Afrisoc-RSSAF Statement regarding Fahamu's China in Africa book

Afrisoc and RSSAF have declined the offer to sell copies of ‘African Perspectives on China in Africa’, published by Fahamu Press, for the following reasons: 1) to facilitate an exchange of ideas rather than an endorsement of any single approach; 2) to emphasise debate rather than commercial transactions; and 3) to comply with the requirements of the event venue that no cash transactions take place. In no way does this represent an evaluation, critique or censorship of the publication in question. Afrisoc and RSSAF encourage the presentation of diverse perspectives, and welcome the participation of all at the upcoming event.

The event China’s Involvement in Africa is the second in a series of panel discussions hosted by the Africa Society and the Rhodes Scholars’ Southern African Forum (RSSAF), two student organisations at the University of Oxford. This collaboration aims to bring the Oxford community together to discuss pressing issues in contemporary African society. Researchers and practitioners are invited to provide diverse perspectives on a specific issue in order to promote debate and facilitate an exchange of ideas.

On 30 January 2007, the event organisers were approached by Fahamu Press about the possibility of promoting their publication ‘Perspectives on China in Africa’ via book sales at the event. After discussion with the organising committee, it was decided that this request would be declined, for the following reasons:

1) It compromised the central purpose of the event: to facilitate the exchange of ideas by promoting a diversity of perspectives. We sincerely hope that the perspectives contained in the book will be raised in the panel discussion. However, we believe that the endorsement of a single book at the event would compromise the neutrality of the panel, given that there are many relevant books on the topic. 2) Commercial transactions, such as book sales, are not currently part of our vision for the panel. This does not rule out that possibility in the future, but multiple books and multiple publishers on a topic would always be offered to promote a diversity of ideas. 3) Our agreement with the event venue, Rhodes House, includes the condition that no cash transactions take place in the building. Book sales would contravene this agreement.

These reasons were openly communicated, and the suggestion that the sale of the book in question was declined for reasons of its content, authors or publisher is an unfortunate misunderstanding.

We deeply regret the misrepresentation of our response as “censorship”, and that those making allegations to this effect did not seek adequate clarification before publishing such erroneous comments. In no way do Africsoc and RSSAF engage in or support censorship, and accusations of such conduct are simply incorrect, misleading, and damaging to the credibility of these student-run organisations.

We believe our decision is fully justified, and indeed crucial to the facilitation of an open exchange of diverse ideas at the event. The planning committee reserves the privilege to decide whether book sales are part of the events we hold.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: Thank you for accepting our invitation to you to respond to Fahamu's letter about this matter. If the reasons now provided by you had been expressed in the first instance, an entirely different discussion would have ensued.

Instead your committee wrote to inform Fahamu on 30 January that the only reason that the book would not be permitted at the seminar was because - quote:

"Undoubtedly the book enriches dicourse (sic) on this pertinent issue and is a very valuable contribution. We however feel it is (sic) represents one view of the relationship between China and Africa."

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that this opinion was formed without evidence (as the book was not yet available in the UK), your current statement is clearly at odds with the committee's original reasons for prohibiting the display of the book. Fahamu sought clarification of your committee's decision and were informed that that the committee stood by their decision. It is not, therefore, entirely accurate to state now that "These reasons were openly communicated" to Fahamu.