The Twisted African Democratic Revolutions

Special Feature/African Democracy                 

Either in Libya, Nigeria, Chad, Egypt or Tunisia, the African nation-state, from its birth, has been in some sort of undeviating inanimate democratic revolution. The reason is that the African state, as a political entity, is yet to have everlasting grip with the African nation, as a community, hence the almost constant schisms and the revolutions. African revolutions occur not because of the African community, which is intact, but the African state, which is unbalanced and unreflective of Africans’ innate democratic feelings.

Upheavals against colonialism for independence aside, post-colonial Africa’s bad leadership, endemic corruption, poor governance, horrific tyrants and dictatorships, and generally unstable domestic authority structures have put African states in almost permanent revolutions for democratic order. Hard questions abound as to when the revolutions will end and democratic institutions set up.

As I witnessed as a teenager during the 1979 Rawlings revolution, revolution can bring momentary joy to a people who are depressed from bad political leadership and economic shortages. Ghana witnessed this under the Kutu Acheampong military junta, which also described itself as revolutionary. Doug Saunders, of the Toronto-based The Globe And Mail, writing about world revolutions following the Egyptian, Libyan and the Tunisian revolutions, explains that, “The joy of revolutions is that they make ordinary life interesting. Suddenly, the streets glow with importance; anything seems possible.”  Under such atmosphere, the state, of which the revolution is about, fades into the background momentarily.

In either Jerry Rawlings’ Ghana or Idi Amin’s Uganda or Samuel Doe’s Liberia, almost all the African revolutions share the basic belief that life will be better for the average African. Against these beliefs is the fact that not all the African revolutions are the same, coming in diverse contours.

While the Idi Amin revolution saw him turn Uganda into a primitive enclave with roughly constant chaos and Uganda later saved by the amalgam of Julius Nyerere’s Tanzanian army and Ugandan freedom fighters, Mobutu Sese Seko effectively destroyed the traditional institutions (by deeper meaning, the soul of the country) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and left the DRC virtually soulless with almost continuous cataclysms, especially in the eastern and northeastern parts.

Experts explain that what ring constantly in revolutions are the human possibility, that what was previously thought of as unimaginable becomes imaginable, that what was thought of as rotten could be overthrown and something fresh could be sown. Doug Saunders inferred of revolutionary traditions globally that, “Even when” revolutions are “sidetracked or seized, the seeds planted by a democratic revolution remain in the ground.”

The African who has gone through revolutions will tell you that their revolutions have turn out to be mostly disappointments than contentment. However, as Ghanaians and Nigerians will tell you today, out of this disenchantments are emerging democratic order from the democratic seeds planted by the various democratic revolutions. Jeff Goodwin, a sociologist at New York University, discussing the nature of revolutions following the Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, is quoted by Joe O’Connor, of the Toronto-based National Post, as saying revolutions “ … are a complex genus with different species.”

The insurgent-ridden African Great Lakes Region aside, Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front (RUF) is a typical African case of revolution that went mad. But out of its ashes democracy and good governance are flowering in Sierra Leone. The RUF revolution against the rots of the long-running Siaka Stevens’ autocratic one-party system, later carried on by Joseph Saidu Momoh, turned out to be exceptionally fatal. The RUF amputated Sierra Leoneans limbs, turned girls into prostitutes, looted diamonds, fire-bombed properties, practiced cannibalism, and frequently carved the initials “RUF” on their child soldiers’ chest. RUF officers rubbed cocaine into the open cuts on their troops to make them maniacal and fearless, and for entertainment, some RUF soldiers bet on the sex of an uborn baby and then sliced open a woman’s womb to determine the winner.

Still, and as Samuel Doe’s Liberia revealed, some African revolutions have turned out to be unimaginable, sending the likes of the Liberian or the Ivorian state into flames. Some African revolutions endings are worse than the previous conditions the revolutionaries sought to correct. Jerry Rawlings’ revolution, initially seen by some Africans as “enlightened,” saw the execution of some Ghanaian military junta leaders, mainly for their alleged corruption and moral ineptitude (The Rawlings coup d’etat had more to do with the rot within the military establishment than the Ghanaian society).

But Rawlings’ almost 20 years in power became perverse and saw Rawlings and his associates amassed more wealth than all those they had killed. At present, most of Rawlings and his associates’ children and families live high lives (sometimes bordering on ostentation), attended pricey schools abroad (and still do) and had medical treatment abroad (and still do). In Rawlings’ revolution, perhaps Africa’s most high profile because of the high profile killings, the new reality is that the revolution didn’t live up to its hype. Like most African revolutions, corruption was the Rawlings revolution’s first mission, but his regimes grew up to lack accountability and transparency. The regime also suppressed freedoms that resulted in the famed “culture of silence,” where Ghanaians were afraid to talk freely for fear of either being killed, imprisoned or disappearing.

Nigeria also went through numerous military juntas that hypothetically had sought to revolutionarize the Nigerian society and make life better for Nigerians. Though this did not happen, out of this cycles came enviably anti-corruption institutions such as the amazing Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) set up in 2003 to tackle endemic graft. Despite top flight killings, the Rawlings regimes were sadly short of this.

In the Rawlings’ revolution, Africa witnessed that high-tension sloganeering didn’t translate into reality. Jeff Goodwin, is cited by Joe O’Connor, as explaining that, “Countries generally have revolutions because they are in bad situation, and revolutions don’t always get you out of that hole … Revolutions happening in poor authoritarian countries, well, those countries usually end up remaining poor and authoritarian.”

In Equatorial Guinea, Francisco Macías Nguema revolution of some sorts turned out more lethal than thought of and nobody knew what kind of regime was going to come out of the terrible mess. Tapping into traditional African irrational supernatural believes, Macias forced Equatorial Guineans to believe that he has supernatural powers. That he can change into a cat, a dog, a mouse or any other animal or object, or vanish into thin air. Macias used the knowledge of witchcraft he inherited from his sorcerer father and built a huge collection of human skulls (from most of the people he has killed) at his homestead to hypnotize Equatorial Guineans into supernatural submission. Macias believed he was some sort of God..

In December, 1975, in a bizarre episode Macias killed 150 alleged coup plotters to the sound of a band playing Mary Hopkin’s tune Those Were the Days in the national stadium in Malabo, the capital. The estimations are that over 100,000 people, approximate one-third of Equatorial Guineans then, were either killed or fled into exile during Macias’ reign. In 1979, Macias was overthrown violently by his nephew Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the current President.  Macias was later executed in a firing squad. The situation today in Equatorial Guinea isn’t more or less better than Macias’ time.

Despite the fact that most African revolutions turn out to be sadness, there are few that are sunnier and bring regime changes. Out of the Valentine Strasser and the Maada Bio revolution came the flowering of democratic tenets and good governance in Sierra Leone born out of the bloodshed of the 11-year civil war. There may be some political and development challenges in Sierra Leone today but the hope is that in the long run, democratic values and good governance will survive for the greater progress of the country.

Helpless African betting on Jerry Rawkings, Samuel Doe, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Lansana Conteh, Sani Abacha, among others, have been the African way of attempting to change the recurring appalling leadership and generally trembling domestic power configurations. Most African revolutionary outcomes have been largely the African elites fighting for political and material power while the average African languishes in poverty and unfreedoms.

For almost 42 years, Libyans had no freedoms and lived in fear. Libyans could be either killed or imprisoned anytime despite Muammar Gaddafi professing that his much-trumpeted revolution is to free Libyans from the tyranny of King.Muhammad Idri 1. Still, notwithstanding The Green Book (that sought solutions to the problems of democracy and economics) and the People’s Committees (that sought to upgrade the authority of the Libyans), Gaddafi and his associates, for 42 years the privileged few, not only dreadfully controlled Libyans but the principles and institutions of government did not become egalitarian – institutions like the police and the military were ruined, making Gaddafi look for mercenaries when the freedom fighters came calling six months ago.

More seriously, Gaddafi and his The Green Book were allergic to liberal democratic ideals. These are insults to the intelligences of contemporary Africans’ on-going fight for democratic revolutions that sought for free press, good governance, freedoms, human rights, social justice, equality, choices, free speech and good governance. In the absence democratic ideals, Gaddafi and other African tyrants are consumed in tyrannies and dictatorships that have put Africa states in almost unending revolutions for democratic order and good governance.

Unlike Rawlings and Lansana Conteh revolutions, the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions show that non-violent social networking, via social media, is becoming the order of the day in Africa’s democratic revolutions. This made tyrants like Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali turn into sand in matter of weeks, with virtually no resistance. Fear or a “culture of silence” vanishes into thin air. Egalitarianism, choices, elections, democratic tenets, good governance, merits and issues replace the God-has-predestined-me-to-rule syndrome.

With their increasing grasp of social media, these are Africans shining age of their democratic revolutions backed by the increasingly influential African diasporan networks. The era of the old school African revolutionaries picking up arms, standing on armour cars and sloganeering, waving AK47s and their fists, and blasting out the African dictatorships are out.

In come non-violent protests and social networking sites such as Facebook, internet forums, web blogs, social blogs and microblogging such as Twitter, collaborative projects such as wikipedia, podcast, content communities such as Youtube, photgraphy or pictures, video, email, instant messaging, rating and social bookmarking are the key tools of today’s African democratic revolutionaries and not AK47s, Kalashnikov, military tanks and hot-headed sloganeering. The “cascading dominoes,” as Joe O’Connor of the Toronto-based National Post argues, “are characteristic of a revolutionary age. Europe went crazy for liberal democracy in 1848, in a tide of mostly fruitless revolutions … And when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, it took communism with it, a mass combustiom of authoritarian governments often miscast as a spontaneous event.”

Despite the instant power of new media, some experts argue that generally revolutions start in simmering ways before erupting. The Liberian revolution came about because of long years of oppression of native Liberians (the “country people,” as they are called locally) by the Americo-Liberians, who believed they are more civilized than the native Liberians. For decades, the native Liberians were oppressed and effectively made second-class citizens on their own land. A triggering moment happened and Samuel Doe and his associates seized the time.

Like most African democratic revolutions, the Liberian revolution wasn’t any specially planned event, it was largely meaningless flare. So the Liberian revolution happened, it didn’t just happen, as Jack Goldstone of George Mason University would have argued, as he did of the nature of revolutions in the world. Samuel Doe and his associates quickly realize its “game on and there is no turning back” in attempting to clare out the autocratic Americo-Liberian oligarchy.

There may be twists in Africa democratic revolutions and experts may argue that it may be easier to know when revolutions start than when they end, but Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali and Uganda point to the reality that African democratic revolutions will eventually move into the direction of real democracy and good governance under the current continental and international atmosphere. There are no two ways about this.

If you like this article, I’d recommend my book “If I Was Famous, I’d Have a Lot to Say”

Share

The Loud Silence on The Situation in Swaziland

Today marks the 38th anniversary when King Sobhuza II suspended Swaziland’s independence Constitution and banned the existence of political parties in the country’s political life. Labour unions, students and civil society organisations have planned what they hope to be the mother of all protests to mark the event. Inspired by the events in Tunisia and Egypt Swazis hope to achieve nothing less than the realisation of full democratic rights. The union’s much anticipated protest may however be interrupted by the government’s announcement that the anticipated protest is illegal and “anyone who (goes) ahead with the protests would be “dealt with in accordance with the laws of the country”. Reports of the arrests of union leaders and journalists earlier in the day are but a few of the examples that indicate what the Swazi regime is capable of.  It remains to be seen whether the people of Swaziland who have suffered for years at the hands of King Mswati III will finally have the courage to demand their long awaited liberation. It is again not clear what impact this attempt at demanding greater freedoms for the people will have on the politics of Swaziland generally. The jury is still out. Nevertheless, irrespective of how the protests turn out it is encouraging to see that Swazi people have not entirely lost the fighting spirit that recently helped the people of Tunisia and Egypt to remove their own dictators from power.

Swaziland is the last absolute monarchy in Southern Africa. If the country ever experienced some sort of democracy it must have been in the first five years after independence. By 1978 the then king had suspended the independence constitution, dissolved parliament, and had introduced the state of emergency. His argument was that the constitution and political parties were incompatible with Swaziland’s traditional practises and way of life. When the King died his son King Mswati III took over the throne at the age of 18 years and together with his advisors and the mighty royal Dlamini clans has ruled the country without any attempt to change the status quo.  In 2005 a new Constitution was approved by Swaziland’s Parliament to end the constitutional crisis created by the suspension of the independence constitution. However, the new Constitution vest powers in the hands of the monarchy, and King Mswati III still retain powers “to dissolve parliament and government, dismiss and appoint members of the judiciary and act as head of both police and army”.

King Mswati III known internationally for his flamboyant lifestyle and a great taste for expensive cars is together with his 13 wives accused of negligently using the public purse to maintain the royal family’s expensive standard of living. This happens in a country with the highest number of poor people and frightening statistics on HIV/AIDS. Without doubt Swaziland’s current situation demands that its people combine efforts in pushing away the frontiers of poverty while demanding greater freedoms from the Swazi regime. It is at times like these that serious questions need to be asked. What have the world done to help Swazi people?  While SADC sends delegations to Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast and recently Libya what has it done for Swaziland? SADC recently took a tough stance against Zimbabwe to the annoyance of President Robert Mugabe but its silence on Swaziland has been too loud. One can ask the same questions of the United Nations. There is simply world silence on Swaziland. The world has not only forgotten the plight of Swazi people, it has ignored and turned a blind eye to their situation. South Africa, the region’s economic hub has remained silent as well with only the unions highlighting the plight of Swazi people. South Africa’s painful past demands that it speaks out on what is happening in Swaziland. South Africa cannot fully enjoy its new democratic dispensation if its neighbours worship with impunity undemocratic practises which have no place in the modern era. South Africa and SADC needs to live up to their responsibilities in the region. Swazis have a role to play as it is they who can change their own circumstances. It is through a democratically elected and accountable government that Swazis can have their human dignity restored.

Share

French take over Abidjan airport

BBC News

France has sent extra troops to Ivory Coast’s main city, Abidjan, and taken control of its airport.

It comes as fighting continued between forces loyal to the UN-recognised president, Alassane Ouattara, and his rival, incumbent Laurent Gbagbo.

The city’s pro-Gbagbo TV station called for people to mobilise against the French ‘”occupation”.

An adviser to Mr Ouattara said his forces were preparing a final push to depose Mr Gbagbo, AP reports.

France has sent an extra 300 soldiers to Ivory Coast, military spokesman Thierry Burkhard said, taking the total French force to about 1,400.

The airport had been secured by UN troops since Friday, but the French move meant the airport was now able to re-open, Mr Burkhard said.

He said there were no immediate plans to start evacuating foreigners.

More than 1,500 foreigners are sheltering in a French army camp.

They include about 700 French nationals, some 600 Lebanese citizens and 60 Europeans of assorted nationalities, French media report.

‘Lives at stake’

Ivorian state TV, which is controlled by Mr Gbagbo, accused the French troops of preparing a genocide like the one in Rwanda in 1994, when more than 800,000 people were killed.

A strap line on state TV on Sunday read: “[French President Nicolas] Sarkozy’s men are preparing a Rwandan genocide in Ivory Coast. Ivorians, let us go out en masse and occupy the streets. Let us stay standing.”

Mr Sarkozy has called a cabinet meeting for Sunday afternoon to discuss the crisis in Ivory Coast.

On Saturday, heavy artillery fire was heard in Abidjan as the two sides fought for key sites including the presidential palace, the headquarters of state TV and the Agban military base.

Four UN soldiers were seriously wounded when special forces loyal to Mr Gbagbo fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a UN armoured personnel carrier.

Duekoue ‘massacre’

The west of Ivory Coast has also seen vicious battles between rival militias and ethnic groups. On Saturday, the Caritas aid agency said its staff had found the bodies of hundreds of people in Duekoue, and estimated that 1,000 may have died.

The killings occurred between 27 March and 29 March in the Carrefour district, which was controlled at the time by fighters loyal to Mr Ouattara, spokesman Patrick Nicholson told the Associated Press.

“Caritas does not know who was responsible for the killing, but says a proper investigation must take place to establish the truth,” he said.

Most of the 1,000 peacekeepers based in Duekoue had been protecting about 15,000 refugees at a Catholic mission there, Mr Nicholson added.

The International Committee of the Red Cross put the death toll at about 800, while the UN said more than 330 people were killed as Mr Ouattara’s forces took over Duekoue, most of them at the hands of his fighters. However, more than 100 of them were killed by Mr Gbagbo’s troops, it added.

Sidiki Konate, a spokesman for Mr Ouattara’s government, said that while some people had been killed in the fighting between the two sides in recent days, there had been no deliberate killings of Gbagbo supporters.

ICRC staff who visited Duekoue on Thursday and Friday to gather evidence said the scale and brutality of the killings were shocking.

Tens of thousands of women, men and children have fled the fighting.

Share

The Way Libya May Go Next

Obama has spoken, Sarcozy has made up his mind, NATO has taken the lead; all in a bid to get the common enemy they called Maoummar Gaddafi out.  But rebels fighting from Benghazi flank are crude in their approach as they lack regimental command structure. They have demonstrated that they want to take-over power, taking the advantage of the No-Fly-Zone clause of the UN resolution 1973. But Gaddafi troop are reclaiming areas like Adjabya and Sirte, earlier acclaimed to have overrun by the rebels, as more Libyan refugees in their thousands invading the small Italian Island of Lampedusa, Egypt and Tunisia, to escape the crisis.

While the rebels beat a retreat in the face of fierce attacks from Gaddafi’s troops, the prominent actors and top decision-makers in the regime are defecting to the opposition’s side.  Moussa Kuossa, Ghaddafi foreign minister made a surprise entrance into UK, two days ago, and he was followed by others. Most of the defectors were staunch supporters of the tyrannical rule of Gaddafi all these years. Gaddafi is a mean man, he knows what the end would be sooner or later, thus; he would left no stone unturned in dealing with those he referred to as ‘cockroaches, rats, and drug addicts’. Whatever anyone thinks, the end is near for Gaddafi; either he gives way for peaceful transition or he faces humiliation as did Iraqi-once -strongman, Saddam Hussein.

Whatever the stakes are, there is every likelihood that those men bombing and firing missiles from war planes would have to come down; do some infantry job to keep Gaddafi men in check. Or they have to negotiate a soft-landing plank for Gaddafi to step aside. Anything short of this would still give the Libya maximum ruler more opportunity, to kill thousands of the civilian population the No-Fly-Zone is to protect. Because the 1973 is vague and open, various interpretations are being derived from it to achieve a specific purpose. Why is the UN resolution 1973 clause not being applied in Barhain, Syria or Yemen?

Share

Libya: Politics of Humanitarian Intervention

Mahmood Mamdani

Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target.

It only begins with it. Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale – saving civilian lives – is barely scratching the political surface.

The short life of the Libyan intervention suggests that we distinguish between justification and execution in writing its biography. Justification was a process internal to the United Nations Security Council, but execution is not.

In addition to authorising a “no-fly zone” and tightening sanctions against “the Gaddafi regime and its supporters”, Resolution 1973 called for “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi.” At the same time, it expressly “excluded a foreign occupation force of any form” or in “any part of Libyan territory”.

UN conflicts

The UN process is notable for two reasons. First, the resolution was passed with a vote of 10 in favour and five abstaining.

The abstaining governments – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany – represent the vast majority of humanity.

Even though the African Union had resolved against an external intervention and called for a political resolution to the conflict, the two African governments in the Security Council – South Africa and Nigeria – voted in favour of the resolution.

They have since echoed the sentiments of the governments that abstained, that they did not have in mind the scale of the intervention that has actually occurred.

The second thing notable about the UN process is that though the Security Council is central to the process of justification, it is peripheral to the process of execution.

The Russian and Chinese representatives complained that the resolution left vague “how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be.”

Having authorised the intervention, the Security Council left its implementation to any and all, it “authorised Member States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements.”

As with every right, this free for all was only in theory; in practise, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so. As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.

Money trail

When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the Secretary-General to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.

Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?

The absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks.

Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about the implementing sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimation is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing.

War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.

The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

Libya’s opposition

The full political cost will become clear in the period of transition. The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system.

Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience.

They – like NATO – have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war.

One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution. Several facts point to this.

The African Union delegation sent to Libya to begin discussions with Col. Gaddafi in pursuit of a political resolution to the conflict was denied permission to fly over Libya – and thus land in Tripoli – by the NATO powers.

The New York Times reported that Libyan tanks on the road to Benghazi were bombed from the air Iraq War-style, when they were retreating and not when they were advancing.

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives, a clear violation of Resolution 1973 that points to an early introduction of ground forces.

The logic of a political resolution was made clear by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in a different context: “We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is.”

That Clinton has been deaf to this logic when it comes to Libya is testimony that so far, the pursuit of interest has defied learning political lessons of past wars, most importantly Afghanistan.

Marx once wrote that important events in history occur, as it were, twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. He should have added, that for its victims, farce is a tragedy compounded.

Mahmood Mamdani is professor and director of Makerere Institute of Social Research at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, and Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, New York. He is the author, most recently of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War and the Roots of Terror, and Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror.

Originally published on http://english.aljazeera.net on March 31, 2011. Republished on talkafrique.com on April 2, 2011. Courtesy Tunde Oseni

Share

The Ongoing Arab/Libya Revolution and International Diplomacy

”After half a century during which tyrants have ruled the Arab world, their control is weakening. After 40 years of decaying stability, the rot is eating into the stability. The Arab masses will no longer accept what they used to accept. The Arab elites will no longer remain silent”.- Ari Shavit; the Arab Revolution and the Western decline. How true are the words above on developments around the Arab community in recent times? The revolution started from Tunisia, down to Egypt, replicated in Yemen and Algeria, and most recently the heat is now on Gadhafi in Libya.

Little did 26-year old Mohammed Bouazizi of Tunisia knew that his action would trigger a revolution to spread to other Arab nations when he set himself ablaze in the impoverished city of Sidi Bouzid, 300 kilometers from Tunis, the Tunisian capital. Mohammed Bouazizi’s December 17, 2011 action (he died untimely in January 4, 2011) led to the disgraceful end of a 23-year old administration of Tunisian dictator, President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, the 30-year rule of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak; and with the 41year rule of Muammar Gadhafi hanging in the balance. With the revolution spreading fast and deadly like contagious flu, the tragedy is that no single Arab country has immunity against this plague; no single Arab country practices sustainable democracy.

When the Middle East sneezes, the world catches cold as it were. If Mohammed Bouazizi had carried out his self immolation in other part of the world, it would have been doubtful if his death would have had the same impact as it does now. Until and unless an alternative and sustainable source of energy dethrones crude oil, the Middle East and by extension the Arab world will remain strategically important to the global economy to a worrisome extent. According to the International Energy Agency, ‘Middle Eastern producers will supply 50 percent of U.S oil imports, 50 percent of Europe, 80 percent of China’s, and 90 percent of Japans by 2030’.

The statistics above indicate that the survival and sustainability of the world powers and G-7 nations lies heavily in the Middle East. Crude oil from economic realities will, until an alternative source of energy is developed, continue to drive the world’s economy. As shown above, this is highly concentrated in the Middle East, though other nations such as Nigeria and Libya in Africa are also endowed with this natural resource. However, because the pace of crude oil production centers in the Middle East, that region remains to a large extent politically, economically and socially relevant to the other regions of the world. Hence, the present revolution going on in some oil-riched nations need to be objectively and holistically examined vis-à-vis their political and economic relevance. The present civil unrest going on in Libya brings this to the fore. It is imperative to examine the role of local and international bodies on the unceasing struggle for liberation by Libyans. Libya under President Gadhafi is a signatory to the Arab league, the African Union and by extension the United Nations Organization. Libya’s oil makes it economically relevant to member nations in the Arab bloc and to the international community.

The A.U was founded in Sirte, Gadhafi’s hometown in 1999, and has been well funded with Libya’s oil wealth. The A.U’s initial silence of the uprising in North Africa was criticized by many in Africa including a  public statement by Gambia’s Yahya Jameh. The A.U like other regional and international organizations including the Arab league, has a set of objectives which include respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states (includling respect for Human Rights and observation of the U.N charter on Human Rights). The A.U at the beginning of the Libyan crisis was heavily involved with the situation in Cote D’Ivoire – a country with an internal strife but of no apparent relevance or importance to the West. Through its Peace and Security Council, the A.U has put in place a coalition of Heads of States Panel (includling political leaders of S/Africa, Uganda, Mauritania, etc) to look into the situation in Libya on a fact-finding mission and forward possible recommendations. Until recently, the U.N security council through a resolution passed a ‘no fly zone’ law on Libya, adopted also by the Arab league, though it (Arab league) differs on the bombing strategy as embarked upon by the the U.S, U.K and France. This has resulted in Gadhafi’s declaration of cease fire in major parts of the country where his loyalists are in a deadlock to the opposition.

Many political observers and concerned individuals have proposed a military intervention in the ousting of Gaddafi from power. However, as noted above, the U.N, A.U and Arab league will to a large extent respect the sovereignty of Libya as an independent nation. In my view, it is imperative as it was in previous movements (Tunisia and Egypt), and as indicated in the opening quote of this piece, that concerned bodies such as the U.N, A.U and Arab League, regardless of the political and economic relevance of Libya as an oil-rich nation, weigh the over 40-years of Gaddafi’s administration on abuse of power, gross indiscipline, corruption, disregard for human rights as alleged by opposition. The U.N, A.U and Arab League though recognizing the sovereignty of Libya, should never display a ‘blind eye’  to human rights and related abuses alleged on Gaddafi. If the findings of the panel and its subsequent recommendations reveals a gross abuse of power, then the law should take its rightful course as universally accepted under the charters of the U.N and other relevant bodies. Nobody is above the law, Gaddafi is not above the law. If he is found wanting after a thorough investigation, he should be made to face the wrath of the law.

As fervently addressed in an earlier article, Gaddafi must come to terms with the fact that true sovereignty lies in the hands of the people of Libya and not in an individual. He should remember, if forgotten, that autocratic heroes such as Pharaoh of Egypt, Alexander the Great of Greece, Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany during the second World -war are now in the book of history. He should respond to the call for a CHANGE from his people. Libyans, regardless of what the international community and constituted bodies are doing right now or plans to do, should learn to localize the global in there approach towards a national Change. All concerned agencies must work jointly towards the same goal; respect for rule of law, good governance and a sustainable democratic rule in Libya. The global community and especially Africans eagerly awaits the liberation of of the Libyan people.

SOLOMON JOHNSON.

Share

Before Egypt and Libya, There was Ivory Coast

Libya (left), Ivory Coast (right)

Foreign Policy Hypocrisy of Our Generation

Over the past two months, the world has keenly being following the political events in Egypt and Libya. Television screen at homes, schools, workplaces and major airport had one item on the waiting list: when the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would make his next statement and what would be the response of the US President Barack Obama. Facebook and Twitter were and are still floating in traffic like hell. Journalists who were hitherto unknown are now household names because of their coverage of the North African revolution. Some journalists were happily beaten up just to cover the news and they still enjoy it. Some risked their very lives just get their stories out.

The situation in Egypt and Libya ‘needed’ to be covered; the two countries play strategic roles in the US and European countries’ foreign policies. Both countries hold sweet big oil in their bosoms and the West likes that milk. Egypt does not directly make a momentous contribution to the global oil supply but it hosts the Suez Canal which is a major boulevard for oil transport to the US and other western countries. It’s also an excellent vacationer destination for the most westerners who periodically need to take a break. Libya, on the other hand, is a big player in the global oil market. The country is a swollen with pride for being a member of the OPEC and is the world’s 17th largest oil producer, the third-largest producer in Africa and holds the continent’s largest crude oil treasury. About 85% of Libya’s oil is exported to Europe. The penalty of the crisis in the two countries need not be recounted. In the US, regular fuel is now nearly $4 per gallon. Doesn’t this explain why twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC and BBC are on Libya 24/7?

Another country, on the same continent, which is on the threshold of civil war and perhaps genocide, is the Ivory Coast. In fact the situation in the Ivory Coast started several months before there was a single protest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. How much on Ivory Coast can we find on Facebook feeds? How much is atwitter? When was the last time you heard somebody call the US too weak for not calling on Laurent Gbagbo to hand over to the constitutionally elected president? In fact, how many even know who that man is?

Two weeks ago, six women were killed in the Ivory Coast by forces supporting the incumbent tyrant Laurent Gbagbo, while on a peaceful demonstration. How much coverage did the western media bestow to that story? Actually, have you heard it? How many American reporters have questioned the President of the US or his Press Secretary where US stands on the Ivory Coast crisis?

Well, the truth is unlike Egypt and Libya, the Ivory Coast has not yet had a dream of producing oil for their local consumption, how much less to export to Europe or North America. The nation has no strategic importance to either the US or UK. Genocide in Ivory Coast will not result in one cent increase in fuel price. Will it? Ivory Coast is by far the world’s leading producer of cocoa beans, and that where your chocolate comes from. The Ivory Coast crisis may lead to some increase in the price of chocolate, but don’t we celebrate Valentine Day only once a year?

Why does the Ivory Coast deserve less than Egypt and Libya. The silence demonstrated by the World’s powers towards the Ivory Crisis is deafening, and even embarrassing.

Thanks for reading?

[ad#Adsense-200by200sq]

Share

Between Muammar El-Gaddafi and the African Union

MUAMMAR EL-GADDAFI AND

Tales coming out of Libya, a country that has been under the leadership of one-man rule for the 42 years are those of anger, frustration, popular uprising and death. The world has been lured to believe that all is well with the Libya’s economy, but recent occurrences have shown the opposite. Gaddafi has been anti West since he came into power and established his Jamariya government in 1969. He has waged wars on several fronts with the West. He is an ardent advocate for one Africa, where all autonomous nations would lose their sovereignty for a united African state.

The early years of the last decade was spent by Muammar Gaddafi in touring many African countries canvassing for support of African Heads of state and Presidents for a United States of Africa. Reports had it that he single-handedly contributed US$1million to fund the formation of the African Union (AU) to replace the Organization of African Unity (OAU) founded in 1963. He wanted to be the leader of a body that would be the equal of the United States of America (USA), where he will wield unlimited powers above other countries.

Nonetheless, Gaddafi’s dream for a Pan-African body, just like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, came to fruition. However, his personal ambition for a stronger union and weaker nation-states was dashed as Nigeria and South Africa opted for what some writers have referred to as ‘gradual incrementalism’( a situation whereby sovereign nations were allowed on their own to be integrated into the regional body but still retain their nationhood). This singular move clipped his ‘wings’ and tamed his fulsome ambition. They did this because he was never to be trusted.

Meanwhile, considering the manner he has conducted himself recently, does it show any sign of a leader who has his people at heart? He referred to the citizens as cockroaches, people under the influence of drugs and that he would fight streets to streets to live and die in Libya. What kind of leader is he; killing the same people he is now violently fighting to defend and protect? Ghaddafi should be told that patriotism is not by force.

Sordid enough, the leadership of the African Union has not yet led a high-power delegation to Libya to neither stop Ghaddafi nor condemn his scorch-to earth massacre using paid snipers. It is still unclear if he has some of these African leaders supporting him underground, because many of them are like him. Even the manner in which they are responding to the evacuation of their citizenry has left much to be desired. African leaders who are Ghaddafi-copies, who have made life miserable for their people over the years, should expect the Tunisia, Egypt and Libya-type of change soon.

Share