The African Foundation for Development (AFFORD) is mobilizing the diaspora's skills, knowledge and experience to provide assistance to organizations in Ghana and Sierra Leone. We shall partner with organizations where diaspora skills, knowledge and experience will result in more people, especially young people, establishing SMEs, securing work, building skills and confidence.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, missing in Nigeria for the last five weeks, discusses the aspirations of the continental powerhouse to African and international leadership. Despite its stated intentions, the country just doesn’t seem able to get its act together, he writes, using as examples Nigeria’s loss of the African Development Bank presidency to Rwanda and its quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

I must begin this piece with a thousand apologies to my readers for the spasmodic and epileptic appearance of this column in the past five weeks. It would have been easier for me to advise my editors and readers that I was going to be on holiday for X number of weeks. But as a 'good African' the idea that I should be on holiday was anathematic to the cultural instinct.

Whether peasants or presidents we are programmed to work till we die even if the evidence of the work may remain scanty. If you suggest to an African that he/she should go on holiday he/she starts suspecting that you want to get rid of him or her! Annual leave and a period set aside when you throw caution to the winds and just relax are anathematic to many Africans, rich or poor, urban or rural. Our lives are a kind of permanent emergency needing constant urgent attention. Therefore we keep trying to fit in permanent work without break – as well as the numerous immediate and extended family demands on our time and endless socio-cultural, multi tasked economic coping mechanisms in addition to endless community, and village must do activities!

The other and perhaps more pressing reason has to do with the objective fact of where I have been in the past five weeks: Nigeria. Somehow the country is not synonymous with holidays! The hassle and tussle of survival in Africa's allegedly No 1 country and self-declared super power is one that will task the best spirits of the most eccentric adventurer. As regular readers of this column will know, over the past five years when I became a legal visitor to Nigeria again - after more than a decade of being 'wanted' by the various caricatures of leaders - whenever I am in Nigeria this column is never regular. All kinds of objective and subjective circumstances conspire to make this column less than regular whenever I am in the country. Hence the various editors (whose papers carry this column) have developed a kind of 'Nigerian discount' for my lapses in beating deadlines. The amazing thing is that I have written this column without failing from all kinds of places before, including blighted war torn Eastern Congo, remote places in Burkina Faso, on French keyboards in a Café where people spoke only French or local languages I did not understand; and also from newly liberated post Genocide Kigali. Nigeria is on the face of it not at war but not a peace therefore everything is a daunting obstacle race!

Yet this is a country that has proclaimed since independence from the British in 1960, its 'manifest destiny' not only to lead Africa but Black people wherever they may be in the world. The irony is that many Africans or even African countries are not disputing this putative leadership. They only wished that Nigeria were able to lead effectively. If anything stands in the way of Nigeria it is its own self-doubt and its inconsistencies that is undermining its claims to leadership.

Take the example of two out of many issues currently occupying the chatters of foreign policy minded academics, policy wonks, sections of the media and some civil society activists: Nigeria's recent loss of the Africa Development Bank (ADB) presidency to Rwanda and Nigeria's quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

The national pride was greatly hurt that 'little Rwanda', despite not having majority African support in most of the tortuous stages of the ADB presidency contest, defeated Nigeria in Tunis after a deadlock in Abuja.

A number of things counted against Nigeria, which my Nigerian friends are unwilling to come terms with. One, the country's influence does not go far beyond Abuja itself. If you bring people to Abuja you can have your way but outside of it they may change their minds. Two, Nigeria is too complacent in its diplomacy, believing that its case is 'too clear.' Three, this complacency makes its officials to believe that the country is the only selling point whoever the candidate is. Four, Obasanjo's obsession with external validation was once again proven to be pointless. He bends over backwards (often against national instinct for anti western independence) to please America in particular and the West in general yet when it matters their own geopolitical interests dictate clipping Nigeria's wings in Africa and building sub regional counter checks. Five, it is not only the West that is interested in cutting Nigeria to size. There are many seemingly friendly African countries who desire the same though they may not openly articulate this. South Africa is an obvious candidate in this category. So is Egypt, Libya, and many other pretenders to leadership of Africa. There are smaller and less resourced states who cannot make such claim but play the bigger or better resourced African states against each other, buttering their bread in all ways and most of the time going for the highest bidder. It’s a kind of cash and carry diplomacy.

Post apartheid South Africa has many reasons to be grateful and friendly towards Nigeria but it also has many reasons to check mate Nigeria's regional influence as it seeks its own economic and strategic interests on the continent. It wants business with Africa's largest market but also contests the leadership claims of Africa's sleeping giant. No amount of personal rapport between leaders and diplomatic niceties can hide these contradictions. Nigeria's folly is in believing that 'there is no problem.'

Six, and perhaps more importantly under Obasanjo, Nigeria has developed a more personalised diplomacy around 'Baba' and whatever whims catch his erratic moods. Professional, well-trained and experienced diplomats of which there are many in Nigeria's foreign ministry have been relegated to mostly onlookers or undertakers for a very interventionist and domineering presidency. It is very clear that Obasanjo believes he is his own best foreign minister in addition to being the best in everything Nigerian! The ‘Babacracy’ (or is it ‘BabaCRAZY’?) that undermines Nigeria's nascent democratic order has been extended to foreign affairs, making it impossible for anybody to have any positive influence unless Baba allows them.

There are many more reasons that Nigerians need to wake up to if they are going to realise many of their assumed and oft repeated diplomatic and strategic goals in Africa and the world. Otherwise they will forever be beaten by so called small countries backed by larger interests.

And this is where Nigeria's immediate foreign policy goal of securing one of the two anticipated African seats on the UN Security Council in the ongoing UN reform proposals also runs into serious troubles. If Nigeria has its house in order no African country would be bold enough to challenge its claim - rather they would be clamouring for the second seat. However, even in West Africa where Nigeria claims to be the sub regional power, Senegal is also in the race. If Nigeria cannot have the unanimous support of its own backyard why should it expect the unanimous endorsement of the rest of Africa?

The atmosphere is so charged that many of my Nigerian friends and comrades have lost all kinds of objectivity in assessing their situation and think I must be a traitor to be raising doubts about the country's ineffectual claims to continental leadership when it cannot even lead itself. Some even suggest that I have lost touch and I have no right to comment on Nigerian affairs because I have been away for so long from the country.

Yet what we are debating is not domestic affairs but international affairs. They need to persuade others not themselves but somehow this detail is lost in the petty nationalist jingoism that clouds these discussions. And they wonder why 'foreigners' cannot accede to their claims! If they claim that because a Nigerian lives outside of the country he or she has no right to talk about domestic politics they should at least have consistency in their own logic by being a little bit humble when discussing matters outside the borders of Nigeria. The 'foreign' Nigerians may have more to share with them by way of how others see Nigeria, which is far different from how many Nigerians see their country, its potential, place and role in both African and global affairs.

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Who would have thought that exactly three weeks after the historical and momentous occasion of the inauguration of the transitional government of national unity in Khartoum we would be mourning the death of the vice president of Sudan, under that peace agreement , Dr John Garang . In less than a month, the huge hope and expectations raised by the peace agreement (signed in Naivasha, Kenya , in January ), negotiated for several years and culminating in the inauguration of July 9, seem to be doomed .

The predictable riots in Khartoum mostly by grieving southerners and the even more predictable high handed response by the Sudan security forces only serve the cynicism of many people both inside and outside who have always believed that peace between the north and south, meaning Arabs and Africans is not possible.

Between July 7 and 9 the whole world watched the outpouring of emotions on the streets of Khartoum and other parts of Sudan as John Garang arrived for the innauguration of the transitional government. Little did we all know that the millions that turned out to welcome the newly rehabilitated rebel leader to a city he last visited 21 years ago and the many more who turned out on July 9 for the inauguration and saw him take the oath of office as the first vice president of Sudan were saying good bye to Dr John.

Like most people, when I first learnt of the disappearance of the helicopter in which Dr. Garang was travelling I immediately suspected foul play. It was a hope against hope between Saturday evening and Sunday evening when it was finally confirmed that the aircraft had crashed and there were no survivors.

The immediate consensus from many quarters was that foul play was unlikely. This quick verdict further fuelled one's suspicions. Before a definitive verdict was declared there should have been an investigation first. There were two reasons why many people believed the 'no foul play' explanation. One, Garang was travelling from Uganda, on one of President Museveni's aircraft flown by Ugandan crew. Since Museveni has been the closest regional ally of Garang it is inconceivable that he would have been party to any conspiracies against his long term comrade. The other reason I believe is that nobody wants to contemplate foul play because the peace process in which everyone has invested so much material and political resources for many years both regionally and internationally will be dead. Therefore fear of failure and desperation for victory dictates giving the benefit of the doubt.

Both reasons are not enough for us to suspend all disbelief. If you are an Arab chauvinist (as there are many among Sudan's ruling elite) who did not believe in sharing power with African Sudanese and who have spent all your live demonising Garang the January peace accord and Garang's swearing in on July 9 was a day of defeat for you. If you were also a Southern chauvinist who believe that peaceful coexistence with your Arab neighbours was not possible then Garang will be a traitor as far as you were concerened.

Between both groups killing Garag would have been on the cards but which of them had the means? Also If you were planning to take your revenge what other circumstance will give you the best cover for your dastardly act and a fool proof alibi than Garang travelling to his foremost allied country and in that country's aircraft manned by its citizens, to mount your counter attack? Even Agatha Christie could not have constructed a more perfect murder . Therefore while we are assured that Garang was under the safe care of his Ugandan allies, who will guarantee us that there were no enemies lying in the jungles of kidepo and environ as the helicopter headed for Lumbek? As for the other reason about wanting peace at all cost it has thrown blinkers in the eyes of many of us . While I am prepared to agree that the top leadership in Khartoum , i.e . Omar Al Bashir and Ali Osman Taha, may mean their commitment to peace we cannot say the same for some of their generals.

Those fervently opposed to the new peace deal do not need the permission of Khartoum to carry out there anti peace efforts. While they may be allies of Khartoum and could have been aided and abetted by them, Khartoum may not be able to control all their efforts. We have curent examples among the Janjaweed elements in Darfur who began as allies of Khartoum but now operate beyond the control of their former masters. Another pertinent example is the Sudan – Uganda deal that even gave Uganda right of hot pursuit into Sudan territory against the LRA. More than two years later LRA is still very much operating in Sudan with the connivance of sections of the Sudanese military and security establishment. Who is to say the same type of fifth columnists were not at work in the border regions of Uganda, Kenya and Sudan last Saturday?

We welcome Uganda's immediate setting up of an investigation panel and call for joint effort with the Government of Sudan, IGAD, and the African Union and international community to independently investigate the crash in order to assure those who are extremely doubtful that it was an unfortunate accident . The same was said of Samora Machel's crash but we know better now. Until we have the report of that panel it is difficult to say a proper goodbye to comrade John Garang . That will come later. For now one is full of why and who type questions. Before you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist please let me share an anecdote with you. A Schizophrenic Man was accused of being paranoid and he retorted to his accuser: "The fact that I may be paranoid does not mean that there is no one conspiring against me."

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, our regular columnist, reflects on Norway’s decision to suspend some of its aid to Uganda as a result of faltering democratic reforms. It’s interesting that the West is only now starting to express concern over Uganda after treating President Yoweri Museveni as its ‘darling’ for many years, points our Abdul-Raheem. Museveni’s response of rejecting foreign interference and claiming that the Ugandan electorate should decide on his third term is also questionable. Why didn’t he reject foreign interference when it worked in his favour and why didn’t he consult the electorate when the World Bank and International Monetary Fund came knocking on his door?

Norway has cut some Aid to Uganda reportedly in protest against the 'slow pace and direction of democratic reforms' in the country. The Norwegian Ambassador to the country, Tore Gjos, put a sum to this displeasure at "mishandling of the democratic process'' at a whopping amount of $4 million which is ten percent of total Norwegian Aid to Uganda. The British government earlier in April took a similar line when it withheld $9.5 million in budgetary support to the Uganda government.

It will not be surprising if one or two more so called Donor countries took similar action. But they will be merely symbolic. It is important to note that both the British and the Norwegians talk about 'withholding' not canceling their Aid altogether. So the opposition need not congratulate itself that its campaign against Museveni is succeeding.

No doubt the withholding of Aid has something to do with the stated displeasure at the zigzags in the transitional politics of the country from a virtual one party state to a formal multi party system. The irony is that return to multi-partyism canvassed by both the opposition parties and donor friends of the President for many years - especially after the first ten years of division of Labor between them and the President - is exactly what Museveni has come round to. Is it now a case of not heading the advice: 'Be careful what you pray for, you may just get it'!

From 1986 to 1996 as a reward for bringing Uganda up from the backwaters into a 'positive' role model through macroeconomic reforms Museveni was given a huge discount on the usual democratic conditionalities beloved of Western countries when it pleases them. For being the apostle of IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment policies he was more or less allowed to shape the politics of the country in his own image. He left the economy to them and they left the politics to him. He became the darling of the west and Kampala a must destination for Western delegations desperate for some good news from Africa or wanting to feel good about themselves.

However the romance has gone bad for many reasons. One, Uganda is no longer the single success story it used to be. Just look at the stories about Mozambique today and you wonder if you were not talking about Uganda of the 1990s. Two, almost all African countries have accepted the reactionary neo-liberal orthodoxy that proclaims that there is no alternative to the market. With so many of them prostrating before imperialism there is no need to be specially disposed towards one particular state or leader.

Three, imperialism has only permanent interests, not permanent friends. This is something that African and other Third world leaders always miss. They think they are so close, so popular and well liked in Washington, Paris, London or Brussels and delude themselves that they are indispensable. They are as dispensable as disposable towels in a toilet. When their Western patrons are tired of them they turn off the tap. The same people who praise them to the heavens as 'the best leader possible' 'the savior of the country', 'the best they can offer' or 'without him there will be chaos' will turn round to condemn them in the direct opposite of those praises.

Four, one of the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet bloc is a more positive environment for democratic politics to take root in many countries. While the West is not necessarily interested in democracy but continuing domination / exploitation, in recent years they are becoming more sophisticated in trying to give democratic legitimacy to their domination through some legitimate domestic processes. Partly this is because civil society in the West itself demands that their governments support what they preach although where their interests are more threatened like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, they do not shout so much. Also domestic pressures in many countries challenge the West's hypocrisy and double standards but also make democratic claims on their rulers. However for the many Banana/Ugali republics in Africa their shouts are much louder and impact more direct.

President Museveni and his supporters have generally reacted in two predictable ways. One, they consider the threats of cutting Aid or withholding such and critical comments on the political transition as unacceptable foreign intervention. Their second counter is a seemingly democratic one. All the political issues, they argue, are to be decided by 'the people' therefore it is undemocratic for foreign countries to think they know better than the Ugandan electorate.

In principle both counters are legitimate but the politics is not. Uganda and President Museveni enjoyed so much foreign patronage and basked in it for so long that it is too late in the day to start decrying foreign intervention. They are not opposed to foreign intervention in principle as long as it is on their side. They obviously think that the saying 'those who pay the piper dictate the tune' does not apply to them.

The second argument about letting the people decide is the most unconvincing of the various populist responses from the NRM. They did not ask the people of Uganda when they went to the IMF/World Bank and prostituted themselves to all kinds of donors and foreign interests in the name of inviting investors to Uganda and building a middle class, so why now ask the people to decide only when you have contradictions with your friends? It is not every time that people vote that there is democracy or even a democratic outcome. Even Hitler came in through the ballot box.

The bitter truth though is that after this process is all over the same donors will crawl back to the state house in Kampala bearing their Greek gifts and the president will make his usual jokes, pet talks and foreign rounds and things will return to business as usual. It happened in 1996 and 2001 and who says it will not repeat itself even in the changing circumstances of 2006?

The NRM has succeeded in creating an opposition whose internal bickering and inconsistencies make many to fear them more even when they are alienated from the government. The opposition must learn from the experience of other pro-democracy groups in Africa like Senegal where it took more than forty years and an alliance of 17 opposition parties to get rid of Abdu Diouf or Ghana where Jerry Rawlings' party was fought to a standstill and eventual surrender through consistent battles within democratic spaces opened up through a constitution that he had orchestrated to perpetuate himself or his party if self -succession failed.

Or just look across to neighboring Kenya where after several years of squabbles and internecine warfare, once Moi was not in the picture the opposition was able to get rid of KANU. In both Ghana and Kenya it was important that the long-term ruler was not standing in the election. This is where the removal of limitation on presidential terms in Uganda posits different challenges for a coalition of opposition parties. As long as the President is standing it may be extremely difficult but as the Abdu Diouf experience in Senegal shows, it is not impossible.

What unites all three examples is the continuing engagement by the political parties within the skewed and unbalanced political field but at the same time niggling away at the authority of the ruling party. They did not achieve their victory through boycotts and I do not see how Uganda's anti-NRM groups will use boycott to get rid of Museveni and the NRM. How can they boycott a referendum simply because the government is on the same side. Why bother about the reasons of the NRM instead of concentrating on their own intentions for supporting a return to multi-party democracy? Why boycott the referendum and then contest the election to follow?

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

'One of the worst outcomes of injustices is poverty,' says Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner. 'It robs human beings of their dignity.' Professor Maathai spoke at the Africa Diaspora and Development Day in London on 2 July 2005 where thousands of Africans met to discuss their own future, while across the other side of London, a largely white, apolitical road show known as Live8 was busy telling Africans what they really needed. 'When people are poor and when they are reduced to beggars, they feel weak, humiliated, disrespected and undignified,' said Maathai. ' They hide alone in corners and dare not raise their voices. They are therefore, neither heard nor seen. They do not organize but often suffer in isolation and in desperation. Yet all human beings deserve respect and dignity. Indeed it should be unacceptable to push other human beings to such levels of indiginity. Even before any other rights, perhaps it may be time to campaign for all human beings to have the right to a life of dignity: a life devoid of poverty in the midst of plenty because such poverty demonstrates gross inequalities. As long as millions of people live in poverty and indignity, humanity should feel diminished. A time such as this gives all of us, and especially those in leadership, the opportunity to reduce poverty. There is a lot of poverty in Africa. This is largely due to economic injustices, which must be addressed not only by the rich industrialized countries but also by leaders in Africa.' For the full text of her speech, click on the link below.

The Karibbean Independent Trust for Ecology (KITE), has arranged a 25th anniversary event to commemorate the life of Dr. Walter Rodney, Caribbean historian and politician, who was murdered in 1980. During his short life Dr. Walter Rodney wrote many works of history, the best known being "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa". Eusi Kwayana said at the time of his death: "Our best was killed by our worst".

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reports on a week-long commemoration of the life of Walter Rodney, held in Guyana. Rodney was assassinated on June 13, 1980, but continues to be remembered for his principled politics, philosophy of human and self-emancipation, leadership by example and commitment to the masses.

On June 13 it was exactly 25 years since the assassination of the Guyanese scholar-activist, Walter Rodney. To commemorate his life the Walter Rodney International Commemoration Committee headed by Professor Horace Campbell and their local counter parts in Guyana organised a week long series of groundings across the country that culminated in the unveiling of a memorial plaque and opening of a public park around the spot where Rodney was assassinated on June 13 1980, by a remote controlled bomb.

The government of Burnham Forbes claimed that a bombing device he was carrying, allegedly to attack the central prison where some of the activists of his party, Working Peoples Alliance of Guyana (WPA) were being held, killed Rodney. This official lie could have turned his assassination into a perfect murder but for the fact that his brother, Donald, was with him in the fateful car and survived the explosion. A state security operative, Smith, was fingered as the perpetrator of the dastardly act. He was quickly spirited out of the country to French Guyana where he died a few years ago. The murder trail did not begin or end with Smith. Burnham Forbes regime and his party, the PNC, bears responsibility for the assassination and the cover up since then. It is sad that 25 years after the assassination and thirteen years since the PNC was replaced as governing party by the PPP no closure has been brought to the Rodney assassination.

The commemoration was not about Rodney's death but a celebration of his principled politics, philosophy of human and self-emancipation, leadership by example and consistent practice. It was also about Rodney's life-long commitment to the masses. Participants came from several countries and continents including the Caribbean, Europe, North America and Africa. Many of them were people who knew and worked with Rodney and others were those who were influenced by his writing.

Prof. Ali Mazrui was there as was Prof. Loxley. Both of them were at Makerere University when Rodney was at the University of Dar Es Salaam. In a very generous appreciation -despite ideological and political differences with Rodney - Prof. Mazrui paid tribute to Rodney and recounted with great humour and truthfulness the famous Mazrui-Rodney debate at the Great Hall of Makerere University, where for many years Mazrui was the leading academic.

Rodney's widow, Patricia, and their three children: Shaka, Kanini and Asha (the last two were born in Dar es Salaam) were there. Pat and her two daughters (one a medical Doctor and the other a human rights lawyer) were in Guyana for the first time since Rodney's assassination. Shaka (who is in business in Barbados) had been home before in the early years of the PPP government when he staged a hunger strike to force an inquiry into his father's assassination. The government did set up some commission, which soon fizzled out.

At the official opening, Dr Patricia Rodney gave a comprehensive appreciation of her late husband as a human being, imperfect but an ordinary man who did extra ordinary things. It was highly emotional to hear Pat sweeping through their trials and tribulations from Guyana to the UK to Jamaica to Tanzania back to Guyana in 1974 and leading to Walter's assassination 6 years later. The meeting recognised, applauded and saluted Pat's courage, determination and comradeship with Rodney. Often we treat our 'heroes' in isolation of their private lives and forget about their family lives and loves. Sometimes it is as if they died with the hero. Patricia was not just a wife to Rodney but a partner and comrade in arms. The way she has raised their children after his tragic death at a very young age of only 38 is a testimony to her fully shared commitment with Walter that a different world is possible.

For many Africans Walter's legacy remains his influential and seminal book: ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’. A book that was published when Walter was only 29 years old having secured his PHD at the age of 24! By whatever standard -whether professionally or politically - Rodney was an exceptional person whose influence will continue among all struggling peoples desiring a different world and working to make it possible.

In ‘How Europe Undeveloped Africa’ Rodney laid bare the historical process through which Africa became the mess that we see all around us. He established that there was nothing natural or God ordained about the processes. They were man made and therefore changeable by act of human will and determination. He showed how Africa developed before contact with Europeans through slavery (400 years) and colonialism (100 years); what happened under slavery and colonialism and how both led to Africa contributing to the development of Europe while Europe was under developing Africa in the same process.

Rodney was not just a brilliant academic but also a committed political activist who put his knowledge at the service of the masses wherever he was. He was a scholar who proved through his life that the true test of knowledge was a proven capacity for action. Whether in Jamaica where he began his academic career or Tanzania where he became internationally prominent or in Guyana where he returned (initially to teach but the government withdrew the appointment when he arrived) Rodney was part of all the struggles around him.

In Dar, which was then a centre of progressive ideas, Rodney was part of the ferment, supporting the struggles and at times offering critical inputs. He made friends and comrades of many leading radical intellectuals and liberation fighters of the time and influenced generations of students. I wonder though what Rodney would have said to some of his comrades like President Museveni, who have captured state power and instead of building socialism and a new society have made their peace with imperialism and free market.

Sadder still, what would Rodney have made of Tanzania of today where the term Ndugu is more out of jest than the camaraderie of the past, a place where Uhuru "now has a new name …..mobitel" as caricatured in a an advert for mobile phones I saw a few years ago on the streets of Dar.

When he returned to Guyana and he was denied his professorial post at the University he turned to independent research, publishing the first volume of his definite ‘History of the Guyanese Working Class’. He showed how whether Indian or African, the Guyanese workers were exploited first by colonialists and later successive ruling elites - be they African or Indian. From that analysis he sought a solution in building an alliance of workers across the race and ethnic divide. That was how he and other progressive elements formed the Working Peoples Alliance whose aim was social transformation of Guyana. That political stance and his popularity across the divides made him a number one enemy.

But the remembrance has shown that though Rodney is dead his ideas and example continues to live on. It was very symbolic that one of the highlights of the activities was an all-night cultural extravaganza, ‘Rhythm for Rodney’ which was held in Burnham's former house where he and his henchmen were waiting for the news of Walter's assassination on that fateful evening on June 13 1980.

The theme of the groundings was ‘A different world is necessary' but it is not only necessary it is possible. The people of Guyana and other Caribbean states simmering under not so hidden racial bigotry and sectarian politics need Rodney's non racialist pro-people politics; Africa needs his non mercenary scholarship and political commitment to the cause of the masses while the world need his message of love for all humanity and optimism about the capacity of ordinary folks supported by organic intellectuals and other progressives to change their conditions for the better.

In addition to many practical resolutions and action points agreed on the final day of the groundings, we adopted two important resolutions. Both of them were directed at the Guyanese people and government but those outside can lend their support through active solidarity. The first resolution asks that Rodney's contribution to Guyana be recognised statutorily by him being declared a national hero.

The second resolution supported the call by Patricia Rodney and their family for a closure to be brought to the assassination through an International Commission of Enquiry. Without truth there cannot be any hope of reconciliation. You can support these calls by writing letters to the President of Guyana or any Guyanese High Commission, Consulate or other diplomatic mission near you. You can urge your foreign minister or Heads of State/ Government to raise these issues with their Guyanese counterparts at various multilateral diplomatic forums where they meet. As another Caribbean radical intellectual activist, CLR James used to say: " There is always something that can be done". Keep Rodney alive by doing something today.

* Visit the Website of the Walter Rodney Commemoration Committee for full reports of the Groundings and also other groundings across the world and related activities:

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

To mark World Refugee Day organizers of the annual African Diaspora & Development Day (ad3) have offered to help aid Britain's ailing NHS by raising money to enable thousands of African refugees with medical qualifications to work for the health service. Concerned that 2 July - which is shaping up to be a big day for Africa - would only see African artists relegated to playing in a small village in the British provinces, ad3 organizers, the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD) have called on African performers to take to a "Live8419" stage at The Rocket in Holloway, north London.

At a meeting "to discuss the UK priorities for Africa leading to the Gleneagles Summit", the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has assured the Chair of the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD) Gibril Faal that remittances are on the G8 Summit agenda. He also invited Mr Faal to present to him a paper on remittances for further consideration, which AFFORD will generate as part of its annual African Diaspora & Development Day (ad3).

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem expresses concern that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s focus on Africa is going to be yet another Shakespearean tale, "… told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Instead of Blair preaching to the rest of the world about Africa let the British government challenge other Western and richer countries by showing good example through confession and remorse and then tangible concrete action that shows that it has its mouth in tandem with its pocket.

Britain has adopted Africa as a centrepiece of its Foreign Policy this year. In his usual missionary approach the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has re branded himself from being the Secretary of State for America into Prime Minister for Africa. It was in this Africa mode that he went to America, earlier this week, to try to exact some concessions from his bully buddy, Bush. Blair's mission was to persuade Bush to buy into his three-pronged Africa programme: More aid, debt cancellation and international trade reforms. He arrived in Britain on Wednesday with a few million dollars in pledges from the Americans towards drought relief in the horn of Africa. There was also a promise to consider 100% debt cancellation for some 32 countries in Africa.

British NGOs and antipoverty campaigners have already condemned Bush's crumbs to Blair as miserly and far below the multi billion aid begging bowl Blair is expecting the rest of the richer countries to contribute to before their rich men's club meeting in Gleneagles next month. Bush defended himself by drawing attention to the fact that he had trebled aid to Africa already and given 15 billion dollars towards HIV/Aids in Africa. Of course what he did not say is that even more dubious than under the cold war, American aid is now more tied to compliant regimes in Africa no matter how unpopular they are with their peoples. This as long as they are on the side of his war without end in the name of international terrorism. Most of his AIDS money will actually be beneficial to American pharmaceutical companies and their very expensive medicines because the Americans are opposed to cheaper derivative drugs from India, Brazil, China or South Africa. Also the administration believes only in abstinence campaigns and it is prisoner to faith-based (meaning Christian fundamentalist) groups and lobbies. This means that what Bush gives with one hand is immediately taken with the other through his big business and religious sponsors.

As a Bush-Blair cynic I am not really surprised at the games being played by these global con men but unfortunately there are still too many people both in Britain and outside who still believe that Tony means well and somehow he can persuade Bush and the rest of the world to do right by Africa. My position is that instead of Blair preaching to the rest of the world about Africa let the British government challenge other Western and richer countries by showing good example through confession and remorse and then tangible concrete action that shows that it has its mouth in tandem with its pocket.

Even if he has now succeeded in getting Bush to use nearly the same language as him on debt cancellation this is where it stops. The devil as they say is in the details. The Bush people want debt cancellation to be paid for by the lending multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. This may mean that money pledged for relief of poverty will be diverted to debt cancellation. In plain language: No new monies on the table just a recycling of what is already available. In biblical terms it means robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So where does this leave Blair and his big plans for Africa? Nowhere really. While he has put high premiums on persuading his American bosses the truth is that other G8 countries are not really singing their hymns from the same book as him. Germany, France and Japan have their own priorities and would not be lectured to by a British Prime Minister on his way out of No 10 Downing Street. Blair may be seeking his international legacy via Africa but both the German Chancellor and the French President are also seeking their own legacies too, and Africa may not play big in their calculations.

Also this premium on Washington ignores other multilateral creditors to Africa such as the Africa Development Bank which in many cases, is a bigger lender of development loans to many African countries. African countries still hold a majority stake in the bank. Why is Blair not canvassing them for support on his debt right off? It must be his patronising assumption that once Europe and America agrees which African dares oppose? Two weeks ago Blair's people made a big play on the EU countries agreeing to double aid to Africa as yet another major breakthrough. This will be done by 2008. But the same EU was already committed to making AID 0.7% of GNP for thirty years and renewed this pledge 5 years ago through the Millennium Development Goals of the UN. Are we to celebrate their promising to reach 0.50% when they promised 0.70% 30 years ago?

My concern is that this Blair focus on Africa is going to be yet another Shakespearean tale, "… told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Africans must stop looking outside for our progress. Our salvation is within us. We are our own liberators.

Does that mean there is nothing outsiders can do to help us? No, there is a role for others but we cannot adequately take advantage of other peoples' help if we have not decided what we want to do for ourselves and how we want to go about it.

When Bob Geldof was challenged about why he is organising a concert for Africa 21 years after his first one and there are no African musicians apart from Yousof N'dour, the pathetic response from one of his spokespersons was that he did not have African musicians in his address book. This from a man who is regarded as Mr Africa globally merely shows how Westerners regard Africans as objects of their sympathy rather than agents of changing their own situation.

We have to summon the courage to stand up to these new missionaries in Africa represented by western humanitarian NGOs and politicians like Blair and ‘Globatricians’ like Bob Geldof. Their 'good' intentions must match our aspirations. We should do it together where possible, do it alone where necessary but at every stage we should have the veto, not them. We cannot outsource our progress and development. To borrow a phrase recently used by my Good Ndugu, Firoze Manji, Editor of Pambazuka News: Nothing About Us without Us.

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

One of the things that the disability movement has done successfully in the UK and in many other countries has been to put an end to the patronising, paternalistic approach that presents them as victims and objects of pity. On one disability rights website, I came across the wonderful slogan ‘Never about us Without us’. That should be the rallying cry of the African mobilisation for the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP- Africa) that was launched recently at a meeting attended by representatives of some one hundred organisations from 25 African countries.

Plans for mass mobilisations, concerts in African countries, television and radio programmes are well on the way across the continent, conceived of and organised by Africans for Africa. Would the Geldofs and Comic Reliefs of this world have launched a call for mass mobilisation about disability without the involvement of the disability movements? So how come they can do this in relation to Africa? What is it about us that allows these folk to behave so? For how much longer can we allow Northern development agencies and charities to portray us either in the form of ‘development pornography’, to use Rotimi Sankore’s words (see the Pambazuka News article at or as mere bit-players, extras on the film sets of their fundraising operations? African diaspora organisations and other black organisations in the UK have already protested about the virtually all white line up of artists selected for the Geldof roadshow. Isn’t it time that we added our voice of protest to demand: NEVER ABOUT US WITHOUT US!

On Saturday 2 July 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Wangari Maathai will address hundreds of Africans gathered in London at the annual African Diaspora & Development Day (ad3) to explore ways to further mobilize the diaspora’s resources to support the creation of enterprises, jobs and wealth in Africa. “The message for Africans (of my winning the Nobel Peace Prize) is that the solutions to our problems lie within us,” says Professor Maathai. ad3 will present Africans in the UK and Europe with a unique opportunity to build upon their ongoing work in support of Africa’s development to the priority set by Africans themselves for their lives.

On the occasion of Africa Day, Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Kwame Nkrumah’s famous dictum that “the independence of Ghana is meaningless without the total liberation of Africa” is still true today. “While then it was regarded as the utopian wish of a romantic Pan-Africanist, in the face of today’s dual threat of re-colonisation and rapacious globalisation, those words should be made the opening sentence of the national anthem of every country in Africa.”

I wonder how many readers knew that yesterday, May 25, was Africa Liberation Day. Do not be ashamed if you did not notice it. I am not sure if many noticed the day either in many African countries and among different African Diaspora communities.

In years gone by the Day used to be marked officially by several governments and unofficially celebrated by many groups in Africa and the Diaspora. Now there are only scattered activities by people who have not given up on the belief that ‘A different Africa is possible’.

It is a day of solidarity with the various struggles of African peoples for justice, equality, human dignity, freedom, unity and liberation. It was founded in 1958 (April 15) and called Africa Freedom Day, as a result of the first All African People’s conferences called by the indomitable Osagyefo, Kwame Nkrumah.

Nkrumah is the foremost Pan-Africanist of all times, a fact remembered and honoured by Africans world wide who voted him ‘Greatest African of the Millennium’ in a BBC poll in 2000, despite orchestrated campaigns by supporters of other living or dead claimants.

The two conferences of 1958 were called by Nkrumah as Prime Minister of newly independent Ghana, to show solidarity and plan strategies for the total liberation of Africa from colonialism. Those conferences brought together the few independent countries of Africa and the representatives of nationalists groups and liberation movements from across Africa and a few observers from the Diaspora. Frantz Fanon was there with the Algerian Liberation Movement against French Colonialism, FLN, and it was in the second of those two conferences that the charismatic Patrice Lumumba was introduced to the world three years after he led Congo to freedom. He was later assassinated in a grand conspiracy between erstwhile colonial interests and local reactionaries, aided and abetted by complacent UN and global powers namely US, France and Belgium. Does the story not sound too familiar more than four decades later? How times have changed but somehow, remarkably, remained the same when it comes to the exploitation of Africa’s resources and oppression of Africans.

When the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed in Addis, May 25 1963, Africa Freedom Day became Africa Liberation Day (ALD) as a symbol of the resolve, commitment and support of all Africa for the total decolonisation of the continent.

As ‘the winds of change’ blew away colonial rule from most of Africa it dug in in the former Portuguese colonies of Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique and through settler colonialism in apartheid South Africa, occupied Namibia and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia (Zimbabwe since 1980). Consequently ALD became synonymous with solidarity with these struggles and the near total support and solidarity that they enjoyed among all Africans at home and in the Diaspora and lovers of freedom globally.

Unfortunately while Africa was united against apartheid and colonialism the same could not be said for the struggles against the neo-colonialism that turned independence into a new form of dependence and oppression of African peoples. The same leaders that were giving support for the liberation of South Africa were busy stifling the aspirations of their own peoples for real independence and an end to neo-colonial power relations. While Africa was united against colonialism it was divided in the face of neo-colonialism and internal oppression by fellow Africans.

Instead of independence from colonialism developing into meaningful cooperation to advance concrete Pan Africanism and an all African union and government, the agenda shifted to the elite maintaining power in the various artificial states bequeathed by colonialism. Increasingly it became power for the sake of it in one state after the other. Consequently Africa became more vulnerable for the cold warriors, unequal international power relations, debt crisis, etc.

As Africa became a byword for the poorest cousins of the rest of the world there is no surprise that the enthusiasm for Africa Day disappeared in many countries. There was also triumphalism after the successful defeat of apartheid in South Africa in 1994. All Africans and friends of Africa were genuinely euphoric that South Africa became free in our life times. Somehow it was wrongly felt that Africa had finished its liberation wars. The OAU even officially closed its Africa Liberation Committee based in Dar es Salaam! But even in South Africa itself the end of apartheid, as important as it was, became the beginning of a new struggle for the majority of the people to fully reclaim their dignity and control their society. The agenda of liberation cannot be finished, it will only change from one generation to the other.

Nkrumah’s famous dictum that ‘the independence of Ghana is meaningless without the total liberation of Africa’ is still true today and even more relevant. While then it was regarded as the utopian wish of a romantic Pan Africanist, in the face of today’s dual threat of re-colonisation and rapacious globalisation, those words should be made the opening sentence of the national anthem of every country in Africa.

In the past few years Africa has been returning to the drawing board of Pan-Africanism. The new African Union with all its contradictions and the various struggles within and outside it represent an advance from the past while we seek further clarity and decisive action towards the future. It offers a wider scope for all Africans to be part of the solution instead of just complaining about the many problems.

Instead of constantly enumerating what this leader or that leader is doing wrong why don’t you ask yourself what, no matter how small, you are doing as an individual, a member of an organisation, part of a community, your profession and in whatever station you are, to advance the cause of Africa and the dignity of the African. We all can do something or do nothing.

As we say in the Pan African Movement: ‘don’t agonise! Organise!’. Just a thought: if people are no longer connecting to the historical inspirations for Africa Day why don’t we agitate for a proclamation of an African Union Day (July 09) as a symbol of our commitment to make Pan Africanism relevant for our times and the younger generation?

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Namibia hosts the 17th All Africa Student Conference (AASC) from May 27 to 29 in Windhoek, the first time the organisation convenes in Africa in its 16 years of existence. The conference brings together students from Africa and the Diaspora, as well as individuals from organisations working in the interest of Africa and the Diaspora. It mainly aims at providing students of African descent with a forum to share and exchange ideas and information and to promote linkages between Africa and the Diaspora.

"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated citizens can change the world; in fact it is the only thing that can". In 1999 and 2000 many of us campaigned to drop the crippling burden of debt that serves to entrench colonial dominance in the so called 'third world'; but we must keep that pressure up. In 2005, this year, the leaders of eight of the richest and most powerful countries in the world come to Scotland, and it must be us who set the agenda for change. For too long our brothers and sisters have struggled in the face of leaders for who out of sight really is out of mind! Let us go to Edinburgh on July 2nd and march behind our banner and let us show the G8 that our brothers and sisters throughout the world are not alone and disparate, but united and strong.
Kainde Manji

A current corruption crackdown by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has been met with cynicism by some sections of the Nigerian public, who have questioned the motives of the president. In this context Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem remembers a humourous incident involving the president, some protestors and a new passport.

A couple of years ago President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was the chief guest at Uganda's independence celebrations. As to be expected the Nigerian high commission in Uganda held a reception for him and invited the Nigerian community in the country to lunch
with the president.

For most of my time in Uganda I was in the unusual position of being one of the 'prominent Nigerians' in the country. Even when I could not go to the country during the military dictatorship the high commission was still kind enough to consider me worthy of being invited to meet all kinds of delegations from Nigeria. Their attitude was quite different from that of the Nigerian high commission in London with which I had only public demonstration and picketing engagements with throughout the same period.

What passes for the Nigerian community in Uganda is actually mostly West African citizens resident in the country. Since Nigeria is the only West African country with diplomatic representation in East Africa and Central Africa its high commissions or embassies serve as a West African diplomatic mission. For me that is the clearest proof, if any is needed, that Pan-Africanism is common sense. It is not only desirable but cost effective, efficient and pervades all our lives consciously and unconsciously among our peoples and between our states - both deliberately but often out of necessity.

The only obstacle is our artificial states created to serve other people's interests. They are illegitimate in the lives of many Africans. They often demonstrate their presence through the numerous inconveniences they can put in the way of their citizens. Many of them are so insecure about their existence they try to proove their independence and sovereignty in everything, including declaring themselves independent of the truth!

At the Obasanjo reception there was a group of 'Nigerian Boys' (mostly serial adventurers in transit in search of greener pastures) carrying placards protesting against exorbitant fees for acquiring the then newly introduced computerised Nigerian passports and the long bureaucracy in getting them.

Obasanjo, speaking after the lunch, in a mixture of standard English laced with Yoruba accent and the more universal Nigerian Pidgin English, in the spacious grounds of the High Commissioner's residence, confronted the demonstrators directly. He assured them that he was not trying to make money for the government of Nigeria through a hike in money paid for passports. He said the hike in the fees was due to the high standards of technical design of the new passports, which cost more to produce. It was computerised with a requirement for fingerprints. All these were necessary not just to catch up with the latest technology but because according to the President "I am tired of being a 419 President".

419 is a decree passed by a military government in Nigeria meant to punish people who are engaged in advance fees fraud on contracts allegedly awarded by Nigerian governments, its agencies and parastatals. Any user of the Internet will now know that there is nothing Nigerian about these scams anymore. All kinds of fraudsters from other countries in Africa through the Middle East and other parts of the world have joined in usually claiming to be sons, daughters, wives, concubines, etc, of one big man or the other who recently died but left the putative relative the secret code to huge sums of money which he/she now wants to pass through your account!

The original Nigerian scam was straight-forward. It played on the corrupt ‘contractocracy’ (government of contractors by contractors and for contractors that the country had become). The perpetrators usually claim to have secured a huge contract from the ministry of defence, national oil parastatals or a big person in the central bank. They will then quote fantastic figures to a recent contract that they
have secured. However there will always be a snag, some cogs in the greasy wheel that have to be oiled. Someone needs to be 'given something' so that the monies can be released quickly. That is where, if you are a bent greedy person yourself, you will be roped in. They will suggest you help with x amount of money to speed up the process and bingo, you can laugh your way to the bank.

Obasanjo was candid with his audience and explained how he had met two young men in Yola prison - where he was imprisoned by Abacha - who had given him tutorials on how 419 worked. He always also expressed his indignation at being informed of Nigerians in prisons in very distant shores he had traveled to. Therefore the computerized passport was part of the government's strategy to control the access to the passports which were previously available to the highest bidder. I am not sure if computerisation has changed anything. The President believed that the new passports were difficult to forge.

Trying to be more Catholic than his Pope, the high commissioner went further than his boss by stating that the new passport was "impossible to forge". In the crude frankness that Obasanjo is famous for he looked at his Uganda representative with bemusement that made all of us listening laugh. He retorted: "Mr Ambassador, it is difficult but not impossible - nothing is impossible for a Nigerian.” Even the placard bearing demonstrators fell about laughing and threw away their placards. Obasanjo was being realistic about the ingenuity and the negative creativity of his compatriots, but still determined to be one step up fighting the corruption (perpetrated by a few) that has become a bye word for the country.

His current anti corruption crusade that has already claimed two ministers and also the dismissal of the inspector general of police recently are part of this war against corruption. It may not end corruption but hopefully bring about some fear and sense of shame that may make the Nigerian elite to think twice before plunging into the national treasury. It is a long way from reversing the culture of graft in public office but the spectacle of seeing the former inspector of police in handcuffs being matched into a courthouse may send signals that no one is untouchable.

This week another trial began of the former federal minister for education, Prof. Fabian Osuji (definitely no connection with the more noble British Fabian Socialists), the former president of the senate (the third in line in the country) and other top officials of the education ministry and some national legislators. The minister had allegedly bribed members of a subcommittee of the national assembly in order to get his ministry's budget passed without alteration.

Many Nigerians are very cynical about the trials, the timing and the motives of their president. I am no admirer of Obasanjo and his “I-know all” executive insecurities but the baby and the birth water should be separated. The fact that all thieves may not be caught should not mean that those caught should not be punished. The law may not catch up with all lawbreakers but there must be certainty that those caught will be punished according to the law without any fear or favour.

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

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Contributing to the ‘poetics’ of pan-Africanism started by Kioi Wa Mbugua and Tajudeen Abdul Raheem: the debate reminded me of a poem I penned during a gathering of African feminists. Failed, still-born or germinating, Africa’s freedom-dreams are dreamed. But are they really only ever dreamed in the masculine…….?

Womanrise!

glide
the figure 8
across these Mnyarwanda hips
these Mswahili
Mswazi
Ashanti
Xhosa
ride
the slow flex
and turn
mould and
build
breeeeaaaaaaaathe
and
transform
the rhythmic rebirth
of Africa’s daughters

Mwalimu, Madiba
Lumuumba, Nkrumah
asanteni sana!
but it is our turn now…

incandescent butterfly woman
and river spirit
rise!
impala and ocean mother
rise!
story teller and basket weaver,
rise!

mama, dada,
mother, sister
rise!

sister comrade sister fighter
sister lover sister friend
rise!

sister comrade sister fighter
sister lover sister friend
rise!

Woman,

rise!

Tony Blair (B.Liar to his enemies) is set for a third term after moving his New Labour Party so far to the right that it is almost indistinguishable from the opposition Conservative Party, writes Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem. His three-term reign, to the puzzlement of African leaders under international pressure to show commitment to good governance by stepping down after two terms, is bad news for ethnic minorities.

Next Thursday, May 5, is general election day in Britain. Barring a very dramatic shift through a last minute change of mind by millions of voters, the governing Labour Party will be returned for another term in office.

The election has been dogged by a number of clouds of uncertainties that may not have anything to do with a fundamental difference between the Labour Party and the main opposition Conservative Party. In fact the biggest problem for the Conservatives is that under Tony Blair (those who cannot stand him call him TORY B-LIAR!) his New Labour has outdone the Tories in their reactionary politics and policies, whether on immigration, law and order or the economy.

The second opposition party, the Liberal Democratic Party, is more distinguishable from the other two by a wide barge on key policy alternatives, but unfortunately these nice people (as they are generally believed to be) are undermined by the undemocratic ‘first past the post system’ that advantages the two main parties. Both Labour and the Tories are beneficiaries of a disproportionate distribution of seats in parliament as a result of having their core voters concentrated in key regions, thereby gaining a majority of seats even without a substantial majority of the popular vote. Unless proportional representation is introduced across the board (not just restricted to European Elections as at the moment) it would be difficult for any third party to make a breakthrough in Britain.

So the voters are forced to decide between one set of Tories and another one. Personality and presentation assume more influence in such a situation. British politics is significantly being Americanised and emptied of substantial ideological differences and political cleavages that may make it pointless choosing between either of the two dominant parties.

The outcome of the election is not a foregone conclusion in many of the marginal constituencies and among different kinds of disgruntled groups. First among these are natural labour voters who are disappointed in Tony Blair's arrogant leadership and toadyism to Bush - especially over Iraq and other foreign policy summersaults. The media and Labour politicians often disingenuously talk of those angry about Iraq as if they are all 'disaffected Muslims'. Muslim British are not the only section of the society that feel betrayed by a Prime Minister elected to serve Britain who chose to be foreign secretary of the USA! The issue has not and will not die away until Blair is no longer Prime Minister.

Second, ethnic and racial minorities feel that Labour has abandoned them as a key constituency in favour of pandering to increasing xenophobia and racism in the wider society. They can point to a raft of immigration and asylum seeking laws further compounded by panic draconian legislation on terrorism that directly or indirectly victimise Black and other ethnic minorities. Instead of leading by principle Labour has allowed the conservatives and their cheer leaders in the largely rightwing media of Britain to lead on these issues. In fact they are in some kind of grotesque competition on these and many other issues for the dubious title of 'The Nastiest' party of Britain. The Conservative leader, Michael Howard, used to have a virtual monopoly on this but successive New Labour Home Secretaries from Jack Straw through David Blunket to the current burly beast, Mike Reid, have done their nastiest best to close the gap.

So bad has Labour shifted to the right on these issues that a former ‘Leading Nasty’, one of Margaret Thatcher's Bull terriers, Norman Thebit, was briefly cast as a Liberal Democrat during the debate on the Terrorism Bill in the House of Lords. Even he could not help drawing attention to the unusual role Labour forced him into. For a man who spent all his political career bashing miners, challenging ethnic minorities to pass the cricket test or jump on their bikes or haranguing the public to accept police state diktats it was a big irony that even this uncompromising law and order grandee felt Labour had gone too far in its crusade against 'terrorists'.

The ideological convergence of the leading parties and the frustration by Labour voters about Tony Blair has generated fears that the turn out could be low. The educated guess is that a lower turn out may punish Labour but be good news for the conservatives.

I am just glad that I will not be in Britain and have not applied for the controversial postal ballot. Where I would have voted is one of those constituencies where even a dog wearing Labour's colors will be elected. In any case many Black voters tend to vote labour when they vote. However, under Tony Blair not a few are reconsidering this historical loyalty. Already in many London constituencies Black, Asian and African voters are switching locally. Like other voters tactical voting may be the means through which anger at Blair and particular war mongering MPs (including the mixed race MP for one of the London constituencies, Oona King) will be punished. There may not be many spectacular upsets but there may be a few symbolic 'enough is enough' messages to Bush's friend by this weekend.

If the Labour lead turns out to be much lower than predicted his tenure at No. 10 may be brought to a quicker end soon. But whatever the size of the majority, Blair is on his last term - despite the fact that there is no term limit in Britain. Among the Ekisanja supporters of President Museveni in Uganda for example (and also other Presidents in Africa toying with extending their rule) there must some confusion as to why a PM who has no limit on his terms is pledging not to run again while they are busy trying to get a president whose terms are constitutionally limited to stand again.

* 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 is an introductory course on UK-based Africans' contributions to development. You will discuss issues of migration, remittances, advocacy and practical aspects of community organisation. Using visiting speakers and a case study approach, you will consider the changing nature of African diaspora and community engagement.

The wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives because they are allegedly doing ‘God’s work’, states Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem in connection with recent events in the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). Civil society has to hold itself to the same standards of accountability and transparency they demand from governments.

It was not unexpected that this column of last week on the orchestrated election of the Nobel Laureate, Wangari Mathai, as the President of the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) would generate so much private and public responses, especially on the internet. It is both an indication of the growing seriousness attached to African initiatives and African institutions but also proof of the global village that the world has become in the age of interactive multi media and new information technology. I have always been open about my enthusiasm for the Internet, even as I support many of the anti-globalisation causes! E-mail is one of the most democratising aspects of globalisation.

The responses are varied but can be broken down into two broad categories. Those that are in the realm of ‘to be expected’ and those that are more nuanced and proactive. The intriguing thing is that both aspects were often cohabiting in many of the responses. So lets deal with what should be more familiar. One, ‘why are you attacking Mama Wangari?’

My position is not about Wangari or any of her bureau members as individuals (many of them are well-known to me) but a defence of a fundamental principle of separation of state roles and civil society roles and obligations. Nobody will argue with a trade union organisation that replaces its general-secretary when he or she becomes a minister or a member of parliament. If a Minister is similarly elected as head of a trade union the government will expect the person to leave. Wangari is in the same situation at the moment and she can still make a choice since her appointing authorities have failed in their duty to know the difference between the two positions.

Two, I did not seek to denounce Wangari as a leader who originated from civil society and is still critically important to that constituency, but she has had a change of jobs and we should not blur the lines. It is important for civil society to have allies in government but government should not swallow it up. It is rank opportunism to think those lines do not matter simply because the current beneficiary is someone we respect and value. As one of my respondents pointed out she would have risen more in principled public estimation if she had done one of two honourable things open to her: refuse the post because of her government position or resign from government due to her commitment to the new post. By doing neither she has diminished herself and her standing.

The more nuanced responses are many and most of them share my concerns but give different mitigating circumstances. One, there is a pragmatist group that argued that ‘this is a done deal’.

Though civil society is part of governance it cannot and should not substitute for government. Therefore it must avoid any action that confuses both theatres of struggle. Two, some argue that what happened was legal and within the rules. Let me just stretch their limited imagination to remember that slavery, colonialism and apartheid were codified in laws of the day. Did that make them acceptable?

Three, one person even suggested that it was ‘backbiting’ to speak out after the event. Does this mean that we should only speak about an event only during the act itself or when we are physically present? If this dubious standard is applied to all public discourse we shall not have anything to discuss since most of the issues, decisions and life changing policies that affect us are taken outside of our purview and many, even outside of Africa. Does that mean that we have no rights to complain and should just bear our victimhood as a fait accompli? There is no statute of liberty on justice and none should be imposed on accountability.

Four, others argue that Mathai was the best choice because the other options being pushed by AU bureaucrats presented a worse case scenario. This is begging the issue. The AU could not have put guns to the heads of those present (even though they paid their bills) if a few people had voiced their opposition openly in the assembly instead of largely grumbling and agonising privately. Maybe the AU would have seen sense and taken them more seriously. The fact that Wangari was appointed in absentia, ‘unanimously’ meant that some of those present (who had strong reservations) did not, or were unable to follow the logic of their own convictions. I appreciate the fact that some of those present did not have speaking rights. Many others were even attending the forum for the first time and were on a learning curve that was too steep! They were required to make decisions about what they did not know. That ignorance strengthened AU bureaucratic manouvres.

Five, another person even suggested that the newly crowned Madame la Presidente ‘had no time to waste’ stating that she been given a great job to do and implying she is so busy that she should not be diverted by these debates. I can only say that even a good thing can be done in a very wrong way. And this is one of them. That kind of language coming from people who are supposed to be defenders of civil society exposes the lack of willingness by our leaders both in civil and political society to be accountable to the people they serve. Is civil society not supposed to have more democratic credentials than governments?

The whole process further exposes the orchestrated confusion between NGOs and civil society. While NGOs may be part of civil society they are not ‘The’ civil society. Unfortunately because of donor-driven agendas and mercenary activism, NGOs in Africa are now passing for civil society hence the new distinction between CSOs and CBOs! The former is dominated by middle class counter elite claiming to speak for the constituencies more ably represented by the latter.

However the more successful NGOs become the more integrated they become into national and international and multilateral structures of power. They move from advocacy into incorporation and cooptation. There is nothing wrong in people moving from civil to political society and vice versa or making a similar journey to the private sector. However the actors in the various sectors must be clear about the lines even when osmosis is desirable.

African NGOs and the wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives cannot be questioned simply because they are allegedly doing God’s work. We have to hold ourselves up to the same standard of accountability, transparency, level playing field and due process that we harangue our governments to uphold.

What happened at the ECOSOCC Interim General Assembly was clear: It was a stich up. Does this mean nothing good will come out of it? I am an optimistic political activist who, like Bob Marley, "may fight and run away but live to fight another day.” Therefore even if Wangari does not resign the interim ECOSOCC institutions should not be ignored. Maybe out of this fudge we could salvage an ECOSOCC that will work together and independently with emerging structures of the AU. It is not yet Uhuru therefore wherever we are and regardless of which side of the debate we fall, we should maintain interactive vigilance and challenge this largely AU-chosen representatives of CSOs to deliver to the diverse constituencies they are supposed to represent. They ought to be CSO representatives in the AU, not AU agents among Civil Society.

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

* Please send comments to