“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

AfroNeth is a platform for African Diaspora Organizations in the Netherlands; on this platform they can enhance their participation in the Dutch society and in Africa, as well as build strong partnerships with pro-Africa development agencies.

German site available for articles on Africa and the African diaspora in German-speaking Europe. Table of contents, some full text articles & interviews. Africa events in Europe.

Peace Magazine offers a bleak assessment of the role the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has played in the Caribbean country. Under pressure from the US, France and Canada to give "uncritical assistance" to the interim government and the Haitian police, MINUSTAH has failed to uphold "either the letter or the spirit" of its mandate.

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

Twilight and Reason online magazine provides a mix of news, information, and perspectives on all subjects related to the relationship of African American people to the colleges and universities that enroll Black students and employ Black faculty, staff, and administrators. Twilight and Reason provides news and commentary on current events and trends in Black higher education, historical research, and updates on African American History of Higher Education Project (AAHHEP) collections, exhibits, and programming.

The African Diaspora Investment Forum (DiaForum 2006) in Brussels, June 29-30, 2006, aims at bringing together Africans in the diaspora with other stakeholders in view of enabling investment and skills transfer to the continent.

International students are worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy but in recent years competition for attracting overseas students has been fierce and Britain is keen not to lose out to countries like the US and Australia which have always been popular destinations. Education Minister Bill Rammell told Black Britain that they are "looking at Africa as a whole to try and establish partnerships and to get it driven at a local level so that they can tap into wider funding from the aid agencies."

Zimbabweans living in the diaspora have reacted angrily to statements by President Robert Mugabe. "They are letting the country down by going to England where they are looked down on and given dirty menial jobs, they scratch the backs of old people in homes in England," he said.

The Forum of Zimbabweans in the diaspora says it has begun organising its members to help solve some of the humanitarian problems in Zimbabwe. At least 80% of Zimbabweans live below the poverty line. The forum celebrated the country's 26th independence anniversary by holding a meeting in Johannesburg yesterday (April 18).

"Looking Both Ways refers to the artists’ practice of looking at the psychic terrain between Africa and the West, a terrain of shifting physical contexts, emotional geographies, and aesthetic ambitions and expressions," said Laurie Ann Farrell, curator of Looking Both Ways, Museum of African Art, Long Island City, New York. "It attempts to provide insight into the Diaspora from an international perspective, revealing it through the art and stories of the artists themselves."

The World Health Organisation (WHO) designated 2006 as The Year for Health and the United Nations has designated this year as The Year of Migration. For the African continent, the combination of the two factors can have devastating consequences. WHO reports that 2.9 per cent of the world’s 175 million population live outside their country of birth. As health professionals on the African continent migrate to western countries out of economic necessity, the loss of medical expertise is increasingly leaving a depleted health sector incapable of meeting public healthcare needs.

The world feels a little smaller when you watch Peru Negro. The group hails from Lima, but there's something Cuban in their drumbeats, something African in the way they whip the air with their hips and shoulders, even a bit of the American South in a body-slapping musical routine as near to the hambone as you'll see north of the Carolinas. What feels so familiar in Peru Negro's program, performed Thursday night at the University of Maryland's Clarice Smith Center, is part of the mystery of the African diaspora, linking islands and continents and cultures in ways that resonate to this day.

The African Diaspora Film Festival (ADFF) features the work of emerging and established filmmakers of color. Most important, ADFF distinguishes itself through its presentation of outstanding works that shine a different or comprehensive light on African Diaspora life and culture - no matter what the filmmaker’s race or nationality. Submission deadline for ADFF 2006: August 31, 2006 for feature length fiction films; June 30, 2006 for shorts and documentaries.

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

In preparation for the Second Nigerian Youth Leadership Summit scheduled for Enugu during July 4-5, 2006, development Partnership International along with other partners is organizing consultative sessions in all the geopolitical zones of Nigeria and in the Diaspora from May- June 2006. The purpose of the consultation is to find out what young people perceive as their most important priorities, what efforts and interventions they are undertaking to address these important priority areas, what challenges they are facing, both as young people and at the level of their work, identify and document best practices emerging from their work, and recommendations on how they can further improve their work. The consultation in the Diaspora, will focus more on health policy, health sector reforms, and how those in the Diaspora can contribute to Nigeria’s health sector development.

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

The Pan African University is a global university whose faculty, staff, students and external partners employ intellectual and financial resources to enrich the lives of those they serve. The university educates students to assist in the enlightening and disciplining of their minds and their preparation for active, professional leadership.

Lawmakers from both parties said Thursday (March 2) a newly disclosed videotape of a pre-Katrina briefing for President Bush and top administration officials raises new questions about government response to the storm that flooded New Orleans and killed more than 1,300 people. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said the video "makes it perfectly clear once again that this disaster was not out of the blue or unforeseeable. It was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. That's what made the failures in response - at the local, state and federal level - all the more outrageous." The video, obtained by The Associated Press, "confirms what we have suspected all along," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, charging that Bush administration officials have "systematically misled the American people."