The Vampire of Francophone Africa

October 24, 2011
By Christian Mbouende

The government of France has for too long dealt with Africa in inconsiderate, disgraceful and unrepentantly diabolic ways. This was recently repeated during and after the recent presidential election in Cameroon. This government is a disgrace to humanity and its people. Their filthy ways is of the highest degree for a nation who has made a place in the world at the expense of Africans by extortion, deceit, blood shedding, killings, wars, division, oppression and other diabolic devices which have contributed to keep Africa from progressing and in constant deprivation. In all confidence, the devil itself must be drawing lessons in diabolism from this government. 

This government of a country that advertises itself as the example of human refinement in intellect, fashion, mannerism and good living has been a disgrace to its people and humanity as it continues one administration after another to work on its eternal goal of sucking Africa of its God's blessings, by any necessary means, both in peace and war times which it orchestrates at will to meet its materialistic and financial aims. But the so called peace times in countries like The Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Gabon, Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Burundi, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Algeria, until recently Tunisia and Rwanda, and many more have only been opportune times for this government and the dictators it has handpicked to tyrannize a truly peaceful people who simply demands to live in dignity and freedom in their lands and to choose their own destiny. Whenever the aims of this imperialistic government are not achievable in Africa in periods of stability it would ignite wars and chaos to assert greater influence and extort. The French government for nearly half a century has maintained defense treaties with African dictators in order to discourage internal rebellion, when in fact the only defense French speaking Africa truly needs is to be freed from the tyranny of its dictators and of the French government. Of course, those dictators too are subjected to the sanguinary might of France if they no longer meet the objectives of France. 

President Obama coming to the White House gave many Africans hope that France tyranny toward Africa can subside. It's clear that he has tried behind the scene to influence the current French administration to allow Africans to get rid of their dictators if they choose to. This diabolic and nearly century old ways the French government has continuously dealt with Africa is clearly a well-entrenched and hugely lucrative habit it is not ready to let go as the recent upheavals in Tunisia and Ivory Coast and its approval of and involvement in rigged presidential elections in Gabon and just recently Cameroon confirm. In Gabon it has manipulated the last presidential election result with the use of its sophisticated technology to put into the presidency the son of the deceased dictator who ruled Gabon for several decades with an iron fist and the full support of the many successive French administrations. Last week, after less than a third of Cameroonians voted in presidential election which is considered with undeniable and abundant evidences by most observers, independent news medias and opposition parties as non-transparent and pervasively imbued with massive frauds, irregularities, logistical nightmares and unfair rules, the French government from Paris was quick to assert its opinion by declaring the election to have been acceptable and without serious concern, this in its attempts to influence public opinion in order to maintainin in power the ruler of Cameroon of the past 29 years. Within short time after that the American ambassador in Cameroon before a news conference asserted a totally different opinion of the election by declaring that the election was full of irregularities and the results were unreliable. The next day the French government recanted its prior statement by nearly reasserting the opinion of the American ambassador. Well, this is simply another case of the French government being caught with its pant down in its dealings with Africa, and the sight of it is never pretty.

Any followers of Africa's events understand that without the assistance of the French government most of Africa's dictators would not be long lasting and without those dictators who do not reflect any modernism let alone any viable legacy for their decades long reign, Africa would be confidently marching toward a meritocratic and progressive society and its best talents would find it viable to return to and remain in Africa to pursue their aspirations without being subjected to constant fear of persecution, bureaucratic nightmares, corruption at every level of daily life and from its sham institutions, tribalism, mediocrity, disregard of human and property rights, imprisonment without charge and judgement, kidnapping, lawlessness frequently perpetrated by those expected to legislate, judge and enforce the law. 

I am confident that this American administration will continue to pressure the evil French government to mend its way toward Africa. But, lasting change will be possible if the French people become less tolerant of this state of affairs for the sake of our common humanity. There are many Africans, their children and wives who are French citizens, they too must awake and organize and participate in the politics of France and help stop this ever insatiable monster that is their government, the diabolic government of France. And Africans living under this tyranny on the daily basis must accept that this evil will not depart from them as long as they remain fractured, unwilling to bond together for the common purpose of liberating themselves.

What Can Outsiders Do to Help Stop Dictators?

22 June 2011

Eric Stoner

In the Guardian last week, Carne Ross asks an important question: What can people living outside of countries where movements are struggling to bring down repressive regimes do to help? He asks readers to contribute ideas for “practical suggestions for nonviolent action to help those struggling against repression and dictatorship” in the comment section, which he said he’ll select from for a future column. Ross then suggests a few examples to jump start the conversation:

Online, Access Now has created a “proxy cloud” to enable internet users in countries that limit internet access, like China, to reach sites that would otherwise be blocked – you can contribute your spare bandwith to the effort. Likewise, Tor uses volunteers’ computers to help users under authoritarian rule cover their tracks on the web. And when the Egyptian authorities shut down the internet, Avaaz.org smuggled in high-tech phones and portable satellite internet modems to maintain connections to the outside world – paid for by online donations.

At the more hardcore end of the spectrum, there are reports that the hacker collective Anonymous has been organising distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on Syrian government websites. While ,at the high end (expense-wise), the Sudan Sentinel project, started by George Clooney, rents a surveillance satellite to monitor potential flashpoints for violence between north and south Sudan in an attempt to deter the resumption of war (at the time of writing, sadly, it’s not working too well).

Reaching back further for historical precedent, thousands offered refuge to Czech students after the Soviet invasion in 1968; humanitarian assistance also, carefully delivered, can sustain opposition as well as relieve suffering. Boycotts remain a powerful nonviolent tool. The Genocide Intervention Network lobbies companies to divest from countries whose governments kill their own people. The act of shunning those who support repression may seem slight but has a subtle power: I remember a white farmer in a newly-liberated Zimbabwe telling me that once the international boycott began of white minority-ruled Rhodesia, she knew that, sooner or later, it would have to end. Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi has advised tourists not to visit the country in order to isolate the ruling military junta and deny it foreign exchange.

He seems to have hit on most of the obvious tactics. If you have any creative ideas, let us know and add them to the comments on Ross’ piece.

To Rehabilitate African Damaged Self-esteem

8 June 2011

Conelle.net

Africans must fight and defeat their former colonial masters to rehabilitate their damaged self-esteem

Men have contempt for those they defeat at war and substitute war, sports and other competitions. Men have contempt for those who are easily intimidated by threat of force and coercion. Africans, so far in their shameful history (they allowed other folks to enslave them and colonize them), have shown the world one trait and one trait only: cowardice. Say boohoo and Africans run away. Point guns at them and threaten to kill them and they pee in their pants and beg for mercy.

Men do not respect those who beg for mercy; they have contempt for them. Very few African countries actually fought for their independence. Nigerian and many Africa nationalists merely called the British names but did not actually take up guns and fought the British or French. Because they did not fight for their liberty they do not value it; they do not know that the price of liberty is blood hence they allow thieves to hijack their government and essentially loot their wealth while they live in poverty and merely complain about the loot instead of organizing and fighting and killing the thieves of Abuja. I believe that one of the reasons Africa is misgoverned is because the people had not fought and died for their freedom; they must now fight and die for their freedom if they are to value liberty and good governance. As Thomas Payne observed (in his book, Common Sense) the tree of liberty is watered with brave patriots’ blood. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance against tyrants (who are always hovering around the corner).

You actually see Africans, especially the loathsome Nigerians, who believe that they are taken seriously by the rest of the world.Former President Olusaegun Obasanjo actually applied to be taken into the Security Council of the United Nation! Why? Because he exists and because he exists he is to be taken seriously and accounted a human being. Nobody told the clown the purpose of the Security Council. Upon the end of the First World War, guided by US President Woodrow Wilson’s sentimentalism, his famous fourteen points for remaking the world, creating democracy and bringing about world peace, the League of Nations was established and all members were given equal votes. Well, in matters of war and peace some countries have more clout than others. In the League’s voting weak countries had the same vote with powerful ones and the powerful ones ignored such votes and nothing was accomplished. Thus, the League was not able to prevent any wars. At the end of the second world war a more realistic appraisal of human nature led folks to structure the successor to the League with two bodies, one where folks big and small come to make noise, the General Assembly, and another where the big boys with military clout come to decide important matters of war and peace.

Imagine Goodluck Jonathan, a nothing militarily speaking, participating in deciding matters of war and peace at the international level. As Joseph Stalin would ask: how many panzer (tank) divisions can he marshal into the battle field? Zero. Mr. Jonathan is as good as a ghetto gang leader when international politics is discussed; he is a powerless nothing; in fact, he and his pathetic country of thieves do not even exist!

In international politics Africa is nothing and nobody takes her seriously. Why should you take Nigerians or Africa seriously? Is it because of their collapsed schools, their lack of military prowess, their lack of contribution to science and technology, their dilapidated economic infrastructure? Is it because of their reliance on one resource for most of their revenue, putting all their eggs in one basket until the West discovers an alternative to oil and they become a failed state? Is it because their leaders are thugs and steal their country’s money and do not work to develop their country? Do you respect criminals? I certainly would not hesitate lining all the rulers of Nigeria against a wall and shooting them to death. I would not show any feeling of sympathy from killing the criminals; they are best dead, they are wasting our natural resources by merely being alive, consuming food that they did not produce; get rid of garbage. Kill all the thieves of Abuja the other members of the empire of thieves and appropriate all their ill-gotten wealth and devote it to the development of Nigeria and Africa.

The salient point here is that men do not take seriously those they are not afraid to fight; no one takes Nigerians and Africans seriously for nobody is afraid to fight with them. I submit that Africans must, if necessary, deliberately provoke a war with Europe and defeat her before they can be taken seriously.

And do not go thinking that this task is impossible or merely idealistic. I am a student of real politics and know that if a real leader, the like of Napoleon, a determined war dog who is not afraid of leading millions to their death, emerges in Nigeria and conscripts all able bodied Nigerians (between the age of eighteen and thirty eight) into the army, at least, ten million can be so mobilized, given rigorous training and equipped with the best weapons money can buy (manufacture them locally) it is easy to unite all of Africa within five years. Subsequently, Africa would be reorganized with each large tribe a state for a total of about five hundred tribe based states in the anticipated Africa federation…see my writings on ideal constitution for Nigeria and African states. Subsequent to the reorganization of Africa, such a leader would embark on economic development. Within twenty years Africa would be developed; at least, she would be at the level of the Asian tigers. Thereafter, Africa would be able to launch war against Europe. It is possible to mobilize an army of twenty million Africans and use them to smash into Western Europe and defeat it.

Never mind about nuclear weapons. No one is going to use them on Africans. Moreover, nuclear weapons should be manufactured in Africa soon after all the basic physics is now known to most college educated persons (in nuclear fission the nucleus of atoms, protons and neutrons, is bombarded with neutrons and split and energy is released; that energy could be controlled and used for electricity or to destroy cities). No one should be intimidated by the terrorists possessing nuclear weapons, not when all of us have the capability to manufacture them if we have the will and resource to do so.

DISCUSSION

I have always been amazed by Africans lack of political realism, their inability to grasp the simple and obvious. The simple fact is that white men screwed our fathers and in the present discriminate against us. They do so because they have no respect for us. They have no respect for us because they defeated and colonized us; and in the past they enslaved us. The only way we can regain respect in our eyes and the eyes of the rest of the world is to screw those who screwed us.

If it were possible Africans ought to enslave Europeans and Arabs, to give them a dose of their own medicine. Why not; they enslaved us, didn’t they? So why should we not reciprocate their favor? Fear, sympathy, guilt feeling? Give me a break; in the real world folks do to others as was done to them.

I understand the need for love and forgiveness, but that is when we talk metaphysical matters; in the world of politics power and guile rules. If someone sticks it to you stick it back to him and that way he learns not to stick it to you again. As long as you are easily attacked and defeated and you cry for mercy no one is going to have mercy for you; other folks would always try to enslave you (as camel humping, god damned Arabs still do in Sudan and Mauritania).

Those enslaved and colonized must fight their enslavers and colonizers and defeat them in the battle field for their manhood to be rehabilitated in their eyes. Romans enslaved Germans, whom they called barbarians. Germans fought, defeated and destroyed the Roman Empire and took it over (unfortunately, their material culture in the fifth century was too low hence European civilization went into dark ages…the Catholic Church also played a role in the making of this darkness by insisting that men replace reason with religious superstition).

Asians were messed around with by white folks and they fought white folks and are today on the verge of taking over the world economy. And make no mistake about it, when Asians take over the world they would stick it into the eyes of Europeans; the Chinese have not forgotten how Europeans divided up their country and looted her resources so when they feel up to it they would no doubt fight to defeat white men and do unto them as was done to them. What is history but how groups of human beings attacked and defeated other groups and then other groups attack and defeat them. Human living is characterized by offense and defense and defense and offense. Human beings are predatory animals; as long as they live in bodies and have egos they must have war and conflict; they must attack others who defend themselves by counter attacking them. Peace, love and happiness exist only in the non-material world of spirit, not earth.

Africans have been screwed by all comers, by Arabs and by Europeans. Africans must fight with Arabs and use force to chase them out of North Africa and reclaim it as African territory and eventually fight with Europe and if necessary colonize it so that it learns not to go colonizing other people and stealing their resources and impoverishing them. Until Africans fuck those who fucked them they are not ever going to hold their heads high and walk like human beings. Masquerading around as fat bellied important men would not make them important for all that an African head of state needs to do is come to America and white men would treat him as a nigger (and arrest him if he walks the streets of rich white neighborhoods, such as Beverly Hills and Bell Air) at night. Simply stated in our extant world Africans are perceived as nothing and the only way they are going to acquire importance is to fight for it. Pretending to be important does not make one important, it is action that does so.

Africans should read up on real politics, read folks like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Pareto, Metternich, Napoleon, and, oh, yes, Adolf Hitler(Mein Kampf, Table Talks) and even the white ass kissing Henry Kissinger, and begin to behave like realistic adults instead of the childish clowns they currently seem like.

Let me say a few words on fear, for fear holds Africans down. Fear is a biological and psychological phenomenon; it alerts the individual to potential dangers that could harm or even kill him and urges him to take measures to protect his life (fight or flight response…this response is mediated by complex biochemical reactions in the body, reactions that we cannot get into in this non- technical essay). Fear is a mechanism for safeguarding the individual’s biological life. Without fear it is doubtful that people and animals would do what they have to do to protect themselves from the myriad threats to their lives. Useful as fear is to human survival, however, it is a double edged sword. Fear enables people to anticipate danger and to survive avoid that danger. For example, if one anticipates that the political leaders of ones society could harm or kill one if one opposes them one feels fear and out of desire to live one desists from doing what one wanted to do, oppose their injustices. Thus, one survives but in the process tolerates oppression.

Africans have tolerated the oppressive rules of their criminal leaders because they are afraid of being harmed, jailed or killed by them. Most of the leaders of Africa are thugs and would not hesitate killing anyone who opposes them so to live Africans tolerate the criminals ruling them. Contemporary African leaders are actually like their ancestors who roamed around capturing and selling their people to Arab and European slave buyers; these people have no goodwill towards their people. Fear, in this case, has served to make Africans slaves.

Talking about slavery, Africans sold their people to Arabs and white folks for thousands of years (they sold their people to Romans, remember) and those sold tolerated slavery out of fear of what the slave masters could do to them, kill them; they tolerated slavery out of fear of death.

At some point human beings must prefer what is right to merely surviving as biological organisms. If one believes that a course of action is right, such as freedom, one must be willing to risk death fighting for it. Those in power seldom concede power to the ruled without the ruled demanding it and fighting and dying for it. (As I write, Hosni Mubarak the thief of Cairo who looted 70 billion dollars from his people, while they lived in poverty, has been chased out of office by the peoples determined insistence that he must go). If black Americans had not fought for the end of slavery white Americans would today still be enslaving them. Human beings can achieve goodness but they are not automatically good; they are automatically evil.

Africans must realize that the tree of liberty is watered with patriot’s blood and therefore fight for their freedom and die for it. As long as they tolerate their criminal rulers they would have criminal rulers. A people have a government they deserve; cowards deserve criminals ruling them; valorous men are ruled by honest men.

A word on America. Americans did not directly colonize Africa so it is not really a case where Africans have to fight America in order to rehabilitate their injured pride. America has her issues. Illiterate and uncut Mexican peasants below her border, like the barbarians above the borders of Rome, are pouring into her and are currently being used as cheap labor to do menial jobs in America. At some point in the future these unwashed “barbarians” would exceed the Americans in population and take over the country and transform it to third world status (as is their country of origin, Mexico) and eventually work their way to becoming a new civilization. The barbarians who took over Rome initially reduced Rome to a primitive civilization but eventually worked out their own brand of civilization, what we now know as Europe. Africans do not have to worry about America, it is sufficient for them to worry about Europe, their former colonial masters.

It is Europe that Africans have rendezvous with destiny. Africans must eventually fight and defeat Europeans in battle fields, not talkfests to have the shame of been ruled by Europeans washed away from their psyches. And before we hear from cowardly nay Sayers let me remind us the amazing degeneration of Europeans. These people are increasingly becoming beasts, engaging in unnatural sexual behaviors and other bestial behaviors that sap people of marshal spirit. Moreover, Europeans and white folks in general seem to have group narcissistic personality disorder; these people are in love with their egos and bodies and admire themselves no end. Narcissists so value life in body that they are afraid to die to their bodies; they do everything to live in bodies (taking care of their bodies via medical treatment, good eating and exercising habits etc.). Whereas some of those activities are good, in excess they have some drawback: fear of death hence of sacrificing their bodies in battles; kill a few Europeans and you cause the rest of them to panic and surrender in defeat just so they live to take care of their overvalued bodies.

A people who firmly believe in God, in life after death and, as such, are not afraid to die fighting for a just course will easily defeat a people who so worship their bodies that they are afraid to lose them in battle fields. Contemporary science has given white folks the erroneous belief that all they are are bodies so they take care of their bodies and are afraid to lose them; this is their Achilles heel.

CONCLUSION

A determined African military can easily defeat the men of Europe and must do so to rehabilitate Africans damaged self-esteem; there seem no other ways for improving Africans injured pride. The assault on Africans vanity and narcissism requires for us to fight and die assuaging it.

"Liberal Interventionism" is a Scam

20 June 2011

Tom Fowdy's Blog

"Liberal Interventionism" is the biggest scam ever in the scope of modern world foreign policy issues. A total con; its an excuse for countries to invade other countries to reap their own rewards and benefits, not to actually "bring freedom" to the country that is being invaded. That is rarely the case and in many cases the means are not justified behind such "attacks".

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries we have witnessed many wars and invasions which are supposed to be bringing "freedom" to the nations being attacked. In most cases this is not the intention or even the outcome of suck attacks. Lusts for oil and power overshadow the actual interests of freeing nations from authoritarian and fascist minded regimes. Usually, "it's an authoritarian nation" is just a petty excuse to justify such invasions. Whereas the actual number of deaths caused by the actual invasion in itself usally outnumber the amount of people who were being killed in the country away during peacetime; which makes it all the more pointless. Thus this foreign policy idea is a sham, and the Iraq war and the Suez crisis stand as testimonies to why this is so.

There are hundreds of authoritarian nations in the world today where the people have no civil liberties and human rights, yet these "western police" nations such as the USA and the UK take no interest whatsoever in invading or intervening them nor does the Liberal ideological con of the United Nations. So why ignore hundreds of horrific nations yet pick on one or two are not even amongst the worst? This shows that in reality, governments do not really care about the people of nations, rather they simply seek to meet their own corrupt ends.

There are 54 nations in the world ranked by the global democracy index as"Authoritarian Regimes". Why aren't we invading them? To be ranked an authoritarian regime by this index means that the state is being ran like a dictatorship, the people have no freedom of speech, no freedom of expression, no rights against the government, nothing. Yet we aren't invading them and we aren't about to. So how can liberal interventionism be real? We're being lied to.

Countries ranked as "Authoritarian regimes" by the Economist Intelligence Unit:

Madagascar

Kuwait

Mauritania

Jordan

Ethiopia

Fiji

Burkina Faso

Cuba

Bahrain

Nigeria

Togo

Algeria

Cameroon

Comoros 

Nigeria

Gambia

Belarus

Angola

Kazakhstan

Gabon

Rwanda

Azerbaijan

China

Qatar

Egypt

Vietnam

Swaziland

Republic of the Congo

Oman

Guinea

Tunisia

Zimbabwe 

Yemen

United Arab Emirates

Tajikistan

Afghanistan

Sudan

Eritea 

Syria

Djibouti

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Laos

Guinea Bissau

Libya

Iran

Equatorial Guinea 

Saudi Arabia

Central African Republic

Burma

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Chad

North Korea

Most of the nations listed. We are not interested in "getting rid of the leader" or "pretending to protect the people". Some of these nations have nuclear weapons too, we aren't really bothered about changing them. Just the ones we see an interest in. In these countries, hundreds are getting killed everyday or executed, or imprisoned. The internet is censored, the media is censored. Horrific things happen and we never hear of them. Our governments aren't interested in changing them, this is why liberal interventionism really is a delusion to make us think that governments care, clearly not. They have no intention to bring peace or stability in the world when you have so many of these nations with corrupt and tyrannical governments. Our press don't even report most of them; they are too busy seeking the oil in Libya and thus are on a crusade to demonize and get rid of Muammar Gaddafi, he is no where near the worst out of all the leaders out of the countries I have listed above. Like him, most of the countries have had the same leader for 20/30/40 years and have done the same horrific things against the people, if not worser things.

If we are interested in intervening in "some of them". Then I'd like to see us take down every authoritarian regime, or otherwise simply leave all of them alone and stop picking on some of them to suit our greedy interests. So its either all or none we invade or take or leave it. We probably shouldn't be waging war against any of them or bombing them. It isn't for a good cause or even a just one.

Is Africa's Youth Getting the Leadership it Deserves?

15 June 2011

BBC

In South Africa this year's ANC Youth League conference will be dominated by a leadership contest. The controversial incumbent, Julius Malema, is accused of dictatorial tendencies, plundering state resources and dividing the league by the campaign team of his challenger for the top position, Lebong Maile.

The ANC Youth League and its leader are regarded as kingmakers, having backed both former president Thabo Mbeki and President Jacob Zuma. The ANC Youth League was founded by Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu, and every South African president post-apartheid has come through its ranks.

In other countries in Africa, the youth wings of political parties have less historic roots, but they and their leaders also come in for criticism. In Ghana and Uganda, for example, the perception amongst many people is that they are little more than mobs who can be rented by politicians, and are only motivated by a hunger for power and money.

Do the youth wings of political parties wield too much power in your country? Do they actually represent the youth, and their concerns? Are there ways in which these youth wings can be made more effective? Or can real change for young people only come from by-passing existing parties as happened in Egypt and Tunisia?

International Community Ignores Treatment of Journalists by Security Forces in Bahrain

31 May 2011

Reporters Without Borders

When Nazeeha Saeed, the Bahrain correspondent of France 24 and Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya, was summoned to a police station in the city of Rifa’a for questioning at midday on 22 May, she expected to be back home two hours later and had no inkling of the nightmare awaiting her.

On arriving at the police station, she took a seat and waited calmly. Other women, mainly nurses, were also waiting, sitting on the floor.

An hour later, she was called. She entered an office where there was a male officer. In a quiet but unsettling voice, he told her to answer the questions that would be put to her. He then left her with a female officer, who accusing her of “lying” in her reports and told her to admit her links with the Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar and the Iranian Arabic-language TV station Al-Alam. “You must confess,” the woman kept repeating, going on to accuse her of participating in the pro-democracy demonstrations that have taking place in Bahrain since March.

An hour later, she was taken to another office. There, a woman police officer mocked and insulted her. When Nazeeha ignored her, the policewoman grabbed her by the chin, held it hard, and slapped her with the other hand. “You must tell me the truth,” she screamed, continuing to slap her and then seizing her by the hair and throwing her to the ground. Four policewomen proceeded to slap, punch and kick her repeatedly. One of the women took her shoe and forced it into her mouth. “You are worth less than this shoe," she said.

With the shoe still in her mouth, she was dragged to yet another office, where she was blindfolded and was initially made to stand. Then she was forced to kneel on a chair, facing the back of the chair, exposing her back and the soles of her feet, which were now beaten repeatedly with a piece of flexible black plastic tubing. As she cried out with pain, a police officer kept shouting “Shut up and answer my questions” without asking any questions or without giving her time to say anything.

She continued to be accused of lying and of “harming Bahrain’s image.” The blows kept on coming. The blindfold finally fell from her eyes and she noticed the male officer, the one who had spoken to her initially, coldly observing the scene.

Nazeeha was then taken to a room where there were other women, nurses, who were awaiting their turn to be interrogated.

After a while, she was taken back for another interrogation session. The nightmare resumed. Blindfolded again, she was told to bray like a donkey and to walk like an animal. A new humiliation. And she was beaten again. At one point, a woman held a plastic bottle against her mouth. “Drink, it’s urine,” the woman cried, pressing her lips against the mouth of the bottle. Nazeeha managed to knock the bottle out of the policewoman’s hand, but the policewoman picked it up and poured part of its contents over her face. Nazeeha did not know what it was, but it stung her face.

She was taken to another office and was forced to kneel on a chair again. The soles of her feet, her back, her arms and her head were again beaten with the plastic tube.

She was taken back to the room where other women were waiting and the blindfold was removed. When she recovered the use of her eyes, she saw that it was past midnight. All the women, including Nazeeha, were now allowed to go to the toilet and were brought food. They were also brought documents to sign, without being able to read them. Nazeeha signed.

The policewoman who had initially received her at the police station checked all the women with a stethoscope and told them they would be sent to prison for 45 days, pending trial.

The head of the police station nonetheless asked to see Nazeeha. He told her he was very surprised to find her there and pretended not to know she had been interrogated. She was allowed to phone her mother and was finally allowed to return home. But she has not yet recovered from the ordeal. She continues to suffer physical and psychological after-effects.

The interior ministry subsequently announced proceedings against those responsible for the mistreatment. Nazeeha gave an account of her ordeal to the military prosecutor in charge of the investigation.

She is currently in France receiving medical care and is due to return to Bahrain tomorrow.

Reporters Without Borders is appalled by the way this journalist was mistreated and urges the authorities to carry out an independent and transparent investigation that sheds all possible light on this shocking and disgraceful episode. Those responsible should be charged and tried, as should those in the chain of command who were involved.

This young woman’s case gives a glimpse of the treatment of journalists by security forces in Bahrain. The list of detained reporters, photographers and cyber-dissidents keeps on getting longer amid complete indifference on the part of the international community.

Has France Lost its Grip on Africa?

12 May 2011

Lee Mwit

The headstone was in place, the epitaph inscribed. Throughout last year, as 17 African countries headily celebrated the 50th anniversary of the parting of ways with their former colonial master, the unanimous view was that France's once considerable influence on the continent was on its deathbed. A number of factors contributed to this perception: The death of the Machiavellian Jacques Foccart, better known "Mr Africa", the demise of former Côte d'Ivoire president Félix Houphouët-Boigny, the 1997 ascent to power of the puritanical premier Lionel Jospin and the emergence of a new breed of younger African leaders contemptible of France's indulgence of dictators.

France's murky role in the events leading to Rwanda's 1994 genocide was seen as further erosion of its image, as did the unease bred in Francophone Africa by the painful devaluation of the CFA Franc that same year. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, on his 2007 election to the French presidency, further embellished the theme, promising that his country would no longer unduly interfere in the affairs of its former African colonies. "Times have changed and it's not up to France to play the gendarme in Africa," he said on a 2008 trip to South Africa, despite Paris having a host of military agreements, defence pacts and bases on the continent. An investigation into the source of millions of dollars in assets held in the country by three long-serving African oligarchs was allowed to go on - additional proof of France's readiness to let Africa run its own show sometimes at the expense of its former stooges. President Ali Bongo Ondimba, whose father was a target of the probe, told Paris.

With the phenomenal inroads made by China into Africa, where it is the continent's biggest trading partner, France was not only being eased out of the continent but also being rejected. In truth, la République Française never really went anywhere. The past six months have shown up as fanciful talk of Paris fading into the twilight. French tanks and gunships dealt the final blow to defiant strongman Laurent Gbagbo, with reports from the deposed Ivorian leader's camp suggesting that French special forces had captured him. "In West Africa, France was never really out of the picture. They have had a military presence in Cote d'Ivoire going back to colonial days, and their current deployment was approved by Ivorian and UN resolutions. An intervention in Cote d'Ivoire was a 'no-brainer' for France," Mark Schroeder, director of sub-Saharan Africa analysis for Texas-based intelligence firm Stratfor said. Sarkozy was also at the forefront of military planning for the ongoing campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

Action in Libya

Paris was the setting of a decisive March summit of the world's most powerful military nations, which drew up operational details after the United Nations imposed a no-fly zone over Libya. To further drive the point home, the French president, who referred to Muammar Gaddafi as perpetuating "murderous madness" against civilians, authorised the first strikes against the Libyan leader's forces, and has since remained at the helm of the airstrikes. "In Libya, the civilian population, which is demanding the right to choose its own destiny, is in mortal danger. It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal," stressed Sarkozy.

France was also controversially the first country to recognise the Libyan National Council - the rebels' organisational vehicle - as the country's legitimate government. "Libya was a different scenario. The French did not have pre-positioned forces in the North African country, but Libya was a location French aircraft and ships could reach from the homeland," said Mr Schroeder. "France's intervention in Libya was to demonstrate, particularly to the rest of Europe, and especially Germany, its independent ability to project military force, and to use that sense of confidence to project its influence as a European power that should be recognised," he added.

The signs have all along been there of France's pining for a continued say in African affairs. On January 30, Sarkozy became the first French head of state to address the African Union since 1963, at an Addis Ababa summit where he was also interestingly the guest of honour. He began by soothing the gathered presidents by assuring them of co-operation and support for Africa's bid for a Security Council seat. "France is assuming the weighty responsibility of the presidency of the G8 and G20. I promise to do everything to involve Africa as closely as possible in this double French presidency. I have been convinced for a long time now that Africa hasn't had its rightful place in international governance," he said.

But he would have some of the gathered leaders fidgeting uncomfortably when he expressed support for the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, in what he called a "sensitive topic". "France respects the sovereignty of states and the right of peoples to self-determination. She has no desire to lecture, nor to seek to impose a model. By what right could she do so? But there are values that are universal: Those of the United Nations Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. In today's world, one can no longer govern the same way as in the world of yesterday. Either this change is inflicted upon you. or you anticipate and guide it, and it can take place without clashes, without rifts, and without opening the door to all kinds of unpredictable events."

However, it is France's investments on the continent that offer the clearest pointer that it will continue to wield considerable clout. In May last year, some 40 African leaders and 250 business executives attended a two-day summit in the Mediterranean city of Nice meant to deepen economic ties. France already holds the Francophonie summit - its equivalent of the Commonwealth's CHOGM - biennially with all former African colonies a fixture.

In Tunisia, some 1,300 French enterprises straddle the North African country's economy, with French investment in 2009 estimated at $185.5 million, making it the biggest economic partner. In Côte d'Ivoire, an estimated 700 French companies pay half of the West African country's taxes, a situation replicated in up to a dozen other former colonies. Paris, not content with Francophone Africa, has also been aggressively spreading its tentacles to Anglophone countries, with South Africa and Kenya the primary targets.

In Kenya, Premier Raila Odinga has just returned from the French capital with huge energy contracts expected to be drawn up. In 2010, trade between the two countries grew by 10 per cent, with official development body Agence Française de Développement putting up $124 million - 27 per cent of all development aid last year. French companies such as France Telecom and oil giant Total are already major players in the country. Total in October signed a significant $2 billion investment deal in Gabon's petroleum fields. Paris is also the biggest industry investor in Niger's top foreign exchange earner, uranium, through state-owned firm, Areva.

As part of the Gleneagles pledges, France has the biggest aid commitment to Africa as a percentage of G7 gross national incomes, in 2009 translating into $1.19 billion (though that was projected to have fallen to $624 million in 2010, according to One.org, which tracks G8 commitments to the continent). Sarkozy's address in Addis Ababa was unequivocal about France's future engagements with Africa. "We're not as far apart as is believed. Yes, there was colonisation, yes, there are disagreements, but today, geography brings us together. If we want to control migration flows, combat terrorism, we must help you succeed in your economic development. France is convinced of this reality," he said. Sarkozy has already visited Africa at least six times in his first four years in office as he seeks to entrench French interests.

These Winds of Change May Now Reach Across the Sahara

8 March 2011

Wangari Maathai

As protests against authoritarian rule spread throughout north Africa and the Middle East, I've been asked whether similar pro-democracy protests could take place in sub-Saharan Africa too.

At first glance, the conditions appear ripe. Many sub-Saharan Africans also struggle daily with the consequences of poor governance, stagnating economies and dehumanising poverty, and rampant violations of human rights.

It's difficult for an outsider to know the local reasons why people in any society finally decide they've had enough of their leaders and rise up against them. It's also dangerous to assume that revolutions occurring simultaneously have the same root causes. But certain factors do help explain the volatility in north Africa and the relative quiet to the south – and why that may not persist indefinitely. The first is the idea of the nation itself, along with regional identity. Because the great majority of peoples of north Africa and the Middle East are Arabs, their ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural connections provide a degree of solidarity within and across national boundaries. The majority think less along ethnic and more along lines of national identity. Al-Jazeera provides a wealth of information in the region's common language, Arabic, and allows one country's news to reach a broad regional swathe practically instantaneously.

Many in the younger generation are well-educated professionals, eager to make their voices heard. And in Tahrir Square, we heard the protesters chant: "We are all Egyptians," no matter where they came from in Egypt, their social status, or even their religion (Egypt has a small but significant population of Coptic Christians). That sense of national identity was essential to their success. But that national spirit, sadly, is lacking in much of sub-Saharan Africa. For decades, under colonial rule and since independence, many leaders have exploited their peoples' ethnic rivalries and linguistic differences to sow division and maintain their ethnic group's hold on power and the country's purse strings. To this day, in many such states, ethnicity has greater resonance than national identity.

Instead of encouraging inter-ethnic understanding and solidarity, leaders have set communities against each other in a struggle for resources and power, making it difficult for citizens to join together for the national interest.

A second factor is the role of the military. The Egyptian army's decision not to fire on protesters was key to the success of the February revolution. Sadly, we couldn't expect the same in sub-Saharan Africa, where in many – if not most – nations both police and army are sources of instability and rancour. Quite often soldiers are hired, paid and promoted by the man in power. As a result, their first loyalty is not to the nation, but to whomever is in the state house.

In addition, the majority of the army's recruits may be drawn from the leader's ethnic group, especially if the leader has been in power for many years. Since it isn't likely that the soldiers' micro-nation (tribe) would be demonstrating in the streets, it can be relatively easy for them to open fire on protesters with a certain sense of impunity.

More tragic evidence of this was provided last week when unarmed women expressing their opinion about the disputed election in Ivory Coast were mown down by troops loyal to the incumbent president. Not only was this a clear violation of human rights, but evidence of recklessness and impunity, and the extreme lengths to which leaders will go to protect their power.

A third factor is the flow of information. North Africans' geographic proximity to Europe and the ability of significant numbers to travel or study abroad have exposed them to other influences and horizons. Many have access to the latest technology and the wherewithal to use social media to communicate and organise to great effect.

But the large majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa don't have access to the same levels of education, or information and technology. It may be that their media are controlled by the state, or independent voices are so worried about being harassed or shut down that they censor themselves or shy away from politics altogether. These constraints make it difficult for ordinary citizens to understand how their governments operate, and less able to calibrate the power of a united and determined people.

Finally, oor people tend to tolerate poor governance and fear both their perceived lack of power and their leaders. This year in north Africa enough people shed their fear of losing jobs and property, of reprisals, detention, torture and even death. Until a critical mass does the same, it's unlikely sub-Saharan Africa will emulate the kind of "people power" we've seen in the north.

Even so, many sub-Saharan leaders must be paying close attention and asking themselves: "Could it happen here – my people rising up against me?" Some will make changes, perhaps cosmetic, to appease their populations; others may take bigger steps. One lesson I hope all will draw is that it's better to leave office respected for working for what they believed was the common good, rather than risk being driven out, repudiated and humiliated, by their own people.

Even though internet-organised pro-democracy protests earlier this week in Luanda, Angola's capital, were broken up by security forces and the protesters threatened with harsh reprisals by a senior member of the ruling party – tactics we have seen used in numerous African regimes over the years – the truth is that people are not rising up without reason. They are unhappy with how they are being governed and have tried others methods to bring about change that haven't worked.

A wind is blowing. It is heading south, and won't be suppressed forever. In Ivory Coast, despite last week's brutal attack, on the eve of International Women's Day hundreds of women marched to the spot where their colleagues were killed, a clear demonstration that, slowly but surely, even Africans south of the Sahara will shed their fear and confront their dictatorial leaders. The women's bravery will be an inspiration to others in Africa and elsewhere.

Eventually the information gap in sub-Saharan Africa will be bridged, partly because the world is not closed anymore: al-Jazeera, CNN and mobile phones – all available in sub-Saharan Africa – mean information can be transferred instantly. There is no doubt that those in the south are watching what's happening in the north.

I also hope that the extraordinary events in the north encourage all leaders to provide the governance, development, equity and equality, and respect for human rights their people deserve – and to end the culture of impunity. If its member states are slow to recognise the inevitability of change, let us hope that the African Union encourages heads of state to acknowledge that Africa cannot remain an island where leaders continue in office for decades, depriving their people of their rights, violating their freedoms, and impoverishing them.

In conflict and war, Africa and all its peoples lose. It would be so much better to see Africa awake and have revolutions brought about by the ballot box in free and fair elections, instead of by tanks and bullets.

Oil Politics: Oil, despotism and Philanthropic Tokenism

3 March 2011

Nnimmo Bassey

 

 

Equatorial Guinea sits in the heart of Africa and is the fourth highest producer of crude oil in sub-Saharan Africa after Nigeria, Angola, and Sudan. It has reaped huge revenues from crude oil sales since 1995 when commercial export began, although discovery of the product was made in the 1960s. It is one country whose political experience will make the years of brute military rule in Nigeria a mere child's play in comparison.

 

The current maximum ruler of that country took over power in a bloody military coup in 1979, eleven years after that country's independence from Spain. At that time, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo was a Lieutenant Colonel and his uncle, Francisco Macia Nguema, was the president. He is said to have personally supervised the execution of his uncle by firing squad and has reigned supreme over the country of less than a million people since then.

 

The nation's GDP of about $37,900 is many times above that of Nigeria. The truth, however, is that the high GDP does not translate to a better life for the people. Since the ascendancy of crude oil as a major income earner, other aspects of the economy, especially production of agricultural produce such as cocoa, have suffered neglect. Does that not remind you of Nigeria?

 

While looking up on President Nguema, one could not avoid visiting the pages of Wikipedia where parts of the entry on this man reveals the following: "In July 2003, state-operated radio declared Obiang to be a god who is "in permanent contact with the Almighty" and "can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell." He personally made similar comments in 1993. Despite these comments, he still claims that he is a devout Catholic and was invited to the Vatican by John Paul II and again by Benedict XVI. Macías had also proclaimed himself a god.'

 

Standing up to the despot

 

The president, his family, relatives, and friends are said to own most businesses in the country. With the severe curtailment of freedom in the country, it has come as a vent of fresh air when the writer, Juan Tomas Avila Laurel, called for change and embarked on a hunger strike demanding an end to the despotic reign in his country.

 

In a letter to Jose Bono Martinez, the president of Spanish parliament, dated 11 February 2011, Mr. Laurel states among other things that, "Since you believe so deeply in the moral solvency of President Obiang, who has been in power since 1979, we fervently request that you exert some influence and take steps towards the formation of a government of transition; one in which those who have held positions in the last 32 years in Equatorial Guinea must not take any part.

"This is not a political demand, as it might seem to you, but a socially and morally driven one. We cannot continue living under a dictatorship that eats away at our very souls.

 

"Mr. Bono, all we are asking is that you find asylum in a safe country for Obiang, his son Teodorin, first lady Constancia, and his brothers and cousins, the generals and colonels who maintain this unspeakable regime. We believe that one-third of the money that any one of them has deposited in banks abroad would be enough to support themselves for the rest of their days. The remaining sum has to be returned to the country."

 

The letter ends with a painful plea for intervention: "Mr. Bono, it is not fair for me to put my life in your hands. I will not deny, however, that whatever happens to me will depend in great measure on what you do."

 

Gaddafi's oily stand and neo-philanthropists

 

The events in North Africa and in the Middle East clearly highlight the fact that crude oil has been largely responsible for the entrenchment of crude regimes in the region. This is particularly visible in Libya where the man who has been in power for over four decades clings on, threatens to cleanse the country of protesters house to house and if necessary blow up the oil and gas fields of the country.

 

This threat has introduced a new dimension to the volatility of crude oil supply and threatens to push prices to record high. Call him what you like, but Mr. Gaddafi and his cohorts have fed from the feeding bottle of crude oil and taking that from them without a period of weaning is bound to result in the slaughter and tantrums that is the hall mark of the regime in Tripoli.

 

A quick look back at the third week of February 2011 shows that as we saw a fine being slammed on the oil giant, Chevron, for polluting the Amazonian region of Ecuador, we heard of the company's philanthropic move in the Niger Delta. The gesture is a clear case of philanthropic tokenism. It appears that Chevron sought to draw attention away from the long-awaited verdict from Ecuador by moving across the Atlantic and displaying a suspect front of compassion in the bloodstained and oil soaked creeks of the Niger Delta. The link and the timing are inescapable.

 

The company announced with much fanfare a splash of $50 million, ostensibly to ignite economic development and tackle conflict in the region - of which, it must be said, the company admitted to being a contributor in the past. The money is being funnelled through the company's Niger Delta Partnership Initiative and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and will be spent over the next four years. The thrust will obviously be to generate employment since the oil company hires only a tiny fraction of the millions it has impoverished through the destruction of the creeks, swamps, farmlands and forests that they depend on for their livelihoods through oil spills, gas flares, and the dumping of other toxic wastes.

 

These are interesting days indeed. Without doubt, crude oil business is not only volatile, but explosive. It is the stuff that oils the machinery of despotism and it is the stuff that blinds the world to the bloods that flow on the streets as people fight for liberty.

 

It is also the stuff that bluffs and seeks to blind us from demanding environmental justice but accepting tokens.