Black economic empowerment (BEE) continues to cultivate human and natural exploitation for the benefits of few at the expenses of far too many. It turns de-colonisation into a private business for self-enrichment. Henning Melber on the ensuing kleptocracy in Namibia and the possibility of another Zimbabwean style tragedy.

A Namibian parliamentary committee hearing was told in April 2007 by the executive secretary of the state-owned Namibia Development Corporation (NDC) in liquidation (during apartheid days the 'Bantu Investment Corporation'), that the tens of millions of Namibian dollars dished out earlier as credits to black empowerment initiatives will in most cases not be repaid – even though many of the lenders are among the nouveau riche.

Limits to liberation
Ever since independence in 1990, Namibia’s government has blamed the country’s exploitation under settler colonialism for the unabated social disparities. Indeed, the transfer of political power left, as part of a negotiated settlement, the existing socio-economic structures largely untouched. The inequalities were endorsed as status quo in terms of constitutionally protected ownership and property rights. Limited social changes had to be induced inside this legally binding framework guided by a policy of 'national reconciliation' and 'affirmative action'. As a result, the privileged segment of society became racially less exclusive.

But according to the empirical evidence presented by the annual Human Development Reports of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Namibia remains among the most unequal societies in the world – despite an average per capita income ranking it as lower middle-income country. A World Bank commissioned report alerted in 2005 that these inequalities 'represent a threat to national cohesion, peace, and political stability'. A UN country assessment warned of an unfolding humanitarian crisis due to the combination of HIV/Aids, food insecurity and the ineffective delivery of critical social services to the most vulnerable groups.

Despite such concerns, the government has refused to introduce a Basic Income Grant (BIG) - demanded for years by a broad church-based alliance - as not feasible in terms of its fiscal constraints. But more than a billion Namibian dollars was spent on a luxurious new high security state house complex. Nonetheless in April 2007 it was justified as a 'pro-poor' measure during the budgetary debate in parliament. A SWAPO MP demanded in all seriousness that posh cars should be exempted from the speed limit on Namibia’s roads.

Power, privilege and poverty
Black economic empowerment (BEE) has so far served the interests of a new political-bureaucratic elite from the ranks of the erstwhile liberation movement. Those who liberated mainly themselves profitably cashed their access to the country’s resources through their political and public service offices.

Corruption and misappropriation of funds nourished a parasitic minority. This had been spectacularly confirmed by several high calibre cases of fraud and self-enrichment schemes looting pension funds and other public finances. Shady business practices illustrated in a textbook way the infamous 'fat-cat syndrome' prevailing. Prime Minister Nahas Angula called the abuse of several hundred million Namibian dollars from the state administered pension funds on get-rich-quick schemes masquerading as BEE 'just asset-stripping'.

In a revelation of self-enrichment schemes, described by the locally published Insight magazine in March 2006 as 'the mother of all empowerment deals'. Since mid-2006 another 'horde of black economic empowerment groups' have come under increased scrutiny. The deal set up between the South African oil giant Sasol and a conglomerate of locally created pseudo-firms without any proper offices, named a former trade union leader and several high-ranking government officials operating within an intricate web of pseudo-enterprises, as its main Namibian beneficiaries. As the former trade unionist declared in defence of the deal, the shareholders were 'just black entrepreneurs who needed the money and took advantage of a given situation'.

A popular school of thought within critical poverty research holds the view that it is the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of narrow privileged groups that creates and perpetuates inequalities. According to such an understanding, the analysis of power is fundamental to any examination of poverty. Privatisation of public resources results in political-administrative power as personalised power; in politics as a kind of business enterprise; and in vertical clientele relationships of a neo-patrimonial nature. The result is an increasingly authoritarian and incompetent state that rarely responds to public pressure.

The (class) struggle continues
Since independence, Namibia has produced a crypto-capitalist, petty-minded self-enriching new black elite, which spends its energy exploiting the public purse. There is an absence of a meaningful, profit-generating industrial sector, where capital would be additionally accumulated through surplus production based on the exploitation of value adding labour - which implies at least employment for a majority of people. The creation of individual wealth relies on the privatisation of natural resources (mainly in the sectors of fishing, mining, agriculture and tourism) or benefits linked to privileges in the public sector and state owned enterprises. Public procurement and other outsourcing activities by those occupying the commanding heights of the state agencies turn 'affirmative action' and BEE into self-rewarding schemes among loyal members of the erstwhile liberation movement.

Such co-optation into the ruling segments within an already existing socio-economic system is far from social transformation. BEE continues to cultivate human and natural exploitation for the benefits of few at the expenses of far too many. It turns de-colonisation largely into a private business for self-enrichment. A result of such kleptocracy is the gradual loss of legitimacy. Zimbabwe-type decay is the writing at the wall. De-colonisation of such kind is not about redistribution of (relative) wealth for the ordinary people. It is self-enrichment for a new elite and business as usual.

* Dr Henning Melber is executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala, Sweden where he was research director at The Nordic Africa Institute, 2000-2006. A son of German immigrants, he joined SWAPO in 1974. Hw was director of The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek, Namibia between 1992 and 2000.

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

Abdirahman Aw Ali presents the case for African Union acceptance of Somailand into the union.

It was January 28, 2007 as I boarded my plane from New York to London on my way to South Africa. I was reading the Financial Times when I noticed in an article that Kosovo was to declare statehood, and how the European Union (EU) is setting the stage for Kosovo to be an internationally recognised state. I could not help myself asking why the African Union (AU) is not playing the same role with my birth place, Somaliland?

On May 18, 2007, Somaliland Republic (former British Somaliland) celebrates 16 years of self-rule. It has had a thriving democracy since it has decided to re-instate its sovereign independence from Somalia after the fall of Siad Barre regime in 1991.

As a Somalilander myself who ran away from Siad Barre's atrocities as a young man in the late 1980s and settled in the United States, I have mixed feelings as I see my people celebrating the 16th anniversary of Somaliland's birth.

On the one hand, I am extremely proud of the people of Somaliland, and its leaders for what they have been able to achieve over the past 16 years. On the other hand, I am less excited, and amazed by lack of the AU in leading the promotion of Somaliland's cause by sending a strong signal to other African countries that they do care and that they reward peace, stability, and democracy (acknowledging people's choice).

It is very clear why the European Union is serious about the status of Kosovo. The EU is planning to avoid the risk of war and violence that would again destabilise the Balkans region. The million dollar question is why the AU is not farsighted enough to avoid a potential and imminent war between Somalia's southern leaders, and Somaliland that will undermine the stability of the whole region?

Somali's southern leaders are not known to respect the rule of law and the wishes of its citizens. This is the main reason that Somaliland people are fully determined to fight for sovereignity status following the roots of independence from Great Britain on June 26, 1960.

31 UN member states recognised Somaliland as an independent state before uniting with the Italian Somaliland on July 1, 1960 to form what was known as Somali Republic.

Somaliland is only seeking recognition within the borders received at that moment. Somaliland, not officially recognised by any state, has been functioning as constitutional democracy with a President directly elected by the people, added by a parliament and local government also directly elected by the people.

Somaliland did not even have a university for 31 years of union with the southern Somalia. Today they have four universities despite lack of recognition. They have four private owned telephone and mobile operators where they did not have any in the past 31 years of union with the south. And the list goes on.

Some people do not truly understand why the people of Somaliland decided to go alone, and break their partnership with the south. Some people even speculate that the issue of Somaliland is tied with the stability of the southern Somalia, and the union will be back when the rest of the south becomes stable. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons why Somaliland re-took its independence, and broke its partnership. But in my personal view, I would only focus on two important reasons.

Firstly, British Somaliland had voluntarily entered a union with Italian Somaliland in pursuit of irredentist dream of a 'Greater Somalia' (including parts of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti).

It was clear to everybody in both regions that it was never intended to stop with the union of the two regions, but to pursue the other three remaining regions.

Therefore, that dream effectively died when Djibouti got its independence in 1977, and decided to go alone without joining the existing union. If Djibouti people had that freedom to make that choice, it is only fair that the people of Somaliland can make similar choices to decide on their fate.

The main argument here is that the Somali union in 1960 did not achieve the reason it was formed which was a greater Somalia. Somaliland's voluntary union at that time was based on that formation. If that dream did not materialise, Somaliland could go alone like the other regions did where Somalis live including Djibouti, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

Secondly, another very crucial point that made the people of Somaliland go their separate ways from the South is the suffering and injustices that the people of Somaliland endured for 31 years of marriage. They have suffered at the hands of Southern rule governments particularly during Siad Barre's 21-year rule.

The whole world knows that those governments even bombarded Somaliland cities. Therefore, it is a trust issue. If you had a business partnership with another person and you have suffered and lost everything, and you would have to re-start your business. Would you again trust to create another partnership with that person? It is fair to say that the people of Somaliland have a trust issue with their brothers in the South, and will not join them again within a union despite a lack of recognition by the international community.

It is important to note that the AU sent a fact finding mission to Somaliland in 2005 in order to respond to the concern that Somaliland recognition would create a fragmentation of Somalia, or other AU member states.

The African Union fact finding mission in 2005 concluded 'the case should not be linked to the notion of "opening a Pandora box"', and the report recommended that the AU 'should find a special method of dealing with this outstanding case' as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, AU actions stopped there. Why cannot we Africans decide for ourselves, with Europeans doing so and the EU leading the way? I hope I can one day be proud of our African leaders through the AU leadership when I see that they are taking a far sighted approach like the EU doing on Kosovo.

The more the AU delays dealing with the Somaliland case, the more it makes the situation in East Africa difficult, and increases the risk of war and questions the credibility of the AU.

The Somaliland case is a time bomb for the African Union and the international community cannot really afford to ignore the issue. On the other hand, Somaliland's multi-party democracy system is a rarity in Africa, and the Muslim world.

The African Union needs to seriously consider Somaliland's formal application of AU membership and reward people's choice of democracy. Somaliland is a state where the power truly belongs to the people.

* Abdirahman Aw Ali is is from Somaliland and based in the USA.

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

The latest report from the International Crisis Group - Nigeria: Failed Elections, Failing State? - examines the implications of the country’s electoral injustice in April 2007, which is undermining Nigeria’s status as a democracy and weakening its position as a broker of peace across the African continent. The report calls on President Umaru Yar’Adua to reach out to the opposition to form an inclusive government of national unity, in which all major parties are represented.

The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.

‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’Almost a year ago, presidential jets assembled in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The city’s five-star hotels were filled to capacity and the per diem dollars filled the pockets of Africans on a 'mission to save Somalia'.

AMISOM was the grand acronym that wrapped up the noble intentions. It was agreed that the force should be 8,000 soldiers, but only 4,000 were pledged at the summit. The rhetoric of unification, as always, was delivered with unquestionable conviction and the summit was flavoured with the re-invigorated spirit of pan-Africanism.

Almost one year down the road, only Uganda has honoured its promise. The good intentions of the others are wrapped up in a thousand excuses, one of such, of course, in keeping with the character of contemporary Africa 'we are awaiting the pledges from the international community'.

How can 53 countries, many of which have relatively large armies and exorbitant defence budgets, fail to put together and facilitate a contingent of 8,000 peace keepers? To those that are beginning to express reservations about the security of their troops, we must ask: Haven’t the dangers and dynamics in this war-torn country been more or less the same for what seems like eternity? Upon what then did their excellencies base their pledges in Addis-Abba?

Some argue that President Museveni is pursuing American interests in Somalia. The US has interests all over the world; the African Union cannot be expected to alter its agenda just because it will be perceived to be serving American interests. Whatever became of African interests!

One also wonders why the donor funds towards a unifying exercise that will strengthen the continent are not as forthcoming as the dollars they systematically pump into our economies. They know the strength that lies in unity and God forbid, Africa should discover this!

In 1985, the British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, in her address to the American Congress said, 'Winston Churchill’s vision of a union of mind and purpose between the English speaking people was to form the mainspring of the West. No one of my generation can forget that America has been the principal architect of peace in Europe, which has lasted 40 years. Given the shield of the United States, we have been granted the opportunity to build a concept of Europe beyond the dreams of our fathers'.

Julius Nyerere rolled the tanks and Saba-Saba’s over the Ugandan border and blasted 'the last King of Scotland' out of office; to him we are eternally grateful.

For years, President Museveni, despite public perceptions of the day, stood with the African National Congress and the Southern Sudan People’s Liberation Army when all others regarded them futile efforts. Today, South Africans, southern Sudanese, Burundians and many others are reaping the benefits of those that chose to work the infallible principle of ‘strength in unity’. Most of these initiatives in the past have been 'informal' and it is time to make the ‘formal’ organs of African unity work because too many in the past have failed for lack of political will.

Charles Njonjo, a retired Kenyan politician of the seventies, personified this African vice, when he once proudly said, he drank champagne at the collapse of the East African Community!

Uganda is preparing to host Her Majesty, the Queen of England, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2007. Why can’t we be as passionate about the African Union? With all due respect, isn’t CHOGM, to a large extent, a glorification of our colonial past? I suggest that when we pray ‘God save the Queen’ we pray God save Africa too!

President Kufuor, chair of the African Union, in concluding his Africa Day speech observed the following:

'All these efforts will bear ready and abundant fruit only if we start with deepening the partnership arrangements among ourselves as Africans before we go out as a continent to access what others can bring to support our efforts.

Fortunately, there is a growing recognition among us today of the need to provide our union with a stronger continental machinery in order to work on agreed strategic areas of focus, including a common understanding of continental integration and the constraints against such an integration process.

We therefore look forward to the July 2007 summit in Accra dedicated to the "Grand Debate on Union Government" which, hopefully, will help us identify the strategic goals, objectives and actions that will help our embattled continent to gain its rightful and dignified place in the globalised world.'

Yet, the news that the Accra summit, 25 June - 6 July 2007, will be the 'Grand Debate on Union Government' may not necessarily be encouraging. Debates we have had plenty. Declarations, decisions, protocols, agreements, treaties, we have signed many.

Our main difficulty has been in implementation, having the will, structures, personnel and discipline to realise our goals. So, before we can get excited about July's grand debate we must first examine how the AU has managed to implement its own time table to date.

The African Union has set for itself the ambition of building, by the year 2025:

'A united and integrated Africa; an Africa imbued with the ideals of justice and peace; an inter-dependent and virile Africa determined to map for itself an ambitious strategy; an Africa underpinned by political, economic, social and cultural integration which would restore to Pan-Africanism its full meaning; an Africa able to make the best of its human and material resources, and keen to ensure the progress and prosperity of its citizens by taking advantage of the opportunities offered by a globalised world; an Africa engaged in promoting its values in a world rich in its disparities.'

The fundamental vision is, therefore, to 'build an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, an Africa driven and managed by its own citizen and representing a dynamic force in the international arena'.

The Constitutive Act of 2002 sets up and mandates certain institutions to facilitate the realisation of this vision: the Commission serves as the engine of the Union; Member States as the political project managers; the Pan-African Parliament and ECOSOCC as democratic control and monitoring organs; the Regional Economic Communities are viewed as the main pillars or building blocks of the Union; the Court of Justice, like that of the EU, is envisioned, once established, to serve as the judicial and arbitration body, especially on commercial cases and harmonisation rules; and the African Court of Human and Peoples" Rights to operate like Europe’s ECHRJ.

African leaders fully recognise that the success of the African Union will, to a large extent, 'depend on effective understanding and collaboration between these various organs, as well as on respect for their individual roles and functions'.

The Union further recognises that it would not be able to garner the necessary political consensus for accomplishment of its mandate, unless it has in place an appropriate governance tool. The question then to ask is how well has the Union so far done to ensure the tools are in place?

It has over the last three years been pursuing a short-term strategy. The strategy, which spans 2004-2007 has the objective to consolidate the institutional pillars of integration, build the human network and forge a network of relations for the Continent. In our view, before ordinary Africans can begin to believe that the 'grand debate’ in Accra would not be just another talk shop, they must be told how far the Union has gone with this short-term strategy which ends this year.

Africans are right to be sceptical. Yet, Africans know that the medium term goal of converging all the regional economic communities between 2008 and 2015 and the long term goal of the continent’s integration by 2025-2030 are all achievable. What we want to know is if our leaders have shown by their deeds that they also share this belief.

The Government of Ghana in collaboration with the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Development Bank will convene a high-level conference ‘Financing for Development’, in Accra, Ghana, on 30-31 May, under the theme 'Infrastructure for Growth – The Energy Challenge'.

Participants will include African ministers of finance as well as ministers of Energy and senior officials from the donor community. The main focus of the meeting will be directed at the energy sector, particularly its financing needs and how to maximise its contribution to the growth agenda required to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the 2015 target date.

Energy plays a critical role in advancing efforts to achieve the MDGS and improving the lives of poor people across the world. Lack of access to adequate affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally benign energy is a severe constraint on development.

The meeting is therefore expected to come up with sustainable approaches to improving energy access and the complimentary financing options, including viable private-public partnerships.

At the same time, the Accra Conference will take stock of progress achieved by African countries and donors in respect of the undertakings and commitments made at recent high-level meetings in Gleneagles, Abuja and Singapore. In that regard, particular attention will be paid to the commitments made in the areas of costed multi-year educational plans, financing of education, and mainstreaming of education in national budgets.

For further information on the Accra Conference as well as an ECA perspective on the current financing for development issues and challenges in Africa, go to the websites below:

http://www.uneca.org/atpc/Work%20in%20progress/48.pdf

Background

Many African countries are confronted with development challenges. Key among these is the lack of basic infrastructure to drive the development process. As part of efforts to overcome these challenges, African ministers of Finance met at a first conference in Abuja, Nigeria in May 2006 to dialogue on the way forward to address these developmental issues.

The Abuja meeting marked an important milestone in international discussions on development finance. Discussions dwelt largely on the challenges remaining in converting aid commitments into development, and ways to operationalise the 2005 Gleneagles G8 summit and 2005 UN General Assembly commitments in support of the MDGs in Africa.

As a follow up to the first conference in Abuja, Ghana is set to host the second segment in the series of conferences to further deepen the dialogue on Financing for Development. ECA is providing secretariat and technical support to the conference.

Your Voice Against Poverty bans controversial sculpture. The artist says: 'The sculpture is free for another exhibition - if anybody has the guts.'

The African women's NGO Rainbo has been forbidden to exhibit a controversial sculpture at the Your Voice Against Poverty rally at the brink of the Thames in London on 2 June 2007.

The Danish artist Jens Galschiot is astonished. He declares: 'I have been censored by totalitarian regimes, but I have never imagined my sculptures to be banned by "progressive" Western NGOs.'

The ban has been decreed by BOND, the organiser of the event, allegedly motivated by a wish to please affiliated Christian organisations. The banned piece of art is a handsome bronze sculpture depicting a crucified pregnant teenager, created by the Danish sculptor Jens Galschiot. The sculpture titled 'In the Name of God' has been cast in various varieties as an accusation against the crusade against contraception and sexual education orchestrated by Christian fundamentalists led by President Bush and the Pope.

The sculpture was scheduled to arrive in London on Thursday carried by a volunteer from the artist's workshop. But now the artist has been left over with tickets already booked and paid and an unwanted sculpture. 'Therefore I'll lend the sculpture for an exhibition to other organisations, art galleries or museums in London, if anybody has the guts - otherwise I'll have to cancel the journey', the Danish artist says.

The sculpture has been exhibited at World Social Forum in 2007 in Nairobi, Kenya and for a couple of months in front of the Lutheran Cathedral of Copenhagen in cooperation with the dean and the parish council who wanted to make a statement that not all Christian circles are supportive of the crusade of the Pope and the fundamentalists.

For the moment feminists in Nicaragua are using a specimen of the pregnant teenager for a comprehensive campaign against the alarming maternal mortality. In addition they have made hundreds of miniature models of the sculpture to be distributed to parliamentarians, members of the judiciary and other outstanding persons.

On 22 May 2007, the African women's NGO Rainbo and Jens Galschiot have separately sent a protest to all member organisations of BOND. The Danish sculptor declares:

'For decades I've been staking my sculptures to ignite a debate about the North/South relation - and the inequitable distribution of the world's resources. My huge sculptural manifestations have been a well-known and appreciated component of international NGO rallies such as the European Social Forums in London, Paris and Athens, the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong 2005, Jubilee 2000 in Prague - just to mention a few examples.

For sure, I have been censored by totalitarian regimes, e.g. the Chinese government, and I have been expelled from Mexico for the "crime" of erecting a "Pillar of Shame" against the Acteal massacre in co-operation with the CNI, the indigenous peoples' organisation. But I have NEVER had an experience like this: that "progressive" NGOs like BOND or other democratic western NGOs make an attempt to obstruct the exhibition of one of my sculptures. Indeed, such "progressive grassroots" circles, are the last ones that I would deem to be supportive of the crusade against contraception and sexual education orchestrated by the Pope and President Bush.'

As no argument has induced the organisers to change their absurd decision, Jens Galschiot has now decided to publish the affair. For more information:

Jens Galschiot's address to the NGOs:
Rainbo's address to the NGOs:
More information about the planned exhibition in London:

The United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) urged Western donors on Tuesday to put aside politics and back its health, nutrition and education projects in Zimbabwe, where nearly one in three children is stunted by malnutrition. Only $2,6-million has been received towards an appeal of $13,8-million launched six months ago, leaving programmes "grossly underfunded", the agency said.

Burundi has made some progress towards democracy but it needed to strengthen the judiciary to ensure justice, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said. "Democracy cannot faction without the institution that nurtures a culture of participation and respect for justice," Louise Arbour said in the capital, Bujumbura, on Wednesday.

It was yet another blow for the Senegalese opposition yesterday when the Council of State legalised the distribution of legilsative seats in the country, a move vehemently challenged by the opposition Parti Socialiste (PS). Until it was dislodged from power by President Abdoulaye Wade’s ruling PDS in 2000, PS had been ruling Senegal since independence in 1960. The party captured third place in the last Presidential polls.

The government of São Tomé and Príncipe is brimming with joy over the news that Paris Club has agreed to write off 100 percent of the country’s debts. This was agreed at a meeting of the representatives of the club’s creditor countries today after it was realised that Sao Tome and Principe has reached its completion point under the enhanced initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) in March 2007.

REPOA’s Research Report 06.3 examines the extent to which microfinance institutions in Tanzania contribute to poverty reduction. The loan process and technical support provided by micro-finance institutions are studied, as well as some characteristics of the loan recipients and their businesses. The research was conducted on 37 rural and urban micro-finance institutions from four regions and over 350 clients.

May 25, Africa Union Day, marks the start of public consultations in over fifteen countries just a few weeks before 53 Heads of States meet in Accra to agree on the AU Proposal to establish the United States of Africa.

In an unprecedented decision, the Heads of States agreed in January to meet in Accra on July 2-3rd to discuss only one agenda, the establishment of a Union Government as a first step towards the United States of Africa.

Yet, despite extensive research and consultation, the proposal is yet to be placed before Africa’s 832 million citizens for consultation. Civil society organizations with support from Governments have kicked off debates in fifteen countries. The debates are an unprecedented attempt to involve the public across Africa in the decision-making processes of the African Union Assemblies.

“Without public consultation, the United States of Africa proposal will have as much chance of flying as an elephant. African governments and citizens must explore the immediate implications and opportunities a Union Government creates for ordinary citizens, particularly those affected by the denial of human rights, poverty and injustice,” said Thomas Deve of Mwelekeo wa NGO (MWENGO), one of the organisers in Zimbabwe.

In the fifteen countries, citizens will be asked to reflect on the opportunities of a Union Government for raising the bar for human rights, democratic governance and conflict. The proposed African Economic Community, a dream that recently got a step closer with the signing of common tariffs within COMESA, will be debates with an eye to an African common market that targets growth, poverty reduction and industrialisation.

“African civil society organisations are in the forefront of generating dialogue between leaders and citizens on this issue. There are many implications. A more unified voice would produce an effective collective negotiating position on global trade policies such as the Economic Partnership Agreements or with China for instance,”, said Valerie Traore, Pan African Programme Manager, African Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development (ACORD) in Nairobi.

While there is general agreement among member-states on the need for deeper and faster continental political and economic integration, the proposal is controversial. Member-states are split between those calling for the strengthening of existing AU structures before taking a bold leap to the United States of Africa and those that argue that as long as the continent remains a motley gathering of fragmented states, continental integration is a futile exercise.

A Ghanaian CSO host committee is preparing to take the views generated in the public debates to the Heads of States at the AU Summit in Accra. Dr. Emmanuel Akwetey, Convenor of the Ghana AU Summit Civil Society Coalition says, “Public engagement should not end with an event at the AU Summit. It should be built into all regional integration efforts to ensure that they are relevant, responsive and accountable to African people.”

For more details of national organisers, please contact: Ivy Maina, Mobile: +254 734 949 105 (Kenya).
For the full text of the press release, including list of interviewees, please visit

Anti-poverty campaigners have likened trade negotiations between the European Union (EU) and several regions in Africa to a boxing match between a schoolboy novice and a heavyweight champion. Such disparity appears particularly evident in the case of the EU's talks with governments from Eastern and Southern Africa, with whom Brussels wishes to sign an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) by the end of this year.

About thirty civil society organisations from across Africa met in Accra at the SSNIT Guest House on May 18, to discuss plans for civil society participation in the up-coming African Union (AU) Summit to be held in Ghana. The African Union Summit as usual will be preceded by a series of activities, including civil society events.

FEATURES: Kwesi Kwaa Prah on Mamdani's interpretation of the conflict in Darfur
COMMENT AND ANALYSIS:
- Mandisi Majavu on psychology, postcolonial theory and Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth
- The political situation and the return of Bakili Muluzi in Malawi
- Doreen Lwanga on violence and paranoia in South Africa
LETTERS:
- Responses to last week's article on solidarity with Zimbabwe
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD: Will the next G8 summit honour old promises?
BLOGGING AFRICA:
- Review of the North African blogosphere
BOOKS AND ARTS:
- Marian Douglas reviews the documentary film NO on rape in the black American community
AFRICAN UNION MONITOR:
- Opening Africa’s borders and challenging HIV/Aids
- CSO pre-summit activities

WOMEN AND GENDER: State of the World’s Mothers report
CONFLICT AND EMERGENCIES: Congolese flee fresh clashes
HUMAN RIGHTS: Study on Ugandan torture survivors
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: The scramble for Africa’s oil
REFUGEES AND FORCED MIGRATION: Risk of health crisis in South Sudan
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Another blow for Senegal’s opposition
AFRICA AND CHINA: Chinese activists look to Africa
CORRUPTION: New TI report on judicial corruption
DEVELOPMENT: African countries fight EU for survival
HEALTH AND HIV/Aids: Medicines without doctors
EDUCATION: West asked to help Zimbabwe’s children
LGBTI: Mauritian blood donor system brands homosexuals
ENVIRONMENT: Call for strong leadership to tackle climate change
LAND & LAND RIGHTS: Botswana’s bushmen seek UK support
MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Nigerian journalists attacked
INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY: All set for eLearning Africa
PLUS: e-newsletters and mailings lists; fundraising and useful resources; courses,
seminars and workshops, jobs and books and publications

*Pambazuka News now has a Del.icio.us page, where you can view the various websites that we visit to keep our fingers on the pulse of Africa! Visit

There is a lot is to be desired as far as the Zimbabwe crisis is concerned. Factual comment has been put forward, indicating the sufferings that the people of Zimbabwe are enduring. It has been pointed out that action needs to be taken by the neighbours of Zimbabwe, the leaders of SADC, particularly by our president, President Mbeki.

Relating to the position taken by the South African government, the question is: to what extent should the government interfere with the issues of Zimbabwe? To what extent will this government be undermining the sovereignty of Zimbabwe?

The solution to the Zimbabean problem lies with the people of Zimbabwe. Those outside can provide assistance such as free and fair elections and stability during transition.

I am firmly of the view that it is unacceptable to suggest that there is power sharing amongst the elite. Many are to some extent satisfied with the actions of our governments. Dialogue is key in resolving the Zimbabwe crises, as opposed to the US kind of military infiltration and overthrow of governments. Africa still faces grave problems of division along ethnic, religious, cultural and traditional lines. To invade Zimbabwe would be fuelling already existing potentials for conflict.

Africa has suffered many conflicts. Let us give dialogue a chance and respect the work our leaders are doing. Let us find some other creative ways of addressing the problem, and not just utter solutionless comments that may have far reaching consequences.

Christopher Dyani, South Africa

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/305/41567_Malawi.jpgAkwete Sande gives an overview of the current political situation in historical context in Malawi in the lead up to the 2009 elections.

Bakili Muluzi was a powerful politician under dictator Hastings Banda, first President of Malawi 1964-1994. As Secretary General of Malawi Congress Party at a younger age, Muluzi was dictator number two to Banda. But like all others before him, he served for a short period and was removed.

Bakili Muluzi went into business, but he resurfaced to lead the United Democratic Front – UDF in 1992 as a pressure group to agitate for political pluralism.

Muluzi, an accomplished orator backed by the faith community alongside the late Chakufwa Chihana, a trade unionist, galvanised Malawians against the one-party state. Through a referendum in 1993, Malawi adopted multi-party democracy.

In 1994 Bakili Muluzi, a Muslim in a Christian dominated country defeated Banda at the polls and began a reform process that included entrenching judicial independence, and freedoms such as press and association.

He closed notorious detention camps where Banda had kept his foes. The country saw the flourishing of non-governmental organisations in restricted areas of human rights. Independent print and electronic media houses included a state television station emerged.

A new constitution that provided for an Ombudsman’s office, an anti-corruptions bureau was adopted. New policies on gender issues, youth development and the largely successful Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) were initiated.

Muluzi’s rallying call was poverty reduction. By the end of his first five year term in 1999, despite success on human rights, free basic education which he had successfully introduced, poverty had got worse in a country with only tobacco as a major export.

It was not an easy win for Muluzi in 1999. The UDF, which had attracted all sorts of characters, lost popularity as people moved to other parties. Come elections in May 1999, Muluzi could only manage a bare win.

The second and last constitutional term for Muluzi was a troubled one. Successive droughts left the majority of people starving from 2002–2004. Newspapers were a wash with revelations of official corruption.

The most seriously affected was the ministry of education, where dubious contractors were paid for uncompleted school blocks. The Anti-Corruption Bureau Act, was not strong enough to discipline those with connections in powerful places. The civil service lost professionalism as most senior officials owed allegiance to powerful politicians.

However, the UDF had no clear succession plans because Muluzi himself harboured desire to extend his stay at state house. A slow but steady campaign for constitutional amendments for 'Open Term' and 'Third Term' to do away with two consecutive terms was waged. But parliament rejected the amendments. This campaign alienated Muluzi from most of his senior colleagues, who opted out of the party and government. Here perhaps is the genesis of his desire for return from retirement to contest again.

Muluzi anointed Bingu Wa-Mutharika, the current president and former international servant of the World Bank and COMESA as his successor. He successfully campaigned for Bingu, propping him as an economic 'engineer'. Although Bingu carried the day, it was with a very narrow margin sparking allegations of electoral fraud.

However after a few months the new president complained that the former president wanted to control him. Bingu shunned party functions leading to his being sidelined by party officials, and finally he bowed out.

It had never happened that a president could abandon a party that put him in power, elsewhere perhaps, but certainly not in this part of Africa.

However civil society and the public welcomed the move when he formed his own Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Many people flocked to it and within a short period DPP won six seats in by-elections therefore becoming a ruling party by default. Bingu’s stance on corruption, arresting his former party members and convicting others in the process has further created enemies for the president.

An attempt to impeach Bingu failed due to some gaps in the constitution, which provides for that possibility. But parliament had no procedures to set the impeachment in motion. Bingu was followed by many UDF legislators reducing the former ruling party into as a second rate opposition in parliament.

However vice president Cassim Chilumpha stuck in the UD. On several occasions, he became critical of the government. President Muntharika made an attempt to sack him but the courts restricted him. However, last year the vice president was arrested on treason charges, which he is answering while under house arrest.

The departure of Mutharika from UDF sparked bitter rivalry with Muluzi. Though several attempts have been made by a public watchdog – Public Affairs Committee – PAC, it has failed to reconcile the two. Each side accused the other of sparking political tension, and the race to 2009 elections has been unofficially begun.

What began as mere speculations that the former president intended a come back is now real.

'My job when I left office was to rebuild my party. But a lot of attempts have been made by Bingu to destroy UDF, this has forced me to decide to comeback. If UDF nominates me a candidate, I will contest in 2009', Muluzi told his supporters last month.

The announcement received mixed reactions with government spokesperson Patricia Kaliati declaring that government may reconsider Muluzi’s benefits as a retired president. These include security detail, house, medical and other benefits.

President Mutharika declared that he was at war with the opposition and true to his words made unprecedented moves by deploying the Malawi Defence Force to stop a rally from being addressed by former the president in Mulanje, a place seen as Mutharika’s stronghold and where the majority of his ethnic kinsmen come from.

The vocal civil society condemned the use of the armed forces. But they were not backing the proposed comeback by former President. Some chiefs have formed a coalition to lobby fellow chiefs to deny support to the former president. Prominent journalist – Gedeon Munthali and Chinyeke Tembo have formed a coalition too – Anti-Muluzi Coalition to mobilise people against Muluzi.

Columnists and radio analysts have argued that a Muluzi comeback is uncalled for and is premised on greed. They argue that the country was denied international aid from 2003 due to corruption and over-expenditure. Poverty grew worse during Muluzi’s ten year rule. They believe Muluzi who controls the finances of his party is being used by greedy fellows who want a fortune.

Perhaps such statements will do nothing to stop the populist former president from running for office again. But he has another thing coming. A constitutional reform programme which started last year entered into second phase this month and a conference to review the 1995 constitutional was recently held.

The issues to discussed included abolishing of death penalty, a recall provision for non-performing legislators, amendments on the presidency where a former president after completing five year terms should not come back, a president should have a minimum of an academic degree, are some of the hurdles Muluzi has to contend with.

However, constitutional amendments will have to go to parliament where the combined opposition is capable of upsetting the motions which people see as targeting Muluzi who has no first degree apart from professional diplomas and honorary ones. There have been calls from civil society for a referendum on the proposed changes, which may hold hope for the former president who is still popular.

'We have no trust in our MP’s, they can be forced by their leaders to sabotage the process, and render the whole exercise fruitless', says Billy Mayaya of the Blantyre Synod of the influential Presbyterian Church, explaining the reasons for the referendum.

An analyst from the University of Malawi, wiseman Chijere Chirwa says Muluzi’s comeback is a sign of a leadership crisis in a party-UDF that ruled the country from 1994–2004. He adds that the move will alienate ambitious people, who may decide to opt out.

Muluzi cites arbitrary arrests, and flouting of constitution by Mutharika as his major reasons for comeback. 'He is overlooking the successful ending of chronic farming in the return of donor support; debt relief and eradication of corruption', argues Eric Ning’ang’a, an educationist based in the city of Blantyre.

But Adamson Muula, a popular columnist and medical practiotioner says Muluzi should be allowed to stand. Muula says Muluzi’s comeback will bring challenges because people will be able to judge whether he has any better agenda.

Bakili Muluzi is determined to deflate the tube he inflated but Mutharika will not take it lying down – the use of the armed forces is just a sign of things to come as 2009 draws closer.

* Aaron Akwete Sandie is a freelance journalist based in Botswana.

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

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/authors/Doreen-Lwanga.jpgAlthough there is much for Africans to celebrate in post apartheid South Africa, Doreen Lwanga is troubled by the 'psychological burden' of having to engage in the profiling of black youth when walking the streets of urban centres such as Johannesburg.

A while ago, I wrote about the psychological trauma that beggars on the New York City subway undergo, as they prepare to ask passengers for a dollar. Here, I would like to explore the psychological burden of profiling young black males in South Africa as a visitor to the country.

I recently travelled to South Africa. I had not been to South Africa since I left in 2001, following a year of working with the Lawyers for Human Rights Refugee Rights Project in Pretoria. I had promised myself never to return to South Africa because of the 'not-so-friendly' welcome I received when I was there. I had gone to South Africa assuming that I would be 'going home', but my inability to speak any of the eleven national languages prohibited me from freely enjoying the social scene.

South Africa provides hope to so many Africans on the continent. Its diversity of culture, landscape, vibrancy, peoples, history, leadership and resilience makes it the most admired and one of the most sought after destinations. It has become a favoured destination for many international Africans students and academics flock to pursue a world-class education, teaching or research experience outside their home countries. It is Africa’s economic capital.

Many Africans like me who visit or live in South Africa want to enjoy a part of it or be a part of it. We expect a 'home welcome' and a pat on the back, yet many of us, particularly from outside Southern African are profiled because we do not speak any of the South African black languages.

Amazingly, both South Africans and foreigners in the country are scared of street life and miss out on the most vibrant experience of any city. We are warned of walking in the city without clinging onto our handbag during the day and scared from enjoying the night life for fear of rape, murder or robbery in the cities of Johannesburg and Pretoria. The tourists and immigrants claim crime is high in these cities because there are many unemployed young South Africans. While South Africans claim it is due to the high influx of immigrants.

I remember one evening in 2000 while I was walking home from work in Pretoria at about six o’clock, two young black males came running after me. When they approached me, one pulled my bag while the other struggled to break my necklace. As I fought back and yelled for help, none of the passer-bys stopped to rescue me from these attackers. If this had happened on the streets of Kampala, the mob would surely have meted out justice onto these two robbers.

Certainly, it is expected that we all take the necessary precaution while living in big cities. I realise that it is risky to park one’s Pajeros on some streets of Pretoria or Johannesburg in the night without guaranteed security. However, I am bothered that I can safely walk the streets of Kampala or New York without psychological fear of attack, rape or murder from young black males unlike in Johannesburg or Pretoria.

Then I wonder, am I, like many other foreigners and South Africans living in these cities, too paranoid? Are we too impatient with the recently acquired public space that the new South African transition ushered in for free enjoyment of all, including young black males? Is it just young black males clearly restricting our ability to move freely within Johannesburg and Pretoria, and are they all South Africans?

Clearly we have many reasons to celebrate that the new South Africa has extended to many of us from the rest of Africa easier access to its borders without the cruel apartheid system.

However, I do not want to live a stratified lifestyle where those who consider 'to have' live under key and lock from those who supposedly 'do not have'.

I enjoy street life, and the ability to interact with local people and observe the daily lives of ordinary people. I enjoy public transport and do not want to be chauffeured around in private car hire at seven times the cost of public transport.

I hate the fact that walking the streets of Pretoria and Johannesburg makes me paranoid, particularly when as a black person I participate in black-on-black profiling.

As a black person and a self-acclaimed black nationalist, I cannot bear the psychological burden of profiling young black males on the streets of South Africa nor deny myself the opportunity of opening my Luganda or English-speaking mouth for fear of attack from my own people.

* Doreen Lwanga is an Africa Scholar, Researcher and Activist working in the areas of African security, Pan-Africanism and Higher education in Africa.

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