A month after its disputed presidential election, Kenya remains deeply divided and unstable. Politically motivated killings, hackings and gang rapes continue in the towns and in volatile country districts. The economy is faltering. The latest bigwig to attempt to mediate between the government of President Mwai Kibaki and the opposition Orange Democratic Movement of Raila Odinga is a former UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, who arrived in Nairobi on January 22nd.

This study focuses on the social protection aspects of children’s property and inheritance rights in southern and eastern Africa. It discusses the relationship between HIV and AIDS and agriculture, food security, and rural livelihoods (including children’s property and inheritance rights). It also considers factors that render children’s property rights more vulnerable than adults’ property rights. The paper reviews literature on social protection of children, emphasizing historical developments, types of child social protection, and recipients and providers of child social protection.

The Central African Republic's prime minister and his government have resigned amid a general strike by unions demanding the payment to civil servants of months of salary arrears. Elie Dote, who became prime minister in 2005, announced his resignation on Friday as parliament prepared to vote on a censure motion against him.

Fighters loyal to Laurent Nkunda, a renegade general, have signed a peace deal with the government of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and an armed tribal group. Joseph Kabila, the DRC president, attended the signing in Goma, the capital of eastern North Kivu province, which has suffered heavy fighting in recent months. The accord on Wednesday followed two weeks of negotiations.

"We cannot stop life for the sake of two people who are not in agreement" said a twenty-three year old Kenyan woman in Nairobi. The two men in question - Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga - both claim to have been elected president in the national vote on 27 December 2007. The incumbent Kibaki was sworn into a second term of office, and Odinga publicly challenges the legitimacy of the vote count.

Apart from a few promises from the EASSy consortium not much seems to be happening with the submarine cable project. The East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) has long been punted as the solution to East Africa’s international bandwidth woes – promising to bring affordable fiber connectivity to one of most bandwidth starved areas in the world. The project last year gained support from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank.

AZUR Development and the Reseau Sida Afrique based in Congo which includes 230 institutional and individual members in 17 African francophone countries. The project aims to set up a media campaign and system of alert on malaria and the creation of a partnership between the press and member organizations of the Africa AIDS Network in 10 countries, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Mali, Togo, Ivory Coast, Niger, Djibouti, Cameroon, and Benin.

The Supreme Court in Zambia has rejected the government's demands to deport a British satirists, Roy Clarke, for reportedly insulting the Zambian President, Levy Mwanawasa in 2004. Clarke, a satirical columnist of the privately owned daily 'The Post', was pursued by the state after he had referred President Mwanawasa as "mawelewele", meaning "a foolish elephant" as well as named two of his ministers "baboons".

In their attempts to reduce the rate of HIV/AIDS infection in the country, Rwanda authorities have voluntarily asked all uncircumcised men to be circumcised. Health experts proved that circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual infection of the disease. Most people wonder how the government will succeed in its new campaign, especially in a pre-dominantly Christian society where very few people go through the operation.

South African AIDS activists have called on doctors and nurses to act in the best interests of HIV-positive pregnant women and their unborn children by not waiting any longer for an official directive to switch from single antiretroviral (ARV) treatmentto more effective dual treatment for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT).

For 14 years, Mathabo Mabekhla was one of Lesotho's most successful entrepreneurs. Her ladies' clothing boutique sold dresses, blouses and slacks imported from neighbouring South Africa, and boasted a client base that included cabinet ministers and their wives. But dwindling sales forced her to shut down last year, for which she blames the country's growing community of Chinese retailers. "Chinese are selling very cheap and not good quality things, and they are killing Basotho businesses," said Mabekhla, 59.

It is a question almost as old as the aid industry itself: How to avoid waste and inefficiency when dozens of humanitarian agencies are working alongside each other in a rapidly evolving emergency? Two years ago the key humanitarian policy decision making body, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, endorsed the cluster approach, the UN’s answer to the problem.

Tapera Kapuya draws parallels between Kenya's post-elections crisis and the political struggles in Zimbabwe, and stresses the need for sound democratic structures

Since its December 27th General Election, Kenya has been experiencing a wave of political conflicts that should serve as a lesson to Zimbabwe’s pro-democracy movement, as these problems are rooted in the same democratic deficit. Much of the media coverage on Kenya seems to have been consumed by a focus on the ensuing violence with very marginal efforts to investigate issues at the centre of this conflict: absence of democratic institutions and the shortfalls of ‘executive’ fundamentalism. With Zimbabwe facing a potential election in March, a look into the Kenyan scenario would be helpful in avoiding a worse repeat. This is necessary in order to build agency, around a proper constitutional reform process, whose outcome will insulate Zimbabwe from the problems those in Kenya are going through and those experienced in past elections. Since the Kenyan election, over a thousand people have since lost their lives and 250 000 more have been displaced. As in most post-colonial conflicts, much of these tensions have taken an ugly ethno-tribal character.

According to observers, the elections themselves were held in a manner that can be deemed ‘free and fair’. In the run-up to the vote, all political parties had relative space to organize and campaign. Kenya has a growing free media, and unlike Zimbabwe does not have such notorious legislations as the Public Order and Security Act or the Access to Information and Protection of Publicity Act. The Election Day itself was rather peaceful.

The opposition, Orange Democratic Movement, won majority of the parliamentary seats. The ruling party would be announced as having won the Presidential vote. Problems were then reported in the tallying of the vote, throwing the Mwai Kibaki’s victory into dispute. The Chairperson of the Kenya Electoral Commission has since acknowledged that there was manipulation of the vote.

Independent observers have suggested that the Election was too close. The US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Rannesberger, is quoted saying whoever won the Election, did so by a margin between 23 000 to 100 000 votes. And that is where part of the problem and why building Constitutional frameworks that harness the spirit of nation building lie.

Kenya like Zimbabwe, has its Lancaster House Constitution, drawn in 1963 as a settlement document when the British colonists were withdrawing from the territory to allow for Kenya’s independence. Consequently, this Constitution, now with its fair share of amendments, has not abhorred well for a transformational state, therefore allowing for dictatorship tendencies to set in. The Daniel Moi regime, would master repression under the shoulder of Constitutional righteousness. As it relates to Elections, state administration and governance, Kenya has a winner-takes-all/loser-leaves-all system. This system is what we have in Zimbabwe. What this means is that, even if one wins an election by one vote, the opinions of the section of the voters who would have lost will not find political representation or expression. It is a system that excludes ‘losers’ and, as we are learning from Kenya, this provides a base for fuelling other deep seated tensions. It questions the legitimacy of the winner as a representative of all interest groups.

As with Zimbabwe, Kenya’s Presidential parliamentary system places more power in the executive, including power to legislate. The executive has a monopoly over national resource distribution, with the legislature being reduced to a powerless club of sessional critics or patronage driven loyalists. With a Constitution that bestows enormous powers on the executive, and because there are no constitutional provisions to ensure equitable distribution of the country’s resources, perceived loss of the vote carries a heavy meaning for those who lose. In regions and amongst groups perceived to be less prioritized by the victors, this arrangement fuels anger. It means another five years of being isolated, another five years of exclusion, another five years of poverty.

The disproportionate powers the executive have compromises the others arms of government. The legislature and judiciary become overly dependent on the executive, undermining their role to provide for checks and balances. Executive accountability erodes. Corruption and its attendant defense systems set in: with regionalism and identity cleavages taking centre stage in national determination. Regions or communities without a ‘representative’ in power suffer. Democratic transformation in Kenya, as in Zimbabwe, gained its momentum in the demands for Constitutional reform, with Kibaki defeating Moi on the banner of ‘a people driven Constitution’. Kenyans are yet to see it, two Presidential terms down the line. Most of those in civil society would be absorbed into the luxurious benefits of the State and soon forget the principled demands of institutionalizing democracy, and facilitating the writing down by the people of a framework under which they want to be governed – a Constitution. The disasters are what we are seeing today: those who feel excluded and watching their vote becoming meaningless are resorting to ‘all means necessary’ to reclaim the vote from the gutters. The death toll keeps rising as neighbor turns against neighbor, and identity replaces values in deciding who is a friend or foe.

The primacy of identity politics becomes breeding ground for the most deprived tendencies. It fosters an identity based nationalism which regresses democratic values necessary for nation building. As we have seen in Kenya, the electoral loss/victory soon takes the form of one identity grouping having defeated the other and the nation dividing along ethno-tribal lines. Ethnic identity is now equated with political identity.

Is Zimbabwe the next Kenya?
A similar threat confronts Zimbabwe, risking the negation of genuine national debate on democratic transformation. Given our history, and the need to foster a common identity in our diversity, a political system and Constitutional framework which allows for this is critical. The incumbent regime has set the country back into the socio-psychology of identity in determining who can participate or not in national discourse. Our white population has been effectively wiped out from being Zimbabwean. Even in the most liberal of opposition spaces, they are regarded with suspicion and are politely censored from making public representation. Zimbabweans of Indian descend or Mixed-race have been purged from public political participation. Amongst the black population, it has begun to matter whether one is Zezuru, Karanga or Ndebele. As if this is not enough, gender, even within these clusters of divisions, has been so entrenched to qualify exclusion, with our women compatriots having to endure structural abuse to assert the mere fact that they too are citizens. Human character is secondary in the estimation of man and women. These identities inform people’s perceptions of who is excluded or included in the economic, social or political benefit – be they in the patronage of the State, or in civil society and opposition or business.

The violence that is manifest in Kenya, though based on identity, is reflective of failures in the country’s Constitution and institutions to be responsive to the crises of nation building. Many Kenyans have doubts about the validity of country’s Constitution, especially the process under which it was written. This is of relevance to Zimbabwe, where sadly, the Kenyan case history could be vengefully repeating itself.

The MDC has consistently argued that a new Constitution must be put in place before the elections. Yet it seems to be doing everything to confirm its participation in the electoral process before this key demand has been met. Gabriel Chaibva, spokesperson of one faction of the MDC, in an interview with VOA is categorical about participating in the March elections. Nelson Chamisa, the spokesperson for the other faction, suggested the same in his widely condemned rally speech where he threatens Kenyan style protests should Mugabe do what he knows best: manipulate the vote.

Despite this grandstanding and pontification about a new Constitution, the MDC – in itself a product of the Constitutional movement – does not seem to place value in the importance of a democratic, public participatory process of Constitution making. The Constitution it is fighting for in the talks is a product of ‘four wise men’, determining the permanent fate of 13million of their fellow citizens! The Constitution they are proposing has not been seen or shared by Zimbabweans. Speaking during a visit to the US end last year, leader of one of the factions, Morgan Tsvangirai is quoted in an interview suggesting that ‘we have graduated from process’, in deviation from the principles. Welshman Ncube, the Secretary General of the other faction and himself a professor at law, in his speech to Parliament in support of the widely condemned 18th Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution of Zimbabwe went to depth to explain that the principles of an ‘open, transparent and participatory manner’ in Constitution making were not a ‘fundamentalist decree’. On the 3rd of January, Morgan Tsvangirai published an opinion piece suggesting that a Transitional Constitution had been finalized, with the sticking point being that of implementation. The nation or even members of the MDC are yet to see it. Our experience has been a bitter one: reforms made in the dark, excluding national dialogue are partly the reason why we are where we are today: a reason for us to be very afraid of the Kenyan ‘demons’ visitation or better still of being ‘Kibakised’. But what is even more frightening, if it is to be believed, is the revelation by Nathaniel Manheru a columnist for government controlled Herald who wrote in last Saturday’s edition that the so called ‘transition’ constitution agreed by Zanu PF and the MDC is nothing more than the 2000 government draft that lost the referenda.

The South African Model Model countries such as South Africa do offer learning curves on national reconstruction. Emerging from its brutal past, as the rest of post-colonial Africa, South Africa underwent a process of Constitutional building that pitched public participation at the centre of Constitutional development. Public opinion and debate would take place, with its Constitutional Assembly, civil society and political parties opening the nation to dialogue with itself. What resulted was amongst other things, an electoral and political system that is modestly inclusive, guaranteeing proportional representation, and allowing all views brought to an electoral contest and receiving electoral support, to find a measure of expression.

Greater devolution of power in provinces and local municipalities has created a system of greater accountability and service delivery. There is freedom of electoral contest and democratic expression. The result has been limited violent contestation of election results and a harmonious existence of political formations and civic groups despite their competing ideologies or perspectives. Those who lose an election will still salvage their proportional representation of the vote.

The National Constitutional Assembly has advocated for a similar system of Constitution making based primarily on the principles of ‘public participation, openness and transparency’. Its 2001 draft addresses some of the key issues of proportional representation and institutions that safe-guard democracy: Electoral Commission, Human Right Commission, Gender Commission etc. The draft also argues for a strong legislature and judiciary and the effective separation of powers between the varying arms of the State. Parliament, elected through a mixed system of constituency based and party-proportional representation would elect the leader of government who would account to it. This system was drawn out of the views gathered from ordinary Zimbabweans, by both the NCA and the government’s own Constitutional Commission. The government draft presented to the referendum in 2000 ignored all these views, and was wisely rejected. In arguing that elections should be deferred until such a time as there is a Constitutional and electoral framework, the NCA aims to pre-empt the possibility of national degeneration.

The Kenyan scenario points to the things we can avoid and toward the importance of working on developing and putting in place structural systems that ensure barbarism and exclusion are not part of our politics and national life. The democracy movement must learn that short-cuts to freedom lead to spurious regimes and the entrenchment of anti-democratic practices. The MDC, carrying with it the mantle of the nation’s hope for change, must rethink its options. The current opportunism and intellectual laziness that is becoming so pervasive should be stopped and give way to the principled call for a just and free nation.

* Tapera Kapuya is with the National Constitutional Assembly. He writes in his personal capacity. He can be reached on [email][email protected]

The Transatlantic Post-Doctoral Fellowship for International Relations and Security is open to candidates who have recently received their doctorate in social and political sciences or economics and whose research focuses on topics of international relations and security. The application deadline is 15 February 2008.

This is an invitation to NGOs to register for a short on-line survey (10 minutes) launched by the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group (IEG). The survey is being conducted by IEG to get the feedback from NGOs on the Bank's work on land reform, policy and administration in client countries. IEG is an independent unit of the World Bank Group (which reports directly to the Board of Directors) established to review systematically and comprehensively, after project completion, all Bank lending operations, and to evaluate their contribution to the development process in member countries.

Secure access to land is a crucial factor in the eradication of hunger and poverty. Providing secure access to land is frequently not easy, and it is particularly complex in situations following violent conflicts. Getting the answer right can go directly to the matter of achieving sustainable peace. Addressing emergency humanitarian needs after a conflict requires finding places for people to live in the short-term under conditions that provide safety for them and which do not threaten the rights to land of others.

From South Africa , the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum (ZEF) has today, 23.01.08 issued a press statement entitled 'The SADC Initiated Talks: A Let Down for Most Zimbabweans'. ZEF calls upon President Mbeki to give a frank indication of who is responsible for the failure of the talks when reporting back to the SADC Troika. It urges him to do everything in his power to deal with the stumbling block and salvage the negotiations and ensure Zimbabweans in the Diaspora get the
opportunity to vote in the forthcoming elections.

According to media reports, the Kenyan Police has used tear gas and live ammunition to fire on the crowds with at least 12 deaths reported in Nairobi and Kisumu. This has led to security restrictions on aid and staff movements hindering assessments and response for most of the week.

Since the December elections in Kenya an estimated 600 people have died as a result of the unrest, and another 100,000 at least have been displaced. The violence erupted after incumbent Mwai Kibaki was sworn into office in the midst of acusations that the election was rigged, led by opposition candidate Raila Odinga. International observers have called the election "flawed." In this interview Firoze Manji speaks on post election violence in Kenya as a symptom of long term debates within Kenya surrounding the constitution, and a legacy of Kenya's history under colonialism.

Alain Leveque makes a case for the Rodrigues Island's self-determination from Mauritius

Three hundred years ago, men and women in flesh and bone, were kidnapped from their villages in Guinea; trapped and captured like animals in Senegal; ripped from their families in Mozambique; herded aboard slave ships in Madagascar, and shipped across the Indian Ocean to this part of the World. Those who survived ended their days labouring like beasts of burden for foreign masters. They would never see Africa again. To the rest of the world, these unfortunate individuals lend a human face to the dark-end of a fading history; to us Rodriguans, they were much more – they were our great great … grand fathers and mothers.

Historical Perspective

To get to the inmost heart of our liberation struggle from Mauritius, it is sufficiently important to briefly revisit Rodrigues’ timeline. There are differing versions of history. We have the slave-driver’s version according to the slave-driver; we have the slave’s version according to the slave; we have the versions of those who see world conquest as Jus ad bellum (just cause for war) and the versions of those who do not. From this hazy distance, when we search for a truth buried somewhere in a dead past, among so many other diluted, distorted and deformed half-truths – we can only take a leap of faith.

The name Rodrigues was eponymously plucked from Diego Rodriguez, a Portuguese sailor whose brief visit in 1528 heralded the coming of the Europeans. There is some evidence that Chinese Mariners, Arab and Malay traders, and Pirates may have stumbled on the island as far back as the tenth century. No record of any indigenous population exists. By 1638, a council on nearby Reunion Island was already administering Rodrigues as a French possession. It remained a French colony until British troops stormed the island in 1809. It was then governed as a separate British territory until May 30, 1814, when its administration was transferred to Mauritius.

During the Second World War, 300 of our compatriots, my father among them, from our tiny active population, supported the British in Tobruk and El Alamein.
Yet, in March 1968, we were bound to Mauritius against our will, and marooned in the colonially imposed ‘forced marriage’ of unitary rule. Having offloaded Mauritius, the British in Rodrigues simply packed their bags, shot their dogs, and took off.

In effect, we became the whipping boy, left behind at the mercy of new masters, to foot the bill for the transgressions of others.

Our history has been one long painful struggle against non-consensual governments: from French possession, French colony, English possession, dependency of the colony of Mauritius, ‘district’ of Mauritius, to Island region of Mauritius today.

Neo-colonial labels replaced colonial tags; alien masters took over from foreign rulers, but for our people – the dysphoric cycle grinds on: Adieu l’esclavage – Bonjour l’esclavage (farewell slavery – good morning slavery.)

Political Domination

By 1960, the decolonization of Mauritius and Rodrigues islands had already been decided. When subsequent negotiations and constitutional conferences were held in London and Mauritius in 1961, ‘65 and ‘67, Rodriguans were deliberately excluded. The pretext was that we did not have any political parties or organizations.

During that epoch, the ultraconservative Mauritian party, PMSD (Parti Mauritian ‘Social Democrat’), had been running a campaign of scaremongering, along ethnic lines in Rodrigues. Besides promises of freedom, its leader, Duval, had managed to convince our people that the Devil and his Dam would descend on Rodrigues after the British pulled out. Not surprisingly, in their first contact with the ballot box in 1967, an overwhelming ninety-eight percent of Rodriguans voted against being attached to Mauritius. Sadly, the express views of our people did not take precedence over the urgent conspiracy to annex our homeland.

Of note, in 1967, Rodriguans were not offered a choice between freedom and colonialism; we had to face the horns of this dilemma: British colonization or Mauritian occupation … a foreign ruler or an alien master. Not too dissimilar to Indochina’s quandary: Japanese occupation or French colonization.

Rodriguans did not wish to continue living under a British heel, anymore than we craved the prospect of living under a Mauritian one. And we certainly did not fancy the idea of uprooting our families, leaving the bones of ten generations of our ancestors buried in Rodrigues, to sail into exile in foreign lands. Nonetheless, in those blood-curdling days in Mauritius, people were dying in the streets; we feared being carved up next. The chilling reality of the times saw many discard their possessions, homes and lands, to escape to Canada, Australia, France, England, South Africa and other parts of the World. For some, this still cuts close to the bone.

In 1968, before the ink was dry on a unilaterally drafted Independence constitution; baton-wielding police hoisted the Mauritian flag atop Port Mathurin under a cloud of tear-gas. Rodriguans became unwilling Mauritian citizens overnight. On occasions when our stout-hearted brothers and sisters resisted, British troops were summoned to put down our protest.

Admittedly, after the British left in 1968, our hands were not cut off. All the same, Rodrigues was reduced to a Mauritian fiefdom, where marginalization soon became institutionalized. We found ourselves with higher unemployment, higher cost of living, higher infant mortality, higher primary education drop-out rate and lower literacy and living standard than Mauritius. Discrimination, domination and exclusion became the norm. Today, force majeure continues to buttress the status quo.

In 1976, a separate ministry was set up to deal with Rodrigues’ specificities. So far, only a handful of ‘moderate’ Rodriguans, with their wings clipped, have ever been co-opted to this portfolio. What’s more, no Rodriguan has filled this post in the past ten years, and the likelihood of it ever being different, seems remote. Mauritian politicians arbitrarily choose the minister for Rodrigues and politically-appointed Mauritian bureaucrats govern Rodrigues by proxy – irrespective of our votes.

In 1991, when Rodriguans, had the temerity to demand more control over their own affairs, a token island Council was put in place to placate them. Fellow travellers and party hacks were handpicked and allowed to make recommendations on local matters. But, when the Council, though toothless, began to fuel nationalist pride among those with ‘ideas above their station’ – it was unceremoniously disbanded in 1996.

In 2001, following a long sustained struggle, the idea of Autonomy for the ethnically diverse people of Rodrigues, was first mooted. Finally, 170 years after the abolition of slavery, far reaching devolution from the centralized rigidities of Mauritian control came into sight … albeit briefly.

In 2002, after much fanfare, after the spin-doctors had recited their precision-tooled sound bites, after the pig-headed and the big-headed had had their photo opportunities – ‘Autonomy’ arrived. The names were changed from Island Council to Regional Assembly and from Councillors to Commissioners. A few buildings were erected here and there, a few factotums got to fly to Mauritius, there to sit, silent and still, on government back-benches and a plague of introduced Chameleons overran Rodrigues. That was roughly the extent of it.

Mauritian ministers continued to micro-manage our affairs and we got to elect the lackeys who run their errands. The central government retained all legislative and executive powers and practically everything else. Eventually, even its rusted-on supporters had to concede that our promised ‘Autonomy’ was a dud.

When we peek one inch beyond the chic sophistry, we see one people still ruling another, not only without that other’s consent – but against its will.
Loie sans partage (absolute rule) is alive and well in Rodrigues; it can be seen any day of the year, flexing its muscle and beating its chest in Port Mathurin.

At the risk of belabouring the obvious, one cannot consider limited administrative discretion to be Autonomy, anymore, than one can seriously consider a piglet to be an elephant.

The colonial legacy of authoritarian bureaucratic dictatorship was never dismantled in Rodrigues – it was reinforced. External bureaucratic-warlords command and our people obey without question. The chief of police, the judge, the minister for Rodrigues, all the principal heads of department, all the lawyers, all the policy makers, all those who actually govern Rodrigues – all come from Mauritius.

When our Creole language, in which is stored the experiences and struggles of our people, is spurned in our Assembly – when seventy percent of our people are disqualified from political office, because they do not speak a foreign language –
when half-nourished, half-educated and half-free schoolchildren are forced to learn three languages – when there is a dearth of educational material on our African culture in a curriculum designed for us, by others – when our children mimic cultures, beliefs, languages and traditions dissimilar to their own, in order to validate their sense of self-worth – when our civil service which represents ninety percent of our educated, is effectively gagged from political discourse – when our people speak of Independence in tentative muffled whispers, for fear of government spies – when everything is controlled by external forces, there is no freedom … only domination.
Constitutional guarantees of no ruling caste, of no second class citizens, of consent of the governed to govern, seem to apply to all, except in respect to Rodriguans.

The Rodriguan citizen is like a beleaguered character, hopelessly trapped inside an eternal nightmare of suppressed resentment, being forced to watch helplessly, as his culture crumbles into dust.

Mauritius speaks of human rights at the United Nations, pledges solidarity with SADC (Southern African Development Committee) and the African Union – yet retains its own Colonial Dominion. The double-edged morality is staggering.

Self-Determination

Much water and much blood have flowed into the Indian Ocean, since our brothers and sisters in Madagascar, India, Sri Lanka, Comoros, Africa, Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius were freed (at least in theory) from the wretched web of Colonialism.
But for us Rodriguans, the on-going ignominy of Mauritian Occupation still haunts our daily lives.

In the 21st century, the island of Rodrigues, one of this regions’ last remaining manifestations of Colonialism has become the ‘sick man’ of the Indian Ocean, forever bonded to an artificial welfare drip, and still begging a foreign kleptocrat to let us go.

It is argued that because on May 30th 1814, Britain dubbed Rodrigues a dependency of the colony of Mauritius, and administered it as part of the island of Mauritius, it automatically became an integral and indivisible territory of Mauritius. Therefore, any dismemberment of territory before independence would have been illegal under international law.

If we follow this line of reasoning, then we also recognise that all colonially-imposed arrangements are forever binding on all future generations. And when this thinking is extended retrospectively, then, Mussolini’s 1936 laws could still be cited today, as justification to go on bedevilling the lives of Ethiopians, forever.

During Mad-Dog-Morgan’s governorship of Jamaica, looting and rape were the arrangements of the day. As one would reasonably expect, when Morgan the pirate left, his arrangements left with him. The British themselves snatched Rodrigues from the French at the point of a bayonet hooked-up to a gun; likewise, any arrangements they made during their rule became null and void – the very minute they left.

There was never any 11th Commandment, which accorded Britain divine-right to bequeath our lives, our lands and our country to Mauritius, for time without end.
Our people were not Mauritius’ or anyone else’s private property. We were not cattle to be handed over from one master to another to another.

Unitary rule was part and parcel of British colonial policy. As a result, despite underlying divisions among different geographical ethnic groups, territories were artificially forced into a unitary state. For example, New Zealand was administered as a dependency of the colony of New South Wales; islands of the Caribbean were grouped together willy-nilly; Seychelles was administered as part of Mauritius;
There were plans afoot to group all British East-African colonies under a federation. And it was only the selfless vetoes of India’s leaders that saved Burma from being administered as part of India. Unfortunately, Rodrigues did not have a Ghandi, or a Jinnah or a Nehru; we had Duval, demagoguery and double-cross a go-go.

The simple truth, however unpalatable, is when colonial rule ended in 1968, the island of Rodrigues had a population, and that island belonged to that population, and was not up for grabs.

On March 12th 1968, there should have been two proud islands, side by side, in free association, both celebrating their freedom. Alas, there was pride on one side of the Indian Ocean and humiliation on the other. On the gloomy anniversary of that miserable day, some Rodriguans still hold a minute’s silence … and remember.

The flaw in the dismemberment argument is that it is predicated on the false premise that Rodrigues was a legitimate territory of Mauritius prior to Independence. This was never the case. Mauritius never discovered a terra nullius Rodrigues; it never captured Rodrigues by conquest; the British never wrested Rodrigues from the French in 1814 simply to give it to Mauritius; Rodriguans never surrendered their individual sovereignty and their territorial integrity to a ‘Pax Mauritiana’ – Moreover, the Rodriguan nation never consented to be part of, or governed by Mauritius.

State sponsored propaganda, unremittingly repeated and embedded in school children as fact, is extremely difficult to unlearn. The untainted truth is Rodrigues was part of the British Empire until 1968; today, it is an annexed country under Occupation.
It is no more a territory of Mauritius, than Hercules is a son of Zeus.

Whether Britain gifted Rodrigues to Mauritius in 1968, as it gave Eritrea to Ethiopia or whether Mauritius opportunistically annexed it, is neither here nor there.
Whatever deal, whatever collusion took place between Britain and its Mauritian colonial minister, without our consent was illegal and immoral.
It was akin to a departing pirate rewarding his faithful slave, with a slave of his own.

It was the shameless advancement of one country’s territorial ambition at the expense of its neighbour. Mauritius added 130,000 miles of our EEZ (exclusive economic zone) to its territory, and our people lost their homeland and their dignity.
The United Kingdom, Mauritius and the International community clearly understand this, as I do, as you do, as we all do … It was wrong then – It is wrong now!

In 1968, our economic or political unpreparedness should never have been used as an excuse to deny us our independence. Mauritius should have been granted its own independence separately, as Northern Rhodesia was. Rodrigues should have been placed under the guardianship of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, as a non-self-governing territory. A pan-African commission or UN special committee for self-determination could then have put together a long term plan for Independence.

Under a mutually agreed-upon constitution, with suitable opt-out clauses, we could even have remained in free association with Mauritius, rather than being perpetually entrapped in the existing abomination, euphemistically known as ‘Autonomy’.

If historical debts, legal or at least moral responsibilities, abrogated in 1968, are made good to some extent, past injustices can be belatedly rectified. We remain hopeful.

It is not our lot in life, to be perpetually governed by other people. We did not accept non-consensual rule from France; we did not accept it from Britain – we will never accept it from Mauritius.

Ethnic Dilution

The majority of Mauritius’ 1.3 million population are descendants of Indian indentured labourers, mainly from Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, brought by the British to meet labour shortages on Sugar cane plantations; whereas, ninety-five percent of Rodrigues’ forty thousand strong population are direct descendants of African slaves.

We are as distinct, as say Mexicans and Kenyans. This ethnic heterogeneity differentiates the one island from the other.

Rodriguans are not an indigenous group or an ethno-national minority seeking piecemeal internal self-rule; we are a separate people with a fervent aspiration to self-determine our future. Our case for full sovereignty is an exceptionally strong one. More to the point, we can never give up our homeland – our forefathers paid too dear a price for it!

Until recently, Rodrigues’ small maximum carrying capacity (approx.50,000) and its geographical isolation, have managed to preserve its cultural identity to some extent. However, the past few years have seen Mauritians, in ever-increasing numbers, being fast-tracked onto crown land in Rodrigues. If this trend (or government policy) continues, it is a mathematical certainty that it will dilute our ranks to a moribund minority. Much like mixing thirty bottles of beer with one bottle of lemonade – the lemonade disappears.

Once our culture, traditions, language, and way of life are gone; once we have lost our identity as a people; once our claim for sovereignty has been forever extinguished – we would have become a nation of semi-Slaves and half-repressed Serfs, stuck at the bottom-end of a Mauritian vertical class structure.

The once proud people of Rodrigues would have been reduced to a motley mob of untouchables, straw hats under the arm, bowing and scraping in the demimonde of Mauritian ghettos or eking out a living on the mountain ridges in Rodrigues.
We could never again aspire to be anything more than just half a people; we would be forever playing catch-up to other cultures. As a people, we would be dead.
For Rodriguans, this is an existential challenge. If we do not meet it, if we wait for the time that must come, we will surely follow the Dodo. This, I do not believe – I know.

Conclusion

The common Portuguese name Rodrigues (son of Rodrigo) was poorly chosen for us, by old masters, in evil times. Faced with being branded with it forever, even the brotherhood of Goblins, Gnomes and Gremlins would be reaching for the AK47. Seriously though, ‘Rodrigues’ is an old relic, fossilized in another era, clearly disconnected from and incompatible with the essence of our people. And not to mention, the blood-spattered images of Portugal’s brutal savagery in this region, which the name evokes – It is time for our generation to give it (Rodrigues) back to history.

We have lost a country – our body politic is being trampled underfoot; the stench of humiliation is everywhere; cultural oblivion looms large, and yet, we are still blighted by a small clique of bloated puppets and ‘well-assimilated’ latter-day Uncle Toms, wanting us to accept foreign domination.

Strangers overseas, who we do not vote for and cannot remove, design our electoral systems and electoral boundaries, decide our laws, taxation, tariffs, decide our health, education, foreign and economic policies. Strangers, decide our children’s future –
Strangers decide – Strangers have been deciding for the best part of 300 years.

It is time – we decided! For, we too, have a brain and a backbone. Yes, it is true! We too, have dreams and hopes of our own. It is time to cut the neo-colonial umbilical cord sharply adrift, to take active steps to decrease dependence on others, to believe that if we reduce our wants and work hard, that self-reliance is possible and indeed desirable.

It is time to stop depending on built-in assumptions, on ideas and systems that have been partly responsible for our ongoing subordination. It is time to try other ideas, other approaches, perhaps invent new ones which better adapt to our circumstances.
It is time to stop imitating others and trust in ourselves – for who we are, has worth.

Rodriguans are a resilient people. I say this, because contrary to popular belief, it is our people who have worked the land and fished the seas and kept farm animals and kept this small economy afloat – generation after generation. We have done it before, we are doing it now – we can do it better. Let’s not hesitate to continue drinking from the old well (the land and the sea), until the ghost of globalization arrives with the magic potion.

It is time to dump the usual too-poor, too-small, and not-yet-ready arguments. They are like bad records that have been played over and over again. They are intended to shackle rather than liberate. Fortunately, oppressed people the world over have ignored them, otherwise most islands in the Caribbean, Indian, Atlantic and Pacific, much of Africa and Asia, and possibly half the planet would still be under some form of colonial rule today. In any case, how large and how rich would a country need to be, for its people to qualify for their freedom? Moreover, who would decide? Our leaders must re-connect with the poor and dispossessed in this country, re-establish links with our ethnic kin in Africa, re-organize our people at the grassroots and demand that which was stolen from us in 1968 ... our Country.

Let us not be discouraged by the indifference of a dog-eat-dog McWorld, let us not dither, let us steel our resolve and demand our Independence. Let us speak of it proudly in every home, in every church, in every bazaar, in every fishing-post, on every farm, on every street-corner, on every bus and wherever or whenever our people meet.
Our task will not be without sacrifice, but if we turn our back on Independence now, we condemn our children to another 300 years of foreign domination. The alternative is simple: struggle or eternal subservience.

Our people have been the human Guinea pigs for some of the world’s most cold-blooded social experimentations. We have been at the painful-end of the whole monstrous gamut of Slavery, Colonialism, neo-Colonialism and ‘civilising missions’ of Missionaries. Despite the inhumanity, the degradation, the indignity; despite the loss of our grand African names, our sense of self, our traditional African clothing, our beliefs and our relationships with our kinfolk in Africa – we have already forgiven and moved on.

Perpetual domination is not a destination to where we want to lead our children, or as the late Pope John Paul II used to say to occupied people everywhere “you are not what they say you are; let me remind you who you really are …”

Our people have undergone a long-enough apprenticeship to be free. The time has come for us to climb out of the abyss of serfdom and view the world through our own eyes. As children of this flying planet, it is our incontrovertible right to self-determine our own future; let us exercise that right and reclaim our heritage in the human family.

With this firm wish warming our hearts, with our heads held high – let us brace ourselves to face a hopeful future with fortitude.

Vive Rodrigues … Libre

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

Dear Pambazuka Community,

Just a few quick words! Starting with this issue you will note a new category – African Writers’ Corner. Why should Pambazuka News - a place for Pan-African analysis - also create a space for our creative workers? Because they themselves are the first to remind us that they have been at the forefront of making Africans visible to each other. Africans meet over Things Fall Apart, see each other in the Famished Road as they look for a Grain of Wheat. Ah, and since African literature is really a Question of Power, surely, can we leave behind sister Killjoy? So we want to have a corner that will feature the creative mind as it wrestles with African issues – be it through poetry, fiction, non-fiction and memoir and the occasional song. It’s about beauty… and the politics.

We also wish to invite you over the next few weeks in the run up to the March 2008 Zimbabwe elections to contribute in depth articles/analysis.

Already there is much contestation to do with the pre-election environment. The opposition is struggling with its own internal dynamics in terms of readiness to participate or not to participate. Consensus for a new people driven constitution remains within the broader civil society's agitation.

Another essential dynamic is the emerging consensus around the fact that the SADC mandated mediation by Thabo Mbeki has collapsed, with very little gain for Zimbabweans in terms of changing their lot towards democratic governance.

There are other thematic cross-cutting issues that can also be considered, gender or women's participations an issue that has been pushed to the periphery, political-economy environment - inflation is the highest in the world; pre- and post-election conflict - mechanisms for handling this, etc.

The idea is to generate debate on such issues as we have been doing with the Kenyan crisis, with a view to giving space to progressive citizens of the world, to once again contribute towards the unfolding events in Zimbabwe.

To help us achieve this is feminist and political activist Grace Kwinjeh. She can be reached on [email][email protected]

A survey commissioned by DENIVA (Development Networks of Indigenous Voluntary Associations) and I-Network (Information Network) in May - June 2007, in Uganda, has shown a close link between ICT and poverty reduction. The countrywide survey indicates that developments of ICTs tend to increase income inequality within a country and it requires relatively good education and special skills to make full use of it

According to the World Bank, climate change effects will impact on the world’s poor countries and Africa composes the majority of this category. It is therefore critical that African leaders are at the fore front in addressing these issues. The Western world by far has an upper hand in looking into climate change because they also not only have developed high-tech climate and weather systems but they have the necessary technical expertise to address climate change issues also.

Fahamu is a pan African organization committed to building a strong human rights and social justice movement. In a unique collaboration between Oxford University’s Department for Continuing Education, Fahamu is pleased to announce a course on Fundraising and resource mobilization. This distance-learning course will run for 15 weeks from the 24th March, 2008. Cost per person for this course is STG 400. The course is based on the provision of well-designed interactive training materials on CDROM with a tutor who facilitates the course through email discussions. Booking deadline: March 14, 2008. For more information on these and other Fahamu courses, including how to enroll, call us on 020 2 319 635/6 or email us on [email][email protected] More information can be found on our websites www.fahamu.org and www.pambazuka.org

Like all our compatriots, we (the Kenya Editors Guild) are concerned by the crisis facing our country. The genesis of this national tragedy is within public knowledge. As editors watching events unfold in this country, we believe the government is duty bound to expeditiously find a solution to the stand off which is costing lives, untold human suffering and damaging the prospects of a country long viewed as an island of peace and stability.

Police assaulted several supporters of Zimbabwe's political opposition en route to a rally outside Harare city centre on Wednesday. Police used teargas against the demonstrators who were travelling from the city centre to the venue for the rally, organised by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The MDC rally at Glamis Stadium had been authorised by the Magistrates Court. It has been reported that between 1,000 and 3,000 MDC supporters attended the rally.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has called on the Prosecutor of Bangui in the Central African Republic to withdraw a criminal suit against journalist Faustin Bambou who is facing charges of "inciting to public disorder and to revolt, defamation and insults" stemming from an article he wrote accusing government officials of accepting money from a French nuclear company.

On 12 December 2007 – Kenya’s independence day – the Kenya national museums of Kenya decided to paint all its buildings in its corporate colours. That included painting over a landmark mural, that for a year had become one of the main attractions of the museum. Painting of the mural, sponsored by Africancolours, was done by a host of renowned Kenyan artists. A heritage professional, Dr Gonda Geets, who arrived at the museum as the wall with the mural was being painted tried to no avail to stop the destruction of the mural.

Former Ghanaian President, Jerry Rawlings, has said that the violence that erupted in Kenya over alleged rigging of the election by the incumbent President, Mwai Kibaki, is a protest against neo-colonialism and the imposition of leadership by the West. According to him, Kenyans do not want to go through the same kind of experience again hence their insistence on change.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)has called for the release of three journalists who have been arrested in the last three weeks and held without charges after two other journalists who had also been detained by Somali authorities were freed in the last 24 hours.

Rape and other forms of sexual violence remain prevalent in northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), despite the cessation of military activities and the disarmament of militias in the region, according to aid workers. Before, this was mainly attributed to men in uniform, but now civilians comprise a significant number of the perpetrators.

Gambia authorities on January 15, 2008 indefinitely suspended the broadcast of Radio France International (RFI) in Banjul for airing what they referred to as an “erroneous news story". A release from the Department of State for Communications, Information and Technology, six days after the closure on January 21 in explaining government’s action said the decision was in line with the professional ethics of the media in The Gambia.

As the Global Day of Action and Mobilization in January 26th approaches, the number of participants in WSF 2008 international journey increases. Men and women from all over the world will take the streets, promote discussions, protests, music concerts, video exhibitions and several other activities to show that another world is possible and necessary.

The United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women is seeking a project officer to support follow up to the Secretary-General’s in-depth study on all forms of violence against women (A/61/122/Add 1 and Corr 1) and General Assembly resolution A/RES/61/143 on “Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women. Expressions of interest, together with a CV and a brief (5 pages) writing sample, should be sent not later than 11 February 2008.

The Network of People living with HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN) is the umbrella body that coordinates and administers all organizations, associations and support groups of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria. NEPWHAN is inviting applications from qualified candidates for the position of Project Accountant. All applications must be received by the 27th of January.

A recent seminar held by the Zimbabwean Visual Arts Association revealed that many of the Zimbabwean visual artists hardly use the internet as a way of promoting their artwork to overseas buyers. Fortunately web initiatives such as African Colours (http://www.africancolours.net/) try to fill that gap and offer the possibility to upcoming and confirmed visual artists to showcase their work for a very low fee.

This is the full report of the conference “Promoting Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Nigeria” which held on the 21 November, 2007 at the University of Calabar Hotel and Conference Centre, Calabar, Nigeria. The conference was organized by the Community Research and Development Centre (CREDC), with support from the Global Greengrants Funds (GGF) and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) to create awareness on renewable energy and energy efficiency in Nigeria; and to enhance stakeholders’ capacity to advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

John Barbieri writes about the pervasive and dangerous myths that have characterized the coverage of Kenya's post election crisis in the US and elsewhere

First, let me honorably mention that the title of this piece is borrowed from Kenyan journalist Rebecca Wanjiku [1]. As most others, I have watched in dismay and outrage at the events in Kenya following the announcement on Dec. 30th of the (manipulated) election results. I have been equally, if not more so, dismayed, outraged and disgusted by how the situation and violence there has been depicted and framed in the international media, especially here in the United States. In almost all of the recent coverage and commentary on Kenya in the mainstream U.S. media there have been three particularly dangerous and pervasive myths and misrepresentations that have appeared. All of these myths have been previously commented on by much more eminent figures than I, but perhaps it will help to restate and further comment on all of them in one place.

Three Pervasive Myths and Misrepresentations

First, this is not ‘ethnic conflict.’ Similar to the way that most African conflicts get reported, there is the ubiquitous framing of the situation as conflict solely being driven by ethnicity. This is most profoundly seen in the statements of ‘tribal conflict’; it must be made clear that this is an extremely racist, antiquated and inaccurate depiction of the situation. Though there has been an ethnic factor to some of the conflict, this factor is largely overemphasized at expense of the more pervasive factor of the rich/poor and the gross inequities in resource distribution across and among ‘ethnic lines’ (that is as if such lines could be so clearly drawn). As many have more articulately said elsewhere the situation must be re-framed as a political conflict.

More specifically, the organized violence following the elections must be framed as political elites manipulating their supporters (including paying and equipping armed militias and using the armed instruments of the State) to inflict violence on their behalf; it is so-called leaders fomenting hatred among their supporters all for their own personal benefit; and it is power-hungry politicians willing to do whatever it takes, literally willing to throw Kenyans’ lives away in their attempt to do it, and to be so disgustingly eager to use that violence as a mere pressure point on the national and international community to get/retain power. Both parties were guilty of this, but in particular the man sworn in as President has employed the disproportionate brutal force of the police and military, especially the General Service Unit.

The repercussions of depicting the situation as solely ethnically-driven can be seen in the distorted sense of history and context for all conflicts in Africa and elsewhere. One of the most pervasive historical misconstructions is especially evident in the popular writings and collective memory of the Rwandan genocide, which continue to frame the genocide as being simply the result of primordial ‘tribal conflict.’ In so doing the context and history of the genocide is obfuscated by neglecting the ongoing role played by the brutal legacy of the colonial power (Belgium in the case of Rwanda) and of national, regional and international politics following ‘independence.’

Second, this is not a ‘shock.’ We need to attack the myths and claims being reported that the developments in Kenya are a great ‘shock,’ and that this is a great blow to a ‘beacon of stability, democracy and economic growth in Africa.’ For anyone who knows the history of Kenya, the history of colonialism and the history since ‘independence,’ they know that these developments are not a shock and that they have been long in the making. The developments are directly connected to the inability of the Kenyan government to come to terms with the brutal legacy and power distributions inherited from British rule, including the constitution itself. And specifically the developments were written all over the wall leading up to the election to anyone who was paying attention to the fomenting of ethnic tension by Kibaki/PNU and Odinga/ODM, yet too few seemed willing to acknowledge it. Anyone who claims that this is a ‘shock’ is either blatantly ignorant, dishonest or practices mere wishful thinking to be so naïve. And anyone who claims that Kenya is a grand ‘beacon of stability, democracy and economic growth in Africa’ misrepresents the hardships and injustices that the vast majority of Kenyans desperately face on a daily basis; they also inaccurately depict the past five years of the ‘booming economic growth’ witnessed under the Kibaki regime, which through exorbitant amounts of corruption and increasing income inequality has ensured that the benefits from that robust economic growth has by-and-large reached only the very elite.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of the U.S. It must be made clear and people must fully understand the large role that the U.S. has been playing in Kenya and throughout eastern Africa. The U.S. has keenly been trying to build up allies in East Africa and the Horn of Africa to counterbalance other perceived ‘threat’ countries in the region. These key U.S. allies include Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. These allies are meant to act as a counter-balance to the ‘threats’ of Sudan (the Bashir regime), Eritrea and the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia. The Bush administration has clearly supported incumbent Kibaki due to the fact that his government has been one of these key allies in the ‘war on terror’ in the East and the Horn of Africa. The Kibaki administration has allowed and worked closely with the U.S. on supposed ‘terrorist’ raids along the coast of Kenya. The Kenyan Anti-Terrorism Unit (with American and British support) has conducted these extralegal anti-terrorism operations along the Kenyan coast, targeting the sizeable Muslim population there. According to human rights organizations in Kenya these anti-terrorism operations have included the roundup, torture and extradition of Muslims (to Somalia, Ethiopia and elsewhere) without being charged or given a trial, similar to ‘war on terror’ operations elsewhere. The people, nearly all of whom are Muslims, being targeted are dubiously claimed to be Al Qaeda operatives or a part of other subversive terrorist organizations.

Similarly, Kenya was an ally during the U.S.-supported invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian forces to overthrow the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in southern Somalia exactly one year ago. What was, and still is, routinely missed in the story of the UIC is how they helped to implement order, stability and social services that had not been seen in southern Somalia for nearly 15 years; and how the UIC was primarily an effort to depose corrupt warlords (many of whom were being backed by the U.S.), not to impose an international Al Qaeda-like jihadist movement as many claim(ed). Kenya’s (i.e., the Kibaki administration’s) role in the military operations included working with U.S. forces along the Kenya-Somalia border and the ubiquitous sharing of ‘intelligence,’ but they also played a more direct role as well. At the onset of the invasion, the Kenyan military, seemingly at the behest of the U.S., closed off its border with Somalia and refused entry to all Somalis, including refugees, trying to flee southern Somalia. Soon after, the U.S. conducted air strikes in southern Somalia killing at least 30 people, most, if not all, of whom were probably fleeing civilians, not ‘Al Qaeda operatives’ as was alleged. In short, the Bush administration had clear ‘national security’ ambitions in seeking that Kibaki, as a key ‘war on terror’ ally in eastern Africa, stay in power. Also, add to this the vested American, UK and other European business interests in Kenya as well, who likely did not care for Odinga’s ‘social democratic’ platform which was posing the threat of more taxes and redistributive wealth.

The biggest blow to U.S. credibility and neutrality in the matter, though, came immediately after the election results were announced. Incredulously, the U.S. State Department quickly came out and congratulated the man sworn in as President on his ‘victory.’ This was done despite the fact that every diplomat in the country clearly knew of the irregularities in the election and the hastily swearing in process of the President. Realizing its mistake the State Department quickly moved to retract this congratulatory statement, and then issued a statement calling an end to the violence and for the situation to be resolved through ‘constitutional and legal remedies.’ However, it is quite clear that these ‘remedies’ are blatantly weighted in the incumbent’s favor and thus will merely support the status quo: Kibaki and corruption. Since January 4th the U.S. has been pursuing the diplomacy route with Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, who has now departed, and Ambassador Michael Ranneberger leading these attempts. However, it is was disturbing that despite Frazer’s close watch and ongoing separate talks with both sides, she (and therefore the U.S. in general) was not able to prevent Kibaki from disastrously going ahead and filling the most critical posts in the President’s cabinet.

More recently it should be no surprise that the few Heads of State who have come out and congratulated Kibaki on his ‘victory’ are also key ‘war on terror’ allies of the Bush administration. These Heads of State include: President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda (who has received much aid from the Bush administration and has been crucial in supplying troops for the AU force in Somalia), transitional President Abdullahi Yusuf of Somalia (who the U.S., Ethiopia and Kenya helped reinstate after the overthrow of the UIC), Sheikh Sabah of Kuwait, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and Prime Minister Themba Dlamini of Swaziland. An excerpt from Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf’s congratulatory message to President Kibaki is worth quoting: ‘…both our countries must remain strong partners on the global war on terror and steadfast Allies in protecting freedom.’ Further still, Uganda’s starch dependence on Kenyan supply routes and Museveni’s close relationship with Kibaki must be stressed, and therefore the widespread reports that the Uganda People’s Defense Force is masquerading as police, destroying property and killing people in western Kenya must be seriously addressed!

As others have already made clear (e.g., Mukoma wa Ngugi [2], Wandia Njoya [3], etc.), it should not be assumed that Odinga/ODM is somehow inherently antithetical to the interests of the U.S. and of international capital; the extravagant fuss over Odinga’s Hummer was perhaps one highly illustrative example of his true nature as an elite who gladly enjoys connections to the West and living well above the rest of Kenyans. Also, it should not be believed that U.S. support for corrupt and autocratic Kenyan leaders started with Bush-Kibaki, it is well-documented how the U.S. had been keenly supporting and arming the preceding 24 year dictatorship of Daniel arap Moi during the final years of Cold War geopolitics and beyond. Lastly, all of this is not meant to suggest a direct U.S. connection to the manipulated election results, but still the overall interests and role of the U.S., and other international actors, in Kenya must be made clear. (For more facts and figures on the U.S.’s military ties to Kenya and incumbent Kibaki see Daniel Volman’s excellent short article [4].)

The Poverty of International Journalism

In all, it has been disgusting how reporters have been so eager to energetically document and provide inaccurate and inhumane commentary on the bloodshed, but have been too unconcerned in trying to actually understand the situation and report what Kenyans are really saying and thinking; although this should certainly come as no surprise. The inspiration and title for this article comes from Kenyan journalist Rebecca Wanjiku’s blog ‘The Poverty of International Journalism,’ and this excerpt about a broadcast on CNN is worth quoting at length:

Understanding the local language is very important when reporting from foreign countries. For instance on Sunday [January 6th 2008], there was on television an injured man and those carrying him said in Swahili "tunampeleka hospitali" (we are taking him to hospital?) But the journalist's translation was that he had been asked "are you shot or cut?" with the response coming back that he was actually the victim of a shooting. It is unlikely that this was an innocent mistake, the journalist may simply not have cared what was true and what was not, and it is unlikely either that the world audience would have noticed, but using video like this to underline a story you are making up is dishonest reporting. I have faith that Kenyans will soon be embracing each other, and that we will soon get back to the urgent yet more mundane tasks of kujitafutia riziki – putting food on the table. I hope CNN will be around to cover that and not simply rush on to the next big story. By the way, how comes CNN does not cover American soldiers or civilians bleeding and writhing in pain, yet has no second thought for the dignity of the dead and dying from other countries?

It has been Kenyan journalists and bloggers, like Rebecca, and other local reporters who have been the real champions of correctly depicting and analyzing the situation, and who are actually raising the real desperate concerns of Kenyans. Rather than condescendingly prescribing analysis and treatment from London, New York or even the U.S. embassy in Nairobi (which is, although not as geographically removed, as cognitively removed from the concerns of Kenyans), the mainstream media needs to listen, understand and make clear the history and context of the current situation, and stop speaking so ignorantly and arrogantly about it.

And good journalists need to call out fellow journalists who are perpetuating the pervasive myths and stereotypes (e.g., Canadian journalist Arno Kopecky’s Daily Nation article [5]). I would like to take this opportunity, then, to call out CNN reporter Zain Verjee. Miss Verjee, as someone who grew up in Kenya, and therefore should know better, it is despicable how you have been playing up the ‘ethnic conflict’ angle in your TV reporting. Why are you doing this? Are you callously using the plight of your countrymen/women to simply boost your career ambitions? Why is it that you so seldom let other Kenyans actually speak, and rather choose to just speak ‘on their behalf?’ Why is it that as someone who has worked on campaigns to spread awareness of violence against women have you not been more vigorously reporting the disproportionate effect that the violence and displacement has had on women in Kenya? Why is it that I have not once heard you mention the role the U.S. is playing in Kenya? Miss Verjee I am sorry that you were hit by a teargas canister during your recent reporting (although it should not have been a surprise given your attempt to ‘get the story’), but perhaps you might now feel some of the brutality that so many Kenyans have endured and perhaps now you may start honestly speaking on their behalf and letting their voices be heard.

The situation in Kenya, like all political conflicts (e.g., eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Darfur, eastern Chad, Iraq, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc.), should be vigorously reported, but it must be framed and depicted accurately by incorporating a proper historical context and the perspective of the people there. The perspectives/stories of people there must be told, but they must not be simply trivialized and sensationalized, as is so often done, particularly in the simplemindedness of televised ‘reporting.’ It is so sad that in the business that is U.S. TV reporting we seldom actually hear the voices of people telling their stories from around the world; rather we too often get a voice-over by some clearly intelligible Western (i.e., ‘white-sounding’) reporter. Why not use subtitles!?! Why must these people be robbed from having their voices heard, why must we be robbed from hearing them?!? Or why not find articulate English speakers (there certainly are an abundance of them in Kenya) to speak on their own behalf, and not demean their ‘foreignness’ by using unwarranted subtitles? And why do we have to wait for ‘crisis’ situations to hear these voices? Why do we hear, or rather really just see, only the bad? Why do we not hear and see good, fun, silly, playful, uplifting and empowering stories being told every day? Why do we not hear and see stories with depth about love and dreams as often as we superficially see stories about loss and despair?

In conclusion, news without a proper sense of history and context is just a list of jumbled half-truths, and news without a proper respect for and input from the people who are actually affected is just a list of callous stereotypes. In the past week, now that the violence has slightly eased, the U.S. media seems to be losing interest in the situation in Kenya. Forgive the extreme vulgarity, but the mainstream U.S. media appears to send the following double message: we are not interested in Africans or African politics, that is unless there is a full out Rwanda-like bloodbath (with pictures of gruesome machete attacks and all, of course) so we can stereotype all Africans as the savages we think they are. I hope that all journalists, reporters and editors may heed these calls and start acting responsibly and start reporting the truth coming ‘out of Africa.’

* John Barbieri is an independent reporter who lived in Kenya from Jan.-June 2007, and is the founder of the US Coalition for Peace with Truth and Justice in Kenya. He can currently be reached at [email][email protected]

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

* Please click on the link for the article notes

Emma Mawdsley examines the coverage of China's growing influence in Africa by the British print media

The words and images we use do not describe ‘reality’, they create it. Language (terms, metaphors, and analogies) and images (such as films, news photos, maps and cartoons) are caught up in struggles over interpretation – which means that the language and images of the powerful are important tools in creating and maintaining particular points of view amongst politicians, policy-makers and the public. This paper explores the way in which six British broadsheet newspapers have covered China’s growing role in Africa over the past seven years. China’s impacts in Africa are complex and varied by country, sector and context, and most of the newspaper articles reflect that. Whether more critical or approving in tone, the articles invariably point to both benefits and problems associated with China’s rise. Even those which focus on specific issues or countries, tend to open or conclude with at least a sentence or two outlining a broader assessment of the prospects and problems associated with the growing relationship. Even so, a detailed analysis led us to identify five narrative tropes that recurred consistently and frequently, which tended to systematically endorse images of African weakness, Western trusteeship and Chinese ruthlessness:

1) a tendency to refer to ‘the Chinese’ or ‘China’, as if the various Chinese actors all shared the same interests;
2) a tendency to focus excessively on China’s interests in oil over other commodities;
3) a decided preference for focussing on China’s negative impacts on the continent, and within that, on issues and places of violence, disorder and corruption (e.g. Zimbabwe, Sudan, Angola) over other negative issues (e.g. trade imbalances, undermining domestic manufacturing sectors);
4) a tendency to portray Africans as victims or villains; and
5) a frequently complacent account of the role and interest of different western actors in Africa. Representations of Africa, China and the West First, most press reports tend to refer simply to “the Chinese”, often overlooking the fact that Chinese communities and actors in Africa are diverse in origins, roles and interests. The Chinese in Africa include longer standing and more recent diasporic communities, often engaged in small and medium business, but with a range of histories and relations with China and with their adopted African homes. Media accounts tend to focus much more strongly on Chinese state firms and agencies, as well as the more recent wave of large private enterprises (although the distinction can be blurred). But interests differ – longer term Chinese diasporic populations, the managers of Chinese companies, Chinese labourers employed by those companies, and different elements of the Chinese Government may have very different views on, for example, political stability, corporate transparency or democratic accountability. Different Chinese firms may have competing interests over what constitute desirable conditions for import/export trade or commodity extraction/manufactures. The following quote indicates competing interests that are otherwise rarely reflected in the media accounts that were analysed: “Venturing into Africa is a superficially attractive option for Chinese enterprises with limited global experience, as they can avoid the kind of competition and rules they face in markets such as the US or the European Union. But Chinese companies are also under great pressure to invest in Africa to fulfil political commitments made by China’s leaders, who provide financial incentives, including cheap loans, for them to go overseas. “First we must listen to what the country says, but we have our own company considerations” says Mr Wang of Chico, an enterprise controlled by the provincial government of Henan …[Mr Wang says] they “get criticism” from officials back home if they miss business targets, which often involve expanding overseas investment” (Financial Times, 20 June 2006: “China ventures on rocky roads to trade with Africa”).

Allied to this is a tendency to isolate Chinese firms as nationally discrete entities. In fact, joint enterprises with both African and western firms are becoming more common.

The second theme identified is the focus on oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas and ores, over other commodities. This reflects a wider focus on the geopolitics of oil, a subject that the Iraq war and massive oil price rises have brought to the fore of western public attention. Although oil is undeniably an important issue, and a major component of Sino-Africa trade and economic growth, this is concentrated in Angola, Sudan, Nigeria, Gabon and Guinea. For many African countries, exports of fish, timber and grain, or imports of relatively cheap manufactured goods are just as important. The focus on oil lends itself to a discourse of resource competition rather than the recognition that China and the West have a range of interests and relations in Africa, including potentially complementary ones. Third is a very uneven focus on China's interests and impacts in different African nations. More positive elements tend to get less attention (debt cancellation, investment, lower commodity prices for consumers, support for a greater international voice etc), with a preferred focus on problem issues. Moreover, we find that there is a preferred focus on zones and subjects of violent conflict, corruption, genocide and authoritarian leadership, rather than, say, the less gripping images of China’s impacts on trade imbalances or under-cutting of African manufacturing sectors. The overwhelming balance of articles is on Sudan, Zimbabwe and Angola, with far less attention paid to, for example, Lesotho, which is experiencing immense hardship competing with China in textile production; or Kenya which is struggling to compete with China in the manufactured goods sector.

Fourth, within these accounts, Africans, tend to be reduced to villains (Mugabe, the Sudanese government) and victims (African populations, Darfur, the poor), an observation that fits with the findings of many other critical evaluations of the media. African agency, as leaders or ordinary citizens, workers and consumers, is rarely emphasised. Allusions to adolescence or childhood are common. Thus, discussing China’s effects on Chad:

“Chad was supposed to establish a model of good practice. But, as a western observer in the country puts it: “The risk is [following China’s oil deals] it will become an example for the worst [African] pupils” [emphasis added]. (Financial Times, 23 January 2006: “The ‘resource curse’ anew”.)

The paternalistic line that the West needs to save Africa from China’ depredations is something reflected elsewhere in the media. An extended Channel Four news report which was widely circulated and repeated, started: “To Tony Blair, Africa is somewhere which needs healing or saving and Sierra Leone gets a lot of British aid. But the Chinese are looking at the continent through different eyes. They see it as a source of raw materials, especially oil, which they need for their own development. And somewhere like Sierra Leone, fresh out of war – they think it’s ripe for trade and investment” (Lindsey Hillsum, Channel Four, 4 July 2005)

Finally, Western actors – businesses, governments, national and international development NGOs – are typically portrayed as benign within the majority of these articles and accounts. Many articles imply or state that while the West did in the past have supported authoritarian leaders, or were party to corrupt business practices, it has learnt its lesson and reformed. While colonialism was economically exploitative and morally wrong, according to many of the articles exploring China’s ‘new African safari’ or ‘new scramble for Africa’, western colonialism is claimed to at least have had a paternalistic/developmental dimension and well-intentioned elements - an attitude that has translated into an ethical concern for Africa in the postcolonial period.

Thus, in the contemporary setting, Western companies supposedly operate under a different ethical regime because of their own high convictions; labour laws; voluntary agreements as part of wider government and third sector pressure to improve business with Africa; consumer demands for more ethical production and trading; and/or shareholder pressure. None of these are said to apply to state-run or private Chinese companies. Above all, the dominant (although by no means universal, narrative) that runs through many of the articles is that the mistakes of the past have been addressed, and the West is now the architect and energiser of a new drive towards good governance and development, with aid now accompanied by ethical conditionalities, while reformed commercial practices promise investment, extraction and trade that will enhance development rather than line the pockets of kleptocratic elites. These faltering steps forward, which will be of mutual benefit to western companies and ordinary African people, are under threat from the unscrupulous Chinese. A few quotes give a flavour of these arguments: “But while the meeting [2006 FOCAC] is intended to fuel China’s global drive for resources, raw materials and markets, concerns are growing that the boosters of Beijing do not have Africa’s best interests at heart and that western countries will be cut out of future business”. (The Guardian, 1 November 2006: “Beijing’s Race for Africa”)

“There are concerns too about soft loans leading to unsustainable debt and generous aid programmes that undermine efforts to improve governance, transparency and accountability. If the World Bank and IMF say no or attach conditions, Beijing always says yes…. The [2006] Beijing Summit is a big deal for China, a deliberately showy monument to its value-free strategy. It would be absurd to claim that western greed and interest did not do enormous damage in an earlier scramble for Africa. But the age of colonialism is over. It should be accepted today that global power brings global responsibilities. Tyranny, inequality and corruption offend universal values. In the countries where it now has the ability to make a difference, China should think twice about offering its help with no strings attached”. (The Guardian, 4 November 2006: “Scrambling to Beijing: China and Africa”)

“That virtuous circle of increased assistance and better governance has been the hall mark of the approach taken, with varying degrees of success, by the West and Japan since the end of the Cold War. China now threatens to blow apart that consensus”. (The Telegraph, 26 April 2006: “The dragon in Africa”)

“Soft Chinese loans to vulnerable and corrupt African regimes, arranged outside the painstakingly agreed Equator Principles for responsible lending, risk reversing progress towards extricating such regimes from debt. … And misconceived or badly executed civil engineering projects risk irreversible environmental damage … Such a critique is valid. Coming from the West it also has a hint of the hypocritical. China’s current scramble for African energy and resources is modest compared with Europe’s scramble for African territory a century and a half ago. And China’s sometimes reckless spending only mirrors gambles by Western banks and governments in the postwar era. But now Beijing risks repeating the West’s mistakes … when it allowed massive increases in overseas aid and investment with no commensurate adjustments to its foreign policy”. (The Times, 2 November 2006: “China and Africa”)

There are undeniably elements of truth in some of this – some western companies are indeed bound by their charters, public pressure and voluntary agreements to abide by standards that can reduce their competitiveness with companies not thus circumscribed. Bilateral and multilateral initiatives on debt, trade and aid have made some advances towards greater equity and reparation of injustices. These efforts and advances should not be belittled. However, there are three main sets of problems with the imagery of a benign west being undermined by a ruthless and unscrupulous China. The first is that, despite advances, many western companies remain mired in corrupt and exploitative business practices. Without losing sight of the importance and achievements of incremental improvements in western accountability and transparency, they remain inadequate. The second problem is that of scope and scale – the West’s impact on Africa cannot be reduced to the efforts of NGOs, aid agencies or companies. We must look beyond these limited horizons to debt, unjust trade regulations, uneven power in the institutions of global governance, the ‘war on terror’, and increasingly, perhaps, climate change, to develop a better understanding of the West’s impacts on Africa. Third, ‘development’ is almost invariably coded as apolitical and positive in these articles – although interestingly such partiality and complacency tended to be situational, apparent when framed within the specific China-Africa story. Newspapers and even individual journalists who in other reports may be very critical of, for example, the halting, late and inadequate provision of medical supplies, or debt, or trade inequalities, appear to become less critical when the West is framed in the same article as China. Thus, while the Australian, French and South African companies may also be condemned for working in Zimbabwe, in none of the articles analysed were these framed in the same space as a critique of China’s business interests.

Running throughout, we can identify recurring words and phrases which are indicative of the images outlined above: China is ‘guzzling’, ‘aggressive’, an ‘economic juggernaut’, ‘insatiably’ ‘thirsty’ for oils and minerals, and ‘voraciously’ capitalist. “China is prowling the globe in search of energy sources” (Declan Walsh, 9 Nov. 2005, The Guardian, emphasis added)

“As a voracious China scours the world for minerals, no regime is off limits” (Financial Times, 12 Jan 2006: “Insatiable Beijing scours the world for profit and power”)

“[China] is ravenous for raw materials”. (The Telegraph, 26 April 2006: “The dragon in Africa”)

In an article headlined “China’s goldmine: Tony Blair and Bono see Africa as a moral cause; China sees it as a business opportunity. But is Beijing’s interest based on economic partnership – or ruthless exploitation?”, we find:

“The resurrection of Chambishi [a major Zambian copper mine] is just one small example of China’s explosion into Africa. From the barest foothold a decade ago an army of diplomats, technicians and entrepreneurs has kicked the continent’s door wide open, making Beijing a heavyweight investor and political player” (The Guardian, 28 March 2006: “China’s goldmine”, emphasis added)

This position and language stands in contrast to accounts of western FDI, which is only presented as an unambiguously positive flow. Unlike the West, the Chinese have ‘insinuated’ their way into the continent. For example:

“Quietly, while the attention of the world has been elsewhere, China has become a major player in Africa”. (The Independent, 7 September 2006: “The benefits and dangers of those gifts from the east”)

“China, which now foresees annual trade with the world’s poorest continent totalling $100 billion (£50 billion) by 2010, began stepping up its presence stealthily in Africa in the early 1990s” (The Times, 25 April 2007: “From favoured patron to target of dissenters”, emphasis added)

Dan Large, at SOAS, argues that these images are indicative of western defensiveness about ‘it’s backyard’, and can be seen as part of a wider reaction to an emerging power. The language of red dragons in the continent takes us back to the geopolitical discourses that characterised the Cold War.

Conclusions To retiterate, amongst the database of articles reviewed there were alternative perspectives and stories, critical accounts of western roles and histories, and a recognition of the complex but also positive possibilities of greater Sino-African relations. However, the themes identified above emerged as strong and pervasive scripts in British reporting on the contemporary relationships between Africa, China and the West. Africa is one place in which China and western nations, notably the US, are likely to find themselves in a position of competition, and these images and languages, both popular and policy, are significant. In a recent analysis, Andrew Still (2005) urges the importance of maintaining moderate, pragmatic and respectful language and diplomatic ‘signals’ on both sides, if we are to avoid hardening ideological dividing lines between China and the US in particular – Still talks in terms of a potential degeneration of relations that could usher in the next Cold War. He suggests that:

“ … some of the most difficult issues [between China and the US/West] lie in the realm of ideas and identity rather than the narrow economic and political interests, making them far less tractable. Not least of these will be the way in which the debate over ‘the rise of China’ is conducted in the public sphere. The limited repertoire of historical analogies on which it currently draws … creates a distorting prism through which the issue is viewed and provides a thin basis for more thoughtful analysis of how to ensure a peaceful power transition” (Still, 2005, p.3-4)

In the context of what is certain to be growing economic and political competition between China and the US (with the UK and other nations playing bit parts), including over Africa, media images and representations will play an important role in shaping public understandings, debates and political pressures. These in turn will have consequences – however negotiated or contested – for different countries, actors and interests in Africa.

* Dr. Emma Mawdsley is a lecturer in geography and Cambridge University. This article is a short version of a paper to be published in Political Geography in 2008. For a copy of the longer version, please refer to the journal, or contact the author on: [email][email protected]

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In view of the meeting of the Subcommittee on political matters: human rights and democracy, international and regional issues between the EU and Egypt to be held on 2324th January 2008, the Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) are deeply concerned about the deterioration of the human rights situation since the adoption of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) action plan in March 2007.

South Africa was an early adopter of GM crops and, more recently, introduced a national food-fortification program. This article discusses the country's experiences in developing an appropriate regulatory framework and the responses of key stakeholders. In addition, an assessment is presented of the prospects for the adoption of biofortified crops in South Africa.

This is a tribute to the “Man In Black T Shirt”
His name we may or may not know
But that’s how he was referred to by the KTN Television network...

The Canadian Coalition is pleased to announce the call for applications for the 5th Summer Institute for New Global Health Researchers, to be held in partnership with Network Environments for Aboriginal Research BC of the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The Summer Institute will be held at the Quw'utsun' Cultural and Conference Centre located in the Cowichan Valley, in the southeast corner of Vancouver Island from July 16-23, 2008

The Sudanese Government has released eight rebel detainees to the newly-deployed United Nations-African Union (AU) hybrid peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, which is seeking to bring peace to the war-ravaged Darfur region. The eight members of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) were released in El Fasher in North Darfur, into the custody of UNAMID Force Commander General Martin Luther Agwai in his capacity as Chairman of the Ceasefire Commission (CFC).

The Security Council has renewed the mandate of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and French forces supporting it until 30 July so the world body can support the holding of free, open, fair and transparent elections. In a unanimously adopted resolution, the Council said it will review by 30 July the mandates of UNOCI and the French force, as well as UN troop levels, “in light of the progress achieved in the implementation of the key steps of the peace process.”

The Southern African Development Community’s initiative to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis, believed to be at a deadlock over key electoral issues, went into high gear as mediator Thabo Mbeki arrived in Harare on Thursday. The South African President met separately with Robert Mugabe and leaders of the two MDC factions, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara. Reports said Mugabe returned home from his holiday on Sunday allegedly earlier than planned, after Mbeki requested this crucial meeting.

More than 550 people have fallen victim to a cholera epidemic so far this year in Lubumbashi, capital of Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province, medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Friday. At least eight people have died from the waterborne illness in the city of around 1 million, and 104 are receiving medical care at a treatment centre set up by MSF's Belgian chapter.