Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding.

One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo-liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV –AIDS pandemic.

Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.

In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William “Kip” Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?

One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.

Why Now?

At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western ‘interests’ in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.

Central Command

After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).

At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.

Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI “plans” to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in “peacekeeping” operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.

Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East

After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.

What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.

The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.

African Oil -The real objective

The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been “fabricating terrorism” in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of “intelligence sharing to fight terrorism.” It is in the Sudan where the neo-conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.

Challenging the European Union and China in Africa

The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.

In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar.
It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America.
This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.

African responses

Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest “partners’ of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 “distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.

For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for ‘security cooperation.” Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition.
More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.

One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia.
Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.

In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.

Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.

In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.

The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror. Racist images of war and “anarchy” and “failed states” are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.

We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written, ‘The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.’ [1]

[1] Thomas Friedman, ‘A Manifesto for the Fast World’, New York Times Magazine, March, 1989.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.

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

Yesterday I heard a commentary on the BBC on genocide and today I read with interest Mukoma's intervention. It is good that the discussion on revolution and revolutionaries has begun. (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/45291) There can be no revolution without revolutionary theories and it was good that Mukoma went back to Cabral.

But we must remember that Cabral told us that when the revolution breaks out it would be like a seed that has long awaited germination. Kenya has a long tradition of progressive organizing and revolutionaries from the period of Dedan Kimathi. Revolution may break out in Kenya but revolutionary intellectuals must be sure that they are on the side of the people who want change.

While this discussion on revolution is taking place, we must seek ways to stop the theft and manipulation by those in power. My biggest worry is the role of the US. If we remember that after the Ethiopian fraud in 2005, the US and specifically, Jendayi Frazier worked to rehabilitate Meles and supported their incursion into Somalia. All of the evidence of the alliance between the US and the present Kibaki regime should alert us to the ways in which Kenya is being used as a based to subvert peace and transition in all parts of Eastern Africa. Jendayi and the US representatives on the ground are up to no good. I can agree with Mukoma on the call for fresh elections between Kibaki and Raila.

WE must exhaust constitutional, legal and political means to ensure that war of the kind that broke out in the Ivory Coast does not break out in Kenya. This is not far from the surface and while we are critiquing Raila and the ODM, we have to be aware that there are forces at work bigger than Raila. Progressive and if need be revolutionary Pan Africanists cannot be on the side of the killers who are now in power. All lives of the poor are important.

The Rwanda genocidaire (living in Nairobi since 1994) is being protected by the present group in power. The "rebel" leader from Burundi who is subverting the peace process in Burundi is hiding in Kenya. Both the Tanzanian and South African governments has requested that the Kenyans hand over this killer, but to no avail. Both the US and the Kenyans are holding these forces (Rwandan and Burundi) in reserve for their long term plans. Kenya is also the rear base for the war that is being planned in the Sudan. This does not even bring us to the fabricated terrorist campaign against the people of Somalia. We cannot compare Raila to the Ukrainian movement and overlook these realities.

So, at this moment we have to be very careful about revolutionary language. WE do not want any kind of armed confrontation between the poor in Kenya. All forms of non-violent political struggles must be exhausted. This means that we have to be responsible. We cannot point to Raila's potential alliance with imperialism while overlooking the current clear alliance between the Kibaki regime and the US military. Look at the base that was recently built in Wajir for use by the US military.

Mukoma has rightly pointed to the fact that the police have killed over 500 innocent young people. Brother Mukoma should rightly identify these persons as Mungiki. This was a terror group that was being held in reserve. It is the kind of militia that was organized to terrorize poor men and women. And to give them the necessary, resources, they placed them into the pyramid schemes of the Nairobi Stock Exchange. The past Ministry of Internal Affairs and the thugs who mobilized Mungiki killed members of Mungiki that they could not control. Hence, there should be a call for an investigation into the police killings of these 500 young men. This is to ensure that those who want to turn on and off these young people for their purposes will be exposed before the poor Kikuyu workers, trades and youth. This is especially the case for poor Kikuyu women.

These terrorists would terrorize poor women about cultural practices yet not say a word of the imperialist culture of the settlers in the Rift Valley. All sections of the Kenyan ruling class are against the rise of the political consciousness of the workers, poor peasants and itinerant traders. The rise in consciousness will be a potent force for the revolution. Revolution needs revolutionaries. If we are looking toward the future organization of the poor in Kenya toward revolution, then we must identify those in power at the moment as the enemy of the poor. One cannot criticize Raila as a capitalist owning the molasses company and overlook those who currently dominate the Nairobi Stock Exchange. This criticism of Raila without a concomitant criticism of Trancentury and those behind Vision 2030 will not go over well for those who are thinking of revolution. For the moment, there are no revolutionary leaders in the mainstream political parties. But while those of us who are organizing for the break are engaged with this recent spontaneous combustion, ponder the nature of our involvement, let us target the primary contradictions (Kibaki, the leaders of the Nairobi Stock Exchange and US imperialism.

We can place this group on the defensive by calling for the enactment of the UN Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative. Bring back Goldenberg and Anglo Leasing to the front pages by implicating the British government as collaborators. This means that Moi and the allies of Kibaki in the Anglo Leasing scandal will be further exposed. And in the process, any future government will know that they cannot steal with impunity. I found it odd that the criticism of Mukoma were directed at Raila and not at the capitalist class in general.

Struggles over transparency and the use of the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament will in the short run act as a way to educate the poor in Kenya. Ethnic manipulation is running its course. It can only survive by the use of intellectuals to support one-sided analysis. Those of us who supported the struggles for liberation in the Congo in 1998 understand the long-term consequences of the talk of revolution without real revolutionaries. After more than 2 million dead in the Congo, as intellectuals we have not done a proper summing up of that debacle. Philippe Wamba died while thinking through ways to reach the youth for a new revolution. He went to the source to be with the youth. War and partisan analysis will not do at this time. Our platforms must be different from the imperial media outlets.

Peace.

National elections were held in Kenya on December 27, 2007; the results of the Presidential election were announced three days later. Within minutes of the announcement that Mwai Kibaki had emerged as the winner, there were spontaneous acts of opposition to the government in all parts of the country. The opposition was especially intense among the jobless youths who had voted overwhelmingly for change. A ruling clique that had stolen billions of dollars in a period of five years had stolen the elections. This was the verdict of the poor. However, this verdict was obscured by ethnic alienation and the constant refrain by local and foreign intellectuals that the crisis and killings emanated from deep ‘tribal’ hostilities. This tribal narrative was intensified after the burning and killings of innocent civilians in a church, in Eldoret, in the Rift Valley region of Kenya. But while these killings had all of the hallmarks of the genocidal violence of Rwanda and Burundi, more importantly, they heightened the need for Kenyan society to step back from the brink of all out war. Violence and killings provided a feedback loop that threatened to engulf even the political leaders of the society.

This analysis argues that the calls for peace and reconciliation by the political and religious leaders will remain hollow until there are efforts to break from the recursive processes of looting, extra judicial killings, rape and violation of women, and general low respect for African lives.

This short commentary on the elections and the aftermath seeks to introduce a unified emancipatory approach: liberating humanity from the mechanical, competitive, and individualistic constraints of western philosophy, and re-unifying Kenyans with each other, the Earth, and spirituality. This analysis draws from fractal theory and seeks to place Africans as human beings at the center of the analysis. Fractal theory is founded on aspects of the African knowledge system and breaks the old tribal narratives that refer to Africans as sub humans needing Civilization, Christianity and Commerce.
Those who condemn the post-election violence in Kenya have failed to condemn the traditions of killings and economic terrorism in Kenya. It should be stated clearly that using African women as guinea pigs for western pharmaceuticals is just as outrageous as burning innocent women and children in churches. Rape and violation of women, and exploitation of the poor and of jobless youth have been overlooked by the commentators who focus on one component of the matrix of exploitation in Kenya -- ethnicity.

In tandem with much of the current discourse on fractal theory, this commentary is addressed to progressive intellectuals from Kenya and calls for a revolutionary paradigmatic transformation- one that is intrinsic to African knowledge systems and can be witnessed in practice in the everyday activities of African life. Revolutionary transformations are necessary to break from the processes that have been unleashed in Kenya and East Africa since British colonialism and the British Gulag. This break requires revolutionary ideas in Kenya, along with revolutionary leaders and new forms of political organization. Thus far, neo-liberal capitalism and neo-liberal democratic organizations, along with the focus on party organization have created leaders who organize for political power. These leaders are not even concerned about forming lasting political parties. Far more profound transformations are required in Kenya, beyond the winning of elections. However, until new ideas and new leaders emerge, the current struggles will serve to educate the poor on the limitations of the old politics and ethnic alliances that privilege sections of the Kenyan capitalist class.

The analysis is presented as a drama of three acts. The first act was played out in the form of the election campaign. The second act involved the drama after the announcement of the results and the violent reactions from all sections of the society. The third act of this drama continues to unfold with the call for a fractal analysis that will place revolutionary transformation as the central question on the political agenda in Kenya and East Africa.

Act One – The Struggles over the election and the campaign for the Presidency.

The Scene: Kenya had been the epi- center of imperial domination in East Africa from the period of British colonialism. Caroline Elkins in the book, Britain’s Gulag, has documented for posterity the extreme violence and murders bequeathed to the Kenyan political culture by the British government. At independence in December 1963, Britain handed over power to people who, in essence, agreed to act as junior partners with British capitalism in Eastern and Central Africa. This partnership included an acceptance by the ruling class in Kenya of the western European forms of land ownership that stated that Africans had to be modernized from their “tribal” and “backward” ways. For forty years, Kenya was presented as a success story where a parasitic middle class and a thriving Nairobi Stock Exchange (composed of foreign capital) sought to prove that capitalism could take root in Africa.

Act 1 Scene Two of this drama took the form of a campaign for the tenth Parliament of Kenya. The drama of the struggle for change in Kenya was played out before the world in the form of an electoral struggle that gripped the society for many months. At the end of Scene Two one of the principal props of this drama – the local media - reported that the results were like a “blood bath.” The headline screamed “ energized voters sweep out Vice President, Cabinet Ministers and seasoned politicians as wind of change blows across the country.” But the newspapers were not yet aware of the implications of using language like “blood bath” in their headlines. Every one awaited the final results of the news of who would be President. The results were being delayed while the votes were being cooked. As news of the parliamentary routing of the incumbent President and his allies in the Party of National Unity (PNU) splashed on the streets, on the screens and on text messages while the principal actors and actresses of the drama, the people of Kenya, sought spontaneous actions to ensure that they were not silenced by the power brokers who had placed themselves at the head of the movement for change. These central actors and actresses (wananchi) had enthusiastically participated in the election campaign articulating their demand for peace, reconstruction and transformation of Kenyan society.

By the time of the third scene of this drama, those from the den of thieves around the incumbent Mwai Kibaki sought to silence the media. In order for this scene to be played out without an audience, international observers and the media (both national and international) were ejected from Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) election center at the Kenyatta International Conference Centre. The Chairperson of the ECK went to a small room and announced the results of the elections naming Mwai Kibaki as the winner of the election. Three days later, the same chairperson of the ECK said in the media that he was not sure if Kibaki won the elections.

Earlier in the drama Raila Odinga’s team of regional barons and aspiring capitalists argued that the true results of the elections showed that Raila Odinga had been chosen by the majority of the main players to be the leading man on the Kenyan stage. How was it possible for his Movement to win over one hundred seats in the Parliament (when Kibaki’s den of thieves had won less than thirty parliamentary seats) and still lose the Presidency? Local and foreign observers cried foul. The elections had been rigged. Ballot boxes had been stuffed. Results were being announced that did not correspond to the votes from the constituencies. The integrity of the process was flawed. These voices were soon drowned out by the might and power of those with strategic control over the military and media sections of the performance. Neo-liberal politics include rigging, so that the international observers used ‘measured’ language of “irregularities,” “anomalies” and “weighty issues” to conceal the reality of outright theft. Raila Odinga termed the process a “civilian coup.” But international capital became confused, because, after all the precedent of election rigging in Florida,U.S.A in 2000 had given the green light to electoral fraud internationally.

The Swearing in of President Kibaki

Act One Scene Three of this drama was performed within the guarded confines of State House where parastatal executives, mostly defeated cabinet members and a small section of the media were invited. In this scene, Mwai Kibaki was sworn in as the Third President of the Republic of Kenya. The stage and setting of this scene was markedly different from the previous swearing in at the Uhuru Park (in Nairobi) where an enthusiastic audience had cheered on the President on December 30, 2002. The 2007 swearing in scene had to be played out without the audience because the principal actors and actresses did not endorse this new act. Minutes after the announcement of the victory of Kibaki, there were spontaneous demonstrations all over the country, especially the urban areas. Popular outrage at the theft of the elections brought violence and the killings of innocent civilians in Kakamega, Kisumu, Mombassa, Nairobi, Nakuru and other centers. The police killed innocent demonstrators as the foreign media portrayed the demonstrations in ethnic terms. The gendered, class and ethnic dimensions of the opposition to Kibaki began to be played out in the poor communities that were called slums, but the media focused on one dimension, the ethnic alienation of the poor and exploited.

Hundreds of dead brought home the reality that the elections and vote counting were simply one site of struggle in the quest to break the old politics of exploitation and dehumanization in Kenya. However, because so much of the old politics of exploitation had been masked by the politicization of ethnicity, poor members of the Kikuyu nationality were targeted in some communities, with the killings in Eldoret bringing home the long traditions of ethnic cleaning that had been going on in this region during the Moi regime. The same media neglected to report that poor Kalenjin also torched the home of former President Arap Moi.

Would there be a break from this recursive process of killing of the poor?
Odinga and members of the Pentagon condemned the killings of members of a particular ethnic group but the anger was too deep for the youths to listen. Unfortunately, the ODM did not have structures to properly mobilize the youths away from looting.

Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement

In order to avert the possible war that could emanate from this new act of the drama there was the need for fresh if not revolutionary ideas to harness the pent up energies of the people for change. The radicalization of Kenyan politics had merged with the anti- globalization forces internationally to the point where in 2007 Kenya hosted the World Social Forum. The radical demands of the Bamako appeal of the Africa Social Forum (for profound social, economic and gender transformations in Africa) could not be carried forward by the old Non Governmental Organization elements allied with international NGO’s from Western Europe. What the World Social Forum had demonstrated was the reality that new revolutionary ideas with new revolutionary forms of organization were needed to realize the goals and aspirations and appeal of the Africa social forum. Raila Odinga and his group of regional ethnic barons had tapped into the radical sentiments of the youth all across the ethnic divisions. Calling his team, the Pentagon, Odinga mobilized the popular discourses about youth, women and disabled to speak about ‘poverty eradication’ and “corruption.”

Absent from the platform of the Orange Democratic Movement was a clear program for reconstruction and transformation. Raila Odinga had been a major political actor on the Kenyan stage for four decades. He had participated in every major political party and formation since his father, Odinga Odinga had emerged as the opponent of the Kenyan form of neo-colonialism. The 2007 elections exposed the reality that there were no real political parties in Kenya. Leaders on all sides were not interested in building a lasting movement for change. They were interested in parties as electoral vehicles to capture state power. There were more than 300 parties registered in Kenya and over 117 participated in the elections in December 2007.

Local and international writers who earlier had been voices for the poor enthusiastically supported the enactment of the first scene of the drama (the election and voting). Some of these writers moaned and groaned that the script had been changed when those who controlled the state machinery unleashed violence against the poor. In order to unleash state violence against the poor, the Minister of Internal Affairs banned the broadcast of live images. The state also toyed with the idea of banning SMS messaging in Kenya. But
Kenyans simply tuned in to the international media to confirm what they knew, that the recursive processes of killings and revenge were spiraling out of control.

Without enacting an official state of emergency (in the fear of further hurting the tourist industry) the majority of poor Kenyans lived under curfew-like conditions as the military, the police, and General Service Units were deployed all over the country and new forms of censorship were implemented. The political leadership that stole the elections had to be careful with the use of the police, military and the intelligence services in so far as the divisions within the security forces challenged the authority of those who stole the elections. Raila Odinga sought to tap into this division of the coercive forces by calling a demonstration of a million Kenyans to oppose the stolen election results.

The International media and international capital

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other cultural voices of imperial power were from the outset one of the props of this drama. The British were particularly active because the interests of British capitalism were very much an important part of narrative of the drama. During Act 1 scenes two and three, this foreign prop had been condemning the “irregularities’” and “anomalies” of the drama and carried the press statements of the International Observers of the European Union and the Commonwealth. The head of the European Union observer mission issued a statement declaring that, “the Presidential poll lacks credibility and an independent audit should be instituted to rectify things.”

This clear statement led the US government to reverse its earlier recognition of Mwai Kibaki as the winner of the Presidential elections. There had been concern in Washington over the future of Kenya in so far as the US authorities sought to mobilize Kenyans in the war against terrorism. During the period of Kibaki, Kenyan citizens were shipped out of the country to be tried as terrorists under the US policy of kidnapping, called rendition. The ODM signed a memorandum of understanding with the Islamic community during the election campaign and members of the ODM condemned the rendering of Kenyan citizens by the government. It was argued that if these citizens acted contrary to Kenyan law, they should be tried under Kenyan law.

The propaganda war had been virulent and since Raila Odinga held the moral and political high ground, sections of the international media began to retreat from endorsement of the electoral coup. However, the occupation of the moral high ground was shaky. Would the government and opposition be more concerned with the lives of the poor than with political power?

In the face of the absence of resolute moral leadership to condemn these killings, the international media had a field day portraying the struggles for democracy in Kenya as primitive “tribal” violence.

Act Two – Stalemate and brinkmanship in politics

Raila Odinga and his team called the Pentagon had entered the drama seeking to play on the terms of those who had seized power from the time of colonialism. The very naming of his team as the ‘Pentagon’ had shown an insensitivity to the international revulsion against military symbols. The five leaders of the Pentagon were, (i) Vice Presidential running mate M Mudavadi, (ii) Charity Ngilu, (iii) William Ruto, (iv) Bilal Najib and (v) Joseph Nyagah. These regional ethnic barons had emerged from multiple political formations and many had family and business linkages with capitalists inside and outside of the government. During the campaign these regional leaders had campaigned on a pledge to devolve power from central government. The poor believed this would bring power closer to the village and communities so that health care facilities, water supply systems, road and pathways in the villages, education, sanitation and other services could be delivered so that the conditions of exploitation are ameliorated. These localized services were interpreted by various local communities as job creation avenues for the jobless youths. For the regional barons, the devolution debate was carried out to ensure easier access to the treasury. The word ‘majimbo’ re- emerged in the political vocabulary of Kenya to reignite the memory of the alliance between the ‘home guards’ and settlers at the dawn of independence.

Youths all across Kenya had transcended the ethnic identification and wanted real change in the quality of life in the society.

Entering the drama without a real party and without a real organ to bring the majority of the actors and actresses to the center of the drama, it was easy for the team around Mwai Kibaki to stall so that the spontaneous anger would peter out. Would the Orange Democratic Revolution learn the lessons of popular power in the streets of the Ukraine Orange Revolution and shake the old power with new bases of alternative power? This provided the setting for the central aspect of the drama, the stand off between the forces of orange and the forces of the defeated power. Kibaki came across as an imprisoned leader, surrounded by politicians and financiers who argued that Kibaki must enter any negotiation from a position of strength. Odinga countered that negotiations could only begin when Kibaki accepted that the elections had been stolen. The hardening of positions ratcheted up the tensions in the country as regionally countries such as Uganda, Rwanda and the Southern Sudan began to feel the effects of the shutdown of the transportation system in Kenya.

Mwai Kibaki and the neo-liberal regime in Kenya

Mwai Kibaki had been associated with the ruling class in Kenya for over fifty years. Starting his career as a representative of Shell Oil Company in Kampala, Uganda, Kibaki moved from an academic position at Makerere University to the top echelons of the independent government of Kenya after independence. In the book, The Reds and the Blacks, William Atwood, then-US ambassador, had identified Kibaki as one of the steady ‘reformers” who would guarantee the interests of foreign capital. Kibaki emerged as a stable force in the ruling circles serving both Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Arap Moi as Minister of Finance. It was under the leadership of Kenyatta and Moi that the forms of theft by the ruling elements in Kenya were refined. Extra judicial killings and accidental deaths of prominent trade union leaders and politicians were papered over by the foreign press that labeled Kenya a ‘stable’ democracy.

Arap Moi and international capital.

After the death of Kenyatta in 1978, Daniel Arap Moi moved decisively to cement an alliance of foreign capitalists and local political careerists to loot the society and spread divisions and ethnic hatred among the poor and oppressed. British capitalism had been the dominant force in Kenya with British companies such as Unilever, Finlays, GSK, Vodafone, Barclays and Standard Bank becoming leading names on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Britain had made a deal with the independence leaders and awarded a small sum to enhance this new class of African yeoman farmers to join the British settlers in the exploitation of Kenya and indeed, East Africa. Molo, in the Rift Valley (one of the constituencies at the center of the row over the rigged elections), represented one of the places where Kikuyu settlers had been relocated after independence.

Moi during his Presidency remained at the center of the alliance between British capitalists, Asian capitalists and Kikuyu entrepreneurs from Central Province. By the time of the electoral defeat of Moi in December 2002, the Moi family and cronies in the ruling party, Kenya African National Union (KANU) had become junior capitalists in the game of exploitation. It was under the leadership of Moi that imperialism used Kenya as a base to subvert African independence. A report commissioned by the Kibaki administration, (called the Kroll Report), had named Moi and his sons as billionaires with assets in banks in Britain, Switzerland, South Africa, Namibia, the Cayman Islands and Brunei. The 110-page report by the international risk consultancy Kroll alleged that relatives and associates of former President Moi siphoned off more than £1bn of government money. This documentation placed the Mois on a par with Africa's other great politicians-cum-looters such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and Nigeria's Sani Abacha. The Kroll report of the levels of theft when presented to the Kibaki government was never acted on. The alliance between Moi and Kibaki forces became clearer during the election campaign when Moi and his sons fiercely campaigned for the re –election of President Kibaki. The sons of Moi were decisively defeated in the elections.

The documentation of the level of theft by Moi was exposed before the public in what to became known as the Goldenberg scandal. This scandal brought to the fore the alliance between Moi, KANU and Asian capitalists in Kenya. These capitalists had looted the country with such impunity that Kamlesh Mdami Pattni (an Asian capitalist named in the Goldenberg scandal) took over one party Kenda to contest the 2007 elections.

Prior to the 1992 multi-party struggles, Kibaki had sought to distance himself from this group of capitalists. These were the capitalists involved in settler agriculture, manufacturing, transport, services, old forms of banking, insurance, real estate, construction and engineering and the health and education sectors. These capitalists from inside and outside the political arena provided cover for looters all across Eastern Africa. In the Kenyan economy money from oil in the Sudan (especially Southern Sudan), commercial interests in Somalia, gold and diamond dealers from Rwanda, Burundi and the Eastern Congo circulated with the resources from the exploited Kenyan working poor so that in the past ten years there has been a growth of the Kenyan economy. Felicia Kabunga, wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICRT) for crimes of genocide in Rwanda was the kind of looter and money spinner who found safe haven among the money launderers in Kenya.

Kibaki and the rise of new capitalists.

Although Mwai Kbaki had campaigned on an anti-corruption ticket in 2002, his tenure as President of Kenya was marked by an explosion of new schemes for accumulation. The rise of the telecommunications, information technology and banking sectors boomed with new enterprises such as Equity Bank and a number of communications companies (Safaricom, Flashcom, Telecom etc) rivaling the old capitalists. The floating of new shares n the form on an Initial Public Offer (IPO) for the Company, Safarcom, became a central question in the election campaign in so far as those who got access to the shares at the time of the issuing of the IPO became instant millionaires.

The Kibaki government was in the main dominated by elements who formed a company called MEGA (a regrouping of the old Gema Gikuyu, Embu, Meru Association), and through Transcentury Corporation had elevated themselves to be the among the leading capitalists in Kenya. This group presented a program called Vision 2030 where Kenya would become the leading capitalist country in Africa, becoming the Singapore of Africa. Control of the governmental apparatus was crucial for Vision 2030.

Space does not allow for an elaboration of the individuals of this capitalist clique and their place in the interpenetrating directorates of the Nairobi Stock Exchange. What is significant is that the names of the capitalists and politicians of Trancentury figured in the scandal of corruption that rocked the government of Mai Kibaki. This was termed the Anglo-leasing scandal which involved awarding huge government contracts to bogus companies. One insider, John Githongo, exposed the scandal and repaired to Britain.

No money from the Anglo leasing scandal had been recovered before the elections and although European and US governments made noises about corruption there were no moves to repatriate the stolen wealth back to Kenya. These scandals were very much a part of the election campaign. Three of the four ministers who resigned after the Anglo Leasing scandal was exposed had been reinstated by Kibaki. These ministers along with twenty other ministers lost their parliamentary seats in the December 2007 elections.
The poor of Kenya had used the ballot to send a message to the capitalists in Kenya but those who stole billions of dollars from the Kenyan Treasury were not above stealing an election.

The real test in Kenyan politics was whether the team called the Pentagon was serious about changing the political culture of theft, looting and storing billions of dollars in foreign banks. The people of Kenya had voted for change. Was the Orange Democratic Movement a movement for change or a movement for political power? This was the outstanding question as the cast and the writers got ready for Act three of the drama of the struggle for democracy.

Act 3. A Revolutionary situation without revolutionary ideas and real revolutionaries.

Because the drama is being played out it is not possible to make a presentation of the last act of this drama. This is the act where the peoples of Kenya are torn between two traditions. These are the traditions of the freedom fighters for independence and the traditions of violence, looting and the low respect for African life. The youths of Kenya have been brought up in the period of the aftermath of the end of apartheid and the defeat of Mobutism. These youths have risen above the politicization of ethnicity and along with progressive women want to end the rape and violation of women. These youths have been heard to say that Kenya is in the midst of a liberation war.

While the consciousness of the youth may be high with the thought of a long term struggle, there are very few revolutionary leaders and a poverty of revolutionary ideas in Kenya. If anything, the poorer youths are being mobilized into counter-revolutionary violence where poor and oppressed people burn and kill each other. This was the lesson of the killings, burning and massacre in the Rift Valley. Counter-revolutionary violence of the Rwanda genocidal form lay just below the surface and the same politicians who gave refuge to genocidaires from Rwanda are not above fomenting genocidal violence among the poor. The media images of marauding youths with pangas provide the necessary imagery to represent to the world another version of African savagery. This same media will not prominently carry the news that poor peasants from the home area of Danieal Arap Moi burnt his house to the ground. The prospect of real class warfare in Kenya frightens both the government and the opposition so there is a delicate effort to manage the crisis so that the forms of capital accumulation can return to the business pages rather than the front pages.

Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic movement are now caught between the aspirations of the regional capitalists of the ‘Pentagon’ and the demand for real change across Kenya. The post election mayhem is a clear demonstration that the ODM did not sufficiently engage their followers on new ideas transcending ethnicity and patriarchy. This demand for democratic change in Kenya will require new forms of organization beyond electoral politics and new ideas about the value of African lives. This requires a break with the European ideation systems that promote capitalism as democracy and genocide as progress.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/authors/Horace_Campbell.jpgSince independence in 1975, the living conditions of the working people of Mozambique have deteriorated considerably. In 2007 the quality of life of the majority of citizens remains very poor. Mozambique ranks 168th out of 190 on UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), the lowest in Southern Africa. At the same time, there is a new class of rich capitalists in Maputo who live in luxury, says Horace Campbell.

In the book, The Liberal Virus and the Americanization of the World (Monthly Review Press, 2004), Samir Amin endeavours to show how the US project for military and economic domination has its roots in the liberal ideas of Western Europe. Amin draws attention to the plunder of the Third World, especially Africa, and the ways in which institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization fostered policies that undermined the quality of life of the world’s poor. Amin predicts the loss of more than 3 billion lives if African countries continue to pursue the West’s neo-liberal agenda, especially if poor farmers emulate the agricultural practices of North America and Western Europe.

Since independence in 1975, the living conditions of the working people of Mozambique have deteriorated considerably. In 2007 the quality of life of the majority of citizens remains very poor. Mozambique ranks 168th out of 190 on UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), the lowest in Southern Africa. At the same time, there is a new class of rich capitalists in Maputo who live in luxury. Neo- liberalism prevails at the high levels of the society while at the grassroots the poor remember the pledges of the leaders of Frelimo to provide food, shelter and water for the poor. In 1980, Samora Machel proclaimed that Mozambique would become a developed country by 1990. Yet, 27 years later, the country is becoming poorer as local and foreign capitalists continue to plunder the country.

Mozambique achieved its independence in 1975, after a period of armed struggle led by FRELIMO. Mozambique was among the Frontline states in the struggle against apartheid and colonialism. Despite pressure from the South African apartheid and Rhodesian states the people of Mozambique made tremendous sacrifices to provide a rearguard base for the liberation of Zimbabwe and later South Africa. In the face of the successful revolution in Mozambique, the apartheid government launched a Total Strategy Campaign to destroy the Mozambican society. Through their proxy army the MNR, the South Africans and the US neo-conservatives supported terrorism against the people of Mozambique. Villages were attacked, innocent women and children were massacred, and transportation and communication lines were cut while South African commandos infiltrated Maputo to kill ANC freedom fighters.

Samora Machel and Chissano negotiated with the South African government to end apartheid support for the MNR culminating in Machel and Frelimo signing the Nkomati Peace Accord in 1984. Despite this accord, the apartheid regime intensified its support for the MNR. Samora Machel was killed in October 1986 when his plane was brought down by the apartheid regime of South Africa.
The killing of Machel was the high point of the terror war waged against the people of Mozambique by the apartheid regime with support from the neo-conservative forces in the US. Up to today, the full history of this terrorism unleashed by the MNR (called Renamo) has not been fully documented. Millions were killed and displaced in the war of destabilization. In the book, Mozambique: Who Calls the Shorts, Joseph Hanlon outlines the three forms of destabilization endured by the people of Mozambique. These were (i) Military destabilization and violence by Renamo (ii) Political destabilization brought about by the attempts to impose the band of killers on the people and (iii) Economic destabilization unleashed by the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank.

The Diplomatic Skills of Joaquim Chissano

Chissano had been one of the early leaders of FRELIMO from its days as a guerilla movement in Tanzania. Chissano developed his diplomatic skills negotiating the withdrawal of the Portuguese between 1974 to 1975. At independence, Chissano was named the foreign minister of Mozambique and became known as a skilled diplomat. As long as the party was strong, this diplomacy served the interests of the liberation project in Africa. When Machel was killed in 1986 there was a choice between Marcelino Dos Santos (considered a doctrinaire Marxist by the West) and Chissano. The party chose Chissano.

Chissano proved an adept negotiator who sought to appease the West, especially the US government. By 1990, projects for delivery of health services and clean water to the poor were abandoned and the economy was opened up to ‘market’ forces. IMF-designed Structural Adjustment Policies were adopted and the state rolled back the support for the poor. Market forces meant the opening up the economy to South African and foreign capitalist. The irony of this retreat was that the same forces that had destroyed Mozambique were now being invited to invest in its reconstruction.

Once Frelimo had capitulated before Western and apartheid capitalism, the forces of reaction sought to rein in Renamo. The Vatican (which had been the most opposed to the policies of Frelimo) offered to mediate a cease fire to end the war of destabilization. This was also an effort to give a clean image of Renamo in the face of intensified struggles against apartheid. After the defeat of the South African army at Cuito Cuanavale in 1988, the apartheid regime went on the defensive. The independence of Namibia in 1990 along with the release of Nelson Mandela created a new political dynamic in Southern Africa. The peace talks in Rome to end the war between Frelimo and Renamo were drawn out to ensure that Frelimo made concessions to the forces that terrorized the people.

The United Nations sent a team for the transition to integrate the former murderers into the state structures. Such was the process of counter revolution in Mozambique that instead of arresting those who had carried out crimes against humanity, the leaders of Renamo were given the respected title of leaders of the opposition. Frelimo won the 1994 elections and Chissano became the first President of a multi-party ‘democracy’ in Mozambique.

The second element of the destabilization had been thwarted, the West and the apartheid government failed to impose Renamo with its criminal past as legitimate leaders of the country.

The victory of neo-liberalism in Southern Africa

The third element of destabilization went into full gear in 1994. This was to promote the capitalist mode of production. Mozambique and Tanzania were being punished by the World Bank and the IMF for attempting an alternative to rapacious capitalism Faced with the organized working class and the possible cross-border links between workers in Southern Africa (calling for a Charter for Human and Peoples Rights across Southern Africa), the neo-liberal organizations inside and outside Africa poured millions of dollars into projects to discredit popular forces of the poor.

South African society embarked on a virulent xenophobic campaign against Mozambicans while the media was replete with stories about ’the failure of ujamaa’ in Tanzania and that socialism had failed in Mozambique. Workers in South Africa were mobilized to think of their brothers and sisters from Mozambique as the problem, rather than the system of exploitation and looting. After an initial project of Reconstruction and Development (RDP) with plans for housing, sanitation, clean water and education for the poor, the political leadership of South Africa opted for a World Bank style-project of Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy (GEAR). Under this policy the social scars of apartheid were exacerbated by the emergence of a new class of black entrepreneurs who had become rich through the ‘black empowerment project.”

The reversal of the gains of self-determination (some would say the counter-revolution) was evident across the region of Southern Africa. In countries like Mozambique and Zimbabwe where the workers had formed trade unions and were in the forefront of the struggle for democratic rights, these same workers were now being oppressed by “black entrepreneurs.” Black empowerment and privatization were the buzz words for the new class of leaders who turned their backs on the struggle for a better life for all.

The tragedy is that it was in the countries where the poor had made the greatest sacrifices (Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe) where the new black bourgeoisie were most callous in the sellout to international capitalists.
One of the clearest examples of this betrayal is the case of the construction of the Mozal Aluminum Smelter in Mozambique. This project is owned by an international consortium led by London-based Billiton (47%) and includes South Africa's Industrial Development Corporation (24%), Mitsubishi of Japan (25%) and the government of Mozambique (4%). The project to set up this aluminum smelter was the biggest in post-independence Mozambique. The trade union was not allowed to organize the workers to participate in this project worth over US $1.3 billion.
Chissano as a diplomat

This context of reversal of fortunes for the ordinary person in Southern Africa provides a back-drop to understanding the prize given to former President Joaquim Alberto Chissano.
Last week it was announced that the former Mozambican President has won the inaugural Mo Ibrahim award for exemplary leadership in Africa Announcing the award on Chissano’s birthday, former United Nations Secretary General (and the head of the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs at the time of the Rwanda genocide) and Chair of the Prize Committee, Kofi Annan, said that '''President Chissano's achievements in bringing peace, reconciliation, stable democracy and economic progress to his country greatly impressed the committee.”

Mo Ibrahim is the archetypal successful African entrepreneur and has been lauded as a text-book success story for young Africans. Mr. Ibrahim provides best personifies the neo-liberal propaganda about “hard work, competition and the fairness of the market and new technologies. According to the media, “Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born telecommunications entrepreneur, established the prize as a way of encouraging good governance in a continent blighted by corruption and a frequently loose adherence to democratic principles.” Not a word is mentioned about the living conditions of the people of the Sudan from where Mr. Ibrahim hails.

What is significant about the whole award process is the way in which moral imperatives of service and commitment to the poor and exploited have been overtaken by the neo-liberal discourses and the Liberal Virus. It is true that if a prize were to be given at this historical moment to a former president, none would have been more deserved that former President Chissano. After all, he had stepped down from power in 2005 and was responsible for a smooth transition to a new leader. This point was made by Kofi Annan when the prize was announced. For this Joaquim Chissano should be congratulated. Chissano is also working very hard to negotiate an end to the war in Northern Uganda between the Museveni regime and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). In this regard Chissano can be distinguished from the militarists all across Africa.

But, isn’t this prize also a sign of the political retrogression in Africa? The idea of a President voluntarily stepping down is now so novel in the face of leaders such as Museveni and Mugabe that Chissano indeed stands out. Compared to Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki, and their megalomanic policies, Chissano does look good.

While announcing Chissano as the winner, Kofi Annan may have gone overboard by saying, “leadership should be the ability to formulate a vision and to convince others of that vision. It should be the skill of giving courage to accept difficult changes to make possible a longer term aspiration for a better and fairer future.”

It was also said when the prize was announced that, “the mark of a good leader is one that can inspire people to a higher standard of living, unite diverse interests and ensure subjects live in harmony, despite holding different opinions.”

It is understandable if African leaders want to pat each other on the back, and of those still alive, Chissano stands heads and shoulders above his contemporaries. But, do we have to set the bar so low for African political leadership in this era?

Neo-liberalism and corruption

One of the successes of the neo-liberal project of privatization has been to increase the export of capital from Africa. Despite efforts such as the Stolen Asset Recovery (STAR) Initiative, the role of the Western financial institutions across Africa has largely been to facilitate the export of wealth. Mozambique is no exception and one of the blots on Chissano’s tenure is the privatization of Mozambique's largest bank, Banco Comercial de Moçambique.

Carlos Cardoso is among the stalwarts of the Mozambican revolution . As a fearless investigative journalist, he was committed to the principles of peace, freedom and prosperity for the people. Cardoso was looking into a US$14 million fraud connected with the privatization of Banco Comercial de Moçambique.

He was shot dead in central Maputo on 22 November 2000.

The truth about those who orchestrated and carried out the murder of this courageous journalist is still unknown. It is the hope of all who want crimes and murders to stop in Africa that those with information on criminality will assist in bringing criminals to justice. Only last week Lucky Dube was shot down while dropping off his children in Johannesburg, South Africa. Street crimes of the sort that took the life of Lucky Dube cannot be fought when crimes of theft in the banking system involving millions go unpunished. We should remember the words of Peter Tosh, “every one is talking about Crime but who are the real criminals?”
The truth is that the criminals are the leading capitalists in Africa along with their allies in the capitalist world.

The prize for the best accountant

When Chissano left office, Mozambique was seen as a country that had retreated from the old socialist model and successfully embraced neo-liberal capitalism. Social democratic ideas of providing services to the people were considered old fashioned among the young who were been fed the anti- socialist line. International non-governmental agencies now traverse the countryside in Mozambique doing the kind of work that should be done by the government. World Bank consultants are very busy ensuring that there is ‘good governance’ and ‘market reforms’. Instead of identifying the capitalists as looters and purveyors of greed, we are bombarded with the discourse on “donors.” Mo Ibrahim has elevated himself into the ranks of the “donors.”

The Mozambican workers and poor peasants remember their long struggle against colonialism. The challenge in Africa is to remember the victories of the Mozambican revolution and not to allow the World Bank discourse on ‘governance’ to erase the memories of mobilization of the people against exploitation. While the workers organize, the prize for rooting out corruption should help us to get to the truth behind the murder of Cardoso.

In the past few months, the UN established the STAR initiative to assist exploited countries recover assets stolen by corrupt leaders. The initiative was to ensure that looted assets are returned to their rightful owners,

For those who still believe in the transformation of Africa, we believe that the next prize should go to the accountant who uncovers the most money stolen from Africa by its leaders.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University

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

I was in Brazil last week for the second meeting of African Intellectuals when I heard the news of Comrade Brother Chachage from one of our brothers on Tuesday morning. His passing was noted by many of the brothers and sisters at this meeting. It was in settings such as these where one could view the measure of the contribution of Chachage to the African liberation struggle, indeed the struggles against capitalism and imperialism.

I last saw the brother at the Walter Rodney commemoration event in January in Dar es Salaam. His presentation at this fora exposed his continued interest in the intersections of the struggles of the peoples of Africa at home and abroad.

I first met Chachage in 1981 when he was still a young editor at the Tanzania Publishing House in Dar es Salaam. I followed his career closely and remember working with him as a colleague on the sixth floor of the Arts and Sciences building. He was one of the pillars of UDASA (the trade union for academics) and he never compromised with the social science of imperialism. He was impatient with the chauvinism of the South African academic environment and returned to Dar after a short sojourn at the University of Cape Town.

Comrade brother Chachage has left a legacy that should be emulated by many young scholars. I am hoping that the present leadership of CODESRIA will seek to put together many of his unpublished papers so that they will be available to scholars internationally.

To his family I send our deepest condolences.

Guyanese activist and academic Walter Rodney, the author of ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ was not just a Guyanese figure. He was known worldwide, especially in Africa, where he enjoyed great popularity for his solidarity with the struggles of the working people. This year marks 25 years since his assassination and efforts are underway to commemorate the life of a man who became known as the ‘prophet of self emancipation’.

The year 2005 marks twenty-five years since Walter Rodney was assassinated in
Georgetown, Guyana. Walter Rodney was a tireless champion of the rights of working peoples everywhere and in his short life of thirty eight years he made his mark as one of the pre eminent thinkers of the 20th century.

When one reads his monograph, ‘World War II and the Tanzanian Economy’, (published by Cornell University, African Studies and Research Centre) one can get a sense of the kind of conditions into which Walter Rodney entered this world. This reflection on the war was also contained in a paper delivered by Walter Rodney in London on comparisons between Tanzania and Guyana under colonialism. War and the destruction of human lives by capitalism were constantly on the mind of Walter Rodney.

Secondary Education in Guyana

Walter Rodney was brought into this world in the midst of war, conceived by Guyanese working class activists who were very much part of the anti colonial struggles of the society. Rodney was born on March 23, 1942 in Bent Street, Georgetown, where he grew up and spent his childhood. After attending primary school, he won an open exhibition scholarship to Queen’s College, then one of the elite schools in the colony. Rodney grew up in a time of ferment in Guyana and he paid close attention to what was happening in his society while excelling in every area of life that he participated in. He was involved as a school cadet, as a debater, as a member of the sports team and was known to be a very good bridge and chess player. Rodney came to adulthood when the questions of the centrality of the working people in the future of the country were being debated (with words and with imperial intervention). Both of his parents were active in the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) led by Cheddi Jagan and were outspoken in their opposition to racism, colonialism and imperialism. Walter Rodney often attended political meetings with his mother and went around distributing anti-colonial literature himself.

Walter distinguished himself in high school and in 1960 won another open scholarship, this time to the University of the West Indies (UWI) campus at Mona, Jamaica. In Jamaica, he was an active supporter of Caribbean Unity and he traveled extensively in Jamaica supporting the West Indian Federation during the referendum of 1961. Three years later, he obtained a degree in history with First Class (top) Honors.

While as an undergraduate he was outspoken in the defense of the poor and his activities were monitored by the Jamaican police, who were afraid of the strident defense of the rights of ordinary people. As an undergraduate, he was already writing and contributing to scholarly journals on the issues of slavery and capitalism. In one particular essay entitled, “The Slave,” Walter brought out not only the humanity of the enslaved African, but the capacity to organize and rebel under the most brutal conditions.

Walter Rodney in London

In 1963, he received yet another scholarship, to study African History at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. At that period, the questions of decolonization in all parts of the world were being debated. The legacies of the post war agitation by Africans who were involved in the West African Students Union (WASU) had inspired a spirit of cooperation beyond national boundaries. In London he deepened his understanding of Pan Africanism and was in contact with students from Africa and the Caribbean. C. L. R. James provided the bridge between these communities. James had been a member of the International African Service Bureau (IASB) and had cooperated with George Padmore, W.E. B Dubois, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah in placing the decolonization question squarely before the British political leaders and peoples. Walter was a member of the group of Caribbean workers and students who studied and debated with C.L. R. James. These study sessions included the cream of the anti colonial youth who were being trained in Europe at that time.

In 1966, at the age of 24, Rodney received his PhD. His doctoral thesis was published in 1970 as ‘A History of the Upper Guinea Coast, 1545-1800’. Because of the scholarly breakthroughs in this study, Rodney’s work was published in the most distinguished Journals of African History and he made a name for himself as a pre - eminent African historian. It was while in London when he married Patricia.

Rodney and Tanzania

His first job in academia was an appointment as lecturer in history at the University of Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania, East Africa. At that time, Tanzania was the Headquarters of the OAU Liberation Committee. In 1964 the Zanzibar revolution had radicalized the politics of East Africa and in 1967 the Tanzanian government launched the Arusha Declaration. Che Guevara had also traveled through Tanzania on his way to fight in the Congo.

Returned to Jamaica

In 1968, he returned to Jamaica to lecture at Mona campus, his old university. Rodney’s second coming to Jamaica coincided with the rise of mass political activity on the island, activity in which he became deeply involved. He worked closely with poor people and “grounded” with Rastafarians in Kingston and other parts of the country. He was constantly under surveillance by the police but was not intimidated. The scholarly work of Rodney increased while he was publishing for journals, but he found time for working with the ordinary people. In this regard, Walter was the quintessential organic intellectual.

Rodney was very popular with the Jamaican masses, but his activism was frowned upon by the middle classes who felt that he was wasting his time with the Rastafari. At that time, the Rastafari were considered “outcasts” and “criminals.” The influence of Walter Rodney on the lyrics of Bob Marley can be seen from reading ‘Groundings’ and listening to the Album ‘Survival’ by Bob Marley. (See Walter Rodney, ‘Groundings With My Brothers’) In seeking to respect the culture of the people, Rodney participated in numerous sessions teaching the history of Africa in poor communities. For this, he provoked the wrath of the Jamaican government, which claimed that he was a threat to national security.

The year 1968 was historic in the uprisings all over the world. Walter Rodney attended the Black Writers Conference in Montreal in October 1968. On his return to Jamaica, the government banned Rodney from Jamaica. The JLP government sent him back to Canada on the same plane on which he had arrived. The ban resulted in major uprisings in Kingston. This was a demonstration of the love that the people had for him.
Students marched on government offices and ordinary people in Kingston, angry at the expulsion of the beloved “Brother Wally,” joined the demonstration, which eventually turned into a popular uprising. The event, which became known as the “Rodney affair,” resounded throughout the Caribbean. Some of the public presentations Rodney gave in Jamaica were published in a small book, ‘The Groundings with My Brothers’.

After his expulsion from Jamaica, Rodney spent time in Toronto, Canada and in this period traveled to Cuba. In early 1969 he returned to Tanzania, where he resumed teaching at the University of Dar es Salaam. At this time, The University of Dar es Salaam was a magnet for all of those in Africa thinking through the issues of liberation and freedom. These ideas were debated at the University of Dar es Salaam. It was in this intellectual milieu when he published his best-known work, ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’. This book broke with the Eurocentric conceptions of African history and immediately the book became one of the most widely-read and influential books on Africa and the third world in general.

In addition to his scholarly pursuits, Rodney was deeply involved in working with those dedicated to freedom and emancipation. He gave classes to the Workers at the Urafiki Textile Mill near the University and traveled on weekends to communal villages. Tanzania was then undergoing a revolutionary experiment, and it also served as the headquarters for many liberation movements from various parts of Africa. Rodney, who considered study and struggle inseparable, was involved in all of these activities.

He was central to the development of an intellectual tradition that became known as the Dar es Salaam School. His numerous writings on the subjects of socialism, imperialism, working class struggles and Pan Africanism and slavery contributed to a body of knowledge that came to be known as the Dar es Salaam School of Thought. Issa Shivji, Mahmood Mamdani, Claude Ake, Archie Mafeje, Yash Tandon, John Saul, Dan Nabudere, O Nnoli, Clive Thomas and countless others participated in the debates on transformation and liberation in the University. He traveled extensively throughout East Africa and was one of the founders of the History Teachers Workshop of Tanzania. This workshop assigned themselves the task of rewriting the text books for high school students in Tanzania. One of the results of these debates was the effort of the World Bank and western donors to prop up a conservative brand of economic theory in the University. By the end of the eighties, World Bank thinkers and consultants were blaming Walter Rodney for the radical thinking in the University of Dar Es Salaam.

Return to the Caribbean.

Walter was a teacher, a political activist, a father and husband. Two of his children, Kanini and Asha were born in Tanzania. His son, Shaka Rodney was born in Jamaica in 1968.

Walter always wanted to return to the Caribbean and he wanted his children to know Guyana. Hence in 1974 he moved with his family back. Initially, he was appointed as Professor of History at the University of Guyana. The government of Guyana, however, canceled the appointment. Because of his independence and clarity of ideas, the government thought that he would leave. Out of paid work, he refused to leave the country. Instead, over the next six years he threw himself into independent research and political organization. He increased his work as an international scholar, teaching and researching on a full time basis. Many did not understand how he could work full time as an activist in the Working Peoples Alliance (WPA) and remain committed as a serious scholar.

Walter threw himself into the study of the Guyanese working people and brought out a study of Guyanese plantations in the 19th century. He was involved in a three volume study of the Guyanese working people but before it was complete, he was assassinated on June 13, 1980. After his assassination, the first volume, ‘A History of the Guyanese Working People’, 1881-1905 was published by John Hopkins University Press. This book provided the historical foundations for the political movement he played a central role in founding and leading until his death, the Working People’s Alliance (WPA). More than anything else, the WPA was committed to the politics of reconciliation among all racial groups in Guyana, beginning with the working people.

The dominant theme in Rodney’s life and work, intellectual and political, is a deep and abiding commitment to the struggles of the working people everywhere for emancipation from all forms of oppression. It was the principle for which he lived, and the principle for which he died. His last major project was the writing of books for children. It was his view that only when children learnt proper history and respect for others that the struggles against racial insecurity could be overcome. Two children’s books were produced. His legacy remains an inspiration to lovers of justice and human dignity the world over.

Walter Rodney was assassinated on June 13, 1980. He had traveled one month earlier to Zimbabwe in Southern Africa to celebrate the independence of Zimbabwe. He had been under house arrest and the political leadership panicked when they learnt that he had met the Prime Minister and leaders of the Zimbabwean struggle.

From 1979 Rodney was under constant surveillance and close colleagues of Rodney were killed in 1979 (Ohene Kahama) and in 1980 (Edward Dublin). Finally, they killed him on June 13; murdered by a bomb concealed in a walkie-talkie. The man who handed the Walkie Talkie to Walter was whisked out of Guyana and protected by international imperialism until he expired nearly twenty years later.

His death shocked Guyanese of all racial groups, women, men, and youth. He had dedicated the latter part of his life to bridging the divisions between the people of Guyana only to end up paying with his life. Rodney was not just a Guyanese figure. He was also known worldwide, especially in the Caribbean and Africa, where he enjoyed great popularity for his solidarity with the struggles of the working people. It was for this reason Eusi Kwayana termed him as the ‘prophet of self emancipation’.

* Horace Campbell is chair of the Walter Rodney Commemoration Committee (http://www.rodney25.org/) Contact [email protected] to find out more about planned events.

* Please send comments to [email protected]