Kenya's political rivals faced criticism on Friday over the size and cost of a power-sharing cabinet meant to steer the east African country back on the path to economic recovery. President Mwai Kibaki is due to name a 40-ministry cabinet on Sunday, ending a month of deadlock that threatened Kenya's chances of peace after a bloody post-election crisis.

The leadership of Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF party met on Friday to decide whether President Robert Mugabe should contest a runoff vote against opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Mugabe convened his politburo after the party lost control of parliament for the first time in 28 years, in the biggest setback of his rule.

More than 20 United Nations departments, agencies, programmes, and funds have pledged their support to implementing a landmark treaty on the human rights of persons with disabilities, which opened for signature a year ago this week. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was adopted by the General Assembly in December 2006 along with its Optional Protocol, is only three ratifications short of the 20 needed to enter into force and become an internationally legally binding document.

On 29 March 2008, Zimbabweans took part in a general election to elect members of the parliament, local councillors and a president. For the first time since the country gained independence from Britain in 1980, opposition parties have a majority in the House of Assembly.

Wall Street Journal editorial targets corruption in World Bank projects in Kenya, spurring renewed complaints about the Bank’s alleged contribution to a climate of loose ethics and corruption in the Kenyan government. On March 6, a Wall Street Journal editorial targeted corruption in World Bank projects in Kenya as part of that newspaper’s series of commentaries on corruption and perceived mismanagement at the Bank

The World Bank’s long-running identity crisis is proving hard to shake. When efforts to rebrand itself as a “knowledge bank” didn’t work, it devised a new identity as a “Green Bank.” Really? Yes, it’s true. Sure, the Bank continues to finance fossil fuel projects globally, but never mind. The World Bank has seized upon the immense challenges climate change poses to humanity and is now front and center in the complicated, international world of carbon finance. It can turn the dirtiest carbon credits into gold.

With skyrocketing food prices critically threatening the world's poor, the World Bank on Wednesday called on the international community to mount a coordinated fight against hunger. 'We need a New Deal for Global Food Policy,' the president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, said in remarks prepared for delivery to a Washington think tank.

A special two-day stakeholders' forum last week realized a number of new developments on and around Kenya's land policy. The meeting follows last year's KARA's Bi-monthly Talk Series (BTS) session on “what future for Kenya's national land policy?”. The purpose of the meeting held in Nairobi, last week, was to disseminate the findings of the studies undertaken by USAID on land and natural resources and also provide the opportunity for stakeholders to discuss issues around the formulation and implementation of Kenya's national land policy.

The UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), aimed primarily at reducing poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy, are being undermined by a rash of new problems threatening to cripple the ongoing efforts by developing nations to reach their targets by 2015. With less than seven years to meet the deadline, the failures seem to far outweigh the limited successes achieved so far.

How can Africa’s extractive industries be made more transparent and held more accountable? This report is intended to help to help elected political officials – particularly those in the legislative branch of government – serve as constructive leaders in improving the oversight and management of their countries’ natural resources. Reform-minded legislators should engage more proactively with international initiatives in search of workable strategies and programs to meet the specific challenges of their countries’ environments.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47087finger.jpgAs the world waits to see what will happen in Zimbabwe, Patrick Bond argues that lessons should be taught and retaught about the dangers of elite transition between a voracious, corrupt, violent and divisive set of rulers, and an incoming crew who might not withstand the blandishments of local power-sharing and global economic seduction.

Zimbabwe's March 29 election surprised many, because although it seemed President Robert Mugabe had the machinery in place to ensure a victory even by stealth, as has happened before, the groundswell of opposition was overwhelming. By late on April 3, we don't know how many votes he won, either in reality or in the cooked books of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), but certainly fewer than 50%.

What is known, at this writing, is that a bare plurality of the 210 seats in the House of Assembly were won by Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change: 99. This was two ahead of Mugabe's Zanu-PF, with Arthur Mutambara's MDC faction getting 10 and the independent Jonathan Moyo retaining his seat. (Three more seats will be fought for in by-elections due to the deaths of MDC candidates.)

But these are official statistics, and who knows what the actual votes were, once the multiple systems of rigging are exposed, if ever they are?

As for the presidential race – for which at this time no figures have been released by the ZEC - Tsvangirai says that based on polling place reportbacks, he received 1,171,079 votes, or about 49%, with Mugabe getting 44% and Makoni the balance. (Mutambara told his supporters to vote for Makoni.)

Senate and municipal election results are also not being released as we write. In any case, the official parliamentary results are so distorted that on Thursday morning the state-owned Herald newspaper claimed, “Zanu-PF had won 45,94 percent of the votes, MDC-Tsvangirai 42,88 percent, the MDC [Mutambaraba] 8,39 percent and the minor parties and independent candidates 2,79 percent.” The Herald even claimed Zanu-PF outpolled Tsvangirai's MDC in Matabeleland South.

Though Zanu-PF has definitely lost control of parliament, such numbers justify Mugabe potentially contesting a run-off, which would be held no more than 21 days after March 29. Tsvangirai and former finance Minister Simba Makoni had a pre-election pact to unite in such an event, and it is hard to imagine that if the pact holds, Tsvangirai would not beat Mugabe outright, one on one.

Makoni, who ran solo for president with no machine behind him, never gained the open public support of key military factions and of dissident Zanu-PF politicians that his main handler, Ibbo Mandaza, had predicted.

Makoni's arrogance in entering the race – probably drawing away roughly the same votes from each main party – was again witnessed this morning. His advisor, former Mugabe spokersperson Godfrey Chanetsa, now insists that in a new government in alliance with Tsvangirai, Makoni would not “play second fiddle. He came to lead.”

As reporter Fiona Forde put it, “frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations were laying the groundwork for a government of national unity that would include not only the opposition MDC but also Zanu-PF with Makoni taking on a senior role with extended executive powers.”

Here's Chanetsa's strange rationale: "Eight percent is an illusion. Many people were afraid to vote for Simba, afraid of letting Zanu in the back door and losing their chance of getting rid of Robert. But if they got rid of Robert, do you still think they would see Morgan as the right man for the job?"

Meanwhile, an ominous dance began between Tsvangirai and the forces of imperialism. According to a Reuters report today, the MDC would gain access to US$2 billion per year in 'aid and development' – which normally is top-heavy with foreign debt and chock-full of conditions. Amongst these, most likely, are dramatic cuts to the civil services, so that the Zimbabwe central bank stops printing so much money, fuelling inflation. But the downside is the potential deepening of the country's economic crisis in the short term, as effective demand falls while more luxury goods become available thanks to foreign exchange inflows.

The key players are the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, European Union and the United Nations. No doubt Bush's White House is also involved in negotiations, which, if Tsvangirai persuades Mugabe to depart, may even reach fruition next week at the IMF/Bank spring meetings in Washington.

Given that Tsvangirai has chosen advisors from the International Republican Institute and Cato Institute, such a process was anticipated. It simply means that the left-leaning civil society forces that backed Tsvangirai have a huge regroupment challenge. If after an April 21 victory, many progressive Zimbabwean organisations lose cadres into an expanded state, this may recall the liquidation of South Africa's Mass Democratic Movement into the African National Congress government.

At least in Kenya, reports from Tuesday's street battles between hundreds of protesters and police show that civil society will not necessarily accept a 'supersized state' as a gimmick to seduce contesting parties into a government of national unity. “No more than 24!” was the activists' demand for a slim state so that more social spending can be spent on ordinary people, not the bloated ministers' Mercedes.

In the same critical spirit, Kenya's National Civil society Congress and Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice offered wisdom and solidarity in a statement today. Amongst their concerns, were “That SADC should review their statement that concluded that elections were free and fair while closing their ears to the significance of the undemocratic practices of the Zanu-PF regime.”

Between Kenya's tragic election last December and Zimbabwe's uplifting experience last Saturday, lessons should be taught and retaught about the dangers of elite transition between a voracious, corrupt, violent and divisive set of rulers, and an incoming crew who might not withstand the blandishments of local power-sharing and global economic seduction.

*Professor Patrick Bond is the Director of the Durban based Centre for Civil Society.

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

Jegede Ademola Oluborode looks at various marginalized groups in relation to human rights in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

"Burdened in the midst of hope!"

With the wave of democracy sweeping across Nigeria once again in 1999, and more fundamentally since 2003, efforts have been made towards institutional development aimed at laying political foundation for Nigeria to realize its potentials. Basic freedoms in the form of political and civil rights, whether sincere or otherwise, at least appear to have featured predominantly in these efforts. Little or no attention is however being given to economic, social and cultural rights so well encapsulated in several international and regional instruments to which Nigeria is signatory.

In a regime of neglect to crucial rights, Marginalized Groups, and their category is ever growing, suffer more. This is perhaps because, apart from contending with inattention which appears to be common fate of all, the harms and injuries faced by these groups, due to inadequate legal framework and political leadership commitment to their concerns, are gradually emerging and may dominate human rights discourse in the coming decades. Using the marginalized group as a barometer, attempt is made here to appraise human rights violations in Nigeria and predict its future situation. The Essay concludes on the note that unless there is a renewed commitment to embrace and apply human rights as vehicle of positive change, the future may only be remarkable for intense agitations and bitter protests of the marginalized.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS IN NIGERIA

The human rights concerns and needs of Nigerians, particularly the Marginalized Groups remain unaddressed. The approach adopted below is to define and describe the human rights situation of the marginalized by variables such as disability, sexual orientation, religion, region and gender.

DISABILITY

Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria guarantees the right to freedom from discrimination in all its forms against any person. The provision may be considered applicable to persons with disabilities. Prior to 1999, the Nigerian with Disability Decree of 1993 made copious provisions for the protection of human rights of persons with disabilities. In its Section 3, provisions were made for their human rights and privileges while Section 14 established a National Commission for Persons with Disability. As beautiful as this piece of legislation is, nothing concrete has however been done to match its provisions with action. To date, the National Commission for persons with Disabilities has not taken off. Contrary to section 9 of the Decree, transport is not free for the disabled, national news and official broadcasts do not provide sign language for interpretation in accordance with section 19, while it has been difficult in the circumstance of our electoral process for the disabled to exercise their rights to vote and be voted for. In spite of the social rights guaranteed under the Act, most disabled live off begging on the city streets.

Two significant Bills for persons with disabilities were introduced at the National Assembly in year 2000 namely; (1) A Bill for an Act to provide Special Facilities for the Use of Handicapped Persons in the Public Buildings and (2) A Bill for an Act to Establish a National Commission for the Handicapped Persons and to vest it with the Responsibility for their Education and Social Development and for the Connected Purposes . Nothing significant came out of these Bills.

Nigeria has signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocols. At a Forum to sign the Convention, the then Minister of External Affairs, Mrs. Joy Ogwu, noted that Nigeria was in the process of signing a Disability Law . Except for the National Disabled Trust Fund (Establishment Bill) presented in 2004 by Senator. Chris Adighije which is still dragging at the National Assembly, no such Law appears to have been passed till date. Section 21(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that no treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly. Lack of political commitment to appropriate legal framework and implementation of the existing laws underlies the violation of Disability rights in Nigeria.

By 2018, events are more likely to reveal that it requires more than a piece of legislation or endorsements of international conventions to realize the rights of person with disabilities in Nigeria. Appropriate legislations will benefit from Human rights education and advocacy in the coming decades. Human rights activities in this regard will also be complemented if there is an upgrade of legal education to accommodate Disability Rights.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Section 214 of the Nigerian Criminal Code penalizes consensual homosexual conduct between adults by fixing 14 years as punishment. Similar position appears to be taken in the Sharia Codes against sodomy . The effect of this framework is that relationship and marriage ceremonies between the people of the same sex are criminal in Nigeria. In a letter routed through the Human Rights Watch by a network of national and international NGO's, the foregoing trend has been criticized as inconsistent with international legal regime which emphasizes that granting lesbians and gays the basic rights of expression and association is a good public health measure capable of boosting government efforts to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS .

It does appear that the greatest challenge in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights activism in Nigeria presently is the lack of understanding of major policy and law makers about the public health significance of gay and lesbian rights. Predictably, this trend may continue in the coming two decades and may be characterized by a clash of two views; public morality and public health. One can only speculate about the dominant view in the future. One thing is certain though, behavioral and social practices can not be shaped by a piece of legislation without other tools of public health education to complement, more so by pieces of legislation which tend to undermine gay and lesbian rights.

RELIGION

The secular nature of the Nigerian State is well captured in Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that the Government of the Federation shall not adopt any religion as State Religion. Islamic law has however come into operation in the northern part of the nation such as Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, Zamfara, and Gombe with extensive jurisdiction covering criminal cases. People have been tried for different manners of offence and received sentences based on the provisions of the Sharia. The Sharia provisions on sentences have been subject of international condemnation lately as amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including death sentences, amputations and floggings. The manner in which Sharia is applied violates women rights to freedom from discrimination, particularly in adultery cases where standards of evidence differ based on the sex of the accused.

Christian groups notably Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has consistently asserted the threat that rapid islamisation of the northern part of the nation portends for the minority Christians. The plank of their position has been that such trend may occasion inter-religious crises and reprisal killings in different parts of the country. Lack of judicial pronouncement and federal position on the issue of the nation’s secularism heighten the anxiety of the minority and discourage them from taking advantage of their right to freedom of religion.

In the coming two decades, controversies, particularly in relation with religion and constitutional provision on secularism of the nation will increase. Agitations for Sharia law will likely continue in the nation with increasing protests by members of other religious groups notably, Christians. Clashes as well as reprisal attacks along religious grounds are not ruled out with the minority suffering the most in the majority’s efforts at domination.

REGION

Underlying the hydra-headed conflict situation in the Niger Delta region (Ondo, Edo, Delta, Imo, Abia, Bayelsa, Rivers, Cross rivers and Akwa Ibom States) is the perceived grave violation of human rights of the communities in the region. The situation has its roots in the discovery of oil in the region by the Royal Dutch Company in the late 1950s and has continued till date. The allegation of the people from the Niger Delta-Region in Nigeria is that attempts by Government to alleviate the regions problems have been insincere.

It has been observed by the Human Rights Watch, and rightly so, that the Federal Government policy towards conflict in the Delta has vacillated between heavy-handed attempts at imposing order and attempts to bring reconciliation . In September 2005 federal authorities arrested Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force (NDPVF) leader Asari on charges of treason. In what seems to be a reconciliatory move, charges against him were later dropped by the new administration of President Musa Yar’adua who had earlier indicated an interest to convey a National Summit to address Niger Delta question. Meanwhile, hostage taking and kidnapping still continue to characterize the conflict face of the Niger Delta region.

Lack of an a-political comprehensive blue print development programme for the region as well as political commitment has over the years accounted for the deep human rights crisis of the Niger Delta region. In the coming decades, issues of self determination, police brutality, illegal occupation and detention will bitterly rage in the Niger- Delta region and may degenerate into humanitarian crises unless political leadership realizes the need for a review of the legal regime of ownership and control of oil resources vested in the Federal Government through legislations such as The Petroleum Act 1969 and Land Use Act to accommodate the concerns of the communities in the areas.

GENDER

The legal framework for the observance of womens rights remains hazy in Nigeria and it is a major bane to the realization of their human rights. The argument in this respect has been whether the Constitution as it is, entails a comprehensive set of provisions on human rights capable of supporting the emerging body of womens rights particularly, reproductive rights embodied in international instruments such as (The Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 1981) to which Nigeria is signatory and the consensus of Conferences such as (International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD),1995) which Nigeria approved.

The provisions on human rights in the 1999 Constitution do not provide for, the rights to health, a standard of living adequate for health and well being and the right to enjoy scientific progress and to consent to experimentation as envisaged in the World Health Organisation Bill on Sexual Rights. Issues such as health, economic and social rights are only accommodated in the Fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy in sections 13 to 24 of the constitution.

The consequence of the foregoing is that whereas the provisions on human rights are actionable in court, the 1999 Nigerian constitution does not make provision for the enforcement of fundamental objectives of the state or for accountability of the same. It merely provides for policies and directives to be made on such matters. In line with these directives, the government has made several policies including the following:
- National health policy (1996)
- National Women Policy (2001)
- National Reproductive Health Policy (2002)
- National HIV/AIDS Policy (2002)

However, these policies are merely directive and neither confers on any individual a right that is actionable nor the duty to hold government accountable for their performance in Nigeria. Equally too, certain rights in the Constitution are abstract and too narrow to avail protection as reproductive rights. These are as follows;

- The right to be free from discrimination: this imposes criteria which is rather onerous to establish.

- The right to dignity of the human person: it apparently does not envisage the broader issues of child labour, female genital mutilation or the concept of ‘marital rape’.

Apart from the foregoing lack of basic legal framework for reproductive rights which calls into question the relevance of government service to women, the representation of women in governance remains a major challenge. Although Obasanjo’s administration appears to have made an appreciable success in this regard, much still remains to be achieved.

In the coming two decades, gender gaps in Nigeria will evolve still in a dynamic version. Foreseeable gender inequities in the future may not necessarily feature between groups but within the same group.

CONCLUSION

In describing the future of Human Rights situation in Nigeria, some hope could be sensed, but the question to anticipate is how political leadership in Nigeria can take advantage of its new breath of democracy in gaining the confidence of its diverse and marginalized citizenry. Using a human rights-based approach in reforming all its vital systems and sectors of government remain the major strategy for positive change. Otherwise, the coming decade may only be remarkable for intense agitations and bitter protests of the marginalized with all its attendant human rights wrongs. This is a great burden which is greatly to be feared!

* Jegede Ademola Oluborode is a legal practitioner and a human rights activist in Nigeria.

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

François-Xavier Nsanzuwera reflects about Captain Diagne Mbaye, a true exemplar of Pan-Africanism who dies in Rwanda as he fought against the 1994 genocide

In April 2008, the world commemorates the 14th anniversary of the genocide of the Tutsis of Rwanda. The estimated figure of the victims of this genocide stands at more than one million people. However, as rightly expressed by the Court of Appeal of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the world will probably never know the exact number of fatalities. Speaking about the campaign aiming at exterminating the Tutsis in 1994, the Court of Appeal stated that "That campaign was successful to a dreadful degree; although the exact numbers may never be known, the great majority of Tutsis were murdered while many others were raped or otherwise harmed."

This remembrance also coincides with the closing down of the ICTR. This ad hoc international criminal tribunal, established by Resolution 955 (1994) of the Security Council of the 8th of November 1994 must complete in 2008 the trials already brought before the Court and those before the Court of Appeal by 2010.

This Tribunal closes down at a time when all the observers, including its detractors, recognize that it has reached its cruising speed, mainly in 2003.

As of today, 27 accused have been finally convicted, 27 cases are still awaiting judgement, one is pending before the Court of Appeal and 5 people have been acquitted. Two cases were transmitted to a national court of law, namely those of the abbot Wenceslas Munyeshyaka and the former prefect of Gikongoro, Laurent Bucyibaruta. The Prosecutor also requested the Court of the ICTR to authorize the transfer of some cases to Rwanda, pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of procedure and evidence.

Even if not all the torturers were apprehended and judged, the legacy of the ICTR will be considerable. Some observers tend to always assess the performance of the ICTR through numbers, namely, numbers of people judged and the financial cost. The importance of the legacy of the ICTR to the world is fundamental.

One of the achievements of the ICTR lies in the recognition of the genocide of the Tutsis. The judgements rendered by the various Courts and the Court of Appeal of the ICTR confirm that a genocide occurred in Rwanda. The already quoted decision of the Court of Appeal of the ICTR renders it clearly: "The fact of the Rwandan genocide is a part of world history, a fact as certain as any other, a classic instance of a “fact of common knowledge."

This judicial notice drawn up by the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 16 June 2006, constitutes an effective weapon in the fight against all the revisionists and those denying the existence of the genocide in Rwanda.

The jurisprudence of the ICTR contributed also to the development of the corpus of international humanitarian law. Paying tribute to the co-operation between the Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, stated, during his visit to Rwanda said that "the good co-operation between your country and the ICTR has not only made possible the promotion of national reconciliation; it also played an important rôle in the development of the jurisprudence in international criminal law." (Fondation Hirondelle, 31 January 2008)

Mr Ban Ki-Moon stressed that the legacy of the ICTR is a testimony of the common fight against impunity.

On the 7th of April 2008, our thoughts will go not only to the victims and the survivors of the genocide but also to all those men and women of different nationalities, from different legal backgrounds who were the pioneers of the work accomplished by the ICTR. They were not in Nuremberg and not in Tokyo in 1945 but they were in Arusha. They brought their contribution to this building of justice, one of the pillars of reconciliation.

This memorial should also be an opportunity to think of the Just, these men and women who, while risking their lives, saved the Tutsis whose very life was threatened. At the time of the celebration of the World Women’s Day at the ICTR, the Prosecutor, Mr. Hassan B Jallow, stressed the heroic role played by Rwandan women, like Zula Karuhimbi, who saved their Tutsi compatriots during the genocide.

Today, my thoughts go particularly to a man who lost his life in Rwanda during the genocide, namely the Senegalese Captain Diagne Mbaye. He was a blue helmet of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) and he fell under a bomb. He was in the prime of life, the time when one enjoys life, makes projects and fulfils those things he/she has always been dreaming of. He was young and handsome but was also particularly courageous and so generous that he lost his life in Rwanda, far from Senegal, the country where he was born.

I do not know the exact circumstances of his death. I came to know him on the 10th of April 1994 at the Hotel des Milles Collines where my wife and I had just found refuge. This man was our guardian angel during our stay at the Hotel des Milles Collines from the 10th of April to the 28th of May 1994. During the two months that we spent at this hotel, Captain Diagne Mbaye went every day into the town of Kigali to help people in danger. Every day he would bring back to the hotel many entire families thus saving their lives.

After the genocide, several survivors recounted to us the courageous acts of Captain Mbaye. Many a survivor has bad memories of the UNAMIR. The latter reminds them of the abandonment, a sort of treason for those who believed in the Arusha Peace Accords and for those who believed in the peacekeeping mission of this force. However, some men within this institution risked their own life to save people. One can mention the commander-in-chief of this mission who, without inadequate means, remained with some few people and witnessed the tragic moments of the history of Rwanda and the world. The genocide has left its mark on his life. When he went to testify before the ICTR, General Romeo Dallaire paid tribute to the victims of the genocide. He saved the honour of the international community which gave up on the victims for three months. I have much respect for this man whose suffering makes him close to many survivors.

The courage of Captain Diagne Mbaye and his demise in the cause of Rwanda, right in the middle of the genocide, reconcile us with our mother continent. For three months, the world and Africa watched the genocide without doing anything, while the whole of mankind stared at the macabre images shown on the television screens. However, in Rwanda, some men and women of honour did what they could to save lives.

If today the younger generations must learn the history of the Holocaust, the genocide of the Armenians, the genocide done by the Khmers Rouges and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, it is important that they also learn the history of the courageous people, like Captain Diagne Mbaye, the people who, like him, remind us of our common humanity. During the horrible times of wars and genocides, these brave men and women save our humanity, our "ubuntu". The abbot Alexis Kagame and His Lordship Desmond Tutu wrote many articles on this beautiful word of “ubuntu” that is found in several Bantu languages. In Kinyarwanda, the word “ubuntu” means generosity, humanity, the fact of being human.

During this month of painful memories, my thoughts go to Captain Mbaye who died far from his motherland and his people and to all those, amongst his comrades, who remained men of honour. Somewhere in Rwanda, somewhere in the world, each time the international community remembers the genocide of the Tutsis and the massacre of Hutus opposed to the ideology of the genocide, there are men and women who think of Captain Diagne Mbaye and at what his memory represents, namely courage, dedication to duty, sense of honour and selflessness.

*François-Xavier Nsanzuwera is affiliated with the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

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

This week’s AU Monitor brings you a report back from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) civil society workshop written by Edwin Ikhuoria of the National Association of Nigerian Traders. The workshop was convened by ECOWAS in order to strengthen the integration of the peoples of the region. While these efforts were applauded, participants noted that the vision for a people-centred approach to integration had been created without consultation at the grassroots and in the usual top-down manner. However, the workshop successfully concluded with the formation of a platform for non-state actors’ interaction with ECOWAS through nine regional organizations, who will design and submit a memoranda on the outcomes of the workshop and outlining potential future collaboration with ECOWAS.

The African Union Commission signed a joint financing agreement this week with a group of pooled fund partners from Europe, including Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The contribution, earmarked for institutional transformation, is said to total nearly US$ 6.2 million. Meanwhile, Chambi Chachage questions the “cost” of African unity and particularly challenges Tanzania’s recent intervention in the Comoros crisis while noting that the “AU is shedding its OAU cocooning charter of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states”. Troops from Comoros, supported by the African Union, took control of the island of Anjouan last week but the humanitarian and economic issues facing the island are expected to take longer to overcome. Indeed, the restoration of political stability in Anjouan will be decided when elections finally take place, which the Union government of Comoros has indicated will be held within the next three months. Also in peace and security news, former President Obasanjo of Nigeria has claimed this week that the continued conflict in Somalia is caused by the lack of political will within the international community and the rest of Africa to solve the crisis and that “the downturn in the economy of Somalia and the sufferings of many, were indications of international neglect, rather than symptoms of a ‘failed state’”.

Meanwhile, the African Development Bank is said to have made progress in aligning national lending with national priorities ahead of the high-level forum on aid effectiveness expected in September in Accra, Ghana. However, improvement is still needed in technical cooperation with donors, use of country financial management systems, aid predictability and donor structure streamlining. In other economic development news, African governments are faced with mounting popular mobilisation and unrest due to surging food prices caused by “global supply concerns and heady world futures markets”.

Finally, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) will hold its 43rd ordinary session between May 7th and 22nd in Ezulwini, Swaziland. On the agenda are the periodic state reports of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania. As is customary, the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies will hold the forum on the participation of NGOs and the African human rights book fair ahead of the Commission session from 3rd - 5th of May also in Ezulwini. Information on the NGO Forum is also available in French. Further in human rights news, the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative and the East African Law Society are convening a roundtable on the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the regional human rights system more broadly from March 31 to April 2 in Arusha, Tanzania. Alliances for Africa will be convening a similar workshop on the Protocol of the African Court for West African judges and lawyers from April 9-10 in Abuja, Nigeria.

Joram Nyathi candidly makes the case that what ails African democracies is change in the absence of real alternatives.

A lot has been said about the Kenyan election debacle. Lessons have been drawn locally on both sides of the political divide. Unfortunately most of these lessons are no more than self-serving wishes. In my view, the real lesson is the danger of obsession with change for its own sake, and in that quest, embracing every claimant to power as the Messiah. Zimbabweans are guilty of this propensity.

South Africans look worse. Reading the South African media about President Thabo Mbeki's alleged autocratic rule in the few weeks before Polokwane made me feel like we in Zimbabwe were ruled by angels. So intense was the hatred for Mbeki that his rival Jacob Zuma was assured of the ANC presidency despite his soiled name. It was as if the name Zuma represented a cure for Aids, crime and racial inequality in SA.

It is perplexing. Here is a man who answers to every act of misdemeanor from rape to influence-peddling to outright corruption and tax evasion being elevated to the pedestal of a saint who is being victimised by a cruel sitting president whom he has challenged for office! In any civilised society, the accusation of corruption, let alone rape, should make any decent person recuse himself from the presidential race. Zuma would have magnified his own stature. He doesn't need to be convicted.

Things were never going to be easy for Mbeki from the start: matching Nelson Mandela's affability, dealing with a recalcitrant ruler such as President Robert Mugabe who is universally reviled by those he has hurt, and given growing anti-intellectual sentiment in politics in Zimbabwe and SA. But in Zuma we have a man who can stand up when later accused of rape, violence (leth' umshini wami), corruption, racketeering, fraud and philandering and say with a straight face: "When I campaigned I didn't hide who I am."

In the face of all this grunge you have influential organisations such as Cosatu threatening the judiciary with a "bloodbath" if Zuma is brought to court.

The biggest lesson from the Kenyan post-election violence is the danger of electing into power democratic charlatans without institutional fireguards to ensure such people can be removed later without bloodletting; and our fascination with the politics of tribe and other irrational considerations which blind us to people's motives for getting into politics. It is the danger of choosing leaders for where they come from ahead of enduring values necessary in nation-building.

Anyone who opposes a hated sitting president automatically becomes a democrat. Mwai Kibaki was feted as a democrat for defeating Daniel arap Moi without anyone examining his democratic credentials. The election was judged free and fair. In five years the guy has shown his true colours and those who elected him are shocked by his "transformation" from what he never was to a corrupt dictator and tribalist. To me there was no betrayal of the people but an exposure of bad choice.

The irony is that Western democracies which are quick to point to us torch bearers of democracy subject their would-be leaders to a very rigorous vetting before they are elected. I am fascinated by the ongoing campaign by the Democrats in the United States. This is not a country in any serious political crisis like we are, yet its leader must pass through the crucible of public scrutiny and explain fully what his policies are, what he wants to do and how. It is not enough to chronicle the current leader's failures. Any imbecile can do that. Talking democracy and human rights is cheap -- the test is on delivery.

Unfortunately in desperation for change, any change, we are shy if not afraid to confront our future leaders with hard questions about who they are and their shortcomings. Yet it is the political leader ultimately who gives the nation its international character.

The other lesson from Kenya is the threat of violence if elections are rigged. Forcing people to vote in a certain way on the threat of violence amounts to democracy by fear. It does not represent the free will of the people. It is the need to select for leadership people of integrity. We need leaders who are able to accept loss and victory in an election with dignity and know when to quit.

Kenya's Raila Odinga might have a cause to complain, but to me there is no point in voting for a leader of hooligans, who, after a disputed electoral result, rampage in the streets, burning, raping and murdering people in church. There was nothing among the poor Kikuyu in the slums of Kibera and Mathare to show that they had unfairly benefited from Mwai Kibaki's rule ahead of other tribes. Nor is there evidence that those being targeted for attack voted for him. Yet we read that boys and girls as young as six years are being raped for voting for Kibaki or for simply being Kikuyu.

In any case, if the Kikuyu are being targeted as an ethnic group because Kibaki is Kikuyu, then by inverse rule Odinga forfeits the claim of a "people's president" if only his Luo clanspeople and a few others voted for him.

The trouble with wanton violence is that it never affects the criminal leader himself. Does anybody for once nurse the illusion that Charles Taylor or Joseph Kony will ever fully pay for atrocities they have committed against their people in Liberia and Uganda? Or that Odinga is justified in causing the deaths of over 600 Kenyans because he wants to go to State House?

Broadly, the Kenyans are paying for what has become the bane of African politics -- short-term and opportunistic considerations in the selection of national leaders. Lack of long-term vision in the beginning comes to haunt us in the end.

*Nyathi is the deputy editor of the Zimbabwe Independent. This article first appeared in the The Zimbabwe Independent.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/358/47049zimba.jpgRasna Warah reminds Zimbabweans that Kenya can only be a model of what not to do - the cost in terms of lives, a shattered economy, internally displaced populations, and broken trust is to high a price to pay.

Many Kenyans including myself, are shocked to learn that their country is now considered a role model by many Zimbabweans who have been seriously contemplating “doing a Kenya” if the results of the elections this weekend are not to their liking.

I suppose given the state of their economy, and the fact that the country has been ruled by the last of Africa’s Big Men for close to three decades, Zimbabweans are beginning to believe that the only way fundamental changes can be brought about in their country is by breaking into the kind of violence that Kenyans experienced in the weeks following what many believe to be rigged elections.

One argument put to me recently was that a country has to go through violent conflict in order to emerge as a better nation.

Shortly after the violence broke out in many parts of Kenya, I attended a meeting in Dar es Salaam where participants seriously debated whether what was happening in Kenya was a necessary prelude to fundamental reforms needed in society.

At one point, a stunned delegate from Rwanda was even asked whether the genocide in Rwanda had been worth it as it had paved the way for a more democratic and open society that was based on progressive, egalitarian laws.

He responded by saying that the price Rwanda had paid for its peace and democracy was too high, not just in terms of the cost of reconstruction, but because it was written in the blood of hundreds of thousands of his country’s men, women and children.

It is very tempting to believe that had it not been for the violence that engulfed Kenya in the last two months, the two leaders, Mr Raila Odinga and President Kibaki, might never have agreed to form a coalition government dedicated to bringing about much-needed reforms and constitutional changes.

But was it the fact that more than 1,200 people were killed and some 350,000 were internally displaced that melted their hearts, or was it international pressure from Western governments and the international community that forced them to reach a compromise?

Many believe it is the latter. Kenya is strategically important to Western governments for many reasons.

A crisis in Kenya has the potential to spill over to the entire Eastern Africa region and the Horn, as the port of Mombasa serves as a crucial transport link for neighbouring countries and is a strategic gateway to the troubled Middle East.

Moreover, the United States considers Kenya as a useful ally in its war against terror, especially because the country borders Somalia and Sudan, two countries that have been a thorn in the flesh of the US government for more than a decade.

Zimbabwe on the other hand is landlocked, has no significant ally among the world’s most powerful nations, has no oil or other minerals that are of critical importance to the Western world, and is on the brink of economic collapse.

A violent civil war may stir Britain, South Africa or the African Union into action, but it will barely elicit a yawn from the United States or the European Union.

But even if, by some miracle, the world did unite to liberate a strife-torn Zimbabwe, the price the country will have paid will be so great, it will take years to recover.

In Kenya, two months of violence not only cost lives, but hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, property and jobs.

It is estimated that the first week of violence alone cost the country US$1 billion. Tourism, one of the biggest income-earners, dropped dramatically as tourists cancelled bookings or left the country in droves.

Inflation soared as vital road links were cut off, making it difficult for farmers to reach their markets. Seven land-locked neighbouring countries that relied on Kenya’s transport networks for imports suffered severe shortages.

But the real cost of the crisis was borne by the people of Kenya, who are still reeling from the impact of the violence.

Reports indicate that the incidence of rape tripled in the months of January and February, with a majority of victims being under the age of 18.

Lawlessness in various parts of the country, including Nairobi, spawned ethnically-based militia groups who killed or forcibly evicted people from their homes and neighbourhoods. Some of these groups are still operating in parts of the country.

Almost every Kenyan was directly or indirectly affected by the violence. As a nation we are traumatised and it will take us a long time to trust again.

If that is the price of democracy, then it is a price many Kenyans are not ever willing to pay again. Zimbabweans should take note.

*Ms Warah is an editor with the UN. The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations. This article was first published in Kenya's Daily Nation

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

Against the backdrop of a blatantly unfair pre-election environment, Zimbabweans voted on 29 March to indicate the direction they want to country to go. According to electoral laws, all votes are counted, verified and displayed outside each polling station. This is especially useful since much of the rigging has taken place in the counting of the vote. Voting ended at 7pm and, in an unprecedented move, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission delayed announcing results for at least 36 hours and only started a slow process of announcing results at 6am on Monday, 31 March. The MDC, through its elections directorate, simply collected and collated all votes displayed outside polling stations and announced a resounding victory for Tsvangirai’s MDC.

Because of the highly suspicious behaviour of ZEC of taking too long to announce official results, there are genuine fears that Mugabe and ZAN U PF want to subvert the will of the people and silence the people who have spoken through the ballot by fixing figures and announcing that Mugabe and ZANU Pf as winners. There are rumours now swilling in Harare that security chiefs are in marathon meetings preparing to rig elections and prepare to crush any challenge to their electoral fraud.

I must say the conduct of ZEC is reckless and inconsiderate as it puts the nation at risk of a Kenya style revolt as the absence of official results for no apparent reason creates tension and anxiety in the people. It is criminal and treasonous for security chiefs to interfere with the counting of the vote and the announcements; security chiefs must be warned that days of lawlessness and mayhem in Zimbabwe are over, in a new Zimbabwe we will hold them to account for their actions. If Zimbabwe’s army and police think that they can hold the nation hostage they are dreaming; no-one can stop the wind of change that is sweeping across Zimbabwe, not Mugabe, not Chihuri, and not Chiwenga. Mugabe has said his conscience will not let him sleep if he steals an election (l wonder how he has managed to sleep since 2000), so he must heed his conscience and do the honourable thing of respecting the will of the nation. Zimbabwe needs a new political leadership with fresh ideas. Zimbabwe cannot move on with Mugabe at helm; Mugabe must go, and he must go now before he plunges our beloved country into chaos and bloodshed.

ZANU PF may want to take comfort in the knowledge that they have rigged before and there was no uprising and South Africa and others looked away and pretended all was well. That was then, this time the people of Zimbabwe will defend their vote; the prospect of another disastrous five years with Mugabe and ZANU PF is motivation enough to take the struggle to the next level, on the streets. What Zimbabwe needs is a new leader with fresh ideas, not the look-east nonsense and diet of starvation that we have known with Mugabe. This time the rigging is easier to expose because results are displayed at polling stations; so we must defend the vote and pray that all patriotic and peace loving security forces must join the people of Zimbabwe and say no to Mugabe. Let us all stand up and act to stop Mugabe squandering our future.

The people of South Africa must stand in solidarity with us in Zimbabwe during this, our hour of great need, and prevail on Thabo Mbeki to demand that Mugabe respects the will of the people. The African Union has rejected all forms of unconstitutional changes of government and the massive electoral fraud unfolding in Zimbabwe is clearly unconstitutional and must be severely condemned as such by AU. In the case of Kenya, the African Union led the international community in activating the international duty to protect the fundamental rights of Kenyans, sadly, it was after considerable loss of life. My appeal to Mbeki and SADC is that they help stop this madness in Zimbabwe now before Mugabe plunges us into total darkness. It is with a heavy heart and tears in my eyes that l write this appeal. Now that the people have spoken, Mugabe and ZANU PF have a moral and legal obligation to give expression to the voice of the people and the respect the outcome of the elections. In Shona we say, Chisingaperi Chinoshura - which extorts all to know that everything has an end; for Mugabe and ZANU PF’s leadership of Zimbabwe the end has come and l urge them to accept it.

*Dewa Mavhinga, Zimbabwean Human Rights Lawyer.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/363/47047africom.jpgThis Africa Action resource provides examples of statements from African leaders from multiple regions who stand opposed to AFRICOM

"The stand that many African countries have taken against the military command is one that needs to be supported and needs to be explained to the U.S. public so there is a greater understanding as to the implications of U.S. policy and why it is being rejected." - Bill Fletcher Jr., Former President of TransAfrica Forum [1]

Due to the perceived importance of Africa in the U.S. "war on terror" and the increasing U.S. dependence on African oil, President Bush announced on February 6, 2007 the establishment of a Unified Command for U.S. military forces in Africa, known as AFRICOM. According to Bush, "The Africa command 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."[2] Africa Action challenges the veracity of this assertion in a recent statement, available at:

African nations have repeatedly declared their opposition to the hosting of U.S. bases on the African continent and the militarization of their relations with the United States. As a result of this dissent, AFRICOM is currently based in Stuttgart, Germany. Civil society leaders and journalists in Africa have objected that AFRICOM will pursue narrowly defined U.S. interests at the expense of both the sovereignty and welfare of the African nations.

AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS REACT TO AFRICOM

Regional organizations have been most vocal in their critique of AFRICOM, and last August, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was the first to issue a clear message of dissent against the Bush initiative. SADC is made up of 14 African nations including South Africa, Angola, Botswana and the Democratic Republic of Congo. On August 29, 2007, SADC announced its position "that it is better if the United States were involved with Africa from a distance rather than be present on the continent." The SADC Defense and Security Ministers further stated "that sister countries of the region should not agree to host AFRICOM and in particular, armed forces, since this would have a negative effect. That recommendation was presented to the Heads of State and this is a SADC position." [3]

The initial reactions of African leaders to President Bush’s declaration last February were characterized by confusion and distrust. While the U.S. Department of Defense made clear that AFRICOM was moving forward at full-speed, its objectives and specific details of what it would entail had not been enunciated clearly. In September 2007, half a year after the Bush announcement, President Festus Mogae of Botswana said, "We have not taken a position [on AFRICOM] because we don't know how the animal will look like. We are still discussing the issue." [4]

While individual countries within SADC are allowed to reach their own decisions regarding AFRICOM, none have since strayed from the official position of this important regional body. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa reaffirmed his country’s stance on October 2, 2007, when he stated "none of us is interested" in hosting the command. [5]

Other key regional organizations made up of nations across Africa have declared their condemnation of AFRICOM and its implications for U.S-African relations. The 25-member Northern African Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) has backed SADC’s position on the establishment of U.S. bases and stated that CEN-SAD "flatly refuses the installation of any military command or any foreign armed presence of whatever country on any part of Africa, whatever the reasons and justifications." [6] The Arab Magreb Union also voiced strong opposition to the placement of U.S. bases anywhere on the continent.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has stated resolutely its opposition to American bases in the region. At the forefront of this effort stands Nigeria, whose leadership unequivocally denounced the possibility of American troops being based in West Africa.

However, several months after first coming out with this stance, Nigerian President Yar’Adua issued a statement during his December 2007 visit to Washington that seemed at first to dramatically shift the Nigerian position on AFRICOM: "We shall partner with AFRICOM to assist not only Nigeria, but also the African continent to actualize its peace and security initiative, which is an initiative to help standby forces of brigade-size in each of the regional economic groupings within the African continent." [7]

In response to these controversial remarks, the Nigerian public and members of parliament expressed their outrage at this apparent shift in position. Consequently, the day after President Yar’Adua’s initial statement, he retracted his comments and announced that he had been misquoted.

On, December 14, 2007, Yar’Adua reiterated Nigeria’s original position on AFRICOM by stating, "I did not agree that AFRICOM should be based in Africa. What we discussed with Bush is that if they have something to do for Africa that has to do with peace and security, they should contribute. I told him that we African countries have our own plan to establish a joint military command in every sub-region (as we) have in economic groupings." [8]

Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe clarified this confusion: "President Yar’Adua’s statement on the proposed AFRICOM is consistent with Nigeria’s well-known position on the necessity for Africa to avail itself of opportunities for enhanced capacity for the promotion of peace and security in Africa; Nigeria’s position on AFRICOM remains that African governments have the sovereign responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the continent, especially in the context of the proposed African Union Stand-by Force and in this regard, the need for support and assistance by Africa’s development partners, such as the United States, in the provision of training, funding and logistics for African militaries was duly acknowledged." [9]

The only member of ECOWAS to break from this position is Liberia. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has pledged her support to the new command, stating that "AFRICOM is undeniably about the projection of American interests – but this does not mean that it is to the exclusion of African ones." [10] It is important to note that the government of Liberia, a country with a unique historical relationship to the U.S and a fragile democracy still emerging from the challenges of civil war, stands alone in its support for AFRICOM.

CIVIL SOCIETY AND CITIZEN RESPONSES

Though the government of Liberia has been very supportive of AFRICOM, many in Liberian civil society have objected. Ezekiel Pajino of the Center for Democratic Empowerment in Liberia, calls AFRICOM "a deadly plan of U.S. military expansion on African soil." Pajino states, "AFRICOM will be the legacy of Bush’s failed foreign policy that threatens future generations throughout our continent." [11]

Other African civil society leaders, academics, bloggers12 and journalists across the continent share this unease. Ikechukwa Eze in Nigeria’s Business Day writes, "Apprehension exists about the extent to which AFRICOM may violate rules of sovereignty and its attempts to replace the AU." [13] This comment and others like it raise a number of issues, including the sovereignty of African countries, the role of private military contractors (PMCs), the function of the U.S. military in administering development assistance, and U.S. interests in controlling access to African resources at the expense of ordinary Africans.

Professor Hamza Mustafa Njozi of the University of Dar es Salaam warns that "if what has befallen other countries is any barometer, the Americans will need a military base in Tanzania." With reference to potential oil deposits currently being explored by multinational corporations in Tanzania, he said, "Military presence is necessary to ensure total control of this vital resource as well as the continued pillage of our gold mines." [14] Commenting on President Bush’s February 2008 trip to Africa, Sakin Datoo, chairperson of the Editors Forum of Tanzania, said, "Bush is being portrayed as a savior of Africa due to the dollars he is bringing along with him on his trip. But Tanzanians are able to see through this façade. Bush only cares for his own interests and nothing else . . . any illusion that we will provide a military base for the U.S. army should be erased." [15]

Africa Action stands in solidarity with the many African voices speaking out against AFRICOM and urges the U.S. to base its foreign policy towards Africa in a similar respect for the African people.

*Brooks Harris and Matt Levy contributed to this resource.

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

***For notes and links to more readings, please visit this link:

The SADC Observer Mission to the 2008 elections noted several anomalies that run against the grain of the principles of democratic elections within the southern African region but still endorsed the process leading to the 29 March elections as free and fair.

Addressing journalists in Harare on 30 March 2008, the head of the mission Jose Marcos Barrica noted the issues of equal access to the state media by political parties and candidates, access to information on the electoral process and the “irresponsible statements” by security chiefs, as some of the anomalies. He, however, said the issue of access to the state media had improved as the election date drew close.

Barrica said the statements by the security chiefs such as Police Commissioner General Augustine Chihuri and Commissioner of Prisons Paradzai Zimondi that they would not salute Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the opposition MDC in the event of him winning the presidential race, should have been publicly denounced.

In its preliminary report on the elections, the observer mission also noted that information on the electoral and voting process should also have been published in advance but still commended the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for doing everything to ensure that the elections would be held despite the logistical problems encountered.

It its pre-election position findings on the presidential, parliamentary, senatorial and local government elections held on 29 March 2008, MISA-Zimbabwe noted with grave concern that with polling only a few weeks away and almost four years after the adoption of the SADC Guidelines, there is little evidence on the Zimbabwean government’s willingness to relax its grip on the state media and allow opposition political parties or opposing voices to freely air their campaign messages and views on ZBC radio and television.

MISA-Zimbabwe noted that ZBC, Zimbabwe’s sole national state broadcaster continued to demonstrate its partisan tendencies where it concerns providing fair, balanced and equitable coverage of the ensuing election campaigns.

The live broadcast of the launch of the ruling Zanu PF’s election manifesto by ZBC on 29 March 2008 to the exclusion of a similar exercise by the opposition MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai the previous week at Sakubva Stadium in Mutare and that of Independent presidential candidate, Simba Makoni in Bulawayo is one such glaring omission or commission denying citizens access to alternative information which should have been noted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) in its mandate.

In terms of the Electoral Laws Act (As Amended 2008), ZEC should also have drawn up regulations for free, fair and balanced access to public broadcasting. As of 4 March 2008 and 25 days before polling ZEC was still to come up with such regulations for purposes of monitoring the media to ensure accurate and fair coverage of the elections to stem encouragement of violence, racial, ethnic and religious hatred.

Meanwhile, asked why the SADC election team had endorsed the elections as having been free and fair when ZEC was still to announce the results almost 20 hours after polling had closed at 7pm on 29 March 2008, Barrica said their mandate was only restricted to observing the pre-election period in terms of the SADC Guidelines.

Urging all political parties to respect the will of the people, he warned Zimbabweans against allowing for the prospect of civil war saying as an Angolan he had the experience of the negative impact of that scenario.

“I reiterate SADC’s commitment to continue supporting the people of Zimbabwe in their efforts to deepen democracy and realise the dignity of Zimbabweans. The voice of the people of Zimbabwe need to be heard and heard by the people of Zimbabwe,” said Barrica.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/361/47017agra.jpgBill Gates has called for "creative capitalism" - that is a philanthropy spurred on by profit. But Galés Gabirondo unmasks creative capitalism to reveal it as philanthro-capitalism. She uses the Bill Gates/Rockeffeler initiative, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, to show just how devastating it can be when good-will meets a corporate driven and market hungry capitalism

In September 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation teamed up to launch “AGRA” a $150 million Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Echoing the claim that Africa’s last Green Revolution (originally promoted by Rockefeller) had “bypassed” the continent, Gates and Rockefeller promised that AGRA will improve the lives of the continent’s impoverished farmers by investing in appropriate technology, efficient farm practices, and a network of small shopkeepers to sell mini-packets of improved seeds and fertilizers.

Elegantly simple in its proposal and presentation, AGRA is the global face of a renewed international effort to revive Africa’s sagging agricultural research institutions and introduce new Green Revolution products across the sub-Sahara. The complex array of institutional and financial interests lining up behind Gates and Rockefeller include multilateral and bilateral aid organizations, national and international research institutes, and the handful of powerful multinational seed, chemical, and fertilizer monopolies upon which the entire financial future of the new Green Revolution ultimately rests. Gates and Rockefeller foundations are betting that AGRA can entice industry, governments and other philanthropies to invest in African agriculture. AGRA is the Green Revolution’s new philanthropic flagship leading a global campaign to attract talent, investment and resources for another go at Africa’s beleaguered food systems.

The new Green Revolution differs fundamentally from the first one introduced in the 1970-90s in that this time the private sector, rather than government, is taking the lead. This Green Revolution is concentrating on Africa’s food crops like tubers and plantains, rather than global commodities like corn, rice and wheat. This time around, the conventional crop breeding programs being built in Africa will lay the genetic and industrial groundwork for the expansion of genetically modified crops. And more importantly, the seed and chemical companies that stand to gain from the Green Revolution are fewer, and because of biotechnology, much bigger and vertically integrated, selling both seed and inputs. In fact, only two companies—Monsanto and Syngenta—control 30% of the global market in seeds.

These monopolies and others are entering Africa markets with the help of CGIAR—the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, USAID, and Britain’s DFID, even Jeffery Sacks’ Millennium Villages. But these same institutions—along with a host of national-level agricultural institutes—failed for three decades to establish the first Green Revolution in Africa. Indeed, with AGRA, Gates is picking up where lesser philanthropists (Rockefeller, Sarakawa 2000) and politicians (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) ran out of steam.

The explanations given by northern institutions for the failure of the first Green Revolution have been many: Africa’s soils are too poor, its terrain is too broken, the infrastructure is lacking, its research institutions are weak, its farmers are too traditional… Nowhere, of course do any of the Green Revolution champions question the assumptions, premises or technologies of the Green Revolution itself. Nor do they admit to any social, economic or environmental failures in Asia, Latin America, and—yes, parts of Africa—where the Green Revolution was “successfully” implemented. There is extensive documentation demonstrating that the first Green Revolution deepened the divide between rich and poor farmers and degraded tropical agro-ecosystems, exposing already vulnerable farmers to increased environmental risk. It led to loss of seed/plant varieties and agro-biodiversity, the basis for smallholder livelihood security and regional environmental sustainability.

But putting these considerations aside for the moment, how does AGRA propose succeeding where others have failed?

NEW ALLIANCE FOR CREATIVE CAPITALISM

At his special appearance at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Bill Gates gave us his answer: creative capitalism. This, he explained to the world’s financial masters, was “[An] approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world’s inequities.”

Gates acknowledged that capitalism does not work well for the poor. His explanation is that this is because there are no international market incentives to fight poverty or hunger. (This reasoning, of course, ignores the ways that international markets have actually produced hunger and poverty, but we will set this consideration aside for the moment also…) Gates takes a fairly standard neoliberal approach to solving the market incentive problem by insisting that the market is still the primary engine for social transformation. The difficulty is in persuading those who do have market power that eradicating hunger is in their own best interest. To address this challenge, Gates invites his fellow capitalists to consider the benefits of social recognition—as well as eventual profits—as the missing market-based incentive in order to make capitalism work well for everybody.

“Recognition,” said Bill Gates, “enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.” Recognition of the good deeds done by capitalists will build the markets necessary to bring the poor the benefits of capitalism, thus ushering in a new system Gates calls “creative capitalism.”

That same week in Davos, the soon-to-retire president of Microsoft put his money where his mouth was by giving another $306 million to AGRA. That’s a lot of recognition, by anyone’s standards. Clearly, the “halo effect” created by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ altruism will benefit everyone associated with AGRA—from the CGIAR to Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. This “added incentive” is calculated to make the sub-Sahara an attractive market to high power global corporations accustomed to 25% and 40% profit increases per year. The poor may not have much to spend (according to Rockefeller Foundation, half the sub-Saharan population earns less than $0.65 a day), but the purchases of small amounts of seed and inputs by180 million poor farmers add up. The new Green Revolution is banking on a small but steady increase in their enormous collective purchasing power.

To understand AGRA—and Gates’ creative capitalism—it is helpful to distinguish AGRA’s mission from its job. AGRA’s mission is “To [work in partnership] across the African continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger.” AGRA’s job—as so eloquently stated by Bill Gates in Davos—is to bring Africa’s poor into the international market. Here, they will consume both hybrid and genetically-modified seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals. They will also consume the products of these seeds, making their diet dependent on the companies driving the Green Revolution. Whoever can establish these seed markets in Africa will control not only the markets, but the food, and ultimately the ground of the vast continent.

But while these corporations and institutions are the driving market forces behind AGRA, they are not in and of themselves the reason behind Bill Gates’ call for creative capitalism, or his decision to address hunger and poverty in Africa. Gates’ remarkable bequest still begs the question of his own making: as a creative capitalist, what—or for whom—is AGRA’s market-based reward? Recognition for Microsoft? Undeniable, but not significant or necessary for a company who already has all the recognition it wants. Gates’ financial interests in genetic engineering? These investments pale behind AGRA itself.

The answer is; there is no market-based reward. Rather, the prize is political. AGRA, backed by Gates’ enormous philanthropic power, bolstered by the best world-renown diplomats and CEOs money can buy, and driven by the sheer financial and institutional momentum of the industrial players within the Green Revolution, is a political machine of immense proportions. AGRA allows the Gates foundation unprecedented influence not only in setting the national food and agricultural policies of many African governments, but in the agenda-setting of continental agreements (like NEPAD), multilateral development institutions (e.g. FAO), the strategies of agricultural research centers (e.g. WARDA), and the political economic re-structuring of Africa’s food systems in general. The Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa is the Gates’ Foundations bold foray into big philanthropy’s latest incarnation: philanthro-capitalism.

Philanthro-capitalist Development In Michael Edwards new book “Just Another Emperor,” philanthro-capitalism is the term given to the movement taking hold that “promises to save the world by revolutionizing philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate like business, and creating new markets for goods and services that benefit society.” This neo-liberal brand of philanthropy distinguishes itself from charity and progressive philanthropy by insisting not only on market-based results, but on business-based procedures for grant giving. Philanthro-capitalists seek business efficiencies and a financial “bottom line” from their “investments” and concentrate on making global markets work better. A logical extension of current of neo-liberal hegemony, philanthro-capitalism sees unregulated markets not only as engines for creating wealth, but as the ultimate drivers of social change. In this view, governments are too bureaucratic and corrupt, and social movements too unruly and inefficient. Only the market can save us from… well, the market.

However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is taking philanthro-capitalism into the realm of superpowers. Because the Foundation holds 10% of all U.S. philanthropy funds, AGRA is not just a philanthropy acting like businesses, but an Über-philanthropy so large and powerful it can influence governments and supra-national institutions.

This is not to say that Gates or AGRA acts independently of Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Sachs, the FAO, USAID, CGIAR, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont or the fertilizer companies cheering it on. On the contrary, there is a general consensus in enthusiastically in favor of the AGRA campaign. The reasons are both global and regional. First, despite the hype regarding financial globalization, industrial capitalism has been suffering from falling rates of return and stagnant economic growth (1-2%) for almost three decades. This is due to cyclical crises of overproduction: i.e. to much money and goods with too few borrowers and buyers. It is essential for the large monopolies to create new markets (witness the global biofuels craze), or overrun existing markets in order to find buyers for their goods. Seed and chemical giants like Monsanto and Syngenta look to AGRA and Africa’s food systems to solve their problems. They must replace local seeds and agroecological practices with their own commercial seeds and agrochemicals. Second, while western capital is falling over itself to sell products to China, they are extremely nervous about China’s entry into global markets as a competitive seller—particularly in Africa. It is important for western seed and chemical corporations, and all of the research institutions that produce new materials for these companies, to “sew up” the African market. Even though the marginal returns to their investments are small, the Green Revolution does not want to lose 180 million consumers to the Chinese.

BUT, CAN AGRA SUCCEED?

Whether or not AGRA can successfully bring the new Green Revolution to Africa, and whether or not the Green Revolution will benefit the poor as much as it benefits the capitalists being courted by the Gates Foundation are two different questions that should be open to public debate. Unfortunately, there was never a public debate on AGRA.

There are many productive agroecological farming systems in Africa that do not depend on GMOs or other Green Revolution technologies, but these alternatives were never considered. Whether or not AGRA can re-start the Green Revolution in Africa is yet to be seen. What is clear thus far is that it has been successful in eliminating competition for the control of African food systems.

AGRA’s philanthro-capitalism draws the world’s attention away from local alternatives and towards global market-based “solutions” that ultimately favor those with more international market power, i.e., the seed and chemical monopolies. Though it strengthens corporate opportunities and power, it does nothing to address the weakened ministerial and regulatory capacity of the state, ignores the need to protect local markets or ensure a greater market share of the value chain for farmers. It elides land issues and does not address the eroding economic and environmental resiliency of African food systems. Worse, it diverts attention away from the role that the global markets play in creating hunger and poverty in Africa in the first place. Can AGRA actually solve these problems? Not without addressing their causes.

*Gala Gabirondo is a development scholar and food sovereignty activist.

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