Back Issues

Cuito Cuanavale

A Tribute to Fidel Castro and the African Revolution

2008-06-03

Horace Campbell

In March 2008, the President of the African National Congress of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, led a high level delegation of South African parliamentarians to the site of the victory of the forces of liberation at Cuito Cuanavale in Angola. This visit was linked to the numerous ceremonies in Angola to commemorate the victory Angola, Cuba and the forces of SWAPO and the ANC over the apartheid army. What was significant was that while the leader of the ANC took this much publicized visit to Angola, the present ANC government has not moved decisively to carry out far more public education on what happened at Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. Thousands of youths in Southern Africa do not know what happened at Cuito Cuanavale and the linkage between the decolonization of Southern Africa and this historic battle.

Between October 1987 and June 1988, in one of the fiercest conventional battles fought on African soil, the troops of the South African Defence Forces (SADF) fought pitched tank and artillery battles with the Angolan army (FAPLA) and her Cuban supporters at Cuito Cuanavale. This small base located in Southeastern Angola (in the province of Cuando Cubango) became important in the military history of Africa, for the South African apartheid army, supposedly one of the better equipped armies in Africa was trapped more than three hundred miles from its bases in Namibia, a territory which it was illegally occupying.

Failing to take Cuito Cuanavale with over 9,000 soldiers even after announcing to the world that Cuito Cuanavale had fallen; losing its superiority in the air; and faced with mutinies from the black troops of the pressed ganged battalions, the operational command of the SADF broke down and the president P.W. Botha had to fly to the war zone inside Angola. Botha, it was later revealed had flown in to intervene in a dispute among the South African military high command on whether the apartheid army should use tactical nuclear weapons. Botha decided against the use of nuclear weapons because at that time apartheid South Africa was a pariah state.

With Cuban reinforcements, the Angolan fighters withstood major assaults by the South African military on January 23, 1988, February 25 and finally on March 23. The South Africans were repulsed with heavy losses as the Angolan/Cuban forces seized the military initiative. The Angolan army, for the first time since Operation Protea (the code name for the conventional attack by the SADF) in 1981, was able to reoccupy the area of Southern Angola adjacent to the Namibian border. In the space of less than three months the engineering units and construction workers of the Angolan/Cuban forces were able to build two airstrips defended with anti aircraft weapons to consolidate their recapture of the Southern province of Cunene. Bogged down with their conventional weapons by the terrain and rainy season, the South African army made one desperate attempt to break the encirclement on June 27, 1988. They were once again trounced, with the Angolan pilots in firm in control of Angolan airspace.

After the June battles, the South Africans asked for peace. Chester Crocker and the US government stepped in to save the face of the humiliated South African army. It was only after this military defeat that the apartheid forces agreed to the resolutions of the United Nations and acceded to the timetable for the independence of Namibia. Within a year the military and political edifice of apartheid crumbled. Nelson Mandela was released twenty months after the South African army retreated in disorder at Tchipa.

WARFARE AND MILITARISM IN THE ERA OF DYING APARTHEID

It is important that the younger generation is reminded of the depth of the destructive machinations of the Apartheid regime in the ten years prior to the battles at Cuito Cuanavale. This reconstruction of Apartheid's history is important for a number of reasons.

The first reason lies in the fact that South African military writers proclaim that the South Africans were not defeated at Cuito Cuanavale but withdrew in order to support peace and negotiations. Numerous text-books used by teachers endorse this view.

The second reason emanates from the fact that the USA and neo-conservative supporters of apartheid have sought to rewrite the history of military destabilization to argue that Constructive Engagement supported peace and sught to end apartheid. Chester Crocker, the Assistant Secretary of State during the period of Ronald Reagan has rewritten this period to favor this view in, “High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighbourhood.”

Thirdly, the so called security experts who were consultants for the apartheid military have now recast themselves as peace experts and are cheer leaders for the US War on Terror and the proposed Africa Command Center (Africom).

It is for these reasons that it is urgent to spell out the varying forms of warfare that were used against the peoples of Africa struggling against apartheid as a crime against humanity. This is necessary so that younger persons can evaluate the new forms of struggle necessary for the present day liberation struggles in Africa.

There was a low intensity war going on in Mozambique where the Mozambique National Resistance (MNR) - also known as Renamo had been unleashed against the Mozambican society by the apartheid government. In this low intensity war Renamo efforts were in concert with the economic war being waged by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank against the Mozambique government. The political war financed by the apartheid state sought to decapitate the leadership of FRELIMO. Eventually, this was to lead to the downing of the aircraft carrying Samora Machel in 1986. Joseph Hanlon has documented this period of destabilization in the book, “Mozambique: Who calls the Shots?”

Space does not allow for the elaboration of the full extent of the destruction but one of the tasks of the South African parliament should be to declassify the files of apartheid South Africa's destructiveness across the region; military interventions in Lesotho and the Seychelles; attempted coups in Tanzania; and the support of armed elements in Zimbabwe. The South African army also carried out raids in the capitals of Maputo, Harare, Gaborone and attacked refugees in Swaziland. The relevant Truth and Reconciliation Commission files should be opened. Desmond Tutu has in fact termed this aspect of the TRC as “unfinished business.”

Twenty years after the battles of Cuito Cuanavale the region of Southern Africa has not recovered from this period of massive social, economic, political and military dislocations. Yet the foreign policy of the South African state is to promote the same capitalist companies that profited from destabilization. South African corporations now dominate Southern region, except in Angola.

ANGOLA IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Angola is one of the most resource-rich countries in Africa. In fact Angola remained one of the leading oil producers in Africa throughout the war. It is a society with massive agricultural potential, fisheries resources and a territory generally under populated since the time of slavery. The atrocities the Portuguese commited in Angola were so extreme that they proved to be a model for the genocidal Belgian colonialists in neighbouring Congo. By 1957 there were three principal liberation movements in Angola.

1. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) - Linked to the intelligentsia, the educated mulattoes and the mass of workers in the segregated ghettoes of Luanda.

2. UPA/FLNA - The attempt by sections of the Kongolese aristocracy to link up with the rebelling masses working on the coffee plantations of the Northwestern regions adjacent to Zaire. Holden Roberto wanted to link the claims of Kongolese Kingdom to the struggle. At the All African Peoples Conference in Ghana in 1958 Holden Roberto was warned that an anti colonial movement cannot be based on ethnic groups so changed its name and called itself Front for the Liberation of Angola (FLNA).

3. The Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) - formed by Jonas Savimbi who had been the foreign minister of FLNA. In 1966, Savimbi accused the FLNA of ‘tribalism’ and broke away arguing that that the leader of FLNA was subservient to Mobutu and was financed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the USA.

Twenty years after Cuito Cuanavale the origins and outlook of these movements remain confused in so far as mainstream intellectuals seek to place an ethnic label on the origins of these movements. This intellectual culture holds that the MPLA had their base among the Mbundu, the FLNA among the Kongo and the UNITA among the Ovimbundu. John Marcum's work on the Angolan Revolution started this original falsehood and this distortion continues to surface in the literature on the decolonization of Angola. It is now an article of faith among some Angolan intellectuals that Jonas Savimbi represented the Ovimbundu, despite his clear alliance with the destructive apartheid army.

THE FIRST DEFEAT OF THE APARTHEID ARMY

Once Portuguese fascism collapsed in April 1974 the forces of US imperialism and the army of apartheid had to come out in full force if they were to perpetuate external control over Angola. The apartheid South African army intervened militarily in 1975 to stop the MPLA from coming to power after the poor of Sambizanga routed the FLNA forces allied with the army of Mobutu. At this point, the Angolans invited the Cubans to help defeat the invading apartheid, the Zairian army regulars, and the mercenaries employed by the CIA. This history is well documented by John Stockwell’s “In Search of Enemies.” More recently, in the USA, the scholar Pierro Gleijeses documented the history of Cuban involvement in the war of 1975-1976 in the book “Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa.”

Militarily, the South African Army was defeated in the battlefield in 1975/76. Politically, the apartheid regime was further isolated in the international arena. Diplomatically, Nigeria mobilized the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to resist the pressure from the USA to support apartheid’s proxy forces. In response, the President of Nigeria, Murtala Mohammed, was assassinated.

STAGES OF THE WAR: 1976-1980

The assassination of Murtala Mohammed and the alliance between the European countries, the USA and the apartheid state ensured that the struggle against apartheid became continental if not global. After the Soweto uprisings in 1976 the racist South African leaders were on the defensive politically and diplomatically. This was the period of the massive military build up in Namibia. The character of the war against South West African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) changed with the conscription of youths, the build up of military bases and raids against SWAPO. Angola had become a rear base for the Namibian struggle as thousands of youths fled to Angola from Namibia.

One of the strange twists of the liberation in the region of Southern Africa is the fact that when UNITA had been formed in 1966, it was SWAPO that gave UNITA its first supply of weapons. And after UNITA became an ally of the apartheid state and the apartheid army, Jonas Savimbi and its forces were organized to fight SWAPO and to track down SWAPO leaders in Angola. These military exercises were coordinated with the South African Air Force. One of the most destructive attacks on the refugee camps of SWAPO took place at Kassinga in 1978. In the aftermath of this attack the UN Security Council passed Resolution 435 calling for the withdrawal of the apartheid regime from Namibia.

OPERATION PROTEA: 1981-1984

From 1981-1988 the racist army occupied the Angolan provinces of Cunene and Cuando Cubango. FAPLA, the Angolan army, was not prepared for this massive invasion of over 11,000 SADF troops with the most sophisticated artillery pieces. The SADF was seeking to perfect a form of air-land battle where the air force carried out operations in conjunction with the army. The provincial capital of Cunene at Ngiva was sacked. Over 100,000 peasants fled their homes. The South African army stole cattle which it carried off to Namibia to feed its troops. They had not withdrawn their troops contrary to the UN Security Council Resolution calling for withdrawal. Within the international community the South African aggression was condemned; but the US government mobilized a group of European states called the contact group (USA, Canada, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom) to protect the apartheid government internationally.

The next major South African invasion was at Cangamba in August 1983. Here UNITA had announced that Cangamba had fallen. But it was the SA airforce that destroyed Cangamba and gave UNITA the rubble to showcase it as its victory to pro-western journalists flown in from Zambia and Johannesburg.

By 1984 the peoples of the region of Southern Africa were suffering but were prepared to make sacrifices. That independence and sovereignty were linked to ending apartheid was clear, especially in Angola. Within Mozambique and the other frontline states ordinary men and women understood that the expansion of apartheid would have led to an erosion of independence.

REFORM AND PEACE MAKING LINKED TO WAR

After the reversals in 1984 the South Africans signed the Nkomati Accord with Mozambique and a peace Accord with Angola. But this peace was simply a ruse to get breathing space in order to seek for more weapons and financial support. In September 1985 FAPLA forces started their drive against Jamba. The South Africans intervened but with the uprisings of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa, the SADF could not carry the battle and called on the USA for help. It was at this time that the Pentagon supplied Stinger missiles to UNITA. Jonas Savimbi was greeted in the White House by Ronald Reagan and UNITA was granted financial. Hollywood also made a film (Red Scorpion) about the brave struggles against communism in Africa. But UNITA did not have the administrative or military infrastructure for the assistance it was receiving. It was a cover for the assistance to the apartheid forces.

In the second term of Ronald Reagan (1984-1988), and with help from the Thatcher government in Britain, support was stepped up for the SADF, UNITA, Mobutu and the anti-communist forces in Southern Africa. It should be stated here that at this time all African freedom fighters had been deemed terrorists. Both Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi were at this time allies of the USA in the fight against communism. While Savimbi was called a freedom fighter, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist by the USA and the South Africans. In order to fight terrorism then, the USA reactivated a military base at Kamina in Zaire to build a northern front in the war against the Angola. The CIA dropped supplies for the South Africans via UNITA. This period is most important in so far as the very same forces in Washington that supported Jonas Savimbi and Osama Bin Laden are the same political forces seeking to mobilize the world against today’s so called war on terror.

1987 – OPERATION MODULAR HOPE

The South Africans were emboldened by the financial assistance to UNITA by the Reagan administration. Moreover, the prospects for political change in South Africa seemed clearer with the formation with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the militancy of the United Democratic Front. The maturation of the popular democratic struggles in South Africa was making South Africa ungovernable and apartheid unworkable. It was in this context that the military and economic destabilization intensified. This struggle reinforced the point that military struggles had to be accompanied by popular democratic struggles by non-military forces.

Operation Modular was launched with the objective of seizing Menongue (in Angola) to set up a UNITA provisional government so that there could be increased western support. The build up for the Operation Modular went on for six months. Roads to transport heavy equipment for over 9,000 regular SADF forces were built.

The Angolan army (FAPLA) launched a pre -emptive attack on Jamba and the battle at Lomba River was the preamble to the big battle at Cuito Cuanavale,

SADF started the siege in November of 1987. When the apartheid army faced the stiff resistance from the Angolans, the SADF operational command broke down. It required the personal intervention of the President, P.W. Botha, referenced earlier, to go to the front and boost the morale of those fighting, as well as settle the question of whether nuclear tactical weapons could be used.

CUBAN INTERVENTION

Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership had been following the battles from the start. The bulk of the Cuban forces in Angola had been withdrawn in 1981. Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership had disagreed with the conventional military formations of the Angolan generals. Some of the Soviet generals who were advising the Angolan army could only think of frontal conventional battles. But Fidel Castro, the Cuban military and the progressive men and women of Angola understood that defensive warfare was a more intelligent form of warfare than one that solely depended on advancing tanks and artillery. The Cuban leadership argued correctly that if the SADF broke the FAPLA defensive line, the Cuban position at Menongue would be threatened. The Cubans sent reinforcements comprising of the best troops, the most sophisticated weapons and anti-air craft weapons. It was significant that the anti aircraft weapons were under the control of women. It was the women who cleared the South African air force from the skies. The Siege of Cuito Cuanavale now involved the Angolans, the Cubans, Swapo, and the ANC all on one side defending African liberation and sovereignty against the SADF, the USA and UNITA.

The Angolan radar defensive positions broke the South African air superiority, Angolan and Cuban MIG 23 pilots proved equal and even superior to their counterparts in the South African Air Force. The SADF was reduced to shelling Cuito Cuanavale with over 20,000 projectiles per day. In major battles in January, February and March the South Africans failed to take Cuito Cuanavale. By the time of the March attack the battle conditions had begun to turn against the SADF. In the first place, there was a mutiny by the conscripted troops of the South West African territorial Force (SWATF). Secondly, the heavy equipment was bogged down on the Eastern bank of the Cuito River compounded by the rainy season. Thirdly, and more importantly, without air support the Angolans were equal to and could out gun the South Africans. By the end of March the siege was over and the South Africans were effectively trapped.

This was when the South Africans started the talks that would eventually comprise of the principal combatants, the Angolans, the Cubans, the South Africans and the USA. So confident were the Cubans and the Angolans in their repulsing the South Africans that in the space of two months they built two airfields to consolidate their control of the Southern Provinces. At this time the USA attempted to open a new front in the North with UNITA The USA military carried out exercises called Operation Flintlock to drop supplies for UNITA. Here UNITA clashed with ANC guerrillas.

The fate of the South Africans was sealed at Tchipa on June 27, 1988. Here the SADF tried to open a new front to give relief to the troops who were trapped at Cuito Cuanavale. In this decisive battle the FAPLA forces confirmed their air superiority. When the news of the defeat at Calueque dam reached South Africans, more young whites protested the draft in South Africa. The End Conscription Campaign saw an increase in the number of white youths resisting the draft. A major South African newspaper called the battle of Tchipa 'a crushing humiliation.’ The South Africans had two choices: begin talks or surrender.

The Siege of Cuito Cuanavale ended after the SADF agreed to withdraw from Namibia. There was still dithering at the diplomatic level up to December 1988 but the Siege of Cuito Cuanavale was the turning point.

Subsequent to the negotiations after the defeat of the South Africans, Namibia gained its independence in March 1990. One month earlier the struggles of the South African peoples led to the release of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of the liberation movements. Between 1990 and 1994 the peoples of South Africa continued the struggle to end white minority rule. Nelson Mandela became the first African President of South Africa in May 1994. The siege of Cuito Cuanavale changed the military balance in Southern Africa on the side of liberation.

LESSONS FOR THE AFRICAN REVOLUTION

Most school children would have heard the axiom that each generation rewrites its own history. But it does so not merely by giving different answers to old questions of exploitation but by posing entirely different questions. When one understands this, it becomes clear why South African parliamentarians would be travelling to Cuito Cuanavale without encouraging the writing of the texts that can explain to the youths the realities of the battles to end apartheid. The leaders are afraid of this history because they fear that the youths will gain the courage to find new forms of struggle against the new ruling classes across Southern Africa. The absence of the memory of the victories over colonialism and apartheid stem in part from the bankruptcy of the political leaders in most of Southern Africa.

Today, African school children are no longer familiar of the stories of the struggles for independence. Instead, the Anglo American and other imperial media sources bombard our youths with stories that stimulate individualism, greed, insecurity and a longing for the glitz and glamour of western countries. This psychological bombardment has reached such proportions that most of our youth dream of leaving Africa instead of fighting to transform the conditions of exploitation.

In Angola the war continued until 2002 when Jonas Savimbi was killed. Since that time Angolans have found peace but the wealth of the country has not been used for the poor and exploited. There is reconstruction in Angola but reconstruction for the establishment of capitalism. All over this region, leaders who had been part of the liberation struggle have become leaders who flaunt their wealth while the majority of the people continue to live in conditions of intense exploitation.

Yet, as the crisis of capitalism deepens and the banks fail in North America the present neo-conservative forces in the US government view Africa as the basis for future exploitation. So the United States plans an Africa Command to fight terrorism. The US military planning and US military relations with Africa can be compared negatively to the role played by the Cubans at Cuito Cuanavale in Angola in 1988. Throughout these celebrations many will remember the words of Fidel Castro, “The history of Africa will be divided into before and after Cuito Cuanavale.”

WILL THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES STAND UP IN AFRICA TODAY?

It was during the same week that Jacob Zuma led a delegation to Angola that President Gadaffi of Libya noted that ‘revolutionaries’ such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda should hold on to power because ‘revolutionaries never retire.’ Is it possible to note that leaders such as Mugabe, Museveni, Meles Zenawi and Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma have cheapened the concepts of liberation? Can these leaders be compared to Fidel Castro?

These named leaders have cheapened the ideas of African liberation and now stand in the path of the emancipation of the peoples. Within Southern Africa dictatorial practices by leaders such as Mugabe have only been surmounted by the promotion of Xenophobia among the working people. Gadaffi supported militarists and masculinists who wreaked havoc all across West Africa in the name of some mythical liberation that enriched a few military entrepreneurs while the masses of the peoples were in constant danger. Similarly, the record of Jacob Zuma brings to the fore questions of patriarchy and masculinity in the African revolutionary process.

The challenge in our analysis is to be able to simultaneously celebrate the victory of the Cubans and Angola at Cuito Cuanavale and at the same time break with traditional concepts of revolution, militarism and masculinity. Leaders such as Jonas Savimbi, Charles Taylor and Robert Mugabe have made it clear that African liberation must entail a break with militarism, patriarchy and masculinity. At the same time, imperial domination, plunder and militarism have asserted themselves as a force of modernization in the world. The challenges of this moment are to our ability of transitioning beyond militarism in Africa.

For the battle for African revolution and transformation, in our celebration of the victory at Cuito Cuanavale we remember the sacrifices of our people.


*Horace Campbell is the author of the well known book, Rasta and Resistance: From Marcus Garvey to Walter Rodney. His latest book, Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The Exhaustion of the Patriarchal Model of Liberation is published by David Philip of Cape Town, South Africa.

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

A tribute To Fidel Castro

2008-06-03

Kola Ibrahim

Kola Ibrahim looks at the legacy of Fidel Castro, the internationalization of struggle and calls for “working class activists from Kenya to Venezuela to Georgia to Pakistan and the rest of the world – to build a genuine working people’s political platform.”

This year, an ailing but still going Fidel Castro will turn 82. Castro used the early part of his life for the emancipation of Cuba and laying the basis for the radicalization of a whole new layer of youth in search of truth. Fidel along with the late Che Guevara led the armed struggle for the liberation of Cuba and indeed the whole Latin America. The eventual success of the armed struggle (itself a product of the inability of the Cuban capitalism under Batista to grant full democratic rights), after a series of setbacks, led to the formation of the first workers’ state. Fidel at first hesitated in moving the revolution (that was massively welcomed by the working poor of Cuba) forward towards socialism, but the pressure of events especially from the attacks by US imperialism; the further radicalization of the working poor of Cuba; and the resoluteness of some of the other leaders such as Che, pushed him to take to the road of socialism.

Less than three decades after the revolution, despite a US embargo and consequent isolation, the Cuban society under Fidel was able to achieve what many leading capitalist countries have not achieved in centuries. In Cuba one finds a well educated population (with over 90 percent literate) and a sound health system (with an average lifespan of 80 years). Of course, it can be argued that the presence of the Soviet Union under the Stalinists bureaucratic apparatus (a caricature of genuine socialist ideas as espoused by Marx, Engel and Lenin) helped Cuba, but the Soviet Union only supported Cuba as long as her expansionist interest was satisfied. This meant that Cuba would not criticize the Soviet bureaucracy, it would not struggle for democratic socialism within its own country, or internationalize the revolution and would accept Soviet goods at all cost.

All these had a terrible effect on Cuba as many inferior goods were brought in without any alternative. Any attempt to turn to the then “Communist” China would have incurred the wrath of the Stalinist bureaucracy in Russia. Lack of internationalization of the revolution along a Marxist line, at least within Latin America further isolated Cuba. Yet, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was still able to survive.

When Che went to the Soviet Union in early 1960’s, he was forced, despite his liking the Soviet Union, to criticize the bourgeoisie lifestyle of Soviet bureaucrats. This incurred the wrath of the Soviet bureaucracy, which tagged Che, a Trotskyite (a term used then to denigrate the followers and ideas of the foremost leader of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky who fought against Stalinist degeneration of the revolution after the death of Lenin). Also, when Che launched a guerilla campaign for an international revolution, he was categorized as an adventurer by the Soviet bureaucracy. This was contrary to a genuine Marxist position which would encouraged the building of revolutionary movements among the working people of the third world countries who were radicalized by the liberation movements and especially the Cuban revolution rather than launching a revolution over their heads thus giving the capitalist state excuse to behead genuine working people’s movement.

But the singular attempt and aspiration by Che (and Castro) for an international revolution against imperialism has inspired youth activists across the world (even capitalists have turned him into a commodity). The Soviet bureaucracy that had the power to build an international socialist movement deliberately abandoned this vision.

The best of the contemporary capitalist rulers from US to Europe to Asia cannot be compared to Fidel. He has inspired a generation to fight for their freedom while the former brought the working people of the world wars, misery, poverty and exploitation in the search of profit. Of course, Cuba needs democracy but not the market democracy that has led to misery for the working poor.

Cuba needs genuine socialist democracy where the huge gains of the nationalized economy will be realized by the collective leadership of the working people. There is need for a socialist multi-party democracy from local to national level in Cuba and the ability of the people to determine and discuss every government policy. This will appeal to the working poor of the world and lay the basis for revolution in the whole of Latin America (which is now under radicalization from Venezuela to Bolivia to Ecuador) and the world as a whole.

It is not for the capitalist apologists to teach Cuba democracy because the history of capitalism is that of subjugation of the people’s will. Is it not hypocritical for US to claim to be fighting for democracy in Cuba when the whole world rejected the US embargo on Cuba and yet the Bush government still maintains it? Despite the millions that protested around the world against the invasion on Iraq, the US along with the willing allies still went ahead. The same US government that is championing democracy supported Pakistani military rule for over eight years thus boosting the strength of militants.

Cuba has shown what can be achieved under a genuine socialist government. The task before the working people of Cuba is to prevent a restoration of capitalism. Despite the so-called increase in GDP by many third world countries in the past few years, hundreds of millions are still wallowing in abject poverty while a tiny clique continue to increase their wealth. Neo-liberalism will only mean diversion of the wealth for a tiny clique as has been seen in Nigeria where just one percent controls 80 percent of the nation’s wealth while over 70 percent go hungry.

To get another Castro in the world will require a revolution that will enthrone genuine socialist democracy. This is the real task before the working class activists from Kenya to Venezuela to Georgia to Pakistan and the rest of the world – to build a genuine working people’s political platform that will wrest power from the hands of the capitalist class and enthrone a genuine socialist society, and not to depend on capitalist politicians for liberation.


*Kola Ibrahim is a Member of the Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM), Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

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

Challenges to the Rule of Law

2008-06-03

Dieu-Donné Wedi Djamba

Dieu-Donné WEDI DJAMBA argues that the march toward democracy in Africa is not only under threat by dictators using dictatorial means to stay in power, but also by democratically elected leaders who use democratic processes to cement their hold over power.


Due to the legacy of authoritarian regimes, the Global South is facing a challenge in establishing the Rule of Law. But what raises concerns is that there is a trend toward disregarding pillars of the Rule of Law such as the Constitution or free and fair elections by those who currently rule their respective countries soon after being democratically elected.

Instead of being implemented, the Rule of Law moves one step forward and two steps back, holding back society through anti-democratic practices such as electoral fraud, the violation or the review of the Constitution by the democratic elected leaders.

1. ELECTORAL FRAUD

Change of governments and those in poweris one of the characteristics of democracy and this has to be done through free and fair elections.

With different authoritarian regimes, the Global South witnessed several so-called presidential elections with either a single candidate or many candidates without any chance of winning. An example is Chad where in the 2006 presidential elections; the president was re-elected with ninety nine percent. In Zaire(currently DRC) during Mobutu’s time or in Togo where as the world watched, a military government adopted the façade of democracy. There is the other kind of electoral fraud such as presidential elections in Zimbabwe.

But, if the mass frauds during these elections are organised by those who originally came into power by an anti -democratic way (coup, rebellion, revolution) and try to maintain themselves in power through so-called elections, the Global South faces a new challenge where the democratically elected leaders who once in power do not hesitate to use any illegal practice in order to win elections. The leading maxim seems to be “As I am now here it is forever.”

In this regard. The recent Kenyan crisis is a loud example of the attempt to hold back the Rule of Law by a democratic elected leader.

Indeed Kenya was deeply affected by a bloody crisis that left more than one thousand killed and thousands displaced, churches, shops and houses burned, all caused of an electoral coup by president Mwai Kibaki who came in power in 2002 after democratic elections that ended the long authoritarian regime started with Jomo Kenyatta in 1963 and continued by Daniel Arap Moi in 1978. These last elections took Kenya five years.

2. THE VIOLATION OR REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION

As it is well known, in the authoritarian regime, the leader designs the Constitution to meet his political needs.

Unfortunately this practice is becoming more and more prelevant amongst leaders who were democratically. Indeed, in the Global South, the Constitution, one of the pillars of the Rule of Law is coveted by those who have the duty to protect it.

In this regard, last February 2008 the Global South witnessed the violation of the Constitution by the Congolese president democratically elected Joseph Kabila and the prime minister Antoine Gizega who appointed magistrates in violation of the Congolese Constitution .

But the threat is also found in the review of the Constitution which aims to increase the power of the Head of the State or to allow him to remain in power through unlimited terms.

Furthermore, there is currently an attempt to review the Constitution by the dictator of Cameroon Paul Biya the one who has been in power since 1984. The review aims to allow him to be candidate in the next lections. Let us hope he will not succeed. Indeed, despite the fact Biya’s authoritarianism, the people of Cameroon are offering a real opposition to the review of the Constitution.

But the attempt to change the Constitution is not only made by the authoritarian leaders such as Paul Biya in Cameroon, but also by those democratically elected in their respective countries. The review of Constitution was attempted in Nigeria by the now former president Olusegun Obasanjo who tried through Parliament to review the provision limiting the number of terms a president may serve. He failed because the majority in Parliament voted against the amendment.

In addition, the same attempt was made by the current president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. But contrary to the Nigerian president the president of Venezuela tried to increase his power through a referendum, but still fortunately - he failed.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of the Rule of Law is one of major challenges in the Global South. Unfortunately, while people are focused on achieving this noble objective, others are working to hold back the process.

Therefore, there is a need for the Civil society as a whole to intesify its watch dog role vis-à-vis not only where the Rule of Law still has to be established but also where it has already been established. Indeed, today the Rule of Law is threatened in the DRC, Kenya, Venezuela and Nigeria. Tomorrow may be under threat in other countries.

As the Global South is struggling to end the culture of presidents for life, the slogan “as I am now here it is forever” has to be banned because it is taking the march toward a Rule of Law in the Global South two steps back for every step forward. The end result is gross human rights violations.


*Dieu-Donné WEDI DJAMBA is a lawyer(Advocate) at the Lubumbashi Bar Association a Researcher in Transitional Justice and an Assistant Lecturer in the College of Law in Lubumbashi in the DRC.

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

WOZA Zimbabwe arrests update

2008-06-03

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA)

A demonstration by WOZA and MOZA members in Harare on Wednesday May 28 resulted in the arrest of 13 women and 1 man, all of whom remain in custody up to today, Monday June 2. The demonstration was held to commemorate Africa Day, mourning the lack of anything to celebrate, and to protest against the political violence being perpetrated in the weeks leading up to the Presidential run-off election of June 27.

Approximately 200 members were stopped by the police as they marched in the street in central Harare carrying placards and distributing flyers. Specific members were targeted for arrest, including Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu. Three were assaulted during interrogation, but they were not seriously injured. All were first brought to court on Friday afternoon, several hours after the 48 hour limit, where they were remanded until the following day to make a bail application. On Saturday they were granted bail by the magistrate, Rusinahama. Jenni Williams’ bail was set at $10,000,000,000 ($US20) and for the other 13 at $5,000,000,000 ($US10). All were also to turn in their passports. However, the prosecutor then announced that the state would appeal against bail, so all 14 were remanded in custody until June 6, 2008. While the single man is being held at Harare Remand prison, the ladies are all at the women’s remand section of Chikurubi.

All 14 have been charged under s 37 1c (ii) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (formerly part of the Public Order and Security Act) – “Participating in a gathering with intent to promote public violence, breach of the peace or bigotry”. This offence involves “acting with one or more others,…. intending or realizing that there is a risk of forcibly disturbing the peace, security or order of the public”. Some of those arrested were not participating in the demonstration, but were arrested at gun point while inside a vehicle. They included the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized.

Jenni also has two other charges under the same Act: s 30 - “Causing disaffection among the Police Force or Defence Forces”. This charge was leveled as a result of one paragraph of the flyer which was being distributed by the demonstrators. This paragraph was addressed to the uniformed forces and included the following words: “We ask them to respect that Zimbabweans have voted for change and refrain from being used to perpetrate violence and to carry out injustices”. She is likewise charged under s 31 (a) (i) with “Publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State”. This charge apparently relates to a flyer from another organisation of which she had one copy in her handbag; however she has been accused of distributing it as well.

It will be noted that all of these sections of the Act infringe on Zimbabweans’ basic right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights in our constitution. Similar sections of the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act were previously judged unconstitutional by the Zimbabwean Supreme Court, but they were re-enacted in the Public Order and Security Act. The constitutionality of these re-enacted sections has yet to be tested in the courts.

All of the detained members of WOZA and MOZA are being visited and taken food and are in good spirits and well. It is expected that the State’s appeal will be heard before the end of this week, and it is hoped that the appeal will be rejected and the bail conditions upheld, so that those currently detained can await further developments out of custody. We salute those brave members of WOZA and MOZA who dare to stand up and make public their concerns about the perilous state in which most Zimbabweans are now living. May all Zimbabweans be inspired by their actions.


*WOZA, the acronym of Women of Zimbabwe Arise, is an Ndebele word meaning ‘Come forward’. Now with a countrywide membership of over 35,000 women and men, WOZA was formed in 2003 as a women’s civic movement. For more information, please visit: http://www.wozazimbabwe.org

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

Yar Adua: Throw caution to the wind

2008-06-03

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem looks at the Yar Adua's administration and the political mileage the stolen election has cost him and argues that the only Yar Adua will win back legitimacy is "through public policies that reduce poverty, deliver education, creatre decent jobs for the millions of youth roaming the streets, empower women. bring security to cities, towns and villages and light up all homes, industry and streets of Nigeria."


May 29 was Democracy Day in Nigeria. It marks the day in 1999 when the Nigerian Generals returned the country to civilian rule albeit under a recivilianised former General, Olushegun Obasanjo. After 8 years of civilian politics under Obasanjo, the best that can be said is that democracy remains a national aspiration especially in terms of its capacity to deliver on the bread and butter issues that afflict the majority of Nigeria's boisterous millions. While the kind of brutality, arbitrary arrest, gross violation of the rights of citizens and other excesses that were characteristic of the direct military dictatorship of previous military regimes especially that of the kleptocratic Babangida and Abacha's sadistic regimes are no longer the case, it is perhaps an indication of the impatience of the public or the short memory of the chattering classes in the country that some people will argue that 'Obasanjo is worse than Abacha'.

The current scandals being exposed about the regime of Obasanjo and the financial recklessness of companies and individuals allied to his nightmare team of free loading parasites not withstanding, I do not agree with those who believe that Obasanjo's has been the worst regime Nigeria has ever had. By all means the atrocities, bad judgements and policy hypocrisies of the regime should be exposed and those guilty punished. The fact that these matters are coming to light, albeit after the regime has left office, is indeed part of growing demands for accountability. It may have been delayed but it sends out a message that there is no statute of limitation on abuse of office and betrayal of public trust. Many of those who are now clamouring for Obasanjo's head, or were public critics of his regime while he was in office, could not do the same under either IBB or Abacha. That in itself should count for something. But there are just too many people who cannot forgive Obasanjo for his arrogance and holier than thou attitude.

This year's Democracy Day also represents the first year of the administration of Alhaji Umar Musa Yar' Adua. The stench from Obasanjo's administration continues to hang over Yar Adua and the obsessions of those after Obasanjo and his cabal is making it look like Yar Adua's regime is a mere extention of Obasanjo's. As far as many of these people are concerned no change has taken place and the ghost of Obasanjo is seen looming large and haunting every room in Aso Rock. The low profile personality of Yar Adua and his even lower lustre style have combined to enthrench this view that he is a dithering and indecisive president. Hence the various sobriquets applied to him and his regime: 'Mr Go-Slow', 'Mr Hold-Up', and 'Mr No-Show' etc. They all point to the frustration of the public at his seeming lack of dynamism. It is a regime that has been too cautious and that caution is inducing executive inertia.

The circumstances under which Yar Adua was imposed as a candidate and eventually being handed the keys to Aso Rock meant that the legitimacy issue initially made it too defensive. There was uncetainty about how long it would last and some wrong-headed optimism that the courts would invalidate the robbery of the electorate.

These issues made the government less ambitious from the start, waiting to see what would happen. It was not as though Yar Adua had nothing else going for him. I argued then and continue to believe that he would have won without rigging. No serious observer could objectively claim that either of his two closest rivals had won. He also had a personal reputation of not being corrupt and a record of leading a decent administration in Katsina State for 8 years. So there were people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the regime was caught between being grateful to the Obasanjo PDP robbery machine which gave it the stolen mandate and robbed public which wanted the new President to distance himself from his benefactors. Neither could be fully satisfied.

It was obvious that the PDP had more influence in the making of the new government. Yar Adua did not seem to have much room for manouvre therefore the party prevailed. All he had was his personal credibility as revealed in his innauguration speech where he assured the country he would be a servant leader and lead by example. That he was not Obasanjo and was not given to what Nigerians call 'I too know' and associated 'Baba-cracy' (rule of Baba by Baba for Baba!) was a positive development. His simplicity and austere outlook encouraged many Nigerians who are tired of the profligacy and ostentatious high living of Nigeria's power elite.

However governing a country as diverse and routinely mismanaged polity like Nigeria requires more than just being nice and wanting to do good. It seems that Yar Adua has become a prisoner in Aso Rock, distrusting his corrupt party and the wheeler dealers across the country. Unfortunately they have been so preoccupied with this that they have not been able to leverage the potential public support and good will from many Nigerians.

The PDO operates like a regime under siege - withdrawing into a tiny laager of few trusted people around the presidency. While this may have worked in a provincial setting like Katsina, it is not working any wonders in Abuja. Many people may want to help Yar Adua but they do not have entry points. The system's core is still dominated by malevolent individuals whose only claim to their position is because they have been part of previous misrulers! Yar Adua's small band of believers' inability to have its own narrative and grand vision has made it become vulnerable to other people's agenda. The most successful in filling this executive vacuum created by Yar Adua's excessive caution is the anti- Obasanjo lobby. While it is important to hold all leaders accountable the same Nigerians will blame Yar Adua for doing nothing later.

Let those who want to go after OBJ do so by all means possible under the law but Yar Adua needs to embark on his own programme very aggressively. A programme that will help launder the stolen mandate through public policies that reduce poverty, deliver education, create decent jobs for the millions of youth roaming the streets, empower women, bring security to cities, towns and villages and light up all homes, industry and streets of Nigeria. He needs to throw caution to the winds and break out of the presidential prison that Aso Rock has been for him for the past one year.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

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

Afrophobia: Cure is reforming the economy

2008-06-03

Mahmood Mamdani and Sampie Terreblanche

We believe that the violence that South Africa has experienced over the last week is systemic in nature and will not end until the underlying causes of economic distress have been dealt with thoroughly.

South Africa is in a state of emergency because of the failure to address desperate poverty and is in urgent need of a mechanism to begin public discussion on how to ensure dignity for all those who live here.

Even by conservative estimates, over 50% of the South African population experiences dire poverty.

Many of the poor live in townships, and for the most part, what is at stake in these townships is a battle for mere survival in unbearable living conditions. The consequence of this poverty has invariably led to the current outpouring of frustration and rage in various South African townships.

When survival itself is at stake, it is not surprising to see violence against those who can only seem to be a threat to whatever little means of a livelihood there is. There is only one solution, which is to address the underlying economic distress - to address the complete failure of supply-side capitalist economics in South Africa.

To begin, therefore, we call for a Justice and Reconciliation Commission, which cannot be more timely and more necessary - in light of the dashed hopes of those who thought that the new dispensation would provide them with a better life.

We read in the paper that the conflicts in the townships betray the leaders of the struggle in South Africa.

But is it not the other way around; that people feel betrayed because they continue to live in apartheid-like conditions?

In 1997, Professor Mahmood Mamdani and Professor Sampie Terreblanche called for a Justice and Reconciliation Commission, which would focus on the systematic exploitation endured by the majority black population for over 350 years of racial capitalism.

The aim of such a commission is to focus on the systematic character of racial capitalism, which began long before the institutionalisation of apartheid.

The work of such a commission would be both to educate whites, who were the beneficiaries of this exploitative system, as well as to develop a programme of reparations, restitution and, perhaps most important, the establishment of economic measures that could effectively grapple with the devastating institutional effects of an internal system of colonisation.

We are calling for a two-year commission to take up this work. The commission would also explore alternatives to the current Anglo-Americanisation of the South African economy, which has effectively blocked any substantive development of the country.

This commission would focus primarily on the consideration of comprehensive programmes for poverty alleviation. This is not to be confused with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which focused on perpetrators and reparations for individual victims.

Community organisations that have worked tirelessly to develop programmes for restitution and reparation should be seriously considered as part of the democratic discussion of economic reform.

Consultation with economists who are exploring alternatives to capitalism will be vital.

The outcome of the commission would be a comprehensive programme of economic reforms in all basic areas of life: education, housing, health care and land reform.

This report would consider responses to the aggressive Washington Consensus, which pushes a particular programme of supply-side economics that constrains the re-distribution programmes that must be undertaken in the name of restorative justice.

As long as this extreme injustice continues to exist, we are naïve to have any expectation of peace.

Darfur: playing with the numbers

2008-06-03

Ann Garrison

In response to Is Someone Playing with the Darfur Death Toll?, I would certainly not be surprised. When Secretary General General Ban-Ki-Moon took office at the U.N., he announced that his first priority was, of course, Darfur. Not the Iraq War, not the Afghanistan War, not South Korean farmers committing suicide for lack of tariff protection, but, "of course": Darfur.

South Africa is still Africa's responsibility

2008-06-03

Ebele Obumselu

One can understand the rage, pain, and disappointment, that informs Pius Adesanmi’s Makwerekwere: Black South Africa’s Instant-Mix Kaffirs but a cooler, more dispassionate view of South Africa may have cast more light on the issue For all his preamble about making ‘psychic’ reconnection to Africa and escaping the dominant racial generalisations about Africa in the West, Adesanmi shows a marked inability to escape these very race stereotypes. Perhaps this is part of the point he wishes to make but he shows a surprising willingness to reproduce these stereotypes. When he encounters the squalor and danger of inner city Johannesburg he can only recount his experience in the very race terms he condemns earlier.

Does Adesanmi not know that other cities in Africa and the world have mugging, violence and robbery on an almost equal scale. Has he been to Lagos recently? Yet Adesanmi’s fixation on race – all those inscrutable black faces - does not allow him to recognise or indeed consider the new demographic pressures on the limited public and social infrastructure in Johannesburg; a city that draws poor Africans not only from the immediate surrounding area but also a large regional hinterland extending beyond the Equator. Population pressure on infrastructure in African cities built for small affluent white colonial populations are not new.

Adesanmi then goes on to imply that Nigeria liberated South Africa single handed with little help. This would be news to South Africans and many other Africans. Yes, Nigeria did contribute significantly to the liberation of southern Africa. But its role – somewhat belated - was not the key defining moment for South Africa’s long struggle. The frontline states – particularly Mozambique and Tanzania – contributed more over a longer period. Yes, the struggle to overcome apartheid seized the imagination of young informed Nigerians but it also captured the attention of whole generation of Africans, inspiring music, literature, art and politics across the continent. It did not capture of the imagination of Nigerians alone.

The xenophobia that drives everyday urban life and current disturbances are not a new phenomenon and probably have deep roots in Apartheid South Africa. The South African view of ‘Africans’ who come from north of the Limpopo as ‘black’, physically repellent and possessed of incomprehensible and inelegant languages is not new. Indeed the word ‘ African’ is a historically ambiguous term in South Africa, freighted with all the contempt and violence of Apartheid. The conflicts and competitiveness of post Apartheid South Africa have only added new hostility to old contempt ‘Insider/outsider’ or ‘native/stranger’ strife is one of the perennial and defining binaries of African politics. The fact that Black South Africans have turned on other Africans is a sad surprise – we expected more of them - but, on reflection, it is not a million miles away from the ethnic clashes in Kenya earlier this year or the anti- Ibo pogroms in Nigeria in the 1960’s.

Informed Africans from other parts of the continent should recognise that South Africa – culturally, socially, economically and politically - is very much part of the rest of Africa; challenges, dilemmas and hopes. We should appreciate this even though South Africans seem unable to realise this.

Fahamu