Posted on

Obiang Tells World Not To Intervene In Africa

The Associated Press via NPR

MALABO, Equatorial Guinea June 30, 2011

Foreign military intervention has caused massive suffering in Africa, the African Union’s current chairman said Thursday in a message that is being seen as a jab at the NATO airstrikes in Libya.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema is the president of Equatorial Guinea

Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who is the president of Equatorial Guinea, also blamed outside “agents” for sparking pro-democracy demonstrations in countries across Africa including his own.

“The intervention for human rights are nowadays causing a massive scourge,” he said at the opening of the AU’s biannual summit being held in this capital, located on an island off the western coast of Africa. “The uncounted number of victims, among them women and children, displaced people and the destruction of economic infrastructure does not justify such interventions. Instead of providing solutions to problems we are complicating and worsening world conflicts.”

Obiang did not specifically mention Libya, but the AU has come out forcefully against the bombardment that is threatening to topple Moammar Gadhafi, whose grip on power was thought to be absolute.

His fall would be discomforting for the other entrenched rulers in Africa, including Obiang, who has maintained total control of state institutions in Equatorial Guinea since his uncle was overthrown and killed in a coup 32 years ago.

Obiang’s country is considered among the most undemocratic in the world, one that has never had elections deemed free and fair, and where opponents to the regime are systematically tortured, according to Human Rights Watch and the report of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Speaking about the popular uprisings in North Africa, Obiang said the youth are right to protest when their cause is “just and necessary,” but added that outside “agents” are in some cases attempting to manipulate public sentiment in order to cause unrest.

“I draw attention here to those agents accustomed to manipulating the innocence and the good faith of our youth and inexperienced population to unnecessarily cause sterile revolutions,” he said in Spanish, the national language of Equatorial Guinea. “This is the case of my country, Equatorial Guinea, which is victimized by a systematic campaign of misinformation by these agents.”

The wave of popular protest that has swept across the northern part of the continent has so far not spread dramatically south, largely because leaders like Obiang have clamped down at the slightest sign of dissent.

In Malabo, reporters were told by the minister of information that state TV would not be discussing the events in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya because they do not have correspondents in those countries who can ascertain if the information being reported by the international media is correct.

In Zimbabwe where summit attendee Robert Mugabe has been in power for 31 years, even watching video footage of those uprisings can lead to treason charges punishable by death.

And in Cameroon, where 77-year-old President Paul Biya has ruled since 1982, the government ordered cell phone companies to suspend mobile services for Twitter after citizens used the site to organize a “Drive Out Biya” march.

Traditionally the AU has chosen to support its leaders at the expense of the people they govern, but the recent conflict in Ivory Coast may have marked a turning point.

An African Union panel charged with finding a solution to the conflict initially backed Laurent Gbagbo, the country’s outgoing president who lost last year’s presidential election and took his country to the brink of civil war in an effort to stay in office.

Under immense international pressure, however, the panel that included Obiang eventually called for Gbagbo to step down.

The same evolution may be in the works on Libya. The ad hoc committee charged with dealing with the crisis has issued numerous statements supporting Gadhafi and advocating for talks between the Libyan leader and the rebels attempting to overthrow him.

The proposal was rejected outright by the rebels and the international community, which views Gadhafi as the problem and not a part of the solution.

On Sunday, the committee reversed course, however, saying they welcomed Gadhafi’s decision to not be part of the negotiation process.

In a statement issued Thursday, the committee said it had met in Malabo and agreed on a set of proposals to help Libya emerge from the crisis. It said the proposals would be submitted to the AU assembly for their support.

“I believe there is certainly a change in the whole perception of Gadhafi. We are in a very different position to the one we were in just five, six weeks ago,” said Britain’s Minister for Africa Henry Bellingham who attended the first part of the conference.

He said he had met with many of the foreign ministers of the 53 member nations attending the conference, and found that even those that were previously reluctant to call for Gadhafi’s ouster are now privately agreeing that he should go.

Share
Posted on

The End of Dynastic Presidential Politics in Africa?


René Dassié

The political ambitions of Gamal Mubarak who is widely tipped to succeed his father Hosni, president of Egypt, is looking particularly grim following recent events in the north African country. In Senegal, another possible handover from President Wade to his son, Karim, has aroused strong criticism. A rejection that could be extended to other countries, including Congo and Equatorial Guinea. Since 2001, three sons of former African presidents have succeeded their fathers.

Have current events in Egypt, where millions of protesters are demanding the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, turned the northern African leader’s plan, to place his son at the helm of political affairs, upside down? According to many observers, the embattled president has been grooming his son, Gamal, to take over from him after his last term this year. The octogenarian president has nonetheless always denied this possibility, while those close to him suggest that he will be his own successor, despite his old age.

Notwithstanding those statements, many events from last year pointed to a gradual strategic positioning of Gamal. At 46, he was propelled into the enviable position of Secretary General of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP). Assembling under the slogan “Gamal: dream of the poor”, his supporters swarmed some of the country’s busy streets, last September, to collect five million signatures; The number of signatures needed to enable a person stand for presidential elections in Egypt. Away from his busy volunteer campaigners in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, his daddy, Hosni Mubarak, was tirelessly working to raise Gamal’s stature in international politics, especially by engaging him in direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with Washington.

Karim Wade in Gamal’s shadow

Egypt is not the only African country where a president’s son is working to take over — what is increasingly becoming a family business — from his father. Karim Wade, Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade’s eldest son, has since last year been catapulted to political stardom. The 85 year-old Abdoulaye Wade, whose second and last term ends next year, has always denied trying to position his son to succeed him as head of state. But his continuous denial has not stopped him from transferring political power to Gamal.

Early October, 2010, Gamal was put in charge of a super ministry that controls almost all of the country’s strategic ministerial portfolios: energy, air transport, infrastructure and international cooperation. In February 2009, Karim’s candidacy for mayoral elections in Dakar, the country’s largest, was analyzed as a trial run for his future presidential candidacy.

“The enthronement of the Republic’s Prince [Karim Wade, Editor’s note] should by all means begin by first taking charge of the capital’s mayoral office. This step will be the trial phase of the electoral holdup that the authorities intend to implement for the 2012 [elections, Editor’s note]”, analyzed Sud Online, a Senegalese online journal.

The throne thirsty sons

Elsewhere on the continent, old presidents are busily positioning their offspring strategically. In the Republic of Congo, the media often describes Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso, one of President Denis Sassou Nguesso’s sons, as the most likely successor. Unfortunately, the little prince has so far only made a name for himself as a spendthrift who is out to squander all the resources of his country on his most lavish lifestyle.

In the Central African Republic, Francois Bozize has dumped his son Francis Bozize into the Defense Minister’s seat. In Cameroon, Paul Biya, who has been in power for almost three decades, has made his eldest son, Franck, his special adviser. In the Obiang Nguema controlled Equatorial Guinea, the President is torn between his two sons. Teodorin Nguema Obiang, whose reputation as an international gambler precedes him, was accused by the U.S. Senate in a 2004 report which revealed that he had conducted shady transactions with a local bank. And then there is Gabriel Obiang Lima, the Secretary of State for Mines, Industry and Energy, who is believed to be cherished by both his family and oil companies.

Cases of succession

With the exception of constitutional monarchies as is the case in the kingdoms of Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland, three sons of heads of state rose to power in the last decade. All under chaotic conditions.

A little over a week after Laurent-Desire Kabila was shot and killed by one of his bodyguards, his then 29 year old son, Joseph, succeeded him. February 2005, Togo’s Faure Gnassingbe mounted the country’s presidential throne amid the power crisis that followed the death of his father and long-time dictator, Gnassingbe Eyadema. Two months later, he consolidated his power after a heavily contested election that was controlled by security forces with brutal force in Faure’s favour.

In Gabon in October 2009, Ali Bongo was sworn in as President after the death of his father Omar a few weeks earlier. A year after the presidential election, Andre Mba Obame, one of the most popular presidential candidates, continues to challenge the legality of Ali’s installment.

For future presidential heirs, the dynamics may be changing. The ongoing pro-democracy demonstrations in Egypt could well have definitely affected Gamal’s chances to inherit his father’s position. The announcement of his possible candidacy last year aroused strong hostility among his opponents, who had earlier on marched through the streets of Cairo and Alexandria carrying placards that read: “We do not want a hereditary government! “And” no to Gamal! .

In Senegal, talks about a possible Karim Wade candidacy has ignited similar hostilities. In Libya, Gaddafi’s most politically committed son, Seif al-Islam, who wants to reform his country, is facing a clamorous rebellion from powerful politicians. But does this really mark the end of the trend of dynastic power transmissions?

Share
Posted on

Africa Command: Opportunity for Engagement or the Militarization of U.S.-Africa Relations? Dr Wafula Okumu

 Background

Until recently, Africa has not been strategically attractive to the U.S.  This is partly because U.S. interests in Africa had not been clearly defined and it had no bureaucratic structure to manage those almost nonexistent interests. For a long time, the strategic thinking has been that the U.S. has “no compelling interests in Africa” and “do not want anybody else to have any, either.” However, whenever a non-Western nation or idea made its way into Africa, the U.S. got very nervous. This is what happened from the 1960-1990, when the Soviet Union tried to spread its communist ideology to Africa. Today, many think the U.S. is very nervous of Chinese economic penetration into Africa. America’s concern is that the Chinese are trying to control the continent’s natural resources and gain influence over it. The U.S. is also worried that radical Islamism is a dangerous idea that could germinate in poorly and badly governed states of Africa. Africom is being sold as an answer to these threats. Until the enunciation of Africom, the continent had been haphazardly divided into three U.S. commands—European, Central and Pacific.  In order to understand this state of affairs we need first to understand the basis of U.S. foreign policy towards Africa.

Basis for Understanding U.S. foreign policy towards Africa

U.S. foreign policy towards Africa has been variously referred to as either “benign neglect” or “manifest destiny.” In other words, these postures have defined or driven U.S. relations with Africa. Despite changes of U.S. administrations since 1960, when most African countries started gaining independence, the substance has always remained the same. Only the styles of various administrations have changed. As we shall see later, when given a choice between supporting the liberation struggles of the African people or bolstering its NATO allies, the U.S. easily chose the latter. On the other hand, it has sent Peace Corps volunteers to remote villages to assist in improving agricultural production while at the same time erecting trade barriers against products of these local farmers. It is this principle of “manifest destiny” that seems to be embodied in Africom’s objectives and stated mission.

Africom’s Stated mission

Prevent conflict by promoting stability regionally and eventually ‘prevail over extremism’ by never letting its seeds germinate in Africa.

Address underdevelopment and poverty, which are making Africa a fertile ground for breeding terrorists.

 “…view the people, the nations and the continent of Africa from the same perspective that they view themselves.”

Build the capacity of African nations through training and equipping African militaries, conducting training and medical missions.

Undertake any necessary military action in Africa, despite its non-kinetic nature such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Why the U.S. really wants to set up Africom

Despite the above stated objectives, there are many reasons why the U.S. wants to set up Africom. First, the U.S. has become increasingly dependent on Africa for its oil needs. Africa is currently the largest supplier of U.S. crude oil, with Nigeria being the fifth largest source. Instability, such as that in the Niger Delta, could significantly reduce this supply. The U.S. National Intelligence Council has projected that African imports will account for 25% of total U.S. imports by 2015. This oil will primarily come from Angola, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Nigeria. Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, has now overtaken Saudi Arabia as the third largest oil exporter to the U.S.  The importance of the African oil source can be gleaned from the fact that in 2006, the U.S. imported 22% of its crude oil from Africa compared to 15% in 2004. President Bush appeared to have African oil supplies in mind during his 2006 State of the Union Address, when he announced his intention “to replace more than 75% of (U.S.) oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” Continuing unrest in the Middle East has increased the urgency for the U.S. to build a security alliance with Africa in order to achieve this goal.

Second, Africa is an unstable region with badly governed states that can only manage their affairs, particularly security-related, with outside assistance. Since September 11, 2001, U.S. foreign policy has heavily focused on preventing and combating global terrorist threats. The events of 9/11 changed the way the U.S. views and relates to the rest of the world. Likewise, the foreign policies of Western powers have increasingly been militarised to secure and defend Western interests. Terrorism has been identified as one of the biggest threats to these interests. Africom is expected to stop terrorists being bred in Africa’s weak, failing and failed states from attacking these interests.

It is widely held in the West that failing and failed states in Africa create opportunities for terrorists to exploit. Among the targets of these terrorists are Western interests such as oil sources and supply routes. Improvement of African security would inevitably promote U.S. national interests by making it less likely that the continent could be a source of terrorism against the United States.

Third, one of the critical challenges facing Africa and the UN is training, equipping and sustaining troops in peace missions. African armies need training in peacekeeping. It is proposed that through Africom, African troops will be trained and aided to keep the peace in African conflict zones. This should come in handy when it is considered that all African Union-led peacekeeping operations deployed so far have encountered monumental problem

Share