Fifty years after the first Afro-Asian meeting in Bandung in 1955, leaders from these regions met again to re-establish a spirit of co-operation. The meeting took place at a time of increased trade between countries of the South and when many African countries are starting to adopt “go east” policies. But will the vision of Bandung mean new trade rules based on equity and protection of weaker trading partners?

At the recently concluded meetings in Jakarta and Bandung to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first Afro-Asian meeting in Bandung in 1955, the President of Indonesia observed: “ It took fifty long years for this Conference to happen, but Asia and Africa have finally assembled here again.” Reflecting on the achievements of the first Conference (which was attended by, among others, President Soekarno of Indonesia, President Nasser of Egypt, Prime Ministers Chou En Lai and Jawaharlal Nehru of China and India respectively), the President of Indonesia went on to ask:

“Why did it take 50 years - a lifetime - for Asia and Africa to reconvene, after the success of the first Summit in 1955?

We must ask: Does the Bandung Spirit mean the same in 2005 as it did in 1955? If the Bandung spirit has served us well over the years, how can we adapt that spirit to today’s circumstances? And we must ask: now that Asia-Africa spirit is reconvened in great numbers and with robust confidence, how can we make it relevant? Relevant to us, and relevant to the world?

Against this note of expectations, it must be observed that the very fact that the Conference took place - and in a modest if not practical way succeeded in outlining the broad contours of political, economic and social cooperation between the two regions - is an important development. Only time will tell whether the Conference has succeeded in shifting the colonial and therefore contrived patterns of linkages from North-South to Africa-Asia and to South-South.

There can be little doubt, however, that trade and investment ties between Asia and Africa are growing at a faster pace than between North and South. The combined share of Africa and Asia in world trade since the 1990s has risen markedly, from about a fifth to over a quarter of world total. Secondly, trade among developing countries has become the most dynamic component of international trade. In the decade of the 1990’s, for example, trade among them grew at an annual average of 11 percent, by far exceeding the 6 percent growth in world trade. As a result, the share of intra-developing trade has expanded from a modest 8 percent to over 13 percent of the total over the same period. More than 40 percent of their exports of agriculture and manufactured products are now destined for each other’s markets. In consequence, the structure of their trade has altered dramatically: whereas two decades ago, primary commodities accounted for nearly 75 percent of their exports, they now account for less than 30 percent. Even for Africa, there has been a modest rise in the share of manufactured goods.

If Africa’s trade with Asia were to continue to grow at similar rates over the next two decades i.e. at just over 10 per cent annually, a massive diversification of Africa’s trade structure is likely to take place. This will not only significantly lessen its dependence on traditional markets of developed countries but also more importantly, re-orient its trade towards the more dynamic markets of Asia. It is therefore not surprising that an increasing number of countries in Africa are designing strategies and polices to take into account this prospect. Zimbabwe’s “Go East” policy, now reportedly under consideration by other countries in the region, is a good example of this trend. They are grounded in emerging complementarities induced by rapid growth in import demand from Asia and growth of Asian SMEs-led investments in Africa.

It is equally true that much of the expansion in trade, investment and technology transfers is autonomous i.e. market-driven and concentrated in a few sectors and countries. If the benefits of such expansion are to be widely shared, it will in all likelihood require much greater attention and involvement of the policy-makers of the two regions. If the emerging trends are to lead to more fundamental and qualitative changes in economic relations, a structure and a system of cooperation will have to be built away from donor-inspired frameworks of EPAS, AGOA and the like.

Regional and inter-regional efforts at cooperation have so far largely focused on the mutual gains from closer economic relations. Without greater commitment and efforts on the part of the political establishments of the respective continents, however, economic cooperation will, in all likelihood, continue to remain below the potential warranted by their complementarities. The New Strategy of Afro-Asian cooperation must accordingly be based on sustained political commitment to ensure its progress and implementation. This includes as close a harmonization of positions as possible in global negotiations on matters of environment, social justice, reforms of global institutions, international trade, investment and other development issues. At the national level, where the primary impetus for greater cooperation must be nurtured, greater effort needs to be made to raise awareness about the political importance of Afro-Asian cooperation.

Arrangements for improved Afro-Asian cooperation must perforce take into account the striking changes that have taken place in the global economic and political environment over the past fifty years. Many of these changes warrant new approaches and engagement of new actors in driving cooperation: for example, the role of technology, of the private sector and in particular the small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs), improved communications and the need for larger markets in the wake of new integrated production and distribution systems all need to be given considerably greater weight and attention than was the case fifty years ago.

The dramatic transformation of many economies in Asia has altered the scope for mutual cooperation distinctly in favor of increased inter and intra–regional cooperation. The emergence of ASEAN, China and India, among others, as important players on the global scene is beginning to reshape economic geography and the quality of trade relations as they intensify their cooperation with each other and with other developing countries. Likewise, rapid growth and demand for the products of Africa has spurred the interests of business and the investment community in Asia to forge fresh links with Africa.

The real challenge before the Afro-Asian policy-makers is to ensure that patterns of Asian-African trade does not replicate North-South linkages: it must, for example, be informed by new trade rules in which the fruits of value chain are equitably distributed; in which dependency of debtor-creditor relationship is largely absent; in which rules of origin encourage investments and technology transfers at source; and in which the weaker trading partners are protected. It is possible to conceive of a new paradigm of economic relations. But is the political leadership in the two regions really prepared to implement the vision of Bandung?

* Chandrakant Patel is the editor of the Seatini Bulletin. Seatini is the Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (http://www.seatini.org/) The latest edition of the Seatini Bulletin, ‘50 years after Bandung, Asia-Africa summit adopts a new pact’, contains a series of articles on the recent Bandung Summit. For more information and subscriptions, contact SEATINI, 20 Victoria Drive, Newlands, Harare, Zimbabwe, Tel: +263 4 792681, Ext. 255 & 341, Tel/Fax: +263 4 251648, Fax: +263 4 788078, email: [email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected]

The onslaught of the biotech industry is a modern day scramble for Africa, with genetically modified crops being promoted as the miracle cure to hunger and poverty with little analysis of their long term impact. The people of Africa and their governments must show solidarity, ask questions, and act.

The scramble for Africa is getting hotter today than it may have been during the Berlin Conference at which she was partitioned. The partitioning of Africa sowed the seeds of discord and conflict that we are reaping today. Today, certain concepts have been painstakingly constructed and foisted on the continent. And this has been done in order to have Africa so compromised that she would simply just beg to be colonised once more. We are talking about the onslaught by the biotech industry on the innards of this continent.

The siege is on. Many people imagine that the pressure on Africa to accept genetically modified grains or other crops as food aid ended with the widely known case with Zambia in 2002. That emblematic case rightly showed that every country has the sovereign right to determine what type of food to eat, irrespective of whether it is purchased in the market or is donated as aid. And it demonstrated to the world that the predicted catastrophe of Zambians starving never happened. The country thereafter recorded food surpluses, besides the fact that in the heat of the crisis the shortage was limited to sections of the country and there were supplies in other regions of traditional crops like cassava and millet that simply needed to be procured for the needy areas.

Genetically engineered food has been presented as the ultimate weapon against hunger in Africa and the world. This is also seriously suggested in the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), meaning that this may be the direction efforts will be concentrated in the years to come. African leaders have largely been co-opted into thinking this way because they are warned that since the so-called Green Revolution train left Africa standing at the station they should not miss the gene train. It has been noted that the Green Revolution required extensive chemical and equipment inputs and although food production increased in some areas, small scale farmers were marginalised, the environment took a beating and on the aggregate hunger was boosted in the world.

The next major push has manifested in the presenting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered cotton (Bt Cotton) as the solution. This cotton variety, which has been engineered to withstand certain pests and to be suitable for use of certain herbicides, has been planted in India, Indonesia, South Africa, etc. The biotech industry touts these as huge successes, but there are many reported cases where farmers have recorded lower yields, and have gone into debt. The manifold cases of failure of Bt Cotton are so well documented that we may not need to go into details here. Suffice to say that industry’s underhand push and shove has been vividly illustrated in the bribery scandal that rocked Indonesia where a prominent biotech industry bribed as many as 144 serving and retired government officials in order to have approval for the commercial cultivation of the variety.

Last year, some governments in West Africa pledged to embrace this same variety of cotton. The next point of call of the proponents of Bt Cotton is Tanzania. All these efforts have been made under the direction of the USAID, one of whose major goals is promoting the spread of GMOs in the world and pointedly working to "integrate GM into local food systems."

The push into Tanzania gathered momentum in 2002 when USAID began meeting with Tanzanian scientists to describe the potential of engineered foods. Some of these USA advocates were also the architects of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Nigeria in 2004 for a biotech programme managed by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.

The interesting thing about the Tanzanian case is that although cotton production was suspended in the southern part of Tanzania because of the spread of redball cotton disease in 1968, the country is currently experiencing cotton production surpluses. When this is coupled with the record low cotton price in the market, it becomes hard to see what arguments could be pushed for the genetically engineered variety of cotton.

Barring a change of heart, the government of Tanzania has already buckled under intense pressure and the country is set to join Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Burkina Faso and Kenya in conducting confined field trials (CFT) for genetically modified crops. These so-called field tests will eventually open the nation’s doors to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

As already noted, food aid is one of the main vehicles for putting GMOs on the platter of the world. Do we call that charity? Not so. One issue about some of these food aids is that citizens in the recipient country may not even know that their country receives food aid. In 2003 Nigeria received 11000.6 Metric Tons of soy meal as food aid from the United States, under the US title “Food for Progress”. Taking into account that around 60% of soybeans in the US is genetically modified we strongly suspect Nigeria has been receiving GM products without any prior information to the Government, and with our population completely uninformed on this. In 2004 the country was billed to receive 10,500 tons of rice.

People around the world have been vocal is calling for caution in the introduction of genetic engineering in food crop propagation. The biotech industry with their powerful lobby has stoutly resisted compliance with the precautionary principle enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety. The precautionary principle as the name implies requires that countries apply caution when considering or opening doors to bringing GMOs into their environment. One of the reasons for this is that the safety of GMOs has not been unequivocally proven.

The biotech industry thrives on subverting the ability of people to protect themselves and their environments. They do this through deliberate contamination and illegal release of genetically modified crops into the environment. In fact, when environments are acutely contaminated, nations have no option but to legalise the illegality. Many suspect that this may have been the case with Brazil. Also, many reports from North America show that when conventional and organic farms are contaminated by genetically modified neighbours, the innocent farmers are made liable and are forced to pay compensations to the polluter instead of the other way round. This is cowboy justice.

The argument usually put forward as a response to the insistence on caution is that GMOs have not harmed anyone. But how can we know that GMOs have not harmed anyone if there are no serious studies on the populations consuming it? How do we prove damage to human health when there is little or no serious research over the toxicological, long term impacts of GM food? How do we know whether an allergy is caused by a GM crop where adequate tests have not been developed to prove the link between the GMO and the allergy? The large number of questions existing over the risks of GM crops clearly show that the world is not ready for its release until the questions are properly answered.

An example of this need is the attitude of the European Commission, which is about to start new studies to examine the potential “cumulative long-term effects” genetically modified (GMO) crops might have on human and animal health in the longer term. This is coming eight years after the EU first allowed biotech crops. If the European Commission is now commissioning such studies, it shows that we still have a lot to learn from the risks of GMOs. And if that is the approach taken by Europeans, we have every reason to pause and think.

But, the biotech industry is like a bull set loose in a china shop and needs all the controls possible. Recent reports of contamination of food supplies with illegal varieties should worry everyone. We refer to the case of Latin America where corn varieties with StarLink which are not authorised for human consumption have been found in food aid sent there in 2002 and also in 2005. Where they cannot deny the presence of the illegal grain the response of the biotech industry has been that the illegal corn is okay for consumption. No apologies.

Africa received huge quantities of corn from the USA as food aid. From reports Africa was the top worldwide recipient of US corn as food aid in 2004. Three African countries, Angola (62.400 MT), Tanzania and Burundi (28.000 MT) were among the top five. Other African countries included Uganda (20.900 MT), and Kenya (13,600 MT). We recall here that after the refusal of GMO grains by Zambia and Zimbabwe the shipments of food aid to these countries in 2003 and 2004 dropped to zero.

The push continues even though proponents like the USAID recognises that GM corn sent to Africa as food aid “would be expected to perform poorly in African growing conditions” and is “not well suited for planting” . Despite this, the maize keeps coming to Africa. If one country rejects it, it is channelled to another.

We have many reasons to worry. Another reason is that the industry does not have GMOs under control and the risks to health and environment are unknown. A few weeks ago it became public that an untested experimental crop, from Swiss agrochemicals multinational group, Syngenta, called Bt10, has been illegally planted from 2001 until 2004 in the USA. This illegal variety contains antibiotic resistance marker genes, which the British Medical Association recommended not to commercialise due to the potential risks for human health. The EU, Japan and South Korea have already protested against this and are taking measures to test the grains in order to isolate and destroy the illegal variety. All Syngenta could say is that their 1000 tons of Bt10 food entered the EU accidentally. Initially Syngenta had claimed that Bt10 and Bt11 (an already commercialised variety of GM cron) were virtually identical, and therefore there were no risks, but later on it was verified as false since Bt10 contained antibiotic resistant marker genes, while that was not the case with the Bt11 type. What other areas have confused the biotech industry?

What measures are taken by our Governments in Africa? Africa continues to be the biggest corn food aid recipient, not only of grain, but also corn soy blend and cornmeal. Are we going to continue to let our population be at risk and consume these GM products?

Genetic pollution is not comparable to oil or other environmental pollution. Chemical pollution may finally dissipate after a thousand or so years, but genetic pollution on the other hand grows exponentially with time. They simply do not diminish. The problem expands.

With the huge contamination of the world’s corn and soya stock and the risk that it may become irreversible, the biotech industry is now seriously working on commercialising GM wheat and rice. Indeed it is reported that China may release GM rice into the market in the next year. With the bulk of rice in Nigeria coming from Asia, it is a matter of time before GM rice from China floods our supply lines. This is inevitable, unless something is done, and quickly too.

Just to think about all this makes us feel really scared about the food that is placed on our plates, and the seeds that we may be planting. If we blindly follow the biotech agri-business path we are bound to find that all traditional food crops will be genetically engineered in no time and as we have seen already, when the plague hits, the chance of recovery will be slim.

This is the time for everyone, Nigerian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Camerounian, or Swazi to stand up and defend our collective right to live in dignity and to choose what seeds to plant and what foods to eat. We cannot afford to place our future in the hand of an industry that has lost control of its Frankenstein. Our governments, if they represent us, must begin now to ask questions, and to act. Tomorrow will be too late.

* Nnimmo Bassey is Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action and Friends of the Earth Africa GMO campaign co-ordinator. An ERA/TWN African Conference was held 21-23 March 2005 on Genetically Modified Organisms in Lagos, Nigeria and drew the attendance of over 50 participants from 16 countries. It focussed on the enormous and unrelenting assault and the real threat of a GMOs invasion of Africa. The conference brought together civil society groups, government representatives, scientists and academia from Nigeria, Africa, and from Asia.

* Please send comments to [email protected]

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]

Burundian President Domitien Ndayizeye appointed on Tuesday Jean Marie Ngendahayo as the minister of interior, ending weeks of disagreement between the president and the former main rebel group, the CNDD-FDD. Ngendahayo is a member of the CNDD-FDD or Conseil national pour la défense de la démocratie-Forces pour la défense de la démocratie. His appointment follows talks last week in Pretoria, South Africa, between Ndayizeye and CNDD-FDD leader Pierre Nkurunziza, who is also the minister for good governance in Burundi's transitional government.