G20 countries practice ‘agricolonialism’ in developing countries

By Betsey Piette, Workers World, Aug. 3, 2009

Collectively the countries which participate in the Group of Twenty comprise 85 percent of the global gross national product, 80 percent of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s population. What many G-20 countries lack, however, is sufficient arable land to meet the needs of growing urban populations.

In recent years, many G-20 nations have engaged in agricolonialism, taking over arable land in developing countries.

One billion people worldwide face starvation, according to United Nations reports. The global recession is expected to drive 103 million more into hunger.

However, the land grabs, concentrated in Africa, Asia and Latin America where hundreds of millions lack sufficient food, are intended to grow food and biofuel crops for export, not for use by at-risk populations.

While the U.S., Britain and European Union nations have a long history of colonial control over land in developing countries, other G-20 countries, including China, south Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, have recently bought up global farmland.

After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, even Russia and other former Soviet states became targets of land grabs.

Global “AgInvesting”

Last year, as the global economic crisis deepened, food “riots” destabilized many countries. In December, spiking grain prices that had led to food shortages fell by 50 percent. Today, grain prices remain above their 20-year average, and global food stocks continue at 40-year lows.

Over the next 40 years the world’s population is projected to grow from 6 billion to 9 billion, doubling demand, while arable land and water become scarcer. As a result, the cost of farmland keeps rising.

Food now rivals oil as a basis of power and economic security. Arable land has become the latest target for international investors, with more than 90 funds invested directly in farmland.

With the current credit crunch, large companies are investing in farmland as a means of control over future food supplies when food security could become a major concern.

In June a Global AgInvesting 2009 Conference, held in New York, aimed at investors eager for opportunities to invest in agricultural lands, commodities and infrastructure. It brought together top players from the global agricultural and investing industries, including Soyatech, Altima Partners, Bayer CropScience, Brazil AgroLogic, DuPont, Rabobank and the World Bank. The participating firms own and/or manage over 11 million acres of productive farmland worldwide.

The International Food Policy Research Institute reports that 37 million to 49 million acres of land in poor countries, valued at $20 to $30 billion, were sold or under negotiation for sale to foreign buyers since 2006.

Foreign investments in agriculture are not new, but today they are more strategic than commercial, with many transactions intended to insulate the foreign investor’s home country from future global food and energy crises.

Another significant difference is the scale of these purchases. A “big land deal” used to be 240,000 acres. Now the largest ones are many times that size.

The investment firm Blackrock has set up a $200 million hedge fund to invest in land. Dow Chemical has invested its pension funds in farmland futures. Morgan Stanley bought nearly 100,000 acres of Brazilian farmland.

Multibillionaire George Soros is getting into the global land-buying business. Jim Rogers Jr., Soros’ partner at the Quantum Fund, is involved with two farmland investment funds–Agrifirm and Agcaptia Farmland Investment Partnership. “I’m convinced that farmland is going to be one of the best investments of our time,” Rogers told ContrarianProfits. (July 27)

Land in Africa targeted

Africa imports 25 percent of its food, and the continent has become a prime target of land grabbers. Although sub-Saharan Africa is rich in minerals and natural resources, more than 450 million people live there on less than $2 a day. More than one-third of the population suffers from malnutrition.

A recent Food and Agricultural Organization study of five African countries found that 6.2 million acres of farmland valued at $920 million were bought or leased by foreign investors since 2004.

Most of the nearly 1 million acres taken over in Ghana were for biofuel production. Philippe Heilberg, chairman of New York-based Jarch Capital, controls nearly 2 million acres of land in south Sudan.

Saudi Arabian investors spent $100 million to raise grain on land leased to them by the Ethiopian government; the entire crop is for export back to Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, millions of Ethiopians face hunger and malnutrition and require emergency food assistance.

A proposed 99-year land lease deal with the south Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of Madagascar’s arable land, with almost no benefits to the host country. Public protest over this deal contributed to the overthrow of President Marc Ravalomanana earlier this year.

Genetically modified sugar cane in Latin America

Since 1994, U.S. farm policies through the so-called “North American Free Trade Agreement” have devastated farmers who produced corn throughout Mexico. NAFTA opened Mexican markets to corn imports from the U.S. and to the introduction of genetically modified seeds.

Now other countries are getting into the act. A French investment firm is buying up cattle ranches in Argentina and Uruguay to convert the acreage to the production of barley, corn and soy.

Within a 10-year span, nearly the entire Argentine pampas and large areas of forest and farmland in Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay have been converted to produce soy as a solo crop. Agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge made billions selling chemical fertilizers, while Monsanto and Syngenta raked in record profits from modified seeds and chemical pesticides.

Corporations that led the boom in soy production in Latin America are now aggressively moving into genetically modified sugar cane production. GM and Monsanto have been working on “Roundup Ready” sugar cane and sugar beets. Production of genetically modified sugar cane crops would devastate cane growers in Colombia, where panela, a sugar cane byproduct, is a source of nutrition.

Protests erupt in Southeast Asia

Many of the anti-agricolonialism protests have taken place in Asia. The 15-million-member Asian Peasant Coalition recently began a five-month Asia-wide Peasants’ Caravan for Land and Livelihood. The group is acting against global land grabbing in 10 Asian countries, including Sri Lanka, Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. In India and Thailand, the theme is “Stop Global Land Grabbing! Struggle for Genuine Agrarian Reform and Peoples’ Food Sovereignty.”

An estimated 365 million people in Asia make their living off the land. Globalization has increasingly integrated Asian countries into the global market and intensified landlessness among Asian peasants. In Pakistan and the Philippines, almost 75 percent of peasants are now landless.

In the Philippines, Fil-Japan is using 1.49 million acres of land for biofuel production. South Korea has leased 232,000 acres of farmland for 25 years to grow 10,000 tons of corn annually. Protests halted plans to allow China to use 3 million acres of farmland.

Wagar Ahmad Khan, the Pakistani federal minister for investment, assures legal cover and tax breaks for investors and says his government “has decided to raise a special security force, which will help create an investment-friendly atmosphere.” (IslamOnline.net, April 21)

Impact on Indigenous populations

Since the 1970s, more than half of the farmland expansion has come at the expense of natural forests, including large tracts of land in Brazil’s Amazon region. While biofuels are promoted as a means to reduce climate change, expanding cropland for biofuel production has devastated rainforests and savannas.

Conversion of natural ecosystems for production of corn and sugar cane for ethanol, and soy and palm oil for biodiesel, causes substantial greenhouse gas emissions since these crops absorb far less carbon dioxide than the forests and wetlands they replace.

Monsanto, DuPont, Archer Daniels Midland, Deere & Co. and the Renewable Fuels Association have formed the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, which spends billions of dollars to lobby U.S. lawmakers to support subsidies for biofuel production and to promote genetically modified crops.

The social consequences of these land grabs are significant. Indigenous groups who have lived off the land for generations are being driven off their lands. Even when local peasant farmers are able to retain the land, larger land tracts draw off most of the water supply.

G-8 code of conduct

Faced with growing pressure from developing countries, the recent G-8 Summit issued a code of conduct in international agricultural investments that reflects the debate over foreign land purchases in poor countries. It is not clear, however, how the code might work.

“The G-8 statement is pretty weak,” said Sarah Gillam of ActionAid, an anti-poverty group which is calling for an independent U.N. commission to establish an enforceable code of conduct for foreign land purchases. It would include adequate compensation for affected communities and an assessment of the impact on local food security and rural livelihoods.

Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN, an international nonprofit organization that supports struggles for community-controlled, biodiversity-based food systems, compared the danger of land investments to the subprime mortgage crisis. “It’s not just that they want to produce food. It’s that they want to produce it in a way that makes profit. ... Nothing is being done to address speculation or the amount of profits taken by the corporations in control of the food system.

“Land is fundamental to life particularly in many countries of the South,” stated Kuyek. “Governments are playing with fire, and better watch out what they are doing.” (See www.farmlandgrab.org.)

Article copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news: http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Web: http://workers.org
http://workersworld.net

US joins UN rights body, urges cooperative spirit

By FRANK JORDANS, AP, Google News, June 19, 2009

GENEVA (AP) — The United States joined the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday, a body widely criticized for failing to confront abuses around the world and for acting primarily to condemn Israel, one of Washington's closest allies.

U.S. officials pledged to work constructively in the 47-member council, which has frequently been hampered by ideological differences between rich and poor countries.

"The United States assumes its seat on the council with gratitude, with humility, and in the spirit of cooperation," said Mark C. Storella, who is for the moment the top diplomat at the U.S. Mission to U.N. organizations in Geneva.

The decision in May to seek a seat on the Geneva-based body after three years of giving it the cold shoulder represented a major shift in line with President Barack Obama's aim of showing that "a new era of engagement has begun."

Council members, U.N. officials and independent pressure groups applauded the move as a sign the only remaining superpower is prepared to debate human rights with the rest of the world.

Observers say the U.S. may succeed in breaking diplomatic deadlocks where European countries have failed because of grievances held by their former colonies in Africa and Asia.

"The U.S. has a unique capacity to counter some of the negative trends in the council," said Felice Gaer, an independent human rights expert from the United States.

She cited the tendency in the council to eliminate the appointments of some human rights experts assigned to check on countries such as Cuba and Belarus. A vote to scrap the expert on Sudan, who has criticized the government for abusing human rights in Darfur, was narrowly averted, thanks in part to heavy lobbying by the U.S., diplomats said.

Gaer, a member of the U.N. Committee against Torture, said Washington will have to move swiftly if it wants to counterbalance Russia, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Egypt, China and Pakistan, who between them dominate the council.

But Geneva is still waiting for a U.S. ambassador, the main person on the ground to push U.S. positions; the post of assistant secretary of state for human rights remains vacant; and foreign diplomats and U.N. officials in Geneva report little contact with the State Department so far, though the council doesn't return from its summer recess until September.

"The U.S. has diplomatic and economic levers it can pull more efficiently than the European Union can," said Andrew Clapham, professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

The U.S. is also nimbler when it comes to pressuring other governments than the 27-nation EU, which often operates as quickly as its slowest member, Clapham said.

Although the council is virtually powerless compared to the U.N. Security Council, its decisions carry considerable symbolic weight, particularly in the developing world, to which the Obama administration wants to reach out.

The U.S. made clear Friday that it considers human rights to be universal and urged other countries to pledge that they, like the U.S., won't flinch from having their own records scrutinized.

Zionist Logic -- Malcolm X on Zionism

Malcolm X (Omowale Malcolm X Shabazz)
Taken from The Egyptian Gazette -- Sept. 17, 1964 via Pan-African News Wire

Malcolm X with early leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964.

The Zionist armies that now occupy Palestine claim their ancient Jewish prophets predicted that in the "last days of this world" their own God would raise them up a "messiah" who would lead them to their promised land, and they would set up their own "divine" government in this newly-gained land, this "divine" government would enable them to "rule all other nations with a rod of iron."

If the Israeli Zionists believe their present occupation of Arab Palestine is the fulfillment of predictions made by their Jewish prophets, then they also religiously believe that Israel must fulfill its "divine" mission to rule all other nations with a rod of irons, which only means a different form of iron-like rule, more firmly entrenched even, than that of the former European Colonial Powers.

These Israeli Zionists religiously believe their Jewish God has chosen them to replace the outdated European colonialism with a new form of colonialism, so well disguised that it will enable them to deceive the African masses into submitting willingly to their "divine" authority and guidance, without the African masses being aware that they are still colonized.

CAMOUFLAGE

The Israeli Zionists are convinced they have successfully camouflaged their new kind of colonialism. Their colonialism appears to be more "benevolent," more "philanthropic," a system with which they rule simply by getting their potential victims to accept their friendly offers of economic "aid," and other tempting gifts, that they dangle in front of the newly-independent African nations, whose economies are experiencing great difficulties. During the 19th century, when the masses here in Africa were largely illiterate it was easy for European imperialists to rule them with "force and fear," but in this present era of enlightenment the African masses are awakening, and it is impossible to hold them in check now with the antiquated methods of the 19th century.

The imperialists, therefore, have been compelled to devise new methods. Since they can no longer force or frighten the masses into submission, they must devise modern methods that will enable them to manouevre the African masses into willing submission.

The modern 20th century weapon of neo-imperialism is "dollarism." The Zionists have mastered the science of dollarism: the ability to come posing as a friend and benefactor, bearing gifts and all other forms of economic aid and offers of technical assistance. Thus, the power and influence of Zionist Israel in many of the newly
"independent" African nations has fast-become even more unshakeable than that of the 18th century European colonialists... and this new kind of Zionist colonialism differs only in form and method, but never in motive or objective.

At the close of the 19th century when European imperialists wisely foresaw that the awakening masses of Africa would not submit to their old method of ruling through force and fears, these ever-scheming imperialists had to create a "new weapon," and to find a "new base" for that weapon.

DOLLARISM

The number one weapon of 20th century imperialism is zionist dollarism, and one of the main bases for this weapon is Zionist Israel. The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.

Zionist Israel's occupation of Arab Palestine has forced the Arab world to waste billions of precious dollars on armaments, making it impossible for these newly independent Arab nations to concentrate on strengthening the economies of their countries and elevate the living standard of their people.

And the continued low standard of living in the Arab world has been skillfully used by the Zionist propagandists to make it appear to the Africans that the Arab leaders are not intellectually or technically qualified to lift the living standard of their people ... thus, indirectly "enducing" Africans to turn away from the Arabs and towards the Israelis for teachers and technical assistance.

"They cripple the bird's wing, and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they."

The imperialists always make themselves look good, but it is only because they are competing against economically crippled newly independent countries whose economies are actually crippled by the Zionist-capitalist conspiracy. They can't stand against fair competition, thus they dread Gamal Abdul Nasser's call for African-Arab Unity under Socialism.

MESSIAH?

If the "religious" claim of the Zionists is true that they were to be led to the promised land by their messiah, and Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine is the fulfillment of that prophesy: where is their messiah whom their prophets said would get the credit for leading them there? It was Ralph Bunche who "negotiated" the Zionists into possession of Occupied Palestine! Is Ralph Bunche the messiah of Zionism? If Ralph Bunche is not their messiah, and their messsiah has not yet come, then what are they doing in Palestine ahead of their messiah?

Did the Zionists have the legal or moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot its Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the "religious" claim that their forefathers lived there thousands of years ago? Only a thousand years ago the Moors lived in Spain. Would this give the Moors of today the legal and moral right to invade the Iberian Peninsula, drive out its Spanish citizens, and then set up a new Moroccan nation ... where Spain used to be, as the European zionists have done to our Arab brothers and sisters in Palestine?...

In short the Zionist argument to justify Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine has no intelligent or legal basis in history ... not even in their own religion. Where is their Messiah?

Of Pirates & Piracy

Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, April 20, 2009

Listen to audio column: short | full

In the news of late is the piracy drama off Africa's horn -- the eastern coast of Somalia.

All of a sudden, piracy is a problem, one needing military, if not global solutions.

Every petty politician is bum-rushing the mike, to spout off on how pirates are "thugs", "criminals", or the latest Western curse, " terrorists".

Such pronouncements almost always leave me cold, or, at best, ambivalent, for behind these events lie a history that cries out for clarity and perspective.

If piracy is a crime when individuals do it, what is it when states do it?

Who can deny that America was stolen and swindled from the Indians? Or that millions of people were stolen from Africa to work for them for centuries?

Is that piracy-- or just plain policy?

Piracy did occur in the 17th and 18th centuries, and this was either cases of conflict between colonial powers (where British 'privateers', for example, would target and steal from Spanish ships), or simply in pursuit of profits.

The Somali state has been absent for a generation, and as such, what is today's piracy but making a living, albeit a dangerous one?

When Ethiopia was armed and egged on to invade Somalia several years ago by the Bush administration, was that state piracy?

When the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003, removed it's government, imposed its puppets, bombed its people, and ran a third of its population into exile, based on lies--was this piracy of one nation against another--or 'national security?'

Pirates are retail; nations are wholesale.

Who are the 'thugs', the 'criminals', the real pirates?

To my knowledge, no band of pirates has ever stolen a nation.

Guess who has?

--(c) '09 maj

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

PLEASE CONTACT:
International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
www.freemumia.com

U.S. Trained Rwandan Soldiers Not the Answer

Friends Of The Congo, Jan. 20, 2009

Let us see if we got this right. The United Nations publish a groundbreaking study that affirms what the Congolese people have been saying since 1996, that U.S. backed Rwandan aggression against the Congo has not ceased since that time. The report documented Rwanda's support of rebel leader Laurent Nkunda. So in response, the Congolese government invite to its capital one of the most infamous butchers on Congo's soil, James Kabarebe, Chief of General Staff of the Rwandan Defense Forces and former private secretary and aide-de-camp of Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame. Both Kabarebe and current Congolese President Joseph Kabila were a part of the human slaughter of Congolese and Hutu refugees (men, women and children) in 1996/'97.

It is quite shocking that the people of Kinshasa allowed Kabarebe the butcher to saunter in and out of the nations capital without a peep. It is no surprise however that President Kabila welcomed Kabarebe. Kabila was under the tutelage of Kabarebe in the late 1990s and was with him at the massacre of Tingi Tingi. Today the 1996 invasion crew of Kagame, Museveni, Kabarebe and Kabila has come full circle undoubtly to heap more pain and suffering on the people of the Congo. It is far beyond time that the Congolese people rise up and reject the further militarization of their country whether it comes from Kigali or Kinshasa and ostensibly backed by Washington and London.

For the past twelve years, U.S. ally, Rwanda has used the so-called Hutu presence in Congo as a pretext for invading the country and systematically looting it of its enormous natural wealth. Unfortunately, the same pre-text is being cynically used in collaboration with the Kabila-led Congolese government to divert the mounting global pressure on the Kagame regime’s transgressions in the Congo through its proxy rebel forces in the East of Congo.

Should the newly sworn in Obama administration not want the stain of the blood and deaths of millions of Africans on its hands like the Clinton and Bush administrations, it should cease the US's militarization of the African continent and Central Africa in particular. Congo's soil has become the military playground for the United States and its Rwandan and Ugandan allies. Just over the holiday season hundreds of Congolese were slaughtered as a result of the joint Ugandan-Congo military offensive against the Lord's Resistance Army of Joseph Kony.

Militarization is not the answer. Robust political solutions are needed to address the myriad crises in Central Africa. The strengthening of Congolese institutions is needed. The Congolese people need justice and reconciliation not thousands of Rwandan troops.

A Few Key Links:

• Rwanda Stirs Deadly Brew of Troubles in Congo
• Johann Hari: How we fuel Africa's bloodiest war
• Countering the FDLR
• Primer on Conflict in the Congo

McGee: Oh what a lovely white man!

The Herald, May 17, 2008

When James McGee took up his posting in Zimbabwe, he made it clear Zimbabweans should never confuse his skin tint with the colour of his assignment here.

He had come as an agent and representative of the American Government and American interests.

These he would protect and pursue relentlessly, ruthlessly if need be.

I hope everyone took note. I certainly did, and still do.

But I also hope that by the same logic, Mr McGee granted Zimbabwe the same right, indeed freed it from obligations suggested by skin pigmentation.

When it comes to interests and purpose, he is decidedly white. When it comes to its purpose and interests, Zimbabwe is incurably black. Our paths may never meet. That must be plain and clear.

When black is white

I will favour him with a bit of information. His coming triggered debate on why white America had chosen a black surface for its envoy here, and at this point in the history of US-Zimbabwe relations. It is the same question debated here following the appointment of Powell, Rice and Frazer to high posts in the American Administration.

We knew Mr McGee’s chequered history in one country in our region, and in Madagascar. We knew his role in fighting America’s wars in Vietnam.

I remember someone quipping "White America is now so confident of the whiteness of its blacks that colour is no longer an issue. Colour is no longer a perspective. Look at Obama, he could be white America’s next President, far better at pushing her agenda than George W. Bush!"

I disagreed vehemently with that reading, reminding the owner of the frivolous point that Zimbabwe and Zanu-PF retain staunch support in respectable circles of African-African Americans; that as a matter of fact, many self respecting African-African Americans resent to be identified with these black pastes on America’s stripes and stars.

I also reminded the contributor that Obama was useful in knocking Clinton out of the race, herself the real threat to McCain, but never as a potential President of white America. McGee will deliver Zimbabwe to McCain, the same way Obama will clear the way for McCain’s presidency.

Reading from thongs

The debate went much further. How would we handle McGee in the event that he began to take a hostile line against Zimbabwe, in pursuit of white America’s interests? Again, I reminded the debate McGee would take a hostile line, sooner rather than later.

But I saw no dilemma: we would handle him like a white American, which is what he is, until he limps back home into the anonymity of retirement. But the debate still revealed to me a lingering complex, one deriving from history. Our incorrigible wish to be nice and good to anyone carrying our complexion, which make us so susceptible to needless dilemmas.

It is a disposition of gratuitous kindness, often against the imperatives of lived history. And if the cruel history we have lived and endured has not taught us that not everything black is indeed black, and that anything white cannot be black, I guess nothing ever will.

A people who cannot read from thongs of a cruel history, can hardly be expected to learn from fawned kisses and kindness deployed in peacetime. They have an acute wish to be loved and will smile after a sod splatter on their forehead.

Learning from Jews

The point goes much deeper. A people who cannot read or quantify the hurt of history, the massive injury done them by other nationalities in history, cannot be a people in history. Building a collective identity is based, among other things, on bitterness and bruises suffered and shared in history which become a rallying point for building a national project.

Ask the Jews who go as far as declaring war on whoever seeks to challenge the myth of the Nazi holocaust.

That myth founds them, sustains them, motivates them, unites them. Ask the Palestinians, themselves victims of Jewish victims. They know that each of their dead must go towards building an Arab counter-myth to the holocaust by which Jewish genocidal atrocities against them are beyond error and culpability for all time.

Using America’s colours

We put too much store in the man outside, forgetting the monster inside, we people of little judgement! As if we did not bring to the world the wisdom of the proverbial fig: sumptuous rind to please the eye, but dark, creeping vermin inside. True, the saying is meant to caution the love-smitten in the human drama of courtship.

But who says its semantic range is limited only mortal seductive beauty? No, it extends to warning one against the danger of colour-based solidarity belying an ugly and sinister white beneath. It is as if we forget America is a nation of colour. It has perfected the art of deploying its rich colours to effect. This is why multiculturalism and multicolour-ism are so key to understanding her foreign policy.

Arabised lips, Arab blood

When Iraq was rapped, the spokesperson for the "coalition of the willing" was a bloodshot American spotting the smoked skin and hard, thick lips of an Arab. Aggression and genocidal massacre of Iraqis was made palatable to the world by Arab lips.

That is how consent was manufactured, destruction of Arab life, endorsed and naturalised. The same happened in Afghanistan. The same would happen on the African continent the day America decides we deserve a bit of its hot, molten iron in our bodies, before it takes our prized raw materials.

America’s multiculturalism arises not from its largeness of heart, but from the sheer expansiveness of its global imperial designs. It is a weapon of war, which is why America’s citizens of dark shed eagerly await overseas aggression to find their place and glory, albeit for a short while.

If you are an American of Arab roots, you prayerfully hope Syria or Iran will be next, perchance the American military designates you spokesperson. If you are African-African American, you hope Zimbabwe is next so you become the black spokesperson cleansing such infamy.

The story of a good Rhodes

At some point, a black ambassador had to come to Zimbabwe. In fact he did, much early on, well before the situation in Zimbabwe was ripe for regime change, and before America had built a critical mass of "right-thinking" African-African Americans.

We had ambassador Ambassador Rhodes here, who turned to be a wrong and premature deployment of blackness.

Beyond his title as America’s ambassador here, he turned out to be an African-African American who read Garvey, Malcolm X and Nkrumah.

He never lasted. When the timing was right, a McGee had to come, the same way Andrew Young came in the late 1970s, to win for America the confidence of liberation movements which threatened to overrun white Rhodesia. It is very important to know that not everything black is not white.

McGee’s escapades

The technique remains the same: see one side; hear one side; speak one side. We saw this at work in the run-up to the attack on Iraq. America built evidence with which to justify aggression, using sources which had a vested interest in damning Saddam Hussein and his Ba-athist party.

She built evidence from testimonials from persons opposed to Saddam, persons America herself had taken into exile in America, in preparation for Saddam’s ouster. Why did they expect the rat to plead for the accused groundnut? Now to brother McGee.

The last two weeks, McGee has been very active. He has led missions of diplomats, mostly western, to many places, if only to build a story of a Zanu-PF-led torture campaign in the countryside.

He has been to the Avenues Hospital; he has been to hospitals and clinics in Mvurwi, the so-called international media in tow. He has held interviews with anyone who has cared to ask for them.

He has harpooned African envoys, hoping to dramatise African outrage against Zanu-PF "atrocities".

In one interview, he revealed the whole game plan. It is to pin Zanu-PF and Zimbabwe down for debate in the Security Council, "which will happen very soon." Currently, Britain is in the chair.

Next month, America will be, which is what explains the man’s optimism. And his comments are outrageously unguarded, suggesting more an angry American fighting an unjust war in Vietnam, than a circumspect ambassador with any claim to polish. The violence is 99,9 percent Zanu-PF, he says. If there are any Zanu-PF victims — and he says he is not aware of these — these would have earned it by provoking an MDC retaliation!

The man has made up his mind and will not move or be moved by anyone, by anything. He is defiant, and will push aside the police to access any place. Using an arsenal of illegally imported b-gans, he pipes his choreographed encounters to CNN which obliges a line: "Zimbabwe authorities stop American ambassador twice". It is like you have dared ask God why he is called Almighty, you a mere, puny mortal!

Listening to himself

But McGee has some recommendation. People must see a video produced by some organisation called Solidarity Peace Trust clearly showing that Zanu-PF is culpable! You search who this organisation is and, the horror, the horror! It is an NGO registered in South Africa, co-chaired by Pius Ncube and Bishop Rubin Phillip of KwaZulu-Natal Anglican church.

The same Ncube of church sex-scandals, and who accosts America to invade and topple President Mugabe. The same Bishop Rubin who mounts action against Chinese arms shipment to southern African states, including Zimbabwe.

These are avowed enemies of Zanu-PF and unconditional supporters of the MDC, set up and sponsored by the American Government. Why would they have any other motive other than to damn Mugabe, Zanu-PF and Zimbabwe? Why would the American ambassador pretend discovery of material whose gathering and compilation he commissioned through his intelligence officers which his Government has now deployed in industrial quantities, having smelt Zanu-PF blood? Why feign distance?

Calibrated victims

Secondly, who are these victims? Who are the villains? What is this violence? Fundamental questions which fixation with images of torn buttocks is meant to push away. You have villagers who are clearly traumatised, but who have been rounded up and checked into Harare’s most expensive hospital, the Avenues Clinic.

They have even over-spilled to West End clinic. Until now, they were not known. They are not on any medical aid. Until now they would never have dreamt of such first class facilities. They have no money, clearly village wretches, not through the violence which has visited them, but by historical processes which McGee will not want to discuss. But they are in Avenues. They are predominantly women aged between 30 and 40, badly hurt and bruised. Surprisingly, these are calibrated injuries, mostly on buttocks, under feet and backbones. Relatives who visit them are all middle class coxcombs from the city.

They are very aggressive with hospital staff and immediately go quiet when hospital staff are within earshot. Once away, they are in deep discussions with victims, talking deep MDC politics, victims resting their heads on crispy issues of "The Zimbabwean".

Mr McGee, something is not adding up here. After visiting hours, these "relatives" troop out and congregate to swap animated gossip, all political, before disappearing in the direction of Harvest House or some such MDC-connected NGO offices and safe houses.

Dr. Lovemore, I presume?

Much worse, the rags-to-riches kingly victims have been checked in by one Dr. Lovemore, herself historically associated with ZCTU and Amani Trust.

She runs something called Counselling Services Union, again US/UK funded, and positioned just in time for violence we all did not know would come, but which the West predicted and wished through their media networks. More dramatically, Avenues Clinic has a standing contract with Counselling Services Union, clinched well before the poll and the violence!

Most dramatically, Counselling Services Union generously offers to pay admitting hospitals in currency of choice, with Avenues receiving payment in hard currencies. Goodness me! Including Doctors for Human Rights, which is why habitually scarce doctors will be abundant for this one assignment. And they are even keen to set aside rules governing visits to victims.

They will allow you anytime, grant you as much time as you want to get the outrage pasted on Zanu-PF. Come on!

Return of Selous Scouts

Let us not have short memories. We saw this kind of operation during our liberation struggle, did we not? We had Selous Scouts here, did we not? Cruel men of Rhodesia who melted into farming soon after the war. We had the Special Branch here, did we not? Cruel men who melted into civilian outfits soon after.

We had Rhodesia African Rifles, did we not? African askaris who came under the command of white officers the majority of whom were drawn from territorials. And territorials were white farmers. Rhodesia had a small standing army which got boosted from the farms. Have we forgotten that?

Which stupid Zanu-PFsupporter would create a torture base and leave it intact for Mr. McGee to come and inspect for maximum damage against Zanu-PF? Are we not stretching believability?

Has anyone asked why Gutu, Hurungwe, Buhera and Chikomba have become critical for MDC? What was the significance of these districts during the war?

And why is the violence following the zone of resettlement, targeting new farmers, Zanu-PF supporters or MDC turncoats?

Ambassador, are you puzzled by this like all of us? And why do you not visit victims of Mayo and Shamva?

What place do you give to UN reports which indicated MDC was a villain, not just a victim?

Rhodesia’s new war vets?

Why have you not investigated the role and place of white farmers in all this? Have they now found Rhodesia’s war vets in roving MDC thugs they have equipped with vehicles, cameras and crude weaponry, to effect new land occupations?

Are we not seeing MDC’s land policy unfolding ahead of the run-off? You get an MDC youth arrested on scenes of violence. He is unemployed, unkempt.

But he wields an expensive camera, a b-gan, and expensive cellphone with roving facility. The names in it include whites in the UK, America and South Africa, all linked to MDC activism. Those youths, abundantly unsophisticated, uneducated even, have hotlines to BBC and CNN.

How so Mr McGee, Mr Pocock?

So many questions, no one interested in answering them.

Zanu-PF has to be indicted, guilty or not guilty. Sooner than later the link between the violence, a former white now in self-exile and white commercial farmers who drifted back, will be made and Mr McGee shall have a major rethink.

Assuming his mission, conscience and decency are compatible. In the meantime, McGee defies his blackness, his history as a descendant of white atrocities, to become so wonderful, so lovely a white man. Icho!

l Feedback: nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw

Bush open to Liberia hosting U.S. military command

By Jeremy Pelofsky, Feb. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday the possible shift of the U.S. military command for Africa to the continent from its current home in Germany will be on the agenda as he meets with leaders of five African countries.

Bush on Friday departed for a six-day trip to Africa to highlight one of the few bright spots in his foreign policy agenda, assistance to HIV/AIDS victims and helping budding businesses. He will visit Tanzania, Ghana, Benin, Liberia and Rwanda.

But the conflicts in Darfur and Kenya will also be on the agenda, as well as lobbying from African leaders on where to locate the new Africa Command headquarters, known as Africom, whose primary mission will be to work with African militaries.

"If there is going to be a physical presence on the continent of Africa in the forms of a headquarters ... obviously we would seriously consider Liberia," Bush said in an interview with foreign media on Thursday and released on Friday.

In the interview, Bush said there was a path forward in Kenya, which has been wracked with violence after a disputed election.

"There is a way forward, which is for the parties to come together in good faith, and work out a way forward until there are new elections," he said.

Bush has asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to go to Kenya with a message that there must be a full return to democracy and she will be in Nairobi on Monday.

The U.S. attention to Africa has been growing over the last few years amid concerns that countries there could become safe havens for militants seeking to base operations and plan attacks on the United States.

"Africom is a brand new concept aimed at strengthening nations' capacities to deal with trafficking or terror, but also to help nations develop forces capable of doing the peacekeeping that unfortunately too often is needed on the continent," Bush said.

The U.S. has some 1,700 troops in Djibouti. While Liberia has offered to host Africom, regional powers like South Africa and Nigeria have been wary.

The U.S. military divides the world into regional commands. Previously, responsibility for Africa was split between European Command, Pacific Command and Central Command, which is the headquarters for the Middle East.

A year ago Bush announced the creation of Africom and has been headquartered for the time being in Stuttgart, Germany.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday urged Bush to speak with African leaders about helping people over poverty as well as the lack of basic sanitation of educational opportunities.

"Your visit to African states at this time will be very important and historic," Ban told reporters after meeting with Bush at the White House. "In that regard, I wish you all the best. This is very great opportunities."

It is the second trip to Africa for Bush, and the fifth for his wife, Laura. (Additional reporting by David Alexander, Editing by Jackie Frank)

Bush Africa visit met by protest & viewed with distrust

Bush Africa visit seen more about strategy than compassion
By Barry Moody, Reuters, Feb. 15, 2008

DAR ES SALAAM (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's coming African tour will emphasize the caring side of U.S. policy but it is widely seen as being more about military interests, oil supplies and combating Chinese influence.

Bush is scheduled to start a tour of five nations with a brief stop in Benin on Saturday, although he has threatened to delay the trip because of a legislative battle with Congress.

The five countries -- Tanzania, Ghana, Liberia and Rwanda, as well as Benin -- have been chosen for what are viewed as strong democratic credentials and successful U.S. aid projects.

The centerpiece and longest stop of the tour will be Tanzania, whose leader, President Jakaya Kikwete, is seen by Washington as a poster boy for progressive African government.

Bush, accompanied by his wife Laura, will visit hospitals, schools, AIDS and malaria projects. In Tanzania he will sign the biggest ever grant, of $698 million, under his Millennium Challenge Corp, to fund water, energy and infrastructure.

The MCC is intended to reward good governance and sound economic policies.

Kikwete named a new cabinet this week after the previous prime minister resigned over a corruption probe but Washington sees this as confirmation of the president's anti-graft credentials rather than an embarrassment.

Bush's attempt to anoint some of his more successful policies in Africa in the dying months of his presidency risks being derailed by cynicism over U.S. motives and the same issues, led by Iraq, that have made him unpopular elsewhere.

About 2,000 Muslims marched peacefully through Dar es Salaam on Friday to protest against Bush and his war on terror.

One of the march organizers, Sheikh Mussa Kundecha, told Reuters: "Bush will be here for his own benefit instead of caring about the people of the country."

Student Emmanuel Dickson said earlier: "America and Bush have one policy, to look after their own interests. If he is going to give us money for infrastructure and health ... what does he want in return? He wants to bring forces to Africa and he wants to stop the Chinese from getting a greater hold."

Beijing is now Africa's third biggest trading partner, behind the European Union and the United States, after a huge 30 percent jump in the first 10 months of 2007.

AFRICOM

Analysts say confused U.S. policy on Africa and bad handling of its new Africa command (Africom), particularly premature discussion of basing it on the continent, have alienated regional powers like South Africa and made Washington unpopular.

Bush approved Africom, a new command for Africa to offer both training to African armies and humanitarian work, a year ago. But African opposition has forced it for the moment to shelve plans to base the headquarters on the continent.

Africom has added to Africa's unhappiness over other elements of Bush's post 9/11 campaign against Islamist militants.

U.S. backing for the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia a year ago to prop up a weak transitional government against Islamist insurgents and the subsequent "rendition" of Muslim suspects, including Kenyan nationals, to Ethiopia has caused widespread anger.

Patrick Smith of the Africa Confidential newsletter said U.S. policy "appears to be at sea ... what is the foundation of the policy? Is it a security nexus based on militarization or is it a much more development-oriented policy?"

"There is a sense that Africa has got the fag end of the war on terror and that it has been very badly handled and if anything has diminished the U.S.'s standing in the region with no great benefit in terms of military effect."

There is also a widely held belief around the continent that Bush is trying to counteract growing Asian, especially Chinese, influence and investment and that Washington is only really interested in oil resources in the Gulf of Guinea -- expected to provide 25 percent of its needs by 2015.

"What is on top of Bush's mind is the Chinese. China is worrying to the U.S. It is not only taking markets and alternative trade partnerships ...African countries will no longer need American aid to survive," said Ugandan student Joseph Mwaka.

Houcine Akkari, a retired man in Tunis told Reuters: "The U.S. says it wants to help Africa to boost democracy, reduce poverty and improve governance. But the truth is so different. Bush wants to exploit Africa which is rich in natural resources, without giving anything to Africa." (Additional reporting by Wangui Kanina, Francis Kwera in Kampala, and Sonia Ounissi in Tunis)

Rebel coalition fights neocolonial regime in Chad

By G. Dunkel, International Action Center, Feb. 14, 2008

Chad, in central Africa, was brutally conquered by France over a century ago and made part of its colonial empire. Today, while nominally independent, it is the fifth poorest country in the world, according to the U.N. However, it has become a significant, though not major, exporter of oil in the past three years.

ExxonMobil, a major U.S. corporation, is currently exploiting this oil, which has also brought billions of dollars to Chad. Most of that money, however, has stayed in the pockets of President Idriss Deby Itno -- a former helicopter pilot trained by the French, who seized power in 1990 -- and his clique, through one stratagem or another. Redistributing this wealth is one of the issues pushing forward a rebellion against Deby’s rule.

This struggle broke out into heavy fighting early in February when a rebel coalition fought for control of Ndjamena, Chad’s capital. An estimated 1,000 people died.

The Deby government claimed that most of the casualties were rebels—it called them mercenaries paid by Sudan—who didn’t know their way around the city, which has no street signs.

That’s not how the insurgents explain why they pulled back. Coalition spokesperson Abderaman Koulamallah said in an interview with Agence France Presse that direct attacks carried out by the French military had caused “enormous civilian casualties.”

Mahamat Nouri, the main military commander of the opposition, charged the French Air Force had “bombarded” its positions for over 13 hours to protect the Deby government.

During the battle for Ndjamena, which began Feb. 2-3, many of Deby’s soldiers reportedly deserted or didn’t follow orders because of ties they have with the rebels. Many of the rebels themselves were formerly in the government army. For example, Nouri himself used to be Deby’s defense minister and took a number of troops with him when he went over to the opposition.

While the French were willing to provide Deby with logistical, intelligence and air support and to defend the Ndjamena airport, they were not willing to put the bodies of French soldiers on the ground in harm’s way.

So Deby issued a call for reinforcements to the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group in Sudan fighting the government in the region of Darfur. It is drawn mainly from Deby’s ethnic group, the Zaghawas. However, Zaghawas also play a leading role among the rebel forces. (Le Figaro, Feb. 2)

The JEM troops quickly arrived on the battlefield in Chad. (New York Times, Feb. 8) The only practical way for JEM troops to have gotten from Darfur to Ndjamena, a distance of more than 600 miles, was for the French Air Force to fly them from its base in Abeche, a major city in eastern Chad not far from the border with Sudan.

The Sudanese government has announced that it will allow U.N.-African Union “peacekeepers” to move about freely in Darfur, but the JEM has just announced that it will attack them whenever they enter JEM-controlled areas.

The French press on Feb. 10 reported that the opposition had seized two major towns in the eastern part of the country. It also reported that EUFOR—with some 4,700 soldiers drawn from the armies of the 27 countries in the European Union—had begun setting up an advance base in Ndjamena, called Camp Europa. Full deployment of EUFOR is set to begin Feb. 12.

EUFOR, which stands for European Union Forces, has been used before in Bosnia and the Congo. While its commander and a large proportion of its troops are French, it does have a U.N. mandate to protect Sudanese refugees in Chad and the Central African Republic, distribute humanitarian aid and train Chadian police.

Its real aim is to project and protect Europe’s imperialist interests in the strategic center of Africa, bordering on the hotspot of Darfur.

Dr. Ley-Ngardigal Djimadoum, the leader of Chad’s Action for Unity and Socialism (ACTUS), at the beginning of February released a statement in French on a number of African and European anti-imperialist web sites.

Djimadoum said that, “Almost all the Chadian opposition is very hostile to EUFOR in Chad. The presence of French military bases, under the pretext of defending the territorial integrity of an ‘independent’ state, from independence [1960] to now, leaves a bitter taste. In reality, these occupation troops only defend the economic interests of the multinationals and the geostrategic interests of the imperialists on the African continent.

“A number of mass revolts and rebellions against the dictators imposed on our people by French imperialism have been drowned in blood by the support and the direct participation of French troops besides the army of their puppet government.

“The humanitarian aid proposed by EUFOR is a tree which hides the forest. More competent civilian organizations have been in place for years.”

The budget for EUFOR’s operation is nearly $450 million, close to twice the yearly income of Chad’s 9.3 million people.

The coalition that attacked Ndjamena independently issued a statement condemning France’s role, while avoiding the sharp language Djimadoum used.

Chad is an extremely poor but highly strategic country that has been waging an unrelenting struggle, with many twists and turns, against French neocolonialism for over 40 years. The intervention of European imperialism through EUFOR is going to raise the stakes, but is unlikely to end the drive of the people of Chad for their liberation.

The New Military Frontier: Africa

by Frida Berrigan, Foreign Policy In Focus, Sept 19, 2007

A U.S. Army captain in Africa waxes philosophical. It’s like the old saying, he opines; “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”

Is he talking about skills-building, or community empowerment? No: Captain Joseph Cruz goes from channeling the musician Speech from the American hip-hop group Arrested Development back to his military-approved talking points: “the same can be said about military to military training and that’s why we do it.”

The Delta company soldier is one of 1,800 based in Djibouti at an old French Foreign Legion base, and he is comparing lessons in small naval patrol boat tactics, approaches to counter terrorism operations, and how to use an M-16 rifle, to teaching a man to fish.

It is not just the Djiboutians who are receiving these lessons — members of the Ethiopian, Ugandan and Kenyan armed forces have also been on “fishing trips” with the U.S. military.

Most Americans have never heard of Djibouti, and fewer can pronounce it correctly, but here — far from the bombed bridges of Baghdad and the flourishing poppy fields of Afghanistan — is the third front of the war on terrorism. As Rear Admiral Richard Hunt, the Commander of Combined Joint Taskforce-Horn of Africa (or CJT-HOA, in inimitable military style), explains: “Africa is the new frontier that we need to engage now, or we are going to end up doing it later in a very negative way.”

As part of the CJT-HOA these soldiers are also building schools, digging wells and sanitizing slaughterhouses. Their work is delineated by the four Ps and the three Ds: Prevent conflict, promote regional stability, protect coalition interests and prevail against extremism in East Africa and Yemen through diplomacy, development and defense.

Amid the commemorations, tributes, and critiques that cluster around the September 11 anniversary, we should not lose sight of how the war on terrorism is militarizing Africa. With under-tapped oil reserves, vast stretches of ungoverned space, impoverished populations and pandemics of AIDS/HIV and other diseases, Africa is now on Washington’s radar screen. The National Security Strategy for the United States, 2006 says: “Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high priority of this administration.” But the most significant way that high priority status is being expressed is through commitments of military aid, training, troops and equipment.

The U.S. base in Djibouti is just one plank in a new platform of military engagement in Africa. There is also the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI), which Congress funded at $500 million over six years in 2005. There are also increased naval maneuvers in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, and establishment of a P3 Orion aerial surveillance station in Algeria.

And now, as though the Pentagon does not have enough on its plate, President George W. Bush has established United States African Command (AFRICOM) as the newest U.S. military sphere of influence. The command brings together most of the continent (Egypt will remain under CENTCOM) for the first time, and according to President Bush it “will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”

But the administration is mostly trying to define AFRICOM by what it is not:

Theresa Whelan, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, says: “Africa Command is not going to reflect a U.S. intent to engage kinetically in Africa. This is about prevention. This is not about fighting wars.” At another point, Whelan also said “This is not about a scramble for the continent.”

“We are not at war in Africa. Nor do we expect to be at war in Africa. Our embassies and AFRICOM will work in concert to keep it that way,” notes Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa.

Despite these reassurances, many African nations view this move with a healthy dose of skepticism. They are expressing this view by shutting their doors. AFRICOM is temporarily based in Germany, but commanders hope to make the move to the region by fall 2008. The military seems to be favoring a “lily pad” approach of small bases across West Africa and the Horn region so as to not commit significant troops or lend credence to African concerns of a U.S. occupation. But where are these lily pads going to go?

Zambia has said no. In early September, President Levy Mwanawasa said that within the Southern African Development Community (a network of fourteen nations) “none of us is interested” in hosting the command. The South Africa Defense Minister Mosiuoa Lekota has refused to meet with U.S. General William “Kip” Ward, who will command AFRICOM. Lekota said recently, “Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil.”

But, some countries are viewing AFRICOM as an opportunity. The United States has already secured access agreements with Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Gabon and Namibia. And the United States’ close ally Liberia has aggressively promoted of the Command. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf penned a widely cited and circulated op-ed for AllAfrica.Com that hyped the Command as an opportunity for African nations. She has lobbied hard for AFRICOM to come to Liberia. The United States is also looking at Sao Tome and Principe, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Djibouti, and Ethiopia as possible locations.

In case none of these options work out, the Navy has a novel (and very expensive) idea to forgo land completely and house AFRICOM on a high-tech joint command and control ship that would circumnavigate the region.

Even as these discussions continue, some African nations are receiving significant increases in military aid and weapons sales; most of these increases have gone to oil-rich nations and compliant states where the U.S. military seeks a strategic toehold. The Center for Defense Information recently completed “U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror;” an analysis of increases in military aid since September 11, 2001. The report compares the military aid and weapons sales in the five-year leading up to 2001 and the five years since.

For example: since September 11, Kenya, which the State Department describes as a “frontline state” in the war on terrorism, has received eight times more military aid than in the preceding five years.

Djibouti, which has opened its territory to U.S. forces, received forty times more military aid, and an eightfold increase in the value of weapons transfers.

Oil-rich Algeria, where the surveillance equipment is based, has received ten times more aid and a warm embrace from Washington.

Nigeria, the fifth largest supplier of oil to the United States, is slated to receive $1.35 million in Foreign Military Financing for 2008 despite persistent human rights abuses.

Mali is described as an “active partner in the war against terrorism” by the State Department and is a good example of a little military aid going a long way. The desert nation is slated to receive just $250,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET funding) and no Foreign Military Financing in 2008. But, Mali participates in both the Regional Defense Counter Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Anti-terrorism Assistance program, receiving additional funding through these programs. Aid comes in other forms too. Just this week, a U.S. C-130 military transport plane dropped food aid to Malian soldiers as they pursued armed members of the Tuareg ethnic group. This sort of assistance is not documented or quantified in any ledger or report but — if repeated regularly — could significantly increase the Malian military’s capabilities.

U.S. arms sales to Ethiopia, which has one of Africa’s largest armies, have roughly doubled and military aid has increased two and a half times. But the nation has not received military Humvees since 2002, when it used them against its own people. During protests following the May 2002 elections, the Ethiopian military fired on crowds from the Humvees, killing 85 people. The U.S. sold the Humvees to Ethiopia for counter-terrorism operations. Will the other military assistance Ethiopia receives be similarly abused?

It is always heartening (and non-threatening) to hear soldiers speaking of their mission in altruistic terms. “The hope is to prevent another Iraq or Afghanistan by giving back,” says John Harris, commander Command Senior Enlisted Leader of CJT-HOA. But, the soldiers are not there to make friends. The base had been used twice to launch incursions into Somalia (without the permission or even knowledge of the Djiboutian government).

Richard Lugar (R-IN), one of the wise men in the Senate, commented during an AFRICOM hearing that the Pentagon enjoys far greater resources than the State Department. He observed, “This imbalance within our own structure will be reflected in AFRICOM initially — hopefully not perpetually.” There is no indication that humanitarian investments will outpace military contributions any time soon — especially when the justification for aid remains the war on terrorism.

The Congressional Research Service’s latest accounting of the Global War on Terrorism, of which AFRICOM would be a part, puts the cost at $611 billion since 2001, not including additional recent requests of $147 billion and another $50 billion.

For less than that $808 billion spent in the last six years, we could provide universal primary education, reduce infant mortality by two thirds and provide universal access to potable water and not just for the United States, but also for the world. These Millennium Development Goals have languished with sporadic investment and big promises, while military solutions to problems are funded robustly.

Reexamining this imbalance seems like a crucial first step. And the battle for African hearts and minds will not be won if it’s clear that it is being waged more for the sake of U.S. strategic interests than African needs.

FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.

Jubilation as UN Adopts Historic Statement on Native Rights

Haider Rizvi, OneWorld US, Sept. 14, 2007

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 (OneWorld) - Despite strong objections from the United States and some of its allies, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources.

The adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples comes after 22 years of diplomatic negotiations at the United Nations involving its member states, international civil society groups, and representatives of the world's aboriginal communities.

An overwhelming majority of UN member countries endorsed the Declaration, with 143 voting in favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining.

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand stood alone in voting against the resolution. The nations that neither supported nor objected were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine.

"It's a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the General Assembly vote. "This marks a historic moment when member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories."

In her comments, General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa described the outcome of the vote as a "major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

Pleased with the General Assembly's decision, indigenous leaders told OneWorld they wanted the declaration to be adopted by consensus, but since certain countries remained unwilling to recognize their rights until the end, a majority vote was the only possible option left.

"If a few states do not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document," said Les Malezer, an aboriginal leader from Australia, before the resolution was presented to the General Assembly.

Before the vote many indigenous leaders accused the United States and Canada of pressuring economically weak and vulnerable nations to reject calls for the Declaration's adoption. Initially, some African countries were also reluctant to vote in favor, but later changed their position after the indigenous leadership accepted their demand to introduce certain amendments in the text.

The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures, and traditions and pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

It also calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, a principle fully recognized by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by the United States and some of its allies who fear that it could undermine their rights to rule over all their current territory.

In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions that would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states.

Though the African viewpoint was incorporated into the final version, the Declaration remains assertive of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources.

"It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Malezer said last week.

Thursday, Malezer and his colleagues in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues described the world body's decision as "a major victory."

"The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as an international human rights day for the indigenous peoples of the world," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the Permanent Forum, in an emotional tone filled with joy.

International civil society groups working for the rights of indigenous peoples also expressed extreme pleasure with Thursday's vote.

"We are really very happy and thrilled to hear about the adoption of the Declaration," said Botswana Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone of First People of the Kalahari, who works with the independent advocacy group Survival International.

"It recognizes that governments can no longer treat us as second-class citizens, and it gives protection to tribal peoples so that they will not be thrown off their lands like we were," Gakelebone added in a statement.

Survival's director Stephen Corry said he hoped the declaration would raise international standards in the same way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did nearly 60 years ago.

"It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated," he added.

Vivian Stromberg, executive director of the New York-based rights group MADRE, said Thursday that the Declaration's passage "will signal a major shift in the landscape of international human rights law, in which the collective rights of indigenous peoples will finally be recognized and defended."

At the UN, indigenous leaders, however, cautioned against a possible gap between rhetoric and effective implementation of the Declaration.

"It will be the test of commitment of states and the whole international community to protect, respect, and fulfill indigenous peoples' collective and individual human rights," Tauli-Corpuz said.

"I call on governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples, and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity," she said in a statement.

Though pleased with the General Assembly's decision, some indigenous leaders seemed unhappy that the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not accept the Declaration.

"Canada has shown its true colors on our human rights," Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, told OneWorld.

Those in opposition have said the Declaration is "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to indigenous self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, these clauses would hinder economic development efforts and undermine so-called "established democratic norms."

The United States has also refused to sign on to a UN treaty on biological diversity, which calls for a "fair and equitable" sharing of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises.

Meanwhile, threats to indigenous lands and resources persist, say rights activists, in the form of mining, logging, toxic contamination, privatization, large-scale development projects, and the use of genetically modified seeds.

"The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples," said Manuel. "The international community needs to understand how hypocritical Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are."

Recent scientific studies have repeatedly warned of devastating consequences for indigenous communities in particular as changing climates are expected to cause more floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events across the world.

The United States and Australia have taken particular criticism also for their refusal to join the majority of the world's nations in efforts to combat climate change.

African states oppose US presence

Simon Tisdall in Washington, Guardian Unlimited, June 25, 2007

The Pentagon's plans to create a new US military command based in Africa have hit a wall of hostility from governments in the region reluctant to associate themselves publicly with the US "global war on terror".

A US delegation led by Ryan Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary of defence for policy, returned to Washington last week with little to show from separate consultations with senior defence and foreign ministry officials in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti and with the African Union (AU).

An earlier round of consultations with sub-Saharan countries on providing secure facilities and local backup for the new command, to be known as Africom and due to be operational by September next year, was similarly inconclusive.

The Libyan and Algerian governments reportedly told Mr Henry this month that they would play no part in hosting Africom. Despite recently improved relations with the US, both said they would urge their neighbours not to do so, either, due to fears of future American intervention. Even Morocco, considered Washington's closest north African ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent military presence on its soil.

"We've got a big image problem down there," a state department official admitted. "Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don't trust the US."

Another African worry was that any US facilities could become targets for terrorists, the official said. Dangled US economic incentives, including the prospect of hundreds of local jobs, had not proven persuasive.

Mr Henry said African officials had agreed during the talks that counter-terrorism was "a top security concern". But he added: "The countries were committed to the African Union as the continent's common security structure. They advised us that Africom should be established in harmony with the AU."

The US talks with Libya appear to have been frank. "In the area of security, they are looking for Africa-only solutions... I wouldn't say we see eye to eye on every issue," Mr Henry said. "I wouldn't say we see eye to eye on every issue."

Mr Henry emphasised the US was not seeking to supplant or supersede African leadership but rather to reinforce it. He said the creation of Africom would not entail the permanent stationing of large numbers of US troops in Africa, as in Asia and Europe.

Its overall aim was to integrate and expand US security, diplomatic, developmental and humanitarian assistance in collaboration with regional allies, not increased interventionism, he said.

Unveiling the plan in February, president George Bush said Africom would advance "our common goals of peace, security, development, health, education, democracy and economic growth".

But African opposition appears to have modified Washington's approach. Mr Henry said the latest plans envisaged "a distributed command" that would be "networked" across several countries, rather than a single, large headquarters in one place.

"There will be a staff headquarters... with a four-star in-theatre commander," he said. "(But) information technology allows us to bring people at dispersed geographical locations together. We are investigating the possibility of having the command distributed in a number of different nodes around the continent."

Mr Henry said this approach matched that of Islamist terrorists. "Al-Qaida is working in a distributive structure itself. It's establishing nodes throughout the region and there's been an establishment of al-Qaida in the Maghreb."

The state department official said the US remained confident that partners for the Africom project would eventually be found, although concerns persisted about political stability, misgovernance and corruption issues in some potential sub-Saharan partner countries.

The official added that the command's security focus would include suspected terrorist training camps in Mali and southern Algeria, the spread of Islamic fundamentalist ideas and violence in the Maghreb, northern Nigeria and the Horn of Africa, suspected uranium smuggling in the Sahel region - and addressing the political instability and economic deprivation that fed extremism.

Energy supply is another factor sparking heightened US interest, notably in west Africa. Gulf of Guinea countries including Nigeria and Angola are projected to provide a quarter of US oil imports within a decade.

US aid and development projects in Africa are expanding rapidly. Mr Bush asked Congress this month to double to $30bn (£15bn) over the next five years US funding for Aids relief, plus $1.2bn to fight malaria. Washington has also broadened its involvement in efforts to end the Darfur crisis. Laura Bush, the First Lady, embarked on a five-day consciousness-raising tour today, to Senegal, Mozambique, Zambia and Mali.

Nigeria: Another 'Day of the African Child'

This Day (Lagos)
OPINION June 12 2007 Posted to the web June 13 2007
Bukola Olatunji And Lagos

It has been 31 years since thousands of South African black school children marched on the streets of Soweto, on June 16, 1976, to protest the inferior quality of their education and to demand their right to be taught in their own language. Hundreds of them were shot down; and in the two weeks of protest that followed, no fewer than an additional 100 people were killed and more than a thousand injured.

To honour the memory of those killed and the courage of all those who marched, the Day of the African Child has been celebrated, worldwide, on 16 June every year since 1991, when it was first initiated by the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

The day serves as an opportunity to reflect on progress toward health, education, equality and protection for all African children. The theme for this year's celebration is, 'Child Trafficking'.

It may be impossible to get accurate figures of victims of child trafficking either nationally, regionally or globally. According Plan, a global partnership of caring people, founded in 1937 to bring hope and help to the world's poorest children; trafficking of children is one of the most severe violations of human rights in the world today, involving over a million children worldwide. It refers to the illegal transport of human beings, in particular women and children, for the purpose of selling them or exploiting their labour. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) says "Child labour is a massive problem, one that affects one out of every six children in the world today.

A 79-page report, 'Borderline Slavery: Child Trafficking in Togo', released in 2003 highlights Togo as a case study of trafficking in the West African region. It documents how children as young as three years old are exploited as domestic and agricultural workers in several countries. Traffickers lure children from their homes with promises of high-quality schooling and vocational training abroad. Many of the children are orphans, forced to become breadwinners following the death of a parent from AIDS or other causes.

A scandal over the issue of child labour in West Africa blew up in 2002, when nearly half the chocolate produced in the United States was linked to cocoa beans harvested by child labourers in Côte d'Ivoire. Many of these children had been trafficked from neighbouring countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso.

Why this has thrived is aptly captured in the words of Joseph Addison:

"Education is a companion which no misfortune can depress, no crime can destroy, no enemy can alienate, no despotism can enslave. At home, a friend; abroad, an introduction; in solitude, a solace; and in society, an ornament. It chastens vice, it guides virtue, it gives at once grace and government to genius. Without it, what is man? A splendid slave, a reasoning savage."

The average African child remains locked in the vicious circle where poverty is the prime factor for lack of education and lack of education, the prime factor for poverty. As such, poverty is passed on from one generation to the next.

International treaties and charters, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - Article 13 and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACWRC) - Article 11 recognise education as the right of every child. Every nation-state also recognises the importance of education to its survival, although the commitment to ensuring that all its citizens achieve this is another matter.

According to Plan, one of the most effective means of preventing trafficking is to provide youth with opportunities to receive quality education. The more youth (and adults) know about their rights, the better equipped they are to fight violations of these rights.

Given the will and means, every parent wants his or her child to be able to read and write, to acquire the best education possible. But not every child is able to attain this.

Coming home to Nigeria, governments at all levels pledge to commit themselves to the delivery of qualitative education, but the facts on ground show that only the rich can readily afford good quality education. The conditions of abject poverty in which millions of Nigerians live, affect the chances of their children getting educated. Many of them are forced into street hawking, prostitution and bus conducting, among others.

A veteran primary teacher at the Ansar-ud-deen Primary School, Lagos Island, Mrs. Charlotte Irantiola said, "Most of these children are from broken homes. They are being raised by single parents with very little budgeted to support their education. Some of them are a result of unwanted pregnancies and consequently, are not planned for. They arrive as extra burdens on already overburdened grandparents who can scarcely afford extra expenditure on education."

She also noted the wrong attitude of some people to education. She said, "The social orientation of some people, especially on the Lagos Island affects the education of their children. They prefer to buy expensive clothes and lavish money on parties, instead of spending money on the education of their children."

In addition to these, she observed that "There is a dearth of worthy role models especially on the Island where a lot of 'area boys' abound. These impressionable youngsters end up emulating those around them." She gave the example of a " boy in my school that goes from class to class stealing the belongings of his peers so much that his reputation precedes him. As he enters any class, the word spreads that the chap is around and everyone should secure their property."

No part of the country is spared the existence of mushroom private schools, the result of the failure of the public school system. Many of them cannot afford to hire good teachers, yet they charge fees. A teacher in one of such so-called 'private Nursery and Primary' schools on the Lagos Island was recently heard teaching the children Nigeria's national pledge and saying, ' uphold her 'honest' and glory', instead of 'uphold her honour and glory.' The same person, while correcting a pupil said, "Are you promise to be a good child?"

Instances also abound of brilliant children dropping out of school due to financial constraints. A boy in a secondary school in Lagos was forced to skip some papers in the just concluded Junior School Certificate Examination (JSCE) because he owed the fees for a whole session - about N60, 000. But for the intervention of a 'Good Samaritan', the boy would have dropped out for good. It was said that the principal allowed him to owe that much because the boy was so brilliant that the principal was reluctant to see him go and hoped his fees would eventually be paid. A whole session was the farthest he could go, but not school administrators could afford to be that humane.

Mr. James Atoyebi was recently celebrated for not giving up on his dreams. A student was forced to drop out of the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife while studying Law in the 80s, due to financial difficulty. After more than two decades of struggling to keep body and soul together, he wrote JAMB again. Not only did he pass, the man, who is in his late 40s came first in the examination and his return to OAU for the same Law degree, two years ago, was widely celebrated with a lot of financial aid from we that will ensure his graduation this time. Forget the fact that a lot of time is wasted already and a former classmate is a Head of Department in the same Faculty.

The 'International Conference on School Fee Abolition: Planning for Quality and Financial Sustainability', jointly organised by the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), UNICEF, the World Bank and the Ministry of Basic Education of Mali; which begins in Bamako on June 19, is timely. Governments of African countries must genuinely commit themselves to abolishing all forms of school fees and hidden costs, at least in the first nine years of education to secure the future of the African child.

U.S. Intervention & Bombing in Somalia

'US planes hunting Islamists'

Andrew Cawthorne, News24.com, June 12, 2007 (SA)

Bosasso - US aircraft are hunting foreign jihadists in the remote mountains of northern Somalia where US forces launched air strikes earlier this month, a regional official said on Tuesday.

Ibrahim Artan Ismail, security minister in the regional Puntland government, said his administration was working closely with the US military to help target the fighters.

"We are aware US planes are searching for the suspected Islamists," Ismail told a news conference in Bosasso.

"As you know, the suspected Islamists fighters are still on the run. Puntland is working closely with the Americans to seize them."

He gave no other details, but residents said suspected US aircraft were often seen in the skies over Puntland these days.

Earlier this month, another Puntland government official said six foreign Islamist fighters, including an American and a Briton, had been killed in gun battles with local forces and US air strikes that rocked the area on June 1.

US 'launched airstrikes'

US officials declined to comment on a CNN report that the air strikes were targeting a suspect in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 240 people.

The United States also launched air strikes in southern Somalia in January aimed at three top al-Qaeda suspects but killed the suspects' allies instead, US officials have said.

The suspects were believed to be in a group of Islamists who fled the capital Mogadishu in January after being routed by the Somali interim government and its Ethiopian military allies.

Washington says six al-Qaeda operatives or associates are in Somalia, including alleged embassy bomber Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, and Abu Talha al-Sudani, accused of orchestrating the 2002 bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya that killed 15.

Others include Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, hardline leader of the ousted Somali Islamic Courts Council, and Adan Hashi Ayro, head of SICC's feared military wing, the Shabaab.

SICC remnants have been blamed for a wave of guerrilla attacks mostly targeting Ethiopian troops in the capital.

'There is no chance'

Diplomats tracking Somalia said on Tuesday they saw no chance of the government being able to stage a national reconciliation conference slated to start in Mogadishu on Thursday, because of insecurity and lack of preparation.

"There is no chance," one Nairobi-based Western diplomat said, predicting a formal announcement on Wednesday that the conference was being postponed for a second time.

"I have spoken to some of them (in the government) and they all say it won't happen. They have not even set an agenda or picked the delegates. They will announce a delay tomorrow and blame lack of donor funding."

A previous attempt to stage the conference - seen by the international community as a crucial prerequisite to any attempt at achieving lasting peace in Somalia - was postponed in April.

In public, at least, the Somali government said the event would be going ahead.

US seeks to spread Africa command staff

William Maclean, the namibian, June 12, 2007

ALGIERS - The United States is planning to 'distribute' a new military command for Africa across several countries rather than have a single headquarters on the continent, a defence official said on Sunday.

Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, told journalists on a visit to Algeria that the command would not be designed to fight wars but would rather focus on training African security forces.

"The staff ...will not be stationed at one large headquarters, rather it will be distributed across different countries across the continent and be networked together ...It will be a distributed command," he said.

"We're in the final stages of a feasibility study (about a distributed command) but if at all possible that's the way we'd like to proceed," he told a briefing at the US embassy.

President George W Bush announced in February he had given approval for the new command, Africom, which will be based initially in Stuttgart, Germany, but later move to Africa.

Analysts have said the plan could take years to realise because potential host nations may be worried about the stigma of working with the global superpower.

While there might be some prestige and economic gain to hosting the command, any US establishment could become a terrorist target or the host government itself could attract unwanted political attention, commentators have said.

A US official who was not authorised to speak on the record said the plan to distribute the command was devised partly in response to suggestions by African nations that basing it in one country might stir jealousies among African states.

The creation of the new headquarters reflects increasing US strategic interest in Africa.

Washington is concerned that African nations with weak governments offer a haven for Islamist militants and is attracted by the continent's natural resources.

Currently, the only long-term base for US forces in Africa is Camp Lemonier in the East African nation of Djibouti.

The US military assigns responsibility for parts of the world to regional commands, such as Central Command, which handles the Middle East and Horn of Africa.

Responsibility for Africa is now split between Central Command, European Command and Pacific Command.

Under the new plan, every country in Africa would fall under Africa Command except Egypt, which would remain in Central Command's area.

The new command is intended to start up by September 2008.

Henry, at the start of an African tour that will also take him to Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti and Ethiopia, where the African Union (AU) has its headquarters, reiterated the command would not involve sending more American armed forces to Africa.

Nampa-Reuters