LAST ISSUE UNTIL AUGUST 24: Pambazuka News will be taking a three-week break to enable staff to do research and take some rest. The next edition of Pambazuka News will therefore be on Thursday, August 24.

FEATURED: The DRC elections won’t hide the need for long term justice and reconciliation, writes Theodore Kasongo Kamwimbi
COMMENT AND ANALYSIS:
- More than a year after the Ethiopian elections, Erkyihun Lagere urges the country to move forward towards 2010 elections
- Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed argues that the current Middle East crisis has ignited dangerous tensions
- Strategic Initiatives for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA) Network details the difficulties faced by women in Somalia
LETTERS: on colonialists vs China, the Middle East, the DRC, the PAP and free lunches
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD:
BLOGGING AFRICA: Blogs on Ethiopia, Somalia, Lebanon, slavery and pidgin
BOOKS AND ARTS: Shailja Patel pays tribute to Bi Kidude, 95-year old Zanzibari musical phenomenon
AFRICAN UNION MONITOR: Judges and impunity statement from the Coalition for the Establishment of An Effective African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
CONFLICT AND EMERGENCIES: Links to news on Sudan, DRC, Somalia, Kenya
HUMAN RIGHTS: Domestic workers abused worldwide, says Human Rights Watch report
WOMEN AND GENDER: Food and Agriculture Organisation report says gender critical in dealing with climate change
REFUGEES AND FORCED MIGRATION: Zimbabwe exodus floods South Africa
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Former Zanu-PF top dog reveals poll-fixing secrets
DEVELOPMENT: Landmark South African court case tests water privatisation
CORRUPTION: Global Witness report on corruption in the DRC mining industry
HEALTH AND HIV/AIDS: Swaziland text messaging campaign on HIV/AIDS causes fury
EDUCATION: Radio used to educate orphans in Rwanda
ENVIRONMENT: More oil leaks plague Niger Delta
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS: HIV/Aids, hunger and the Mozambique Land Law
MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Outspoken Tunisian human rights activist beaten
INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY: Human rights and the information society
PLUS: e-Newsletters and Mailings Lists; Fundraising and Useful Resources; Courses, Seminars and Workshops; Jobs.

Karl Marx said of Louis Bonarparte (September 2, 1778 – July 25, 1846) that “men are makers of their own history but they do not make it as they please, they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past”. This statement represents the political and socio-cultural reality of the Middle East and its long but protracted violent conflict. The fact that the social groups involved tend to define themselves by their history sets them apart from each other. In this situation, unless plurality of differences is recognized as a positive aspect of today’s geopolitical realm - as opposed to a Westernised attitude of colonialism and conquest - the struggle for racial and socio-cultural equality will continue taking a militarized form.

Western civilization and economic imperialism expansionists should come to terms with the fact that social fragmentation is a way of giving voice to the exclusion. In this instance, Middle East people and their counterparts in other developing countries are fighting against racial domination, militarized economic imperialism and cultural annihilation. It is a people united to recapture and occupy their rightful space to speak for themselves in their own voice and have that voice accepted as authentic and legitimate. The rationale advanced here is that pluralism and assertion of difference helps to undermine the grip of the dominant groups over political and social discourse.

Contemporary South Africa was negotiated and built on this reality even though there does still exist severe socio-economic structural disparities. Apartheid, which became official policy in 1948, was the product of the fear of a small privileged group. Ironically, just as is happening in the Middle East, the same Western capitals that condemned apartheid facilitated the trading of multinational companies with the apartheid regime.

The Middle East conflict is becoming increasingly dangerous and inflammatory, jeopardizing and endangering regional peace and security. It is significant to note here that America and its Western allies can easily use the so-called Iran link with the Hezbollah and Hamas movements to launch a reckless and ill-advised attack against Iran over Iran’s uranium enrichment programme.

The answer to the Middle East crisis is a political justice based on recognition of the plurality and identity of various groups in the region. Racial dominance, denial of political and economic rights and social degradation exercised by Israel and her Western allies are all measures to safeguard the exploitation of oil wealth by Western capitals and minority interests in the region. The message and response coming out of the G8 Summit and United Nations are just desperate attempts to try to keep the lid on the crisis in the hope that it might somehow go away on its own.

The search for ‘peace’ by Western diplomacy in the Middle East and other flash points has achieved little other than to ensure the continuation of underlying instability. The reality is that none of the so-called super powers currently has the capacity to get control of the conflict in the Middle East. Further, none between Israel and her Arab neighbours can win a straight all out war.

The Iraq and Afghanistan disasters engineered by Western capitals are unraveling case studies of attempts by Western colonial imperialism to disintegrate states for purpose of re-colonization and exploitation. It is the same as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Western countries after facilitating genocide for over 45 years, are now busy actively stage managing “democratic” elections to ensure smooth but well controlled political transition.

It is incumbent on the international community to pressurize parties to the conflict to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

* Ndung’u Wainain is a Programme Officer, NCEC and Director, International Center for Policy and Conflict. P.O. Box 11996-00400 Nairobi. Tel: 4445974, 4446313; email: [email][email protected]

It’s more than a year since the May 2005 Ethiopian elections collapsed in chaos, resulting in violence, arrests, imprisonments and a press crackdown. How can the country move forward towards elections in 2010? Now is the time for the government to dodge the election trends of other African governments. Now is the time for dialogue and tolerance, writes Erkyihun Lagere. Only if this happens can Ethiopia truly fulfill is reputation as a mosaic culture.

The parliamentary election in Ethiopia in May 2005 was unique in Ethiopian history, and can be compared to the South African elections of 1994 where all South Africans, after 40 years of segregation, went to the polling stations and queued for hours to exercise their democratic rights and put in place a Government of National Unity. It was the first in Ethiopia’s history, especially in a multi party platform, where Ethiopians became aware of and exercised their power to elect their legislators and form a government. Politicians consented not to use the barrel of the gun to access power. It was this sense of assurance that encouraged eligible Ethiopians to go to the polling stations and exercise their newly found democratic rights.

During the Communist regime, the process was manipulated, votes were rigged and members of the communist party were declared the winners at any cost. After the overthrow of the Communist Derg regime in 1991 by the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front’s (EPRDF) armed insurgency, the EPRDF’s Meles Zenawi reorganized Ethiopia’s regions along ethnic lines and constructed a political machine that has dominated Ethiopian politics for the past 15 years. Despite widespread opposition to this system among a number of ethnic groups in Ethiopia, the EPRDF and Zenawi had been able to maintain their power. However the existence of a better organized, united opposition combined with an energized electorate strongly contributed to the hope that surrounded the 2005 elections.

The May 2005 Ethiopian Elections

The May 2005 elections drew the attention of Ethiopians at home, the diaspora, and even the international community. It was the first time in Ethiopian history where the incumbent government provided facilities, gave access to government owned media and allowed the opposition to campaign “freely”. While the incumbents still enjoyed some advantages, the pre-election processes were nevertheless unprecedented in several ways:

1. It was the first [1] election that took place in a multi-party platform. According to the Associated Press, it was “the most competitive election in the country’s 3,000 year history” [2].

2. There was an open debate (discussion) in the media between the incumbent and opposition political parties.

3. All political parties condemned violence and requested their supporters to go to the polling stations and cast their vote.

4. The four major parties signed a non-violence pact.

5. It was the first election in Ethiopian history where Ethiopians went to the polls believing that they could cast votes and elect a government of their choice.

6. It was a practical demonstration of attempts to accommodate the interests of opposition political parties. The hope was perhaps best captured by Desalegn Rahamato from the Forum for Social Studies who was quoted saying: “We do not expect a miracle, certainly nobody expects the government to lose but we are hoping that the composition of parliament will change substantially so there will be more opposition.” [3]

What went wrong?

The Prime Minister’s premature announcement of EPRDF’s overwhelming victory [4] was the beginning of the rift in the political process, which subsequently led to allegations and counter allegations that increased the gap between opposition political parties and EPRDF [5]. This premature announcement challenged the power of the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) which was the only institution empowered to declare the election results.

The NEBE’s inability to intervene immediately to stop the incursion increased dissent, led to civil violence and forced the residents of Addis Ababa to demonstrate and express their dissatisfaction with the handling of the election results. Although the incumbent government claimed that the opposition political parties instigated and backed the civil violence – the government’s violent suppression of demonstrations also escalated and triggered more violence.

The incumbent government breached the non-violence agreement signed before the election, and violated the people’s constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and gathering. Even worse, mass arrests of students, innocent civilians and leaders of the opposition were carried out. Some of the imprisoned opposition leaders had won Parliamentary seats even in the rigged election.

The derailment of the democratic processes led to the curtailment of press freedom, the arrest of journalists and the closure of private newspapers. Further, it created tension among ethnic groups and sporadic violence in the southern part of Ethiopia that could have been exploited by politicians to orchestrate ethnic violence. In the Diaspora, the consequences were a series of demonstrations, public meetings, vigils, and lobbying of governments and donors to reconsider their relations and restrict development assistance.

Elections in Africa

Was the process in Ethiopia different from other African countries? What are the election trends in Africa? At this junction it would be useful to briefly analyze the election trends within other countries in Africa in order to shed light on the Ethiopian case.

It is a public knowledge that most African elections are marred with fraud and vote rigging. In most cases in Africa, opposition political parties claim victory in major cities while the incumbent governments do so in rural areas. In the post conflict environment of most African countries, an incumbent government rarely wins votes in metropolitan areas. The rationale being that the cities hold the enlightened members of the society (the elites, unionized labor force etc.) who are politically conscious, and rely on the often poorly provided services (water, electricity, health) of the incumbent government.

Further, they are also the immediate victims of government policies, which are designed to attract donors, and the international community to demonstrate governments commitment to good governance. Thus, the perpetually dissatisfied urban electorate demonstrate their anger through huge turn outs at polling stations to vote against the incumbent government that threatens their livelihood; though they know that their vote will not make a huge impact on the overall result. In addition, the presence of the international community and international observers predominantly in urban areas makes it more challenging for the incumbent government to rig votes in cities compared to rural areas.

However, in rural Africa with low literacy rates, difficult living conditions, and well established control mechanisms, the electorate can be coerced, bribed and manipulated to vote for the incumbent. If they vote against an incumbent that stays in power, they will be denied access to fertilizer, insecticide, veterinary care, healthcare and other essential services the government provides. For the sake of survival, the rural communities have to comply with the instructions of government officials. As mentioned earlier, the lack of transportation and hospitality infrastructure limits the number of international or even domestic observes in rural areas, making it easy to rig the vote. As an emerging democracy, Ethiopia is affected by all these factors and it should be no surprise that the incumbent EPRDF claimed victory in rural Ethiopia while losing in the big cities.

The consequences of the May 2005 election

Why did the incumbent government rush to declare its party as a winner? I think it was due to a lack of confidence in its own system. The EPRDF believed that they had won the confidences of the electorate in Addis Ababa and other metropolitan areas which in the end turned out to be woefully wrong. As the election results started to become public in the metropolitan areas the party became increasingly frustrated and insecure.

However, the EPRDF should have been conscious of the elections trend in Africa and been prepared for such an outcome: Robert Mugabe’s party ZANU-PF lost in Harare and Bulawayo, Daniel Arap Moi’s party KANU lost in Kisumu, Nairobi, Nakuru and Naivasha. By rushing to announce the result, EPRDF failed to comply with the guidelines of NEBE and this demonstrated a lack of experience in multi-party politics.

Accepting defeat was difficult and unfamiliar in the culture, and the social and political systems. With the exception of rare cases such as Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia, most incumbents in many African countries have rarely accepted defeat and handed over power to the victorious political party. This highlights a crucial issue in African politics – leaders who come to power using the barrel of the gun do not have the confidence to leave the government mansion willingly and become an “ordinary” citizen.

I can understand their fear. Such leaders, while in power, are not interested in developing a system that could provide them a means that would enable them to live as an ordinary citizen, because they do not want to leave power. It has become fashionable to amend Constitutions, extend terms of office, and stay in power for life. This alienates them from the community and they cannot assimilate back if they leave power because of injustices they committed and unlimited powers they exercised over the people. They are foreigners who would only feel secure living in exile from their homeland usually after a last minute peace deal brokered by a western government.

An important question one should ask is why it was necessary to violate the non-violence pact signed before the 2005 Ethiopian elections where the major political parties agreed “[t]o peacefully resolve our differences or other disagreements between and among ourselves”. [6] Why was it necessary to change a relatively smooth democratic process to a violent event where over 40 people lost their lives, thousands (including leaders of opposition political parties, human right activists and civil society organizations, etc.) ended up in detention camps, and freedom of press was curtailed severely.

Losing the elections in Addis Ababa, where the African Union and some international organizations have their headquarters, was an embarrassment for the EPRDF government. As the parliamentary election results continued to become public formally and informally, it became evident that while some senior government officials including the Minister of Education Genet Zewdae, speaker of the House Ato Dawit Yohannes, etc. lost their parliamentary seats in Addis, still more government officials lost in the regional towns. Thus, the EPRDF government, on the notion of maintaining order and peace in the country, banned public meetings and rallies, intimidated, harassed and retaliated against the electorate who voted against EPRDF, using excessive power and denying the people the right to express their views publicly on the results of the election.

It is worth remembering that retaliation or revenge breeds violence and creates a downward spiral of violence. Ethiopians at home and in the Diaspora witnessed and remember how revenge and retaliation spiraled into violence during the early days of the Marxist regime. Loosely translated, one of the slogans that bred violence was “the blood of one revolutionary can be matched by the blood of a thousand anarchists”. It is thirty years later now and I am sure most Ethiopians remember how the retaliatory chain of violence labeled “Red Terror” and “White Terror” wiped out thousands of young and educated Ethiopians.

More recently, Ethiopians will also recall how the EPRDF, which took power in 1991, used this terror to identify with families of the victims, win trust and confidence of Ethiopians and show the atrocities the Communist government committed against its own people. There is no justification for any group including EPRDF to use revenge (violence) as a means to solve the current problem in Ethiopia.

It has become clear that the legal system is too slow, either due to limited capacity or a lack of good will, to provide remedy for those who seek justice, especially those jailed in connection to the May 2005 elections. As all concerned Ethiopians and the international community continue to advocate for justice, it is a ripe time to plan and discuss how the democratic process should continue in Ethiopia. The parliament has only three years and ten months to finish its term and visionary people and their leaders must start preparation for the next elections, which are slated for 2010.

From the contested election results of May 2005, Ethiopians have demonstrated their ability and commitment to use the ballot box to elect leaders who can form a government that respects the rights of its citizens, and is dedicated to good governance. Every politician and even the highest organ responsible for implementing the elections recognized the power of the electorate, as indicated by the NEBE chairman’s comment that “[t]he determination of the people to exercise their democratic rights is a sure guarantee that democracy is here to stay”. [7]

If this is the principle that guides the people of Ethiopia and is the motto of the Board, then it will be appropriate to give elections another try. Opposition political parties and those who would like to participate in the next election have to develop a strategy and road map on what should be accomplished between now and the next elections. Willingness (Preparedness) to engage in dialogue should be part of strategy. Dialogue can help shed some light into what happened during the 2005 elections and provide space to identify future opportunities. Identifying lessons learned and building on that foundation is one sign of growth, and would minimize chances of similar mistakes in the future.

What can be done to reinvigorate the democratic processes in Ethiopia? It is true that innocent people have died and leaders of the opposition political parties, human rights activists, and CSO leaders are languishing in jails still waiting for justice. With this in mind, following are suggestions on how to break the stalemate, and continue building the democratic process that was halted.

Looking Forward

While the outcome of the elections strangled an emerging democratic culture and increased polarization among various groups, I would argue that it is in the best interests of Ethiopians at home, in the Diaspora, and the international community that the process be given another chance.

While some groups now contend that change can only come via the barrel of the gun, I do not see the rationale, yet, for further blood shed! As an Ethiopian, I am against all violence and do not want to see any Ethiopian take up a gun and kill another Ethiopian. We have had enough of that - violence breeds violence. We have grieved for the last forty years, exhumed graves to collect human remains, and we have been pointing figures at others who were involved in killing our innocent brothers and sisters. If we opt for violence as a means to solve the current problem in Ethiopia, this will only increase the prison population, intensify divisions among groups, create new groups of victims and result in yet another exodus of refugees. Are we ready for another round of demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants? Have we even finished reintegrating ex-combatants from the communist regime? We have not yet fully addressed the psychosocial problems in our communities and the economy is staggering to grow. We need to break the cycle of violence. We need to reconcile, heal wounds and build a democratic society. What are the options?

1. A need to stop the zero-sum mind set

The incumbent government and opposition political parties perceive the political landscape as a small cake, each one of them determined and eager to get a bigger portion at any cost – today. They fail to look into the future or explore if there are other alternatives and opportunities. The ‘here and now’ perception should be challenged. All have to agree to expand the cake and get a good share for each and look to the opportunities in the future. In spite of the differences in their political manifestos all political parties have to invest in the future. The cycle of elections is five years and this is not a long time to wait. Looking into the future will generate options. Since more elections are coming, there are opportunities to win, “benefit” and demonstrate their talent and commitment to good governance. Therefore, there is a need for compromise and a move out of the cocoon of “all for me attitude”.

2. Need to develop a culture of dialogue and tolerance

History and experience have proved that a culture of political dialogue among Ethiopians is missing. Dialogue helps to reestablish relationships, to develop a shared vision and commitment [8] and subsequently to increase tolerance, which include among other things the ability to listen and engage. At this juncture it is appropriate to ask whether dialogue is new to Ethiopians. Among many groups in Ethiopia, there are different forms of dialogue: “afersat”, “idir”; “ikub”, “mahibir”, etc. which are used at different levels in the society, family, and community to address issues of mutual concern. Afersata, for example, is used to identify criminals, investigate crime, mediate inter group and inter community conflicts, etc. Communities under the leadership of the community elders attend a series of meetings to weed out criminals from their community. In similar ways, Idir and iquib are used to address social issues and financial needs. However, politicians do not have such a platform and fail to develop such a model in a multi-party environment to negotiate and discuss crosscutting national issues.

Among most Ethiopians, losers are not welcome and this is reflected in our culture and value system. This is inculcated in early childhood. Therefore, most of us (including politicians) who grew up in a social system that considers defeat as a disgrace can rarely accept defeat and would rather retaliate or take revenge. It is crucial to change this attitude, and teach people that accepting defeat is not the end of the world, but an opportunity to explore other possibilities, and look to the future.

Conclusion

Ethiopians at home and in the diaspora have an obligation to nurture what was planted prior to the election in May 2005. It requires gentle hands using appropriate tools that can nourish it, removing weeds that have the potential to strangle its growth, and provide good nutrients so that it continues to grow and bear fruit. If the government and opposition political parties continue to use a heavy hand, the democratic process will become stunted. Suppressing and punishing any form of political dissent will not help the democratic processes in Ethiopia to grow. A polarized approach will increase the rift among groups who are interested in taking the process forward.

It is time to remove the stigma attached to elections; another election is coming in about three years time and it is coming with new opportunities. Let us stop blaming and blackmailing others if the person expresses an opinion which is different from that of our own. Different views would provide room for growth and if all Ethiopians promoted just one ideology life would be monotonous. It is time to continue to promote our mosaic culture, and appreciate our differences. It is the drum, the kirar, the masinko, embelata, etc. which have important but distinct roles in producing the rhythm in our music.

* Erkyihun Lagere is an Ethiopian working in the field of conflict analysis and resolution for an NGO based in Europe Contact [email][email protected]

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

Notes

[1] The elections in 1995 and 2000 could not be claimed to be multiparty because there was not strong opposition
[2] “Ethiopia’s governing party claims victory” Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, May 18, 2005
[3] Quoted from the BBC News website 11/05/06 ‘Election fever hits Ethiopian cities’.
[4] Ethiopia’s governing party claims a victory, International Herald Tribune, May 18, 2005
[5] See J. Abbink, Discomfiture of democracy? The 2005 election crisis in Ethiopia and its aftermath. African Affairs Volume 105, Number 419, April 2006. p.183
[6]The full text of the Ethiopia Electoral Non-Violence Pact from http://www.electionsethiopia.org/Whats%20New22.html
[7]Ethiopia PM warns of ‘hate’ poll, 6 May 2005.

Voters in the Democratic Republic of Congo go to the polls on July 30 for the first time in 40 years and after a four-year transitional period that followed a brutal war. Theodore Kasongo Kamwimbi points to the failure of the DRC to achieve justice for victims of human rights abuses as a significant threat to the elections, future peace and stability. “Many younger people argue that they won’t let the perpetrators walk free forever. They guarantee that sooner or later they will honour the memory of the loved ones innocently massacred, raped, abused, abducted by those who are running the country and want to run it indefinitely.”

After five years of war and terror which left more than three million dead and thousands displaced, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is struggling to make way for the establishment of a new society. The process is on track so far, as the first democratic elections, initially scheduled for April and June 2006, are finally confirmed to take place on 30 July 2006. The elections are the result of various rounds of negotiations and peace accords between the DRC government, Mai-Mai militia, rebel groups, non-armed political opposition parties and representatives of civil society.

During the negotiation process, the government of the Republic was represented by the former government led by President Joseph Kabila. Rebel groups were represented by the Rwanda-backed Congolese Rally for Democracy (Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie, RCD-Goma), the Uganda-backed Movement for the Liberation of Congo (Mouvement pour la Libération du Congo, MLC), the Congolese Rally for Democracy-National (Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie-National (RCD-N), the Congolese Rally for Democracy/Kisangani- Liberation Movement (Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie/Kisangani- Mouvement de Libération, RCD/K-ML). Non-armed political opposition parties were represented by the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social, UDPS), Unified Lumumbist Party (Parti Lumumbiste Unifié, PALU), National Congolese Movement-Lumumba (Mouvement National Congolais- Lumumba, M.N.C./L), Popular Movement for the Revolution- Fait Privé (Mouvement Populaire de la Révolution- Fait Privé (MPR- Fait Privé), Innovative Forces for Union and Solidarity (Forces Novatrices pour l’Union et la Solidarité, FONUS) and Democratic and Social Christian Party (Parti Social et Démocrate Chrétien, PDSC).

The first positive achievement of the process was the global and all-inclusive agreement on transition in the DRC signed by all parties in Pretoria, South Africa on 16 December 2002. Despite the difficulties and misunderstandings which characterised the political negotiations, under the guidance and supervision of the international community all the parties managed to reach a final agreement in Sun City, on 2 April 2003. In order to sign the agreement and end the conflict, all the parties were asked to make a power-sharing concession in the form of a government of national unity. A transitional government of national unity was formed. However the rebel groups, including RCD-Goma, MNC, RCD-N submitted to participation in the government on the non-negotiable condition of being granted amnesty for all offences committed during the conflict. As a result no condition was imposed on the belligerent groups to apologise, tell the truth or ask for forgiveness for their wrongdoings.

The majority of Congolese people as well as the principal non-armed opposition parties, including UDPS, PALU, FONUS and PDSC were unanimous in their criticism of the amnesty offered as impunity in the name of reconciliation. The former perpetrators could not, during the transition, be prosecuted and punished, in order to preserve peace and prevent a relapse into conflict. But, in the opinion of many Congolese, reconciliation through justice and truth is extremely crucial in the DRC context considering the degree of violence and terror that occurred during the years of conflict. Therefore, the key question is whether reconciliation has really started in the DRC if as Alex Boraine argues:

“Reconciliation can begin when perpetrators are held accountable, when truth is sought openly and fearlessly, when institutional reform commences and when the need for reparation is acknowledged and acted upon.” [1]

In other words, it can be argued that a given society can be considered as reconciled only if a number of conditions are fulfilled:

- Accountability of perpetrators

Reconciliation can indeed begin when perpetrators are held accountable for their wrongdoings. But in the DRC context that is not the case as former perpetrators have not been prosecuted and have not acknowledged or disclosed their wrongdoings. Therefore, they have not shown any remorse to the victims and the community as a whole. It is obvious that the decision to grant amnesty to them for political reasons is unlikely to promote national reconciliation and meet the population’s demands for justice.

In the Congolese public opinion, the best way of holding someone accountable for his act or omission is through the judiciary system as established by the law. If a presumed perpetrator does not appear in a court of law for his alleged criminal actions or omissions, that is considered to breed impunity. This absence of justice has created frustration among the Congolese and caused private vengeance and cycles of violence between communities.

For instance, in the North-eastern DRC the culture of impunity has resulted in a cycle of ethnic violence among the local populations as reported by Human Rights Watch in its briefing paper of January 2004. This kind of attitude is believed to be exacerbated, especially in the case of amnesty granted to former perpetrators in order to reach political agreement. Moreover, as long as the former perpetrators have now become state officials capable of taking executive decisions, the justice option is clearly difficult to achieve. The other reason is that some of them still have military capability and could take up their weapons and destabilise the peace process once again.

- Open and fearless truth-seeking

It is argued that reconciliation can begin when truth is sought openly and fearlessly. But in the DRC, although the appropriate non-judicial mechanism, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is well established, truth-telling is not happening. The TRC resulted from the Inter-Congolese Dialogue to establish the truth and give the perpetrators the opportunity to seek forgiveness and pay compensation to their victims. This has not happened yet, as the TRC hasn’t called and put together victims and perpetrators to facilitate reconciliation.

Congolese people and civil society organisations are pessimistic concerning any success of the truth-telling model and thence, its ability to achieve reconciliation. This seems true given the fact that the TRC has a bounded mandate and has to submit its complete and final report before the end of the transitional period. According to the new calendar released by the Independent Electoral Commission on 12 January 2006 the elections in June 2006 will end the transitional period. Moreover, as its President, Bishop Jean-Luc Kuye told the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) in August 2004, the TRC is unable to undertake investigations of human rights violations. Instead, it has focused its work on conflict-mediation activities. [2] As it can be noticed, in this case it is difficult to imagine a face-to-face process between perpetrators and their victims, as the TRC is not even able to identify the crimes committed.

- Effectiveness of Institutional Reform

It is argued that reconciliation can begin when institutional reform commences effectively. In this regard, the DRC is far from achieving its goals in relation to the reform of government sectors. For instance, the government has not managed to reform the public administration, justice system, nor to unify, restructure and reintegrate the security forces, including police and the army. Without institutional reform fair and free general elections, sustained peace and stability, and go forward in the reconstruction process will be impossible.

One of the major obstacles for peace, reconciliation and stability in the DRC remains the army and security forces. Indeed, during the last years of war and violence the DRC had more than five different armed groups fighting against each other for control of different portions of territory. The Ugandan backed MLC was in control of the Northwestern part of the country, while the Northeastern part was under the control of RCD/N, RCD-ML, UPC rebel group and other militia groups. The Kivu and North-Katanga provinces were controlled by the Rwandan backed RCD/ Goma and the Mai-Mai militia. The rest of the territory was under the control of the Congolese national army, FAC and national police.

All these groups were enemies for a long time, but now they need to be part of the new unified, restructured, reintegrated and inclusive security forces under construction. As is evident, this will be an extremely difficult and challenging task, but it is essential for sustainable peace and reconciliation in the DRC as well as in the rest of the Great Lakes region. To date, the unification and integration process of the army is far from being achieved given both the hostility of former belligerent armies to the transitional government and the divisions between them on the basis of ethnicity.

For example, the majority of the former RCD-Goma, Congolese Tutsi known as Banyamulenge, fight regularly against other units composed of other Congolese ethnic groups. It has been reported that a number of former RCD soldiers, mainly Congolese Tutsi, are deserting the new integrated army to join the dissident General Laurent Nkunda. In fact, Laurent Nkunda, a Tutsi Congolese, was a senior military officer in the former rebel group RCD-Goma. In accordance with the Global and All-inclusive Agreement signed in Pretoria by all the warring parties, he was named general in a new integrated Congolese army. But, he declined the offer and withdrew his troops to Masisi in North Kivu province from where he threatened to overthrow the government in Kinshasa on the pretext of rescuing, protecting and defending his community members, "threatened" by the Congolese government. In September 2004, Nkunda was sentenced in absentia by a Congolese military court and an international arrest warrant was issued against him after he briefly seized and occupied Bukavu, the capital city of South Kivu province. But, to date the DRC police and army as well as the UN peacekeeping forces have not been able to arrest him. Human Rights Watch [3] criticized this failure in a statement released on 1 February 2006.

Urgent reform is also needed in the public administration sector which is generally corrupt. As a result, corruption has been strongly institutionalised in all national sectors in the DRC. For reform to happen, political will is needed from officials with the support of the Congolese people.

- Acknowledgment of the need for reparation

It is argued that reconciliation can begin when the need for reparation is acknowledged and acted upon. In the DRC, former perpetrators haven’t acknowledged their wrongdoings and showed their willingness to pay reparations to victims or survivors. This attitude has made the victims feel forgotten and abandoned. Yet, the majority of former perpetrators in power have enough resources to pay compensation to their victims. It’s just a question of political will and personal conscience. Like in South Africa, the issue of individual reparations for victims could be used in the DRC context to appease victims’ anger over the amnesty process. [4] Victims would feel morally rehabilitated if the need for symbolic reparations was acknowledged. Reparation is indeed essential for reconciliation to sustain peace and democracy. In this regard, Charles Villa-Vicencio argues that reconciliation includes reparation because to exclude socio-economic justice from the reconciliation process is to endanger the prospects of democratic consolidation. [5]

As demonstrated, all conditions to begin reconciliation are not fulfilled in the DRC and both the rule of law and truth-telling mechanisms have failed up to now. Therefore, the Congolese believe that the only remaining option would be the international criminal judicial model. This option has also been called for by various local and international human rights organisations given the scale of abuses committed in the last five years. An International Criminal Court process could possibly work if the DRC ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by Decree-Law No 13/2002 of 30 March 2002. This international court would deal with crimes not covered by the amnesty law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. But, cooperation between the Congolese judicial system and the ICC would be necessary. Congolese officials have already shown their willingness in that regard by inviting the ICC prosecuting authority to proceed with investigations on the ground. The ICC has responded to the Congolese request and promised the significant involvement of victims of violence in the north-eastern region of Ituri in the inquiry process, as reported by the Catholic Missionary International Service News Agency (MISNA) on 20 January 2006.

The ICC exercises jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression and genocide in accordance with article 5 (1) of Rome Statute under which it was established. But in order to prosecute those crimes the ICC has to work with the Congolese government and judicial authorities. This is required by the principle of complementarity provided in Paragraph 10 of the preamble of the Rome Statute of the ICC. In accordance with this principle, priority to exercise jurisdiction over the crimes mentioned in article 5 is reserved to national courts, unless the State in question is unwilling or unable to prosecute, as stated in article 17 (a). The ICC should prosecute those who committed the crimes within its jurisdiction; otherwise the question of impunity will once again be raised, which undermines deterrence and encourages recidivism.

As an international body, the ICC was created to fight impunity and rejects any procedures or institutions that protect perpetrators from accountability. One may wonder about the impact of the ICC proceedings on the reconciliation process in the DRC. In the DRC context, the ICC is indeed in a good position to prosecute the crimes committed because the Congolese judicial system is unable to prosecute given the multidimensional problems it is facing. Among those problems the key ones are: corruption, nepotism, tribalism, lack of professionalism, lack of impartiality and the absence of an independent judiciary. Another major reason why the DRC national judicial system is unable to prosecute has been the political situation on the ground, which gave Congolese authorities no choice other than negotiations.

Paul Van Zyl [6] argues that it would be irresponsible to prosecute those perpetrators who are able to jeopardise peaceful transition to stable democracy and peace. However, alternative transitional justice mechanisms are still feasible and possible in the DRC context. For instance, acknowledgement and apology would be one of the better options for the former perpetrators to reconcile with their victims. This happened once, during the 1991 Sovereign National Conference, when many officials and members of Mobutu’s party came and apologised publicly to the Congolese people. That attitude was well received and appreciated by the whole nation, but unfortunately the perpetrators’ acts were not sincere.

One of the key actors in the Congolese political arena, MLC leader and Vice-president for economic and financial affairs, Jean-Pierre Bemba has publicly apologised for atrocities, crimes and pillages committed by his soldiers during the war. Bemba made his apology in his speech at his party’s congress where he was designated as a candidate for the forthcoming Presidential elections. One may, of course, wonder whether he apologized in order to get sympathy and support from the Congolese people with a view to the elections, or if he sincerely apologised and sought forgiveness. Time will tell.

The overriding issue, at this stage, is whether the Congolese will be willing to let their perpetrators decide their destiny. The majority of Congolese believe that they are subject to the will of those who committed mass human rights violations against them. Many younger people argue that they won’t let the perpetrators walk free forever. They guarantee that sooner or later they will honour the memory of the loved ones innocently massacred, raped, abused, abducted by those who are running the country and want to run it indefinitely. In consequence reconciliation without truth and justice in the DRC poses a significant risk to the future stability of the country.

* Theodore Kasongo Kamwimbi is a lawyer to the Kinshasa Court of Appeal, currently acting as the Fellows Programme Coordinator at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in Cape Town, South Africa. He has published and co-published several articles, including “Hat Kongo eine Friedensperspektive?”, a Newspaper article published in Germany in the Der Überblick in July 2006 as well as ‘DRC moves towards first democratic elections: Congo peace prospects precarious’, a Newspaper article published in The Cape Times on 5 July 2006. (contact [email][email protected] or [email][email protected])

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

Notes:

[1] Boraine, Alex (2004) ‘Transitional Justice’, in Villa-Vicencio, Charles and Doxtader, Erik (eds.) Pieces of the Puzzle: Keywords on Reconciliation and Transitional Justice, Cape Town: IJR, p. 69-70.
[2] Borello, Federico (2004) ‘A First Few Steps: The Long Road to a Just Peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, Occasional Paper Series, New-York: ICTJ p.46.
[3] Human Rights Watch (2006) ‘D.R. Congo: Arrest Laurent Nkunda For War Crimes: Military and U.N. Should Act to Protect Civilians’, New York, Available at http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/congo12579.htm Accessed on: 2 February 2006
[4] Lyster, Richard (2000) ‘Amnesty: the burden of victims’ in Villa-Vicencio, Charles and Verwoerd, Wilhelm, Looking back Reaching Forward: Reflections on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, UCT Press: Cape Town, p.189.
[5] Villa-Vicencio, Charles (2004) ‘Reconciliation’, in Villa-Vicencio, Charles and Doxtader, Erik (eds.) Pieces of the Puzzle: Keywords on Reconciliation and Transitional Justice, Cape Town: IJR, p. 8.
[6] Van Zyl, Paul (2000) ‘Justice without Punishment: Guaranteeing Human Rights in Transitional Societies’ in Villa- Vicencio, Charles and Verwoerd, Wilhelm, Looking back Reaching Forward: Reflections on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, UCT Press: Cape Town, p. 43.

As air and ground fighting continues to kill and maim in the Middle East, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed looks at the broader ramifications of the current conflict – and the ultimate price that it might extract.

Over 300 people killed, most of them civilians. 1,000 wounded. Half a million and rising displaced from their homes. A third of these Lebanese casualties, according to the UN, have been children. These estimated figures dwarf in scale the terror and tragedy that paralysed London almost around the same time last year, when 52 were killed and over 700 wounded in a coordinated bomb attack on the commuter transport system.

What's happening in Lebanon is six times the devastation, six times the agony, six times the trauma, six times the terror of the 7/7 terrorist attacks. But leaders in the UK, US and European governments don't seem to think so. They have all unanimously fumbled their fingers and mumbled meaninglessly as Israel has proceeded to respond to Hizbollah's capture of Israeli Defence Force (IDF) combatants - an action in concordance with legitimate military resistance against illegal occupation - by ruthlessly smashing civilian life and infrastructure in Beirut.

IDF operations have targeted key civilian installations, including water and sanitation systems, destroyed Lebanon's largest dairy farm and pharmeceutical plant, shelled UN posts sheltering civilians, flattened whole villages, and turned mosques, churches and houses into rubble. They have cut off roads and bridges, blocking urgently needed humanitarian assistance.

But such terrorist attacks, when targeted against the Other, no longer constitute terrorism at all; in our Orwellian world of media double-speak, they become instead laudable acts of valour. In fact, when an Israeli air strike killed 8 Canadian citizens in southern Lebanon, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton emphasized that such deaths due to IDF operations are morally different to the deaths of Israelis due to attacks by Hizbollah. "I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he said. In contrast, Israeli military operations constituted only "self-defense", with the "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths."

Dead Lebanese are unworthy victims. They don't count. But Israeli lives do. The moral distinction drawn by Bolton is not in fact moral at all; it is political, a political decision to view the lives of one group of human beings as sacred, and another group as functionally irrelevant. Such "moral" distinctions are central to the legitimization of large-scale systematic violence against a particular human group.

The Beirut bombings are not the result of a fundamentally religious conflict. Israel Defence Force raids are indiscriminately murdering Lebanese and non-Lebanese Muslims, Jews and Christians. It's difficult, caught in the horror of the bloodied bodies left in the wake IDF air strikes, to remind ourselves of the context of the crisis, and its strategic trajectories. But the broad ramifications must be understood.

Israeli policy-planners have long envisaged a protracted wider regional conflict as a potentially useful way for Israel to achieve longstanding historical objectives. Israeli spokesmen have been at pains to characterize the conflict as a regional conspiracy against Israel hatched by Iran and Syria. But this obscures the fact that, although the latter indeed provide support for Hizbollah, the Lebanese resistance group remains an autonomous and outspoken organization rooted firmly in its national homeland. US and Israeli officials, however, see the drastic escalation of the conflict as an opportunity to explore the prospects for US-Israeli military expansionism.

The invasion of Iraq was, we ought to remind ourselves, merely the first stage in a rolling strategy for the reconfiguration of the Middle East whose existence is now well-documented and indisputable. Reporting for Time Magazine in February 2003, Joe Klein – a member of the Council on Foreign Relations – observed that: “Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish Community.” The US war on Iraq was intended to be the beginning of a whole new era in the Middle East, designed to “send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists,” bring an end to the Palestinian problem, and shake the “wobbly Hashemite monarchy in Jordan.” We are now seeing the next stages of this "new era" in construction.

Need we also remind ourselves of the influential 1996 strategy paper authored by David Wurmser published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) based in Jerusalem and Washington D.C.? It advised: "The battle to dominate and define Iraq is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run... The United States must support moves to challenge Syria’s position in Lebanon, to undermine Iran, to ensure Turkey’s long-term pro-Western tilt and integration into Europe, to support Jordan’s efforts in Iraq, and to understand better the dynamics of Saudi succession as they relate to its foreign policy."

The overwhelming danger is plain for all reasonable observers to see. Israel is escalating its aggression, in both diplomatic rhetoric and military conduct, against Beirut, Damascus and Tehran, knowing full-well that this is dramatically increasing the probability of a wider conflict. Tehran has loudly confirmed its solidarity with Damascus in the event of a serious Israeli assault there. As the IDF continues to terrorise Lebanon with impunity while our own governments continue to supply military and financial aid to Israel, Hizbollah is left with little option but to escalate its own responses with support from Iran and Syria. As usual, Hizbollah's responses are in turn cited by Israel as ample justification for increasing its own indiscriminate massacres of Lebanese civilians, which further aggravates and escalates Hizbollah's retaliations.

As the cycle widens and deepens, US leaders and experts increasingly blame Iran, albeit without evidence, for engineering Hizbollah's initial operation to capture the IDF soldiers. The danger that the increasing involvement of Iran and/or Syria in the conflict could be exploited by Israel to convert it into a full-scale regional war should not be underestimated. As the late Professor Israel Shahak of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote years ago in his Open Secrets (London: Pluto, 1997):

"The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is… Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East…without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."

There could perhaps be no better time to heed Shahak's warning than now, when both the US and Israel, with British complicity and European duplicity, are maneuvering themselves into a position where they can legitimize the opening of multiple military confrontations with Lebanon, Iran and Syria. The nuclear implications have never been lost. Both Britain and the United States have adopted first-strike nuclear policies, and are actively pursuing tactical nuclear weapons to make such unconventional warfare strategically viable. US Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to spend most of his time in secret nuclear bunkers where he oversees the establishment and functioning of an unelected network of unknown officials, planned to immediately come into power in the event of a nuclear strike against the United States.

For the last few decades in the Middle East, armageddon has long lingered on the horizon, but in light of recent events, its shadow looms closer. Our leaders are not rational, trustworthy individuals, and we are not safe in their hands. We do not want to experience 7th July 2005 a thousand times over. So we must take action, now; which means making the voices of we, the people, heard so clearly and overwhelmingly that those who kill and support killing in our name can do so no longer.

* This article first appeared on Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (London: Duckworth, 2006,

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

* Links on the Middle East crisis

- Five Israeli myths
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1153759483.html
- Organisation of African Trade Union press release on Lebenon
http://epetition.net/julywar/index.php
- Support relieve efforts
http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/4636.html
- Diary of Liberians in Beirut
http://itf.typepad.com/lebanon/
- Other blogs
http://lebanonupdates.blogspot.com/
http://siegeoflebanon.blogspot.com/
http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.org/

Various papers were presented at a recent workshop on the World Social Forum held in Durban. The papers include:
- Ahmed Allahwala & Keil Roger (2006) Introduction to a Debate on the World Social Forum.
- Conway, Jane (2006) Social Forums, Social Movements and Social Change.
- Bond Patrick (2006) Gramsci, Polanyi and Impressions from Africa on the Social Forum Phenomenon.
Visit the website provided for full details.

The Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has commended Rwanda's efforts in fighting corruption, promotion of women rights, fostering country ownership and decentralisation of health services in the review report of the country launched recently. The launch followed a successful peer review of Rwanda and Kenya during the 5th summit of the APR Forum held in Banjul, Gambia presided over by chairman of the APR forum, Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo.

The Zimbabwean political crisis has reached boiling point with over 85% of the population unemployed and inflation above 1000%. Given the prominence and effects of the Zimbabwean case in Africa and specifically Southern Africa, it is undoubtedly a pressing issue which need the attention of the African Union. It is painful to note that the AU has only acknowledged the problem verbally and has never espoused to tackle it. A closer analysis shows that the AU is divided on how to address the Zimbabwean political crisis.

A political party founded two months ago by politicians allied to Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki on Tuesday (25 July) won three out of five parliamentary seats after a by-election called following the deaths of five MPs in a plane crash in April.

Alleged child rapists are paying their way out of jail while court officials and police officers demand bribes and kickbacks from the families of child rape victims who want to see their attackers arrested and prosecuted, according to a UN report.

The Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU), is at the moment dumbfounded at the criminal aerial bombardment of Israel on the innocent Palestinian and Lebanese populations and on the civil infrastructures of Palestine and Lebanon. Millions of African Workers, under the OATUU ask, until what time can the Occupied Arab Territories support the blockage, the extermination and the vandalism perpetrated by Israel?

The OATUU continues to ask the question to know or to find the whereabouts of the uncountable International Organizations concerned with Human Rights that exist throughout the world? Why does the International Community remain so quiet in the face of the present martyrdom of the Peoples of Palestine and Lebanon? Why are they silent in the face of the massacre and genocide perpetrated against the martyred people of Palestine, whose only aspiration is recognition of their legitimate and inalienable rights to peace and national sovereignty?

For us in the OATUU, we shall never stop to repeat, that the Palestinian Problem is the epicentre of the conflict in the Middle East, and the only condition that can bring a just, comprehensive and durable peace to the Middle East is the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian territories and from South Lebanon and the Golan Heights of Syria.

Could we also know the reason why the United Nations and the International Community always shut their eyes on the pursuit of Israeli policy of extension and colonization in flagrant violation of the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations, in particular, Resolution 1402 of the UN Security Council demanding the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories?

In OATUU, our firm conviction is that the Palestinian State will come into existence, and it will be a viable state with internationally recognized frontiers with Jerusalem as capital.

We strongly demand that Israel puts an end to aerial bombardments against the friendly Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine. We launch an urgent appeal to the United Nations and the International Community to compel Israel to put an end to its aggression against Palestine and Lebanon.

We cannot accept the fallacious argument that people unjustifiably resisting illegal occupation of their land are terrorists. We recall that the African National Congress was also called a terrorist organization during their noble struggle against apartheid.

Without Justice, there can be no Peace

This report documents the socio-economic and environmental impact of oil exploitation in the Melut Basin in Upper Nile State, Sudan, as told by inhabitants of the area and photographed from satellites. It focuses on the Melut and Maban Counties, Renk District, which fall into concession blocks 3 and 7, held by the Petrodar Operating Company Ltd. under an Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement with the Sudanese Government.

Who will be elected President of the African National Congress (ANC) in 2007? Who will become President of the Republic of South Africa in 2009? These questions, and the speculation cast in their drift, have come increasingly to dominate newspaper headlines and the South African political imagination, says the latest edtion of ePoliticsSA, which tackles the issue.

"The Coalition for the Establishment of An Effective African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights congratulates the Judges of the African Court on Human & People’s Rights on their swearing in by President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, Chairperson of the African Union at the 7th session of the meeting of the African Union Heads of Government in Banjul, The Gambia on 2nd July 2006."

Where is the Pan African Parliament headed (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/34156)? Walking may be a good step, but where the PAP is headed is more important.

Excellent article, placing the drive to privatisation in a clear light. (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/31759). The expected returns on FDI, related to privatised public services, to shareholders will soon replace the interest owed on debts to the World Bank and IMF. "There is no free lunch". I hope African leaders will see the trap in time.

Thank you for the good editorial work that you are doing. I thank Mr. Yav Katshung Joseph for the informative and educative article. (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/33432). As you remember, DRC was formerly called Zaire. The reason why the name was changed; many of us do not know! Let us pray that someone will not start another war just because of the name. I agree with him in the conclusion, in fact many giant steps have been taken on the way to democracy. The international community should not be commended - these people are everywhere even where wars have failed to stop. Take the example of the Middle East, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. Thank you once again.

After Rwanda 12 years ago, the world has not learned its lesson on genocide prevention (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/33432). The apathy of the Security Council has been nothing but pathetic. It shames me that the American government seems to not give a damn about Darfur. This is Rwanda all over again.

A former Zanu-PF provincial chairperson has spilled the beans on how the ruling party rigged the 2002 presidential election, which President Robert Mugabe won against most expectations. Dr Daniel Shumba is a retired army officer, former provincial chairperson of Zanu-PF and central committee member who was kicked out of the party last year, together with four others after facilitating an “illegal” meeting that sought to thwart the nomination of Vice-President Joice Mujuru as the party’s vice-president, reports the Mail and Guardian.

Lesotho’s single largest employer, the textile industry, has made a remarkable comeback, setting an example for the region and giving thousands back their jobs. “All the factories that were closed have been reopened - the number of jobs that had shrunk from just more than 50 000 to less than 40 000 have now climbed back to about 47 000,” Andy Salm, regional textile and apparel specialist at ComMark Trust, an NGO that monitors the industry in Southern Africa, told Irin.