem returns home to Kampala just as Yoweri Museveni is inaugurated for his third term. It’s a case of ‘no change’ that history will judge severely.

I was ' home' in Kampala last weekend. And what a time to be back, with all the reverie and revulsion in some quarters about the 'inauguration' or 'coronation' of President Museveni for his 'sad term' or his 'first term' under the new multi-party democratic framework.

Contrary to innocent speculations that I had come specifically for the big day itself, I was in Uganda for two meetings. My first meeting - on inauguration day - was one hour away in Jinja and organised by HURIPEC and the Political Science Department of Makerere University. The theme of the workshop, whether by design or mere coincidence was 'Debating Form and Substance in Africa's New Governance Models'. It was a meeting of the usual and the not so usual suspects on the activist-scholar circuits of this continent.

On the 'usual side' were the conveners themselves, my good friend the shoe professor (he had sworn that if Museveni did not win the Presidential elections he would [eat] his shoes), Joe Oloka Onyango, Yasin Olum, Susie Nansozi and others. From across Africa there was Adebayo Olukoshi, head of CODESRIA. Jibo Ibrahim, newly appointed Director of the Abuja-based Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD); Cherryl Hendricks, from the Institute for Security Studies in Johannesburg; Muthoni Wanyeki, Director of FEMNET in Nairobi and several others were also present. The veteran Mzee Dan Nabudere was there lending his wisdom and insight. On the 'unusual' side were a bright group of up and coming scholar-activists from Makerere. I had agreed to participate at the last minute, selfishly hoping to catch up with old friends and comrades. But the workshop did surprise me most pleasantly in terms of originality. For as long as Africans continue to think profoundly about our condition and possess the courage to offer solutions and act on them Africa will never surrender.

Needless to say that events in Kampala cast their shadows over the discourse. The presence of a dozen African heads of state and/or heads of government in one city, plus numerous other representatives of reportedly more than thirty states, cannot go unnoticed even by the most cynical group of activists and scholars. Kololo Hill (venue of the inauguration), between Museveni and his guests, on 12 May had all the forms of emerging models of governance. I had joked to the organisers that it was not possible to model governance without governors and there were governors of governors in town.

By the time I left my scholar-activist colleagues in Jinja and got to Kla, the swearing in was over but the 'swears' in some quarters and ululations in others. The long march back to their various villages and poor slums by the numerous supporters of the sworn-in candidate was in full force.

The publicists have been spinning the 'coronation' as an epoch-making new dawn. Although the initial enthusiastic announcement of 30 heads of state being expected turned out to be grossly inflated the turn out was no less impressive. But their claim before the event that 30 heads of state were coming is what made the turn out of 12 look like a failure. The other presidents of the East African community were there. The growing influence of Rwanda and a new realism in the relationship between Uganda and Rwanda was evidenced by President Kagame's presence and the special mention and excitement it received in the media. As regional powers go, Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's philosopher king, was there. The grand old man of anti Western belligerency loathed by the West but always a winner with many Africans, Uncle Bob, was there. The DRC compensated for the absence of Kabila Jr, (obviously held back by his own scheming for a 'first ' term in elections due soon) by sending two surplus vice presidents. There was also the president of Djibouti and the president of Somalia. Toss in the president of Burundi and other dignitaries and you cannot begrudge the National Resistance Movement their few hours in the sun. To crown it all Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, who could not make it for the coronation, came in for the after party.

I could not help recalling that there was a time when Museveni’s visionary leadership was the beacon of hope for many Africans and the envy of many of his colleagues. Every one wanted to be his friend then. But now he needs to be everybody's friend, hence the long list of would be visitors. A regime that depended so much on internal support is now running on an artificial supply of energy from other African leaders. A president that used to be envied by his fellow presidents for being western-friendly has now returned back to the fold as anti-western, albeit in a very selective way. A man who used to be feted is now desperate to fete others. On the other hand those same leaders who used to deride him as a 'western stooge' are now best pals with him. What is form and what is substance?

The day after the inauguration I went for my second meeting. It was a preparatory meeting for CSO’s involved in the UN Conference on Least Developing Countries, of which Uganda (in spite of decades of HIPC, AGOA, donor-support, etc), along with 33 other African countries, are members. By coincidence the coordinator was a comrade from Nepal very active in the popular struggles for democracy in Nepal. Understandably many participants wanted to know more and get better information beyond what we have seen on our televisions recently. The irony was not lost on many of us that while the Nepalese were trying to remove the monarchy and enthrone democracy, in many African countries the challenge is in preventing democracies from becoming monarchies or elective dictatorships. People used to come and consult Museveni on new ideas, now the likes of Obasanjo are visiting him to find ways of conspiring against the wishes of their own peoples. History will judge and do so most severely. How times have changed even as the supporters of Museveni cry 'No Change'!

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem visits a Pan African Parliament session in South Africa and reports back on the progress of one of the African Union’s most important institutions. After two years of existence, the PAP is making progress, although teething problems remain.

The Pan African Parliament (PAP) has been sitting for its Fifth Ordinary Session in Midrand, South Africa. On its agenda are: the rationalization of Economic Communities (RECs) in Africa; Peace and Security in Africa focusing on the Great Lakes region, Darfur, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad and the DRC; PAP and civil society linkages in enhancing effective implementation of NEPAD/APRM; the PAP audit and strategic plan.

I have taken the trouble to identify the agenda partly to let all Doubting Thomas’s know that the PAP is not just an assembly of eminent MPs from across Africa who meet occasionally as a kind of Pan African Parliamentary lobby group. It is also to show critics and cynics that despite its statutory 'advisory' role, according to the Constitutive Act of the AU, the parliament is finding its feet and developing a pro-active programme of action to make itself relevant to the yearnings of African people to make the dream of unity a reality.

The PAP is one of the most important institutions in the AU that distinguishes it from the old Organisation of African Unity. The latter was statutorily and in practice a leaders' forum, whereas the former seeks to be a pro people and people - driven organization, hence the inclusion of democratic and potentially democratizing institutions like the Parliament, ECOSOC, African Court of Human Rights, etc.

It has not been easy for the parliament to take off properly since it was inaugurated two years ago. There was a lot of politics about where it was going to be based. Libya was one of the countries that offered to host it. It has the resources to do so but many felt that while they may have a huge building there may not have been much of a parliament because of the maverick nature of the Libyan political system. In the end South Africa won and it was a very good decision because despite one's reservations about the Pan Africanisation of Apartheid power relations, the country is one of the most vibrant democracies on the continent. It also has resources to support the infrastructure of a parliament. The South African parliament already uses 11 national languages, therefore providing for a PAP that officially uses 6 working languages was not a problem at the level of facilities. South Africa has fulfilled its obligations about providing a permanent home to the PAP, with a custom-built parliament equipped with the latest techno facilities including individual offices for all the 200 parliamentarians and 24-hour Internet access. Many of the parliamentarians do not even have these facilities in their national parliaments.

However the building and technical support is not what makes a parliament. It is the quality of what they do inside their sessions and how much they impact on the lives of ordinary Africans that will give or deny legitimacy to the parliament.

I had the honor of visiting (along with a number of civil society activists) the PAP in session last week. We found a generally enthusiastic, warm and people-friendly PAP. From the speaker to the clerks to the parliamentarians, they did not mind that we had not made any formal appointments but had just dropped by and they were willing to engage and entertain our queries.

They all wished that more Africans would take and interest in and interact with the PAP. Maybe two years is too short for the parliament to be visible to all Africans, but we need to take more interest in it. The South African Broadcasting Corporation is trying its best to popularize the work of the parliament by having daily broadcasts of interviews, features and discussions on the PAP while it is in session. The PAP also needs the support of media in all the African countries for people to know that it exists - and exists for them.

The challenges that the PAP faces derives from the structure and powers conferred on it. One, it is merely advisory therefore its debates and proceedings are not binding on countries. Two, it is not directly elected thereby denying it Pan African legitimacy. It is either elected or appointed from national parliaments which makes it like a kind of continental subcommittee of parliaments. Three, by statute it is only required to meet twice annually, with each session lasting not more than 30 days.

In reality most sessions have been for two weeks because of limited resources. The parliamentarians do not get any extra allowance apart from per diem and transport for the duration of their stay, which is covered by their national governments. This has meant in practice governments limiting themselves to the statutory meetings, with little money for any activities in between the two sessions. It has 10 subcommittees, which must also meet during these ‘sessions’. Consequently the PAP is not able to perform its monitoring, oversight and advocacy functions effectively. Four, there is also a high turn over in membership due to different electoral timetables in the 53 countries. This means that at every session more members are being sworn in while experienced members are being lost. A departing member called PAP the most prominent transit lounge in Africa! For instance, three of the five members from Uganda will not be returning for the next session because they lost their seats in the last parliamentary elections. One way of stopping this is to have PAP elections at the same time in all the countries and separate it from national elections and parliament. We cannot have an effective PAP without offering Pan African citizenship and full participation to all Africans wherever they may be.

Finally, our leaders have to put their money where their mouth is by making available the resources that PAP needs to function. We cannot have PAP running like another donor-driven NGO or aid-addicted state bureaucracy.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Mozambique is the latest favourite of the international community, following in the footsteps of disgraced Uganda which held the position in the 80s and 90s. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem scrapes away the veneer of growth rates and donor funding to look at issues of governance and accountability. He concludes with news about the African Monitor, launched this week to monitor whether development promises are being kept by both donor and recipient nations.

If you read anything about Mozambique today and the 'tremendous progress' the country is supposed to be making, one cannot help recollecting similar rave reviews and reports about Uganda in the late 1980s through the 1990s. The statistics are very familiar: over 6% growth rate, expanding opportunities for business, IMF/World Bank ideology, a confident middle class, and an environment open to foreign investment, INGOs and Donors.

In the case of Uganda there was also identification with 'A Strong Man' who is considered an 'enlightened' or 'benevolent' dictator. Of course the ovation for Uganda is no longer as enthusiastic as it used to be. This is not only due to the economic limitations of macro economic rejuvenation in a dependent economy but also the limits of political tolerance between the ruling party/clique and president on the one hand and their erstwhile and over indulgent foreign supporters. In some senses Museveni has become the tail trying to wag the dog or in another sense a beggar who cannot accept the ultimate loss of sovereignty stemming from an economy that is too much dependent on outside forces and support.

So it was with Uganda in mind that I arrived in Maputo last week. There are no doubts about the visible signs of a country in some kind of rebirth after a painful history of armed conflict largely the result of regional destabilization of neighboring apartheid South Africa and the immoral logic of the cold war. Many new buildings are going up and old ones being rehabilitated.

There are more than twenty big donor agencies and organizations in the country who are basically the engine of the new growth. It is a reward for successful peaceful settlement of the war against RENAMO, ideological capitulation or pragmatic realignment away from the former Stalinist model and endorsement for the political leadership.

But as in Uganda this support came with costs that increase everyday. One, it is not sustainable that a country be so dependent on foreigners through both direct budget support and resources for its capital development. Two, such endorsement comes with political consequences that often lead to collisions in the future, especially after a period of stabilization. Those who pay the piper will want to call the tune eventually. Also the growth may not guarantee any long lasting development.

Speaking to some of the officials of the key government ministries, the story is similar to what many people in financial and economic ministries in many African countries will recognize. Just take the example of the time that the government of Mozambique spends on a twice-yearly review with donors. Each round takes 45 days each, which means 90 days in the year. This means that the working year is actually reduced, so what time is spent by government officials on actually working to deliver services to their own people? Those who are condemned to these endless missions and evaluations know that as a consequence of these meetings more meetings and missions are generated. In a way development becomes paper-driven. No wonder the 'miraculous' average growth rates bandied about often mean nothing to the vast population condemned to eke out their living in the 'micro' level.

Many African governments as a result of their collective political failure and mismanagement of the resources of the continent have made themselves supervisors for foreign interests and are now conditioned to be accountable to donors and Western agencies. They are often too scared or intimidated to resist unless when their narrow political interests (like continuing stay in power) are concerned. Yet donor demands and interventions are collectively undermining the capacity of our governments and peoples. Even our largely foreign sponsored NGOs (increasingly substituted for civil society) are also more accountable to their funders than the people they serve. Many of the so called opposition politicians spend more time complaining, whining and pining to foreign (and usually Western ) diplomats and other aid officials than organising to politically challenge misruling governments.

Our governments sign up to international commitments like the Millennium Development Goals in addition to mountains of other Intra African protocols or agreements like NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) without expecting to fulfill them.

Not a few Africans are fed up with this situation but too many of us agonise instead of organising. But Njongonkulu Ndungane, the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, following in the tradition of activist priests like his predecessor, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, is hoping to reverse the trend of governance without accountability both on the continent and internationally. And he is challenging other Africans to join him. On Wednesday 3 May, after almost a year of consultations across the continent among civil society, NGOs, governments, International agencies and multilateral institutions, he launched the African Monitor. The mission is to make sure that African governments and non African governments meet up to the commitments they have made under various instruments, chiefly the MDGs, NEPAD, G8, etc.

It is a very daunting task. However because Ndungane has a wide constituency of faith based groups (not limited to Christians or Anglicans but involving other faiths)and also due to the existence of so many groups working (often in isolation) across the continent, the African Monitor may actually provide a useful service in building bridges of activism and policy engagement and ensure accountability through high level advocacy backed by grass roots activism.

As I have argued elsewhere, Africa does not need new commitments or promises, just a fulfillment of old ones we made to ourselves and made by others. While our governments are used to being formally accountable to outsiders, the African Monitor hopes to make them accountable to their own peoples and also monitor the accountability of others to us. In a way it may operationalise one of the few good things in the APRM, the principle of 'mutual accountability' between us and those who claim to be our 'international partners'. As the South African vice president observed in her conclusion at the workshop that preceded the launch, even the monitors need to be watched.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

“How nice it would be if whites were to say ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘thank you’ to the vast majority of people in this country who have been so forgiving about the past.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu. April 27 is Freedom Day in South Africa. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem tackles the legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the country’s racist past.

Desmond Tutu, former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, is a global figure recognised as a symbol of peace and racial tolerance, probably only taking second place Nelson Mandela, Madiba. Post-Apartheid Tutu, in his wonderful humour and sober combination of theological pacifism with advocacy for social justice and political change, continues to be a voice for the underprivileged not only in his home country but also across the world. He is one of the few individuals around the world without even the political power of a ward councilor, but who wield enormous influence through the moral leadership they offer built on personal integrity and consistency in their commitment to social justice. Tutu has continued to judiciously use that power to speak truth to power inside and outside of South Africa.

He will be remembered for his role as the Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. The Commission was a bold move by the post-apartheid democratic government to help the millions of individual and group victims and perpetrators of the apartheid state and its crimes to come to terms with the past through full disclosure, demonstration of remorse, willingness to atone through personal forgiveness and in some cases administrative and judicial justice and other compensation.

It was a controversial step for a nation whose past atrocities and the consequences were only too painfully glaring, practically in every aspect of life. There were many people who felt then that the main liberation movement, the African National Congress, had already given away too much to the old racist power bloc and that the TRC absolved it further. Not a few people felt that the requirement of remorse was too subjective to be meaningful. Who is to say merely saying sorry meant that the person saying it meant it?

The procedures of the TRC transfixed many across the world with details of the gross violation of people's rights that competed with well-documented Nazi atrocities.

As the TRC continued its proceedings, one could not escape the conclusion that apartheid atrocities orchestrated by the state and its functionaries in a deliberate way for several decades were being put on the same basis as excesses (though condemnable and should not be condoned) by the various anti apartheid organisations especially the armed wings of Umkonto We Sizwe , Azanian Peoples Liberation Army and others. The trial of leading icons of the struggle like Winnie Mandela received mixed reactions. This was not because people supported the crimes for which she was tried but suspected that a woman so badly treated by the apartheid state was also being judicially persecuted by a government she helped bring about because of her controversial relationship with it. The disclosures of human rights violations of the liberation movements somehow made some of the racists feel a kind of dubious vindication in that the Blacks were as bad as them.

Over the months, the TRC became not so much a centre for engineering a new social contract between South Africans in this wonderful and romantically brand new RAINBOW nation (coined by Tutu and seized upon by everyone caught up in the optimism of the times, even though the rainbow has every colour in it except Black!).

Perhaps that symbol of a rainbow nation symbolically represented the balance of power in a post apartheid South Africa where Blacks formed government but essentially are still not in power in many ways. Real economic, social and political power still resides among whites. It is not the classic neo-colonial state as we know in the rest of Africa but rather a power structure that is still very much racialised with a small new Black elite happily acting as overseers. In the face of Tutu's Commission many former leaders of the apartheid state including former President P.W. Botha were defiant and saw no reason to apologise for their crimes. People like the Afrikaner Resistance leader, Eugene TerreBlanche and his types became a symbol of the worst of the racists, determined to resist any change.

No doubt there were many white people who genuinely supported the struggle and suffered many indignities including torture and death, but the majority of apartheid's victims remain black South Africans. Also, whether a white person supported or did not support the apartheid state, they were beneficiaries of its misrule. Does that mean that all whites should feel guilty forever for the crimes of apartheid? It cannot mean that, but they should also not rob Blacks of their painful memories by attacking anybody who suggests that the past should be remembered and atoned for as a racist or someone not interested in 'moving on'.

The pacifist Tutu himself was at the receiving end of both the liberal and conservative backlash last week for saying in an interview during a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the TRC and organised by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation: “How nice it would be if whites were to say 'I'm sorry' and 'thank you' to the vast majority of people in this country who have been so forgiving about the past.” The reactions of many white south Africans including bleeding heart liberals to this statement that I have been following on the pages of the newspapers just goes to show how the past continues to weigh heavily on the present and has implications for the future. Every time historical debt is mentioned Whites tend to feel defensive and reel out their numerous contributions to the struggle. But the truth of racialised economic power in South Africa is that Whites as a group continue to be on top during and after apartheid. The fact that it is only Tutu's critique of their attitude that gets all the attention and not his frequent critique of the government for leaving behind the poor of South Africa (who are mostly Black) is itself proof if any is still needed of who is the privileged group in the new South Africa.

The voice of people like Tutu needs to be heard and acted upon. A philosopher, not frequently quoted these days, once formulated that while “...life must be lived forward it must be understood backwards”. That understanding is still very much in dispute among South Africans, even though they have made a lot of progress that many did not think possible only 15 years ago.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem tackles the public split between Nigerian vice-president Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and president Olushegun Obasanjo. The conflict is deadlocked: Atiku can’t quit for fear of what his president will do to him, while Obasanjo can’t fire him because his deputy has just enough power to hang on to office.

In many countries, a vice president who has shown so much public outrage and disagreement with his president and has been so officially ignored and embarrassed by his boss as the vice president of Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, would have resigned as a matter of honour. Similarly, a president, who finds himself in such confrontation and so personally and politically distrusts his deputy, would have had him sacked.

The fact that neither has been done despite the open hostility between Atiku and President Olushegun Obasanjo should tell us something very sad about the politics and power dynamics of Africa's largest country: No principles and no scruples, just personal ambitions even at the expense of the people of the country! This lack of principles is not uniquely Nigerian but it does not make it right.

Atiku cannot resign because the second he is no longer vice president he would have lost all immunity (which often operates as impunity among our elected officials). He must be scared that his embittered boss may put him in handcuffs, send him off to Kiri Kiri (Nigeria's maximum prison) on a thousand and one charges which can easily be dusted up from the files. The obvious one, which has been used to silence or 'persuade' some of his supporters to reconsider their opposition to the President, has been trials for corruption through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Atiku has been preparing to be President for a long time and will do anything to achieve his ambition, but going to prison is one of the few prices he is obviously not prepared to pay. Hence he has to remain in office untill the last possible second, when Obasanjo will not be able to do anything to him officially.

The President, on his part, has not been able to sack him because he lacks the political support of the National Parliament to carry it through. Instead, he has chosen to humiliate, subvert, corner, marginalise, undermine and also go after anyone suspected to be loyal to him within the ruling party, the political and business establishment, in the hope that Atiku 'will see sense', mend his ways or just quit.

It is an admission that the President does not control all the ace cards despite the mantra of his supporters reminding Nigerians that General Chief Matthew Olushegun Okikiola Obasanjo is the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Commander of Police, Commander of Prisons and Commander of Customs, Head of Traffic Police, Chief of Federal Road Safety Corp, etc, etc!

But what is the dispute between Obasanjo and Atiku? A very simple matter really. Atiku wants to succeed Obasanjo as President, just like Gordon Brown (who is not even Deputy Prime Minister but the Finance Secretary) has been wanting and waiting to succeed Tony Blair as British Prime Minister. It is not that Blair is very happy about it, but there is almost nothing he can do about it because the Labour Party will decide eventually.

But in the case of Atiku, his and Obasanjo's party, the People's Democratic Party (also more appropriately known as 'People Deceiving People') is not a party but a cabal of political contractors beholden to whoever is in control of the contracts. Despite not having a political, military, or even an ethnic base, in 1999, after Sani Abacha's death, Obasanjo, still recovering from his jail experience, was asked by other generals if he would consider going back to Aso Rock. Once ensconced in power, Obasanjo has become the tail that wags the dog, proving once again that a donkey can rule and twist Nigeria to his whims and caprices as long as it is occupying Aso Rock!

Ibrahim Babangida, Atiku and others who facilitated Obasanjo's ascent thought wrongly that he had no choice but to stick to them after coming to power. In 2003 they flexed their muscle again but their personal and class greed forced them to reach another deal with Obasanjo. Soon after the massive rigging in which Atiku was a major facilitator, Obasanjo went against them again and has remained so since then. He became president twice in spite of the wishes of Nigerians. Therefore, he cannot care less if the whole country is now opposed to his changing the constitution to facilitate what in Uganda many opposition people call a 'Sad Term'.

Does this make Atiku the martyr for democracy that his propagandists claim? Definitely not. He has not articulated any policy difference from Obasanjo's IMF/World Bank-know best neo-liberalism. Between him and Babangida, the other front-running contender, the choice is one of sunset or darkness. Obasanjo's people are using this to blackmail Nigerians that there are no alternatives. They are being half clever because the reason there are no other alternatives is because the incumbent has placed 'No vacancy' on the Aso Rock gate. The real choice is not between Obasanjo and these people but really between Nigerians and the military/civilian plutocrats!

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

"I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear power.” These 17 words were uttered live on television last Tuesday, by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, to a cheering crowd of jubilant compatriots proud that their country had joined this patented club of countries whose wishes may not be ignored by the rest of the world because of their ability or potential to back their power with nuclear technology.

It is a small club of nations that can intimidate the rest of the world. Until recently, that club was almost exclusively White and Western (including the Zionist State of Israel), with the exception of China. But North Korea, India and Pakistan are also members now. All experts agree that Iran has not become a full member yet and may take a few more years to be able to make nuclear bombs but it has now demonstrated its potential.

As Iranians jubilate ‘The World’ or more appropriately those who think
they are ‘The World’ through the global media they control and the rest of us follow, let it be known that our world is made more unsafe by this copycat scientific development in Iran. US State department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said to BBC: “we would have hoped that the Iranian regime would have taken this opportunity to choose a pathway of diplomacy as opposed to the pathway of defiance.”

The same words could have been quoted back to the US for many policies its government, especially under the bellicose George Bush, have pursued since it came to power. And I am not referring only to the foretold tragedy in Iraq. It would be more credible if those who preach to other nations to respect international rules, conventions and etiquettes were themselves impeccable in their observance of the same.

The US government should be the last government to shout foul because it has refused to allow international law or morality to stand in its way in the pursuit of its own interests. If it can obey international rules in a kind of reckless a la carte what right has it got to say other countries should not do the same?

I am not sure if the world feels as threatened by Iran acquiring what all experts know to be a capacity to make nuclear fuels as the US and EU countries are orchestrating. Many Africans openly or secretly jubilated when India detonated its nuclear bomb the same week that Pakistan launched its own.

The only regret many felt was that there was no African country able to do the same and redeem the continent and its peoples from ‘nuclear whitemail’. There were many African scholars and activists who opposed Professor Ali Mazrui’s call for an ‘African Bomb’ in the 1980s who now regretted their ideological opposition to the controversialist scholar.

I was a baby radical then and thought of Mazrui as a reactionary. Now I know better. In those days, Mazrui had ambitions for Nigeria to be able to counter the nuclear threat posed by apartheid South Africa. The idea that nuclear weapons are safe in the hands of Americans and their European cousins only and a danger to the rest of the world is not only patronising but also racist. If George Bush can be trusted with nuclear weapons why not anybody else? The only way to ensure universal nuclear disarmament is for all countries to renounce it and destroy the nuclear arsenal they have acquired. As long as some have it and others do not, those who do not will try to either acquire it, if they can or if they cannot, envy those who do. Iran is not the only country trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

How come nobody is talking anymore about North Korea whose capability is technically ahead of that of the Iranians and whose leaders have also declared their readiness to use it ‘for pre-emptive action’ the principle so beloved by Bush’s America? There is no doubt that the Iranian government under President Ahmadinejad has raised the stakes very high in a game of brinkmanship against American bullying.

Many countries have been cowered into submission but secretly wishing they could also play with the Tiger’s tail and get away with it.

Is it really surprising that the Teheran announcement came the same week when Western media was full of stories about Washington planning ‘pre-emptive strikes’ against nuclear installations in Iran by the US, including using nuclear weapons? Does anyone expect the Iranians to behave like sitting
ducks?

Teheran continues to protest that it is seeking nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Americans and many Westerners doubt this intention but many people in the world also doubt Western intentions. The US in particular, has not got a good record in identifying real threat to global peace and security. It was wrong in Iraq, in Afghanistan and why should anyone trust its judgement now? Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons and these countries are either neighbours of Iran or countries with strategic focus on the country and vice-versa.

Therefore Iran cannot be expected to willingly leave itself so vulnerable. Whether it is Ahmadinejad or any other leader, the nuclear option would have been a serious option in Teheran. Now that Iran has demonstrated its capability it may actually be opened to diplomatic discussions.

Unlike Israel which does not even accept any UN Non- Proliferation treaty and welcomes no inspectors, Iran may return to cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but like Israel, it may never fully disclose its capability, just to keep its regional rivals and enemies guessing: do they, don’t they?

How many Africans will really find it objectionable if there is an African state with such potential?

The capture of Charles Taylor should be welcomed, but there are several aspects to the former Liberian leader’s trial that are worrying, notes Tajudeen Abdul Raheem. Chief among these are the way in which the trial allows Liberia, and those complicit in Taylor’s rule, to externalize justice for his crimes.

I have been following the arrest and swift dispersal to the UN Special Court in Sierra-Leone, of the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, with mixed feelings. In spite of the tawdry politics surrounding the saga I share the relief of many from Liberia, Sierra-Leone and people of the West African sub region that this gangster of a president was finally caught.

As warlords and rebel opportunism go and their grotesque notoriety and infamy across Africa, Taylor was in a separate class of his own, probably only comparable to the late Jonas Savimbi. He was dubiously even 'luckier' than Savimbi because a nation fatigued by his mendacious war 'rewarded' him with the presidency of the country.

Savimbi 'only' got himself a negotiated vice presidency, after he had lost the popular polls (which he rejected) but pressures were brought to bear on the Angolan government to accommodate his megalomania. This included the ridiculous provision that named him in a special gazette with a compendium of rights and privileges as the 'official leader' of the opposition. All this capitulation to his vanity did not stop him from further conspiring to prolong the war until he finally fell on his sword.

Charles Taylor rode to power on the broken limbs and severed heads of his compatriots. Even as president, Taylor continued his brigandage through murders, smuggling of diamonds, laundering timber, gun running and human trafficking. He basically operated a criminal state infrastructure. But we must be clear that he is not alone, even though he may have been excessive.

The way Charles Taylor was caught just shows again how cowardly these dictators are once they are stripped of their terror infrastructure. It echoes how that other sad sadist, Saddam, was caught in a hole like a frightened rat. Taylor, who had sent so many innocent people to their untimely deaths, was caught trying to run across a border like the common smuggler he was. There was no exchange of fire, no resistance and no act of courage on his part. Even the bags of money that he was carrying and willing to trade for his escape could not help him.

However despite my sharing the relief of many I am not as enthusiastic that the cause of peace in the region will automatically be served by his trial and even conviction. For instance, who is talking about Saddam's trial now? Does it really matter if he is hanged, commits suicide or just rots away in prison?

One needs to be more circumspect and cautious about a one-dimensional definition of justice, which has been tried several times without much success. How long did it take the Hague court to get Milosevik to trial and at the end what happened? Now that he has died without a verdict will his death resolve anything in Serbia?

Since it was established, defendants and their lawyers have bogged down the Sierra-Leone Special Court in procedural matters and deliberate delay tactics, hence not many of those indicted have been convicted. This includes the former militia leader turned defence minister, Hinga Norman. Charles Taylor's comrade in arms, Foday Sankoh, died in prison while awaiting trial. Did his death mean accountability for all the charges against him?

There are other aspects of Taylor's indictment that have always concerned me. He was indicted not for all the atrocities he committed against the people of Liberia but for his foreign misadventures in neighboring countries and especially Sierra-Leone. This has allowed the Liberian political class to externalize the resolution of their own political problems and outsource the search for justice and accountability. Internally he was more or less given impunity. If he had not been indicted for Sierra Leone he would have got away with his atrocities in Liberia. This is typical of most internal settlements in Africa that often reward perpetrators of violence in the name of 'national reconciliation'.

Taylor was not the only beneficiary of national impunity. All other politicians who collaborated with him and the various armed rebel groups for two decades also escaped an accounting for their actions. This is justice by second hand. Since millions of our people already depend on second hand clothes, second hand vehicles, second hand everything, justice coming via second sources is not altogether surprising!

Second hand justice may be better than no justice at all. By this precedent of outsourcing justice many presidents in Africa should not be sitting complacently in their mansions. They may be relatively 'safe' now but justice may catch up with them once they are out of office. For instance, it is now possible that after his third or fourth term, President Museveni could be indicted for the activities of his army or rebel groups he supported, in the DRC. President Omar Al Bashir may never be prosecuted for genocide in Darfur but can be indicted for LRA atrocities in Uganda. Internationally we should be looking at possibilities of Bush and Blair being indicted for their illegal war in Iraq or various French or Belgian leaders being indicted for genocide in Rwanda. Taylor's saga demonstrates that while 'The Strong Man' may intimidate his national compatriots into submissive peace it is possible for him to be tried for regional crimes against humanity.

It is not only Charles Taylor's supporters who will be monitoring this trial keenly. There is a need to widen the trial to include those companies and individuals (arms dealers, diamond dealers etc etc) who aided, abetted and facilitated him and his cohorts for all these years. This will certainly open up a huge Pandora’s Box. Senior elements in the new political establishment, including the president herself, cannot wash themselves clean of previous associations and culpability in Taylor's bloody match to Monrovia from 1989. That is why it is convenient for them to have him tried for his foreign intervention instead of welcoming the opportunity to try him at home.

If Taylor goes for broke and comes clean on his bloody career we might yet get to know those who facilitated his escape from a US prison, after which he went on to build a rebel army which was initially popular. Libya and Burkina-Faso are regularly mentioned as countries that helped him to power, but so did Jerry Rawlings in Ghana and the Late Houphoet-Boigny of Ivory Coast. Who are Charles Taylor's bankers? Where are his billions kept? Where would the blood trail stop?

There are millions crying out for justice but there are powerful interests too that may not want Taylor to face full justice. It is rather too early to be congratulating ourselves that Taylor is behind bars. In spite of all the contradictions and uncertainties, his arrest and impending trial at a symbolic level should warn our leaders that indeed 'no condition is permanent'. Strong men of today may become the weakling cowards of tomorrow. Taylor, Saddam and Milosevik must have once thought of themselves as untouchables, just like some of our presidents who are riding roughshod over the basic rights of their peoples. After Charles Taylor, some of them may be next.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Three years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, Washington and its allies insist that Operation Iraqi Freedom will end in victory, despite ever-increasing bloodshed in the country. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem hones in on the architects of the invasion, George Bush and Tony Blair.

This week is the anniversary of the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. President Bush and his British poodle, Tory Blair, have both been trying to put a spin on their continuing destruction of the country and its people to their very sceptical compatriots and a world that has stopped believing anything said by these global con men who cannot be relied on to even declare their names without inviting suspicions!

The war was never sanctioned by the rest of the world and despite many diabolical attempts in the past three years to give it some kind of moral and diplomatic seal of approval Washington and London remain isolated.

Blair never had a united country, party, parliament or government behind his militarism. That was why he had to lie about the 'imminent and immediate danger ' that Iraq allegedly constituted. The Weapons of Mass Deception (WMD) and 45-minute strike capacity of Saddam Hussein have been exposed for what they were: fantasies of a duplicitous war monger determined to please his American bosses at any cost. He has been crashing down the hill of public trust since the invasion. His handler, George Bush, initially manufactured a national coalition behind him but knowing what they now know millions of Americans have discovered that their dumb President used 9/11 to falsely lure them into an unjust war without end. The easy victory he promised has become a nightmare, forcing parallels with Vietnam.

Worse for Bush, his loony right intellectual and political gurus who provided specious ideological justification for the invasion are recanting in their droves. He has become a disciple whose prophet has been exposed as a phony.

Listen to two of the most hawkish war mongers. The first, Francis Fukuyama, the apostle of End of History and the ever rising advance of Western liberalism recently said: "By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for Jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.”

The second is fellow Republican hawk and a senior official before conflict of interest forced him out, Richard Perle. He said: "The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong. We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners."

Others who supported the war have become publicly disillusioned. Despite their confessions though there is one thing common to all of them. They are recanting for American reasons without any concern for the Iraqis. When they talk of 'Casualties in Iraq' they do not mean the innocent Iraqi children, women and men murdered en masse at weddings, naming ceremonies or in detention centres – the so-called 'collateral damage' of Bush' s adventurism. They are only concerned about the couple of thousand of American and British killed in the war. While they are still counting their casualties in the lower denomination of four digits the Iraqi casualties are in the hundreds of thousands. In their minds it's only American and British lives that matter. The rest are just statistics. Even in death a Westerner's life is still worth more than that of other people. That's why Bush could falsely claim that 30,000 Iraqis 'more or less' have been killed in this war. Could he have said 'more or less' about American life?

As the late Bob Marley said: "You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time."

The Hausa also say: "Mara gaskiya ko cikin ruwa sai ya yi gumi" (a dishonest person will sweat even if he is in water!). Bush and Blair are liars and murderers, who if only the world is fairer, should have been hauled before the International Criminal Court as war criminals who have continued to kill innocent civilians in another country that posed no threat to their countries.

The only other alternative now is to wait for their exits. In the case of Bush, there is a date which cannot come sooner. But Blair is the weaker of the two monsters. The Labour Party should do the world a big favour and begin a long process of atonement for the needless death of innocent Iraqis by changing the locks to 10 Downing Street. Blair’s latest exposure of offering peerages and other national honours for undeclared 'donations' or 'loans' to the Labour Party just shows how cynical and amoral a politician this man, (B-Liar) is.

If he had been an African leader the British government would have been one of the first big mouths to be condemning his corruption and lack of transparency. Blair helped Bush to undermine international law and he has now domesticated the same skills by finding loopholes in laws passed by his own government on party financing. The British people have enough very British reasons to be rid of this fraudster whom Nigerians would have easily recognise as a '419' Premier.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem travels to Beirut and reports on a meeting held to assess the past, present and future of the Global Call To Action Against Poverty.

When I told some friends and colleagues that I was going to Beirut their reaction was one of concern: What is taking you there? How many Africans will be there and what would take a Pan-Africanist to Beirut? To the second question the answer is very simple. I have never been anywhere without finding an African. You will find at least one or two Nigerians. Indeed any place you do not find a Nigerian you will be well advised to find your lady luck elsewhere! Africans are the adventurers of the latter part of the 20th century and the most mobile in the 21st.

European migrants, asylum seekers and refugees of the past centuries have re-written their history to read like epic stories of adventure, courage and the spread of 'civilisation' and 'progress'. In the future Africans may also repackage the desperate search for economic opportunities by our economically active populations across the world as adventure stories.

The first question is a reaction to the image of Beirut that many people have internalised, shaped by its prolonged conflicts of the '80s where pictures that have become familiar today about Iraq first confronted the world. The image of Beirut as a lawless city of armed bands and hostage-takers has endured. Hence the concern of my friends.

However Beirut is as normal as any mega city in the world. Of course if you look critically enough the symbols and memories of its not- so- distant past of armed occupation and current semi-armed status is not difficult to find. There are still buildings riddled with bullets and security men in hotels with bulging suits concealing weapons. But life just goes on.

I am in Beirut attending a conference of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP). This coalition of various NGOs and CSOs from all the regions of the world was formed in 2004 to campaign for the eradication of poverty. Immediately in their sights then were the different international political opportunities presented in 2005 for fighting for a better international order, addressing inequalities, between peoples , nations and peoples, and within countries and making the leaders of the world accountable to the peoples of the world.

Britain had declared 2005 the year for Africa and the coincidence of the UK heading both the EU and the G8 raised hopes in certain quarters that some progress could be made in building a fairer international order. British NGOs were very important in building and shaping the global campaign. This was both a positive and negative benefit to the campaign.

There were many doubters including myself. But the GCAP coalitions believed in taking advantage of the situation to force certain debates, mobilise around a number of issues and put forward alternative policy positions. While they cannot claim to have achieved most of their policy platforms they can congratulate themselves that at the level of popular mobilisation, the issue of poverty has gained political priority internationally. Governments and international institutions were forced to react to the demands. The progress made in terms of policy changes may have been modest but focus on the issues was very significant.

Some of my own concerns about the 2005 activities had to do with my suspicion that come 1st January 2006 poverty would still be afflicting billions of people across the world and the media and 'saviours' of 2005 would have moved on to other things. I believe then and now that it requires more than a few concerts, symbolic gestures by richer countries, celebrity 'clicks against poverty' and endorsement by other media friendly figures for poverty to be wiped from the surface of this very rich earth we inhabit. Poverty amidst plenty is not just about specific policies but the structure of socio-economic systems both nationally and internationally. Therefore ending poverty amidst plenty requires changing the structures of power nationally and internationally. It will not be an act of charity but a deliberate demand for justice.

The Beirut meeting provided an opportunity for the GCAP activists to asses the year, savour their victories and examine the challenges that remained and decide where they go from hence.

The consensus is that the campaign should continue but with a more realistic inventory of its expectations and greater attention focused on regional and national efforts and mass activism to end poverty. The meeting made an honest assessment of 2005, guided by an independent review by external evaluators.

In spite of criticisms, some of them very biting and potentially divisive, the GCAP coalition partners are going to continue the campaign and review the struggles again at the end of 2007. While 2005 was dominated by international issues and what many critics called 'events chasing' the next phase is going to be shaped by issues of national and local campaigns on how to make governments both in the north and the south accountable to their peoples and honor the commitments they have made in 2005 and in the UN through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

While 2005 was dominated by the celebrities and campaigners in the north the next phase of the global campaign against poverty is going to be focused on peoples action, where ever that may be, thus putting into action that slogan from the women's movement: thinking globally and acting locally.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Nearly 100 years after the first International Women’s Day, the lot of women has improved, writes Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem in his weekly column. But there’s still much to be done before equality between the sexes becomes a reality. In the meantime, the world cannot be a better place if women's conditions are not better in it.

International Women's Day on March 8 has been marked for almost a century, the first being March 8, 1911. The day is meant to honour women, celebrate their achievements and focus attention on the continuing challenges facing the realisation of the fullest potential of women as equal citizens with equal rights to men. It is a day to recommit everyone to the motto: women's rights are human rights.

It is not just a 'women's day,' even if that is how it is popularly celebrated. It is about gender awareness and democratic struggle to make the world a better place for all its inhabitants, both men and women.

There is no denying the fact that women have made tremendous advances globally and in Africa in the past few years. There are many visible pointers to the growing numbers of women in top political positions. Last year, Mrs Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, of Liberia, finally broke through the ceiling by becoming the first popularly elected female head of state in Africa. That victory means that women no longer have to rely on the good will of men in order to hold or aspire to political offices.

The truth is that most of the women who have been vice presidents in Africa have largely been 'appointed' by the 'kind' male president. An unwritten convention in such patronage is to go for women 'who will not cause trouble' and who will be 'forever grateful' to the 'appointing authority'. Mama Ellen has now put an end to that. No longer will an African woman's political ambition be limited to the second position, as a kind of political accessory for Presidents and political parties seeking political correctness and looking for votes.

It is not just in politics that African women are making giant strides. Just look around at other fields, such as the economy, community, civil society groups and NGOs, education, academia, and the professions. These achievements are not due to magnanimity on the part of the men, who are still very much in charge of the largely patriarchal power structures in society. They are the outcome of wider struggles, sometimes provoking incremental reforms and sometimes the result of prolonged conflicts. Women as women and as part of the democratic struggle, together with men, have won and continue to struggle for more victories in new frontiers. No doubt a changing consciousness and awareness is improving men's attitudes and creating men who may not be as hostile to the advancement of women as their fathers or grandfathers. But the fact that we can still point to women in top places means that it is not yet commonplace.

There are many challenges ahead. One, in some countries where women have made giant strides in formal political institutions, like Uganda or Rwanda for instance, there is a tendency to see the progress as a 'gift' of the president, thereby inculcating a kind of political gratitude that promotes political cronyism to the detriment of the wider interests of women's struggles. In Uganda, Museveni and his party talk as if they own Ugandan women and the peasantry. Even in countries like South Africa, where the gender gains are part of a wider progressive movement, there is a tendency to make women feel perpetually grateful to the party.

Two, as with all oppressed peoples, women may be oppressed not because they are women, but because they are of a different class, colour or creed. Thus, they suffer the oppression differently. Some women may become economically and politically liberated and acquire more choices at the expense of fellow women. For instance, some middle class women are able to make the choices that they make because other women subsidise their existence.

Three, a high number of women in public offices may be important symbolically and certainly necessary, but this may not translate into gender-aware policies and politics. For instance, Mrs Ngonzi Iweala is Nigeria's Minister for Finance. Mrs Sirleaf-Johnson has appointed another woman as her finance minister, but they are both committed to the neo-liberal policies of their IMF/World Bank bosses. Therefore their policies will not benefit most women, who make up the majority of the poor.

Four, while principles like 'positive discrimination' in favour of disadvantaged peoples, including women and other groups of marginalised peoples, must be defended, there must also be vigilance in order to ensure that this does not lead to a permanent quota ghetto for a few, while the power structures remain the same. The limited quota approach is mainly incorporating women into the exploitative and oppressive system - not tearing the system down.

The relative progress in many areas should not close our eyes to the enormous tasks ahead to change the iniquities of the world. We must ask ourselves how just and how fair it is that only 1% of all titles to land in the world are owned by women. And it is not only in land ownership that women are so unfairly treated. The Independent of London, in its special edition for Women's Day displayed other shameful statistics about the condition of women, not just in Africa but around the whole world. These figures should make everyone wake up and stop being complacent about the fate of more than 50% of the population of the world.

Just imagine: 70% of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty are women and children; 85 million girls worldwide are unable to attend school, compared to 45 million boys; 67% of all illiterate adults are women; out of 191 heads of state/government who are members of the UN, only 12 are women.

While we quote these figures and raise questions about them on the occasion of International Women’s Day we should spend the rest of the 364 days of every year taking action locally while thinking globally on how to right these wrongs. It is impossible to create a better world without bettering the lot of women. The opposite is also true: the world cannot be a better place if women's conditions are not better in it. Everyday should be a Woman's Day.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem remembers the life of Kwame Nkrumah, ousted from power in a coup 40 years ago on February 24. Vilified in life, in death Nkrumah has been vindicated and many of his ideas are only now coming to fruition.

Last Friday, February 24, marked the 40th anniversary of the overthrow of the government of Kwame Nkrumah in a military coup that was inspired, orchestrated and sponsored by the combined forces of local reactionaries and external neo-colonialist powers, especially Britain and America for whom Nkrumah's militant Pan Africanism was abhorrent. It was a day of infamy that signalled the retreat of radical nationalism in Africa and delayed any hopes of uniting Africa and defending it against imperialist predators and their local agents.

But the overthrow of Nkrumah did not diminish the dream. In his exile years in Conakry, until his death in 1972, Nkrumah continued to write, speak and mobilise for a radical socio-economic and political transformation of Africa from Cape Town to Cairo.

His writings became more rigorous and programmatic because he had the benefit of having being in power before and therefore was able to critique his own experience and suggest ways of moving forward. Unlike many people who become 'pragmatic' with loss of power and advancing age, Nkrumah became even more revolutionary.

One of the reasons given for the coup was that Nkrumah was 'communist'. Another one popular among enemies of Pan Africanism at home and abroad was that Nkrumah allegedly wasted Ghana's resources on African liberation. It did not matter to his critics that this 'communist' programme was never hidden from the people of Ghana who successively voted for Nkrumah's party and their allies despite tremendous opposition from political rivals representing business and Ghana's largest nationality group, The Ashanti, and their junior partners. The 'wasted' resources they talked about included full and open support for liberation movements across Africa to free Africa from colonial rule and apartheid racism in southern Africa.

Today everybody, including our former colonisers who also kept apartheid alive for four decades, have all become 'our partners in development' and profess good will towards Africa. Yet they opposed our liberation and did not forgive Nkrumah for daring to challenge their racist prejudice and boldly doing something about it, not only in Ghana but across Africa. For this he was derided, caricatured, ridiculed and attacked even out of power and after death. After several failed attempts to assassinate him failed they got their agents within the armed forces of Ghana and the police to launch a coup while Nkrumah was out of the country.

Ghana became orphaned and did not recover its confidence as a country again for many decades. It is a testimony to Nkrumah's success that 40 years after he was overthrown Ghanaian governments and leaders will still be judged (and judged poorly) against him. Even his enemies are forced to acknowledge him as a true national leader and statesman who was genuinely committed to the welfare of the people of Ghana and Africa.

Was Nkrumah perfect? Definitely not. He did make many mistakes. As Cabral famously remarked in his tribute to Nkrumah at a state funeral in Conakry, April 1972, if Nkrumah died of cancer it was 'cancer of betrayal'. But he did not just stop at blaming those who betrayed Nkrumah he also used the African idiom, 'Food only cooks in the pot' to ask why it was possible for him to be toppled. Many people still supported Nkrumah but the party that was the organic link between him and the masses had been hijacked by cliques.

Is there any difference today? How many of our previously radical leaders are still popular with the masses? The longer they stay in power the more distanced and distancing from the people they become. They begin to consume the propaganda that 'without you the country will collapse'.

Time they say is a final arbiter. The ideas that Nkrumnah lived and died for continue to reverberate across the continent. It is clear to everybody today that Pan-Africanism is not a dream anymore but a precondition for the survival of Africa and Africans in the face of new rampaging and rapacious exploitation, packaged as globalisation. Those who had accused Nkrumah of being too impatient had the honesty to admit in public that they were wrong and regretted that they were not as radical as Nkrumah had been. Africa could have been saved the wasted decades.

History has absolved Nkrumah in many ways. At the dawn of the new Millennium the BBC ran a campaign for the African of the Millennium. There were so many nominations and it was obvious that many interests were routing for Nelson Mandela, but in the end Kwame Nkrumah was the clear choice of the majority of the listeners.

It is not only at the symbolic level that Nkrumah has been rehabilitated. Some of the important institutions created by the African Union were issues on which Nkrumah was vilified in the 60s. Examples include his call for an African High Command. Now we have a Peace and Security Council, working on a Common Defence Pact and the AU has plans for a Standby Force.

Nkrumah campaigned for one Union Government and they said it was impossible, but today we have elements in place like the Pan African Parliament and the African Court of Human Rights. There are discussions at senior levels on actualising a Central Bank for Africa. There is a standing committee of heads of state that is working on ways of accelerating the process for the creation of a Union of African States by 2009 as proposed by Libya. We may not get there that soon but that we are seriously re-engaging these issues means that Kwame Nkrumah has not died in vain.

We cannot call for his soul to rest in peace. Instead we ask that his spirit continues to haunt us so that we can realise for this generation and safeguard for the future, the United Africa for which he lived and died.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem compares the crisis over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed with the Fatwa issued against the author Salman Rushdie by Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhoolai Khomeini. Neither the West nor Islam has a monopoly on good or evil, he writes, concluding that “…freedom will be meaningless if it is completely unlimited, but living in a society also means that we have to share it with people whose ways and values may clash with ours”.

I was a student in England when the Salman Rushdie affair broke out. Let's refresh our memories. Mr. Rush to Die, a celebrated British writer of Indian Muslim origins, had written a novel called Satanic Versus. In it he repeated one of many insinuations about Prophet Muhammad, sexuality and women.

Apart from the literary types and their allied industry promoters, not many people would have heard of the book, even less would have bought it and fewer still would have read it. Somehow some Muslim clerics got to hear about this book and before you could say Salam Alaikum Muslim Clerics in Bradford (predominantly Asian) were up in arms, calling for a ban on the book and declaring it a blasphemy against Islam.

Then Iran's Ayatollah Ruhoolai Khomeini, (briefly in the 1980s the Spiritual Leader not just of Shiite Muslims but notionally for all Muslims and admired by many anti imperialists for cutting the US to size) waded in by declaring a FATWA (basically capital punishment for an apostate Muslim). From a local affair in Bradford the anti Satanic Verses popular protests spread across the United Kingdom and became a global bonfire in many Muslim countries. A spate of bannings followed, including by many African states that feared that the book was a threat to public peace and safety.

The protests about the book had less to do with the offence than the context. This was England in the 1980s, painfully adjusting to the conservative counter revolution of Margaret Thatcher in which poor people in general but ethnic and racial minorities in particular felt marginalized and vulnerable. British Muslims, especially second or more generation Asians locked in their ethno-religious laagers in places like Bradford and Leicester, felt more vulnerable than others. A community under attack from socio-economic and political changes finally found its religious faith also not considered sacred! The matter was made worse by the fact that the author who gave this public expression was, or was supposed to be, one of them even if he claimed to have become a lapsed Muslim! Do we see any parallels with the current protests because of a set of cartoons published in some Danish newspaper four months ago?

Like Rushdie's case the matter began locally but it became global because of technology but also because of the current tensions about the role of the West in global matters, particularly in the Middle East. Like British Muslims their brethren and sisters in Denmark, despite pretensions to the contrary of liberalism in countries like Denmark, feel left out and in recent years under right wing attack due to the rightward shift in politics in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries. Xenophobia is on the rise (formalising itself in parliament and government) as in many other European countries.

While Rushdie’s case was regarded as a stab in the back, the cartoons are considered a frontal blow. The international environment has meant that the tiny Muslim populations in a very tiny country called Denmark are not alone. Their frustrations can feed into all kinds of frustrations by Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the West.

The disagreement is presented as a simplistic one between freedom of expression and its enemies. Or even more directly as yet another clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, with the former standing for democracy and the latter lack of it. But it is not about religion essentially, but about politics and power locally and internationally. Freedom is not absolute anywhere in the world, least of all in the West. Would the same newspapers that have gleefully published the cartoons in over 25 Western countries (including the apartheid State of Israel) have published them if they had been about Jews? What would be the reaction of the same newspapers if the cartoons were about Jesus Christ, insinuating that he was a pedophile, since so many priests in Europe and the US have in recent years been exposed as systematically abusive of children in their flock? How many of these freedom lovers will take up the challenge thrown by an Iranian newspaper which had commissioned a similarly offensive set of cartoons about Christianity and Judaism and dare publish them in their papers?

On the other hand how many of those militant protesters burning down embassies and brandishing all kinds of violent posters and placards will be tolerated in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan or any other so called Muslim state if their protest was about the un-Islamic practices of their rulers whose rule is any thing but Islamic?

How many of those protesting have actually seen these cartoons? My guess is that like the Satanic verses, which many liberals bought to show solidarity but never read beyond the 'satanic' page, many of those protesting the cartoons have not and will not even see them.

Does that mean there are no issues at stake apart from cynical politics and transferable anger? No, there are serious issues and discussions that need to be heard but which can only be meaningful after the current pontification from the West and victimhood emotionalism from Muslims has settled down.

Neither has a monopoly on good and evil. Freedom will be meaningless if it is completely unlimited but living in a society also means that we have to share it with people whose ways and values may clash with ours. Finding a peaceful formulae for mutual coexistence within boundaries of tolerance in equal dignity is what democracy is about. The tragedy is that the West behaves as though it has a monopoly on democracy to the extent that many non Westerners or non westernised people now instinctively reject democracy as a western subterfuge.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Travelling through Nigeria recently, Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem remembers how he was stopped by a crowd of people warning him that bandits has set up an ‘operation’ and were looting passing motorists. Abdul-Raheem assesses the state of lawlessness in Nigeria and the rule of Olusegun Obasanjo, who is moving ever closer to a third term bid and the possibility of becoming a “lame duck president with everything imploding around him”.

These days I have been spending more time in Nigeria. ‘Home', as they say, is indeed the best, but for most Nigerians it must be tough love. It is often difficult for one to say if things are getting better or if one is just getting used to it and lowering one's standards - while increasing one's tolerance levels of unfair situations and injustices on the many fronts of the multiple obstacle race that the country has become. Just when you think things are never going to get worse, Nigeria and Nigerians combine their unique capacity to find ways of digging deeper and sinking further.

The general insecurity across the country has proven so insurmountable that Nigerians seemed to have resigned themselves to it and put themselves on a permanent state of alert, hoping that lady luck, miracle prayers, or some voodoo or witchcraft or a combination of all these will see them through.

In addition to these, those who are rich buy themselves militias. Armed robbery, hired killers, political killings, and other forms of gratuitous violence are perpetrated both privately and officially by the police and other security agencies charged with public safety. The Inspector General of Police recently publicly apologised and promised to take action about a number of serving police men accused of 'hiring' their guns to gangs of armed robbers. And the Police write boldly on their vehicles ‘to protect with integrity and honesty’, either as a sick joke or as a mockery of Nigerians.

Not long ago I had a personal experience of the lawlessness. I was travelling home to Funtua, which is about 75 kilometres north of the University town of Samaru Zaria, at around 8pm. At a small town called Giwa we saw huge crowds of people lined up on the road and a row of different vehicles parked by the roadside. Everybody was shouting that we should stop. We did and we were told that 'there was an operation' ahead of us. This operation was not a security sweep or road check: armed robbers had mounted a road bloc and were taking whatever they could find from their victims. Confidently we were told the 'operation' was going to be over in about an hour. We were advised that once there were cars coming from the opposite direction it meant the road was clear. And within an hour, as we were advised, 'the road opened' and we drove home safely.

You will be forgiven for asking a number of obvious questions: Where were the police? If everybody knew where they operated and even the time and also the days (usually market days in surrounding trading towns) why were the police not doing anything about it?

Very legitimate questions but only a stranger will ask these kinds of questions in Nigeria. Everybody knows that the police and the army, if they are not doing the 'operations' themselves, are aiding and abetting the crimes because they share in the booty. It is not only their guns that they rent out - they also regularly parcel out sections of the federal highways so that these nefarious 'operations' can take place with impunity. Once they are done you will see siren blaring police vehicles rushing in at break-neck speed to the scene after their comrades in crime have bolted with the loot!

Yet this is a country in which Obasanjo and his acolytes delude themselves into believing the people have never had it so good. That is why they are orchestrating a constitutional reform that will make it possible for Obasanjo to stand for a third term like his good friend and ex-Comrade, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, in Uganda.

Obasanjo does not seem to have learnt anything from his previous experience as a military head of state, his stint in civil society as founder of Africa Leadership Forum and his horrible prison term under Abacha.

A friend who was present at a meeting between General Ibrahim Badmasi Babangida when he was head of state and General Obasanjo as a coup-plotter-turned NGO-activist narrated an interesting exchange to me that is relevant to this matter. Obasanjo had fallen into an armed robbery ambush on his way to a scheduled meeting with the smiling dictator, Babangida. Being the cautious general that he was he did not play any hero with armed robbers. He knew he was outgunned and saw no rationality in resisting so he surrendered the money he had and they let him go. They did not know and could not have cared who he was. If they had known it was Obasanjo they probably would have even killed him anyway. He became a victim like any other innocent Nigerian whose only crime was driving on the road. In narrating this experience to Babangida, citizen Obasanjo told him that he had no doubt that there was no political motivation to the crime. But if it had leaked out to the public immediately many would have jumped to the conclusion that - because Obasanjo had been openly very critical of Babangida’s policies - the government had a hand in it. Therefore he asked Babangida to take the issues of public safety and security seriously, otherwise the government was going to be held responsible for everything and anything.

It is a shame that the same Obasanjo cannot allow himself similar wisdom since he became President seven years ago.

As the tussles for power intensify at all levels of government, a spate of killings and fear of more violence has gripped the country.

By no means would all of the violence be politically motivated, but so bad are things now and so polarised has the country become that everything is blamed on Obasanjo and his government. The recent brutal murder of the wife of the 'former radical' governor of Kano State, Alhaji Muhammadu Abubakar Rimi, was immediately suspected to be politically motivated because Rimi is one of the most vocal critics of Obasanjo’s third term bid. The available evidence so far from the investigations suggest that to the extent that politics was involved in the murder it had local dynamics rather than anything to do with Aso Rock. But who cares for such empirical details in a leader-centric system where the President is God?

It is not only killings that are blamed on Aso Rock. Many of those being investigated for corruption now claim that it is because they are opposed to Obasanjo's third term bid or because they are supporters of Obasanjo's estranged Deputy, Atiku Abubakar. The whole governance system is grinding to a halt so that even the good things that Obasanjo's regime has done and is doing are lost in the controversies. He is losing control of the machinery of the state and on his way to becoming a rogue President.

Yet he can retreat from the abyss and leave a more positive legacy by making a broadcast to the Nation renouncing any intention of amending the constitution to facilitate his self-succession in 2007. This will immediately drastically bring down the overheated political atmosphere of the country. It will also destabilise his many enemies who have built a coalition of convenience around anti-third term campaigns. More than that it will give him the opportunity to regain credibility for a lasting legacy in the areas of public safety, economic reform, the war against corruption and even more leverage in deciding who succeeds him. Failing this he will remain a lame duck president with everything imploding around him but travelling all over the world to fix everybody's problems without a clue on what to do about those he was allegedly elected to solve.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was sworn in this week as President of Liberia. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem wishes her well in what promises to be a stormy voyage, and raises questions about some of the problems that might crop up over the next four years. Will her reign mean better times for all women or only for ruling women? Will she be able to unlearn all her IMF/World Bank doctrines and put social change at the forefront of her agenda?

On Monday 15 January 2006, Mrs Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was sworn in as President of the Republic of Liberia, Africa's oldest modern republican state, founded by freed slaves largely from the USA in 1847. The search for liberty took them to Liberia, but the reality for the majority of the peoples of the country for most of the 160 years of its existence has been anything but freedom.

The Americo-Liberians, newly arrived from slave plantations in America, over the years established similar exploitative systems over the indigenous peoples of Liberia. The last three decades of Liberia is more widely known for its gruesome rulers, but the previous periods should not be excused their own gruesomeness that created the basis for the post 1980 dictatorships that we are so grimly aware of.

Mrs Johnson-Sirleaf's election and assumption of office is rightly celebrated both for its historical significance and symbolic resonance for the continuing struggle for democracy and fullest participation of African women in the affairs of this continent. Her election has lifted the spirits of all those who believe in gender equality and full recognition for Africa's majority, who are women. It is also another slap in the face of all those Afro pessimists, both African and non Africans who profit from bad mouthing Africa and seeing only doomsday scenarios and catastrophies coming out of Africa.

As we enjoy these positive feelings we should also sober up to the enormous challenges that Johnson-Sirleaf is going to face. How many of those heads of state, prominent politicians, assorted state officials from across the world who were there to shine in the glow of celebrations will still be there for her in a few months time? Would those regional and international leaders who obviously preferred her candidature now be willing to travel the long journey ahead? She will sooner rather than later discover that she needs more than election war chest pledges to realize the hopes and ambitions of millions of war ravaged and traumatised Liberians who will be expecting her to be the "mama fix it' of their misruled and abused country.

Her inauguration speech was uplifting, understandably emotional but also highly measured in a way as not to raise too many hopes. She is too much of a seasoned politician and has a long and varied experience as a banker, donor dispenser and NGO activist at national and international levels to be that extravagant with her promises.

But her cautious disposition will not stop millions of Liberian women and men from looking up to “Mama Ellen” to fix all the various challenges that have confronted them. She is also not coming in with a clean pair of hands, having been part of a previous regime and collaborated with other regimes - including that of the pariah of the moment, disgraced and indicted former dictator, Charles Taylor.

While many may see her as a saviour, others will be suspicious and say “wait and see”. In a continent that has seen too many false prophets before it is not an unreasonable attitude. Many of the sit tight leaders we are moaning about today were once promised messiahs and heroes!

Some of the issues that were raised during the campaigns that may have contributed to her winning the run off against “The Footballer”, George Weah, may actually come back to haunt her. One, the fact of being a woman was an empowering position to be in an election in which women really mattered, not as victims of the wars but also as agents of change through the transformations that sometimes come with dislocations brought about by prolonged conflicts. Old barriers break down and sometimes oppressed groups break out and kick up the ceiling. But would Mama Ellen be able to deliver to the Women of Liberia?

She has been approvingly called “The Iron Lady” comparing her to Britain's former hardline right wing Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. I am not sure if many British women and men who were victims of Thatcher's “greed is good” politics will welcome her African reincarnation. If she is past tense in London why should she be a new currency in Monrovia? Would this mean prosperity for poor women beyond gender symbolism? Or is it more likely to be better times for ruling women?

Two, her Harvard University education versus the “Street University” background of her main challenger portrayed the battle as one between the educated against the so called illiterate. It is a battle that resonates across Africa. When it comes to the right to vote we do not have any qualifications but when it comes to being voted for we demand “minimum” qualifications. Does that mean that so called illiterates have no other right than to be voting for those who are educated? In the case of Liberia, Johnson-Sirleaf and her generation of politicians share the responsibility for the mass illiteracy in the country. How can they turn around and condemn the generations they denied the right to education to and look down on them as unworthy? It is very strange that George Weah was cleared to contest the election despite being an illiterate. If he was cleared to stand surely he must have passed some “education threshold”. Or was he cleared with the hope that he would not win? If we do not have a policy of free and compulsory education up to a certain level for all our citizens it is very discriminatory and a violation of their rights to insist that they must possess certain qualifications in order to be voted for.

Another undemocratic side of this illiteracy debate is the shameful fact that the business of government is conducted in many of our countries in languages that the majority of the people do not understand, thereby mystifying the process of governance. When we say someone is an illiterate, in what language are we stating this? I wonder how many of our so-called educated elite will pass an elementary test in their mother tongues?

Three, a lot was made of her experience as a World Bank staffer and UN bureaucrat. This is very odd given the fact that many countries on this continent were destroyed by following the prescriptions of the Washington twin vultures of the IMF/WB through successive failed experiments with the lives of our peoples through SAPs and the current Neo-liberal policies. In Johnson-Sirleaf we are being asked to trust the judgment of a former employee of these same institutions. She cannot solve the problems of Liberia by acting like some bank clerk or repeating the neo-liberal mantra of her former employers or the globalisation fantasies of her friend, George Soros.

Liberia needs an effective, responsible and responsive state that will protect and defend its peoples, create jobs and empower people to transform their lives. It does not need a state that hands off social and economic development, trusting the ghosts of an unfree market. She has to unlearn all her IMF/World Bank doctrines if she wants to succeed as a change agent rather merely acting as an agent of the Bank and the Fund. As for her UN background I have only one question: Is Africa now effectively a UN mandate territory that previous experience of the UN is now required for aspirations of public office? Well, she needs to look no further than her friend next door, Alhaji Tejan Kabah of Sierra-Leone, to ask if working in the UN and acting as UN mandate governor guarantees development or even a free flow of foreign investment and donor funds. No amount of foreign support can be a substituted for the efforts of your own people.

Four, Johnson-Sirleaf has promised to wage war against corruption. She needs to tread carefully here and be serious. She should learn from the credibility gap surrounding similar efforts by her biggest regional patron, Olushegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. One way she can make a difference is not by insisting asset declaration but also liability declaration. Politicians should declare how much they owe those who funded their campaigns and how they propose to pay them back.

Finally, Johnson-Sirleaf has also made one of those rash promises that many Africans have become disdainfully familiar with. She has reportedly promised to serve only one term. I hope she will break the mould by actually honoring that pledge, whether it was made verbally, in public or in private. Out of the many heads of state she will be meeting at her first AU summit in Khartoum there is no high level of redemption of past similar promises.

Congratulations Mama Ellen, it is not going to be easy, but if you do not abandon the people they won’t abandon you too. I wish you well.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to [email]editor@pambazuka.

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem begins the year with no resolutions and no predictions for 2006. But he does say goodbye to one aspect of 2005 that he found particularly irksome – the missionary focus on Africa by the likes of Tony Blair and Bob Geldof and the way in which leading NGOs were shamelessly co-opted by power. “I hope that in the New Year these NGOs will start looking more to Africa and Africans rather than false prophets, saviours and messiahs from outside,” he writes.

It is the end of one year and the beginning of another. It is customary to look back on the outgoing year, recalling the high and low points while looking forward to the New Year with hope and expectation - and sometimes trepidation about things foretold or just expected. Many people also engage in ritual New Year resolutions that habitually do not survive the New Year celebrations!

This column will not review the whole year. I am also engaging the good sense gear not to make any predictions for 2006 so as to save myself the trouble of verbose explanation why they did not happen, this time next year. And as for New Year resolutions, I save myself both embarrassment and disappointment in one go by not making any. This makes everything that may happen, whether welcome or unwelcome, a surprise all the same.

Instead of a review of the whole of 2005 I will just look at one issue that became almost an obsession for me throughout the year.

The year 2005 will go down as one in which so much was promised to Africa and in which so little was achieved. But the subterfuge helped clear any lingering scales on our eyes that foreign-do-gooders will help fix Africa.

We were told several times by all kinds of do-gooders that 2005 was Africa's year. These expectations were based on a dubious coincidence outside of Africa. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, assumed both the Presidency of the European Union and Chairmanship of the G8 Rich Vultures' Club and promised to make Africa his priority. Prophet Blair, who did not officially visit Africa throughout his first term (except for an obligatory photo call on Nelson Mandela), decided that, to cleanse himself of the blood of innocent Iraqis that he helped his buddy, barmy Bush, to exterminate, Africa would be his salvation.

Leading British NGOs led by OXFAM, who even had one of their former top ranking officials in Downing Street as an adviser, saw Blair's missionary view of Africa as a wonderful opportunity for funding and willingly went to bed with Blair.

Their shameless embrace of Blair is only comparable to the grotesque scandal of Western journalists becoming embedded with the Anglo-American imperialists in their illegal occupation of Iraq. These NGOs now have to search their souls during 2006 and ask if their collusion with power was worth it. But since they are not accountable to the people they serve they continue to talk up their treachery as success. What kind of success is this for debt relief that sees Nigeria paying back over three billion dollars to Britain alone, a figure more than the total aid budget of Britain in the same year?

What kind of opportunity for Africa is 2005 when pressures have to be dissipated on making the USA through its UN ambassador, the UN-hating Bolton, to accept not to eliminate the acronym, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set five years before? If it took so much effort to defend the acronym alone how much will it take to achieve the goals? If you are still in doubt about how bad things are, the recent WTO meetings in Hong Kong should put paid to any illusions. There was no movement on the big issues and decisions are delayed for yet another round of negotiations between the cats and the mice of the global economy. The cats will not give up their right to eat the mice while the mice have to do everything to escape being gobbled up.

It's a clear frontier but many Western NGOs confuse their domestic audience and their conniving Southern activists in facilitating the illusion that some cats are less greedy than others. Many Southern activists know this not to be true but carry on with their northern patrons because their jobs and careers depend on it. The campaigns offer individual poverty alleviation mechanisms without making a dent on the global and national structure of power that impoverishes the masses of their peoples. Whatever Bob Geldof, Bono and other busy-body new missionaries in the west may do, poverty can neither be danced out of town nor be talked out of existence with prime ministers and presidents. It is a poverty of history to think and act as though a few rock concerts will change the situation. No matter how many billions watch the concerts.

So grim are things that Bob Geldof has now become an adviser to the new Conservative leader, newly cloned Blairite, David Cameron, on global poverty. Having tried Blair and New Labour the patron saint of Western NGOs has gone for the Conservatives! I guess after trying the fake Tory why not go for the real thing? Are Oxfam and their assorted fellow travelers in Africa now going to persuade us that Cameron is the new face of the war on poverty?

It is clear that the British and other Western NGOs make adjustments to their own political environment and find relevance whoever is in power, but because our own NGOs are donor-driven, lacking a social base in our own societies, they have proven themselves incapable of doing the same. Therefore they declare themselves only independent of African governments and are not accountable to African people but dance to the tunes of their funders. I hope that in the New Year these NGOs will start looking more to Africa and Africans rather than false prophets, saviours and messiahs from outside. The fact that the majority of our peoples survived to see the dawn breaking on 2006 has nothing to do with what Blair, Brown, Bob and Bono (I often wonder why their names are all 'B'?) did for them or to them but the direct result of our will to live and overcome. In saying bye-bye to 2005 lets say bye bye to the B stars in the global pornography of poverty that dominated the multimedia during the year.

Happy New Year to you all.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to [email]editor@pambazuka.

The clock is ticking when it comes to current peace talks on Darfur currently taking place in Abuja, writes Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem. But this time its not the Government of Sudan who is the spoiler at the talks, but rather the rebel forces, most of whom do not represent their people and are using their time in Abuja to snuggle up to Western donors and have a holiday at the expense of the international community.

This week is very crucial for the now-on-now-off African Union sponsored peace negotiations on Darfur in Abuja. The agreement on security is supposed to be signed failing which these round of talks could be declared dead and all the negotiators, peace envoys, rebels, government representatives and the assortment of various 'international' (meaning non African and predominantly European and American) supporters of the peace negotiations should do their tax payers a big favour and pack their bags and go home.

It is a big irony that the main culprits for this failure will not be the usual first suspect of everyone: the Government of Sudan. There is no doubt that the government is a bad government that is decapitating its opponents and aiding and abetting atrocities in Darfur and also implicated in the imploding civil war in Chad. While the government of Sudan may deserve most of the criticisms against it the obstacles to peace in Abuja are sadly fully manned by the Darfur rebel groups: JEM (Justice for Equality Movement) and SLA (Sudan Liberation Army) and the way in which their international backers continue to treat them with kid gloves and thereby encourage their belligerence.

So fixed are many on the vile nature of the Khartoum government that by definition anybody opposed to it, for whatever reasons, must be good. So desperate have various sponsors of the negotiations become that they seem prepared to get an agreement at all cost. The obsession with delegitimising the Sudan government even while negotiating with it has produced a mixed signal of inertia. At what stage does the illegitimacy of the NIF/CP government become delegitimation of the Sudan state?

These factors have prevented a more objective appreciation of the situation. The painful truth that must be faced is that neither JEM nor SLA (as presently constituted) and the various factions within and between them with their fluid alliances and struggles for personal power and prestige, are in a position to make any deals that will hold for long. How can one justify the enormous expense of having over a hundred rebels in Abuja for weeks and months with only a few of them able to engage in any serious talks and the majority just playing spoilers or peace vultures? They are becoming to Abuja what, for many years, Burundi rebels or Somali factions became to both Arusha and Nairobi respectively: Permanent tourists sponsored by the international community as a kind of direct aid to the local hospitality and leisure industry.

The rebels' attitude makes it much easier for the Sudan government to do nothing other than just watch its ill-prepared bunch and bands of armed rebels. Consequently Khartoum's representatives and commitment remain untested by the mediators and the rebels on many issues because the rebels are too absorbed in their own self-importance to concentrate or focus on the larger picture. While the Sudan government has in Abuja obviously experienced, informed and well connected security and political figures, the rebel groups have chosen to send largely ineffectual, faction-ridden elements. Give or take half a dozen on both sides, all the rebels could be sent back without any impact on the talks.

After all the months of talks one had expected that these rebels would be gaining in experience and acquiring needed skills in engaging in negotiations, but they are rather stagnating and playing reactionary politics with the lives, blood, sweat and suffering of their peoples.

There is no doubt that the cause of Darfur is just but these rebels claiming to represent the suffering masses of Darfur are not doing so justly. Like the Khartoum government they are not legitimate leaders of the people. They are their self-appointed liberators. But unlike many liberation movements in Africa, which had to depend on the people to build and plan with them, these rebels have too many willing regional and international actors indulging their delusions of grandeur.

There are many weaknesses with the AU force in Darfur and also with the mediation framework but clamouring for its replacement with a UN one instead of helping to strengthen it, is a recipe for prolonged dithering on the part of the rebels and the government. A situation in which the rebels seem to have no faith in the AU and implicit confidence in non-African governments and institutions is playing into the hands of the government. The belief by the rebels that the AU will be replaced by a different force and mediators is actually encouraging the rebels to consider their role in Abuja as mere “walk on parts”, since there will be other forums for them outside of Africa for negotiations. By default they are conceding the diplomatic and political terrain in Africa to Khartoum while putting their faith in non-Africans. They obviously have not learnt anything from the crisis of the opposition in Zimbabwe.

While they are not talking with the AU mediators they are flattered to be the darling of many Westerners in the talks. Like the true colonial-minded leaders they are, they feel gratified to be seen with one western diplomat or the other, no matter how lowly placed. It boosts their sense of self-importance. It also gives the diplomats, security operatives and intelligence gatherers masquerading as supporters of negotiations a ringside seat in playing God with African lives. I honestly think the ritual presence of outsiders (especially so called Donor-countries) in these negotiations is, on the whole, negative. They are not putting pressure on the rebels to engage positively and instead seem to be encouraging their belligerence.

The priority should be to make the ceasefire effective, stop the massacres and protect the civilians. These can only be achieved through making the African Union troops more effective and expanding their mandate if possible through the UN Security Council. If this is not possible, the AU should do so by itself and seek the necessary international support to carry out the mandate. This also means that the loopholes in the original ceasefire that are being exploited by the government and its killer groups and the rebels too, need to be plugged. It means putting all pressure on Khartoum and the rebels to sign off the security agreement and be held accountable for it. In the worse case scenario, the AU needs to show political courage and call the bluff of the rebels by calling off the talks and advising them to call back when they are ready for serious talks and agreement. Meanwhile the threat of not giving Khartoum the diplomatic and political honour of hosting the next summit, due in Khartoum in January, should be made clear if the government continues to kill its own people. A government and opposition force whose power depends on mass suffering and death of their own peoples should be denied the company of other Africans and all decent peoples the world over.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

This weekend is World Human Rights Day, a day set aside to commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). When the Declaration was made in 1948 most of Africa (with the exception of Liberia and Ethiopia), were subject nations lorded over by European colonialists. These imperialists did not see any contradiction in making the declaration while having their jackboots on our backs and pillaging our human and material resources. Many will still ask what has changed in almost 60 years?

In his weekly column, Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem tackles three African presidents who appear to have ambitions to rule until they drop dead. Omar Bongo of Gabon, Yoweri Musevini of Uganda and Olushegun Obasanjo of Nigeria are either firmly entrenched as leaders for life or are busy manipulating electoral laws so they can serve beyond their given time. Abdul-Raheem asks why these leaders see it as their god-given right to rule and rule and rule...

The more Africa changes the more it remains the same at the level of leadership. While it is no longer an issue for debate that we should choose our own leaders in a democratic election there are many challenges in the processes that may make cynics proclaim that we are only making a distinction without any fundamental difference.

Our dictators have learnt how to repackage themselves with a veneer of electoral democracy that ensues that we 'vote without choosing' since the outcome often remains the same. In the past few years constitutionalism has also made a come back across Africa but - unwilling democrats that many of the leaders are - they have found ways of constitutionalising their illegitimacy by following a constitutional route to deny their peoples the democratic right to genuine changes and alternatives in public policy.

Take the cases of three presidents from different regions of Africa who have become the symbols of this constitutional gerymandering. The first one holds the dubious title of being Africa's longest –serving (I am not sure what services any more), President, El Hadj Omar Bongo of the oil-rich Central African state of Gabon. He has been in power since 1967 and has just secured for himself another seven-year term at the presidential palace, which will ensure that he remains in power till he is 75 years old (officially). After that term, if both nature and the ancestors have not called him home, we can be sure that there will be no shortage of footloose opportunists to orchestrate 'one more term'. Bongo has ensured that he runs and runs till he drops dead. This is where his presidential run and re-run interfaces with that of the second president, retired general Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda, whose onward march to another term was the subject of this column last week.

I got many responses from both the Museveni camp and even more from the anti-Museveni group on that article. The president's men and women typically become legalistic on the issue, arguing that now that Ugandans have spoken through a referendum and there has been appropriate change to the constitution, the President is not doing anything unconstitutional.

They overstate their democratic credentials by stating the seemingly obvious: Ugandan voters are supreme they say and whatever they decide is sacrosanct. It is a very beguiling democratic case even if democracy is the last thing on the minds of those pushing it. It is always amusing to me why Ugandans are supreme over the issue of Museveni running again but have neither been supreme on the key economic decisions of the government or the various wars the country has been involved in for the past two decades. Not even elected members of Parliament have any influence on the government's neo-liberal policies yet the people are supreme!

On the other side of the debate the anti 'sad term' camp think I have become too complacent about Museveni's self-succession. I had concluded my article last week matter-of-factly that five years will soon come to pass. But the fear of many in the opposition is that it is not just the next five years that Museveni and his cronies want but the next one, and the one after that and probably another one after that until the president gives up the ghost. In a sense self-succession in perpetuity - like Bongo's.

I must confess that I have no answer to that speculation because there is something that happens to our presidents once they enter office that they find ways and means of perpetuating themselves. People often blame opportunists around them but I think that is a lazy approach. There is no adviser that will compel an unwilling president to remain in office for a minute longer if he is not that inclined.

Unfortunately Museveni is not alone in the struggle for presidency in perpetuity. And that leads us to the third president, another retired general, Chief Mathew Aremu Olushegun Obasanjo. I have been in Nigeria for the past three weeks and the big political issue is about the quest for another term by President Obasanjo.

Like Museveni's supporters when his campaign first started to change the constitution, Obasanjo's people are saying the president has not decided either way. Like President Museveni, Obasanjo rarely addresses the issue directly and when he does he says defensively that the constitution does not allow him to go beyond two consecutive terms and he has pledged to uphold the constitution. However, as it happened in Uganda his agents and political contractors are busy pushing for constitutional amendments that will allow him to stand for another term and thereby constitutionalising his self-succession as has happened in Uganda.

It is obvious that the three compare notes on how to deceive their peoples. It is sad that, in spite of the new African Peer Review Mechanism, they do not compare notes on how to improve the lot of their peoples.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

At a meeting of African heads of state in Nigeria recently, the thorny issue of African unity was debated. While the leaders busied themselves with discussing a union of states, Tajudeen Abdul Raheem writes that what unity should really be about is a unity of people. Pan Africanism, he writes, needs to leave the conferences and executive mansions and become a part of the lives of ordinary people.

On November 12th and 13th at the Banquet Hall of Nigeria's State House (more popularly known as Aso Rock), President Olusegun Obasanjo, in his capacity as the chair of the African Union, hosted a conference on ‘Africa and the Challenges of the Global Order: Desirability of the Union Government’.

Five heads of state and government including President Thabo Mbeki (South Africa), John Kufour (Ghana), Abdulaye Wade (Senegal), Prime minister Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) and President Boutefleka (Algeria) - represented by his prime minister - along with several foreign ministers and ambassadors were present.

A number of civil society activists, academics, international policy makers including Mahmood Mamdani (Columbia University), Adebayo Olukoshi (CODESRIA), Wangari Mathai (President of ECOSOCC), Gertrude Mongela (speaker of the Pan African Parliament), Ezra Mbogori (Mwengo) and others were also present to dialogue with the leaders on the best means of proceeding with the agenda of unity.

The meeting was a direct result of the directive given by the Shirte Summit in July based on the resolution put forward by the Libyan leader, Muammar Al Gaddafi demanding that a Union of African states be formed as a further step in advancing the Pan-Africanist idea. Libya is anxious that in spite of recent progress in the Union the demands and pressures of globalization are such that only a faster march to Unity will prevent Africa from being re-colonised.

As in 1999 not many African leaders were too enthusiastic about Libya 's proposals in July. However, as has become the practice, whatever Libya pushes it has enough material and diplomatic clout in the Union for it not to be ignored. The strategy of other powerhouses in the AU - especially Nigeria and South Africa - has always been how to contain Libya’s militancy. The matter was thrown at a High Level Panel headed by President Obasanjo along with Zenawi, Mbeki, Wade, Boutefleka, Museveni and Kufour. This Panel is due to submit its report to the next summit in Khartoum in January 2006.

In Abuja the Libyans - represented by their minister for Africa Ali Treiki (called by many "The Tricky man' for his long term survival of many sharp knives in the corridors of power) - put more flesh to their proposals in terms of a time table beginning in 2006 with the removal of tariffs and visas, the establishment of a central bank, and the formation of one army all of which would lead to the creation of a Union of African States in 2009.

Libya obviously wants a United Africa as a present for the 40th anniversary of the Al Fatah revolution! These are no doubt very revolutionary proposals given the slow take off of all the institutions of the new Union. Caution will dictate that we work on making existing structures work before taking another leap forward.

In a rare display of executive candor and public engagement the leaders present did not hide their disagreement with Libya's proposals. Thabo Mbeki led the charge, raising doubts about his ability to persuade reluctant South Africans to surrender sovereignty to an entity outside the country that they did not vote for. He expressed pessimism about common tariffs, drawing his conclusion from the slow progress of common tariffs and the customs union of SADC countries.

Zenawi argued that the proposals were full of old rhetoric without adequate research and analysis. He asked if Africa's underdevelopment is the result of lacking a union government or if a union government will make Africa develop. Obasanjo drew attention to the ECOWAS region which made great progress in the area of free movement but had not proceeded to other levels of integration.

Wade suggested that the integration of Africa is impeded by dependence on aid and the collective loses that Africa suffers from the export of its precious raw materials and mineral resources like oil, gold, diamond, etc. He caused some exchange of executive banter between him and his host when he asked for the right to share in Nigeria's fuel resources. Obasanjo retorted that he could not be giving Senegal cheap oil while it uses foreign exchange to buy imported rice which he is trying to dissuade Nigerians from eating.

The concerns raised by the leaders and others are genuine but I believe they are agonising instead of organising. I do not believe that Africans anywhere on this continent or in the Diaspora will not vote overwhelmingly for visa-free freedom of movement across Africa. The scandalous situation that degrades and humiliates us at the moment needs to be addressed immediately. How can an American, Canadian or Australian and virtually all Europeans have easier access to our countries while we treat fellow African as 'aliens'? Despite all the sensitivities and reactionary politics surrounding citizenship across Africa would it not be easier to recognise all Africans as Africans with full citizenship rights, wherever they may be in Africa? Mamdani, combining both personal experience and professional interest did not allow Wade's executive fiat to stop him from completing his presentation on this issue. Drawing from his book, ‘Citizens and Subjects’ Mamdani showed how the citizenship laws of today are a carry over of colonial divide and rule and a pluralism of legal regimes that made Africans into tribes subjected to native or customary laws. That pluralism has made it difficult for many African countries to create political communities with a sense of shared future.

Olukoshi took on the argument of ECOWAS not making progress since it introduced freedom of moment. Freedom of movement alone would not lead to integration if it was not accompanied by integrative infrastructure through transport, communication, education, commerce and trade, etc.

It is clear that we are back to the debates of the 1960s about how far and fast we should proceed to unity. The answer that our painful history teaches us is that slow progress has lead us to the slaughter house of neo-colonialism and impoverishment in the midst of abundant human and material resources. We have no choice but to move faster because the rest of the world will not wait for us.

It is now widely recognised that Pan Africanism needs to leave the confines of conferences and executive mansions of our leaders and become part and parcel of all our lives building from the down-up. A number of issues are clear. One, the heads of state want a union of states while what we need is a union of peoples. If people are at the centre of the agenda many of the contradictions and anxieties the leaders are obsessed with can be confronted together instead of dealing with them individually. Two, some states are more willing than others. And it may be necessary that instead of constantly waiting for everyone to come on board those who are ready should go ahead. Three, the Libyans have to learn how to be thorough and strategic in mobilising both leaders and civil society instead of wasting enormous resources as sweeteners to reluctant heads of state. The biggest obstacle to their good proposals is the way they do things rather than what they are putting forward. The crucial stage we are now at requires a broader alliance owned and led by our peoples to bring the frontiers down and release our energies for creative union that serves the people.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to