Yes we can.

If Americans can throw out conventional thinking and a complete paradigm shift of seismic proportions and elect a black Man with a foreign sounding name, Ignore years of racial acrimony differences, stereotypes, Then we Africans have a lot to learn in regard to democracy, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.

l have just come to learn that true leaders are not made, but are indeed Born. You can have all the experience and the political pedigree, But at the end you cannot deliver no matter what. Certain men exude a certain confidence, integrity and the ability to lead and inspire “Hope” among there respective constituency’s, a good example are a well known cast of characters….

Winston Churchill, the WW2, British prime Minister who inspired hope, among Britons amid hopelessness and potential defeat by the Nazis, Ronald Reagan who won the cold war without firing a single missile, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King jnr who fought for civil rights and inspired American Blacks with his leadership…. Nelson Mandela who emerged from jail and united a racially divided south Africa after years of apartheid, our own Tom Mboya who inspired countless African trade unionists, and young politicians to fight the yoke of colonialism and exploitation only to fall to an assassins bullet…and now Obama.

Obama now has that rare chance to prove he can lead and inspire a whole generation of young people for a better and brighter future.

For us in Africa, it’s time to focus on the fight against well known suspects..Poverty ignorance and disease, tribalism, racism and corruption not necessarily in that order.

We need to invite and initiate open discussion and debate about the road ahead — invite the well known unwanted guest called DEMOCRACY and give him a chance, to prevail/build enviable institutions, and governments elected by the ballot not the bullet.

It’s about time to change the status quo and give our children and people hope for the future.

Phil Ole Sompisha
Mad_Moran

Popularity: 2% [?]

Introduction

Africa entered the 21st century with immeasurable optimism, hope and the promise of a bright future after decades of chaos. This new-found optimism in the hitherto “forgotten continent” was rooted on developments unfolding within Africa and on the international scene. “African renaissance” as this resurgence came to be called, was inspired by the birth of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African development (NEPAD). These new instruments of African power ushered the continent into a new century, and also signalled a new dawn in Africa’ relations with the outside world. This internal revolution coincided with the renewal of interest in Africa by great powers.

The prospects and challenges of African development in the 21st century have been (and continue to be) shaped by two conflicting forces. The first pressure emanates from outside players wrestling for Africa’s strategic and natural resources. This external pressure largely defines the pattern of trade, aid, investment and development in Africa. The second push comes from within Africa as the continent struggles to mobilise its resources in pursuit of development. “African solutions to African problems” as this new drive is called, attempts to give an African orientation to Africa’s developmental challenges which revolve around political instability, conflicts, poverty, disease, economic stagnation and lack of infrastructure.

Another significant cause for optimism in Africa in the Third Millennium was the coming of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2000. This ambitious scheme which has been adopted by 190 nations outlined eight critical goals which fundamentally touched on the roots of Africa’s developmental challenges. These goals include; the eradication of poverty and hunger, the achievement of universal primary education, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, the reduction of child mortality, the improvement of material health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and the development of a global partnership for development.

The MDGs highlighted the need to co-ordinate global efforts in lending a hand to Africa and to bring the continent into the orbit of what French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a “globalized world” at the September 2008 UN Meeting on African development. “The globalized world needs Africa,” he said. “It would be a delusion to envision Europe’s prosperity without working for the emergence of a major economic partner.” Sarkozy’s hope-laden message is quite similar to those echoed repeatedly by many world leaders aimed either at placating or comforting Africa. President George Bush earlier in February 2008 inspired hope in the continent when he declared “Africa in the 21st century is a continent of potential.” Behind these loud promises of hope, there is also a large vacuum of undelivered promises to Africa.

A decade of undelivered promises

For all its efforts at development, for all its pleas for assistance, and in its struggle to escape from plaguing poverty, Africa has received several responses, among them undelivered promises This “… rhetoric or fancy accounting” as Takumo Yamada, spokesman for Oxfam International described it, has left serious repercussions on Africa’s way out of poverty. Though the balance sheet of African development shows positive improvements, these gains cannot be consolidated with Africa’s efforts alone. Commending Africa’s struggle for development, UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto observed, “Brave as its nations may be — and we know that they are brave indeed, — Africa cannot move ahead on its own.”

From the MDGs of 2000, through the aid promises of the G8 at Gleneagles in 2005, to promises made at bilateral and multilateral levels, Africa has been fed to the full with rhetoric. While traditional problems of political instability, violent conflicts, economic stagnation, poverty, disease and malnutrition continue to baffle the continent, Africa still has to make room for words. With the emergence of new global challenges such as the world food and fuel crises, the world financial crisis, and climate change, there are looming fears all around the developing world that the developed countries will hide behind such excuses to renege on pledges made to Africa.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon raised such concerns when he called on the developed countries to come to Africa’s rescue. “No one is more alarmed than you at the current trends which indicate that no African country will achieve the Millennium development Goals by 2015.” Ban cited the colossal $267 billion spent by OECD countries last year alone on agricultural subsidies to highlight his call for increased attention to Africa. It becomes even more pathetic to realise that these subsidies are part of Africa’s development frustration.

This same EU which invests considerable energy and resources on subsidies to farmers, made a pledge of $15 billion to ACP countries under the Cotonou Agreement in 2000. Eight years on little is yet to be realised. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal sounded his frustration with Europe, the West and the G8 over undelivered promises to Africa in very harsh terms. “I achieved more in my one hour meeting with President Hu Jintao — during the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm than I did during the entire orchestrated meeting of world leaders at the summit – where African leaders were told little more than that the G8 nations would respect existing agreements.” Continued he, “It is time for the west to practise what it preaches.”

When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair diagnosed Africa’s problem as “a scar on the conscience of the world” in 2005, expectations ran high that under his stewardship of the G8 Africa’s salvation was in sight. Under Blair’s leadership, the G8 vowed to “more than double aid to Africa,” backing this up with a promise of $25 billion worth of aid to the continent by 2010. Three years on, only $4billion of this money has materialised. “Does any body seriously think the 21 billion-dollar gap will be met in two years?” asked Glennys Kinnock, Chair of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly. Citing the current financial crisis as a possible excuse for developed countries to renege on their promises to Africa, she insisted “If the strongest economise need stability, the weakest economies need dependability.”

As African leaders continue to make their pendulum swings east and west in search of develop assistance, they always return with briefcase-loads of promises. President George Bush promised a “Lazarus effect” on the continent when he came visiting in February 2008. China had promised salvation to Africa in the form of a “win-win” relationship. The EU with a waning influence on Africa, continues to make overtures in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Japan promised to make the 21st century “a century of Africa” through an agricultural revolution. India promised to transform the 21st century into a “Century of Asia and Africa.” President Sarkozy offered to be more transparent to Africa and cried out loud that “the suffering of the black man is the suffering of all men.”

It would, however, be grossly misleading o underestimate the role of external assistance in Africa’s development efforts. Africa’s current 6% growth rate, the reduction of conflicts, new democratic strides, the growth of trade, investment and infrastructure all owe significantly to new opportunities provided by outside players. Europe despite its declining trade with Africa, still remains a significant development partner. America’s Agricultural Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) have opened up vast trade and investment opportunities for Africa. Her role in advancing democracy, checking terrorism and contributing towards fighting AIDS and malaria are highly commendable efforts. China and India, the new “Southern drivers” of the global economy are the new forces behind Africa’s new growth patterns. These Asian powers have also made invaluable contributions in the area of infrastructural development in Africa.

These contributions notwithstanding, as long as the outside players continue to attach strings to their assistance to Africa, as long as the continent continues to be viewed as a place to be robbed in the name of aid or trade, as long as Africa is seen as a charity case, as long as their economic relations with Africa are shaped by ulterior motives, the MDGs will have little meaning. When trade with Africa becomes trade in arms, when the continent is militarised for any reason whatsoever, when promises of aid become practises of plunder, every effort will boil down to conflict and misery, the same ills the MDGs have vowed to check. Observed Ban Ki Moon, “The recent spate of conflicts over food and natural resources show that our security depends on building prosperity in the developing world.”

Africa’s fragile trade regime and the challenges of development

Among Africa’s countless economic problems, its fragile trade regime stands out distinct. According to a report published in September 2008 by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the continent has not only lost its share of global trade in the last twenty five years, but the level and composition of its exports have not changed significantly.

The UNCTAD report which examined the effects of recent trade liberalization policies on African observed that these policies have not had any impact on intra-African trade. According to the report, intra-African trade accounted for only eight percent of total African trade in 2006, a figure much lower than in other regions.

The causes (and consequences) of Africa’s poor trade performance are many. Heavy dependence on primary products makes the continent very vulnerable to fluctuating commodity prices. Poor infrastructure leads to heavy transportation costs. Bad weather conditions result in crop failure hampering food production and trade. Low levels of technology and mechanization lead directly to very low productivity. Diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria and typhoid take a heavy toll on Africa’s youthful population leading to a shortage of manpower in production. Conflicts in the continent seriously hamper. Western agricultural subsidies send a direct and dangerous ripple effect on African farmers. This is further worsened by the erection of tariff barriers against African products in the markets of developed countries.

This unfavourable trade structure was highlighted earlier by South African President Thabo Mbeki who frowned at the nature of Sino-African trade. “The challenge is that you could — develop a relationship between China and the African continent which in reality isn’t different from that developed between Africa and the former colonial powers.” He made the same call at the Japan-Africa Summit in Yokohama in May 2008 when he insisted that Africa’s future economic development should be based on trade not aid. “Without discounting the importance of trade” Mbeki said, “improved terms of trade are critical to ensure [Africa's] full integration into the global economy.”

Among the many changes in Africa’s trade structure advocated by Mbeki was the call for greater access to new technologies at affordable prices and investment in research and development, technology and innovation as key instruments in enhancing African trade and ensuring economic growth. Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete spoke the same language at the Fourth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 1V) calling on Japan to increase its trade with Africa. “What remains to be seen” he said, “is increased trade and investment between Africa and Japan ….”

What prospects for the MDGs

2015 is the target year of the Millennium Development Goals. Halfway in 2008, Ban Ki Moon has made it clear that the goals cannot be realised with the current trends. What makes this prospect bleaker is the number of new challenges facing the developed countries especially the current global financial crisis. Africa as usual stands at the receiving end of these odds.

The current trend also shows that without any major changes in its relations with its “development partners,” Africa has to pay the price not only for their economic problems, but for their further development as well. For example, the EU, caught up in the middle of its integration and economic crisis is trying to force a bitter pill down the throats of Africa in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements. Fearful of loosing Africa to its perceived rival - China, the U.S. is embracing a military approach towards Africa in the name of an Africa Command (AFRICOM). China on its part has embarked on a wanton exploitation of Africa’s raw materials backed by a counter-productive arms trade and also raising environmental concerns in the continent.

Though the MDGs touched on pertinent issues affecting the continent, they significantly avoided the perennial problems of migration, brain drain, capital flight and ethnicity which threaten the growth, peace and stability of Africa. No discussion about African development can be complete without paying regard to Africa’s youths, a large proportion of whom are, or will become migrants in search for decent lives. This youthful population also constitutes the cream of Africa’s intellectual wealth and therefore the engine of its future development.

Conclusion

Development is a process rooted in time and space. Every development process requires resources (human and natural). The external factor is also significant. Among these however, the human resource is the most important. President Bush did not miss the point when he observed “Africa’s most valuable resource is not its oil; it’s not its diamonds, it’s the talent and creativity of its people.” It is only when Africa’s “development partners” realise the need to make Africa’s human wealth more productive that the MDGs would have scored a point. To think that promises and hypocrisy can bail Africa out of poverty would be wishful thinking and the consequences will be shared by all. Bush again, “We have seen that conditions on the other side of the world can have a direct impact on our security.”

Climate change for example is a vivid illustration of how Africa has had to pay for the crimes of others. Said Ban Ki Moon, “it is sadly ironic that the poor who contribute the least to global warming suffer most from its ill effects.” It was in this light that the UN boss reminded the world that investing $72 billion yearly to achieve the MDGs, to pull “millions out of extreme poverty in Africa looks like good value.” The promises, the prospects and the challenges of the Millennium Development Goals stare at Africa, they stare at the world. “Paternalism has got to be a thing of the past,” said President Bush. “Joint venturing with good, capable people is what the future is all about.”
Sources

Resources:

• Associated Press “Text of Bush on Africa,” Available at — http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJfYtgrYmyZQKxAD8UQESG00

• Executive Intelligence Review Japan Pledges To Eradicate — Hunger in Africa in 10 Years, June 6, 2008 Issue.

• FINANCIAL TIMES “Africa-China Trade” Thursday, January 24 2008, p.6

• Millennium Challenge Corporation Fact Sheet. “MCC and Africa: A Growing Partnership for Success.” September 3, 2008. Available at www.mc.gov

• Offah Obale, “Africa’s Export Performance still Dismal, Says UNCTAD, IPS. — Tuesday October 7, 2008.

• United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-third General Assembly High-Level Plenary on Africa, GA/10748, New York, September 22, 2008.

Popularity: 7% [?]

 Columnist - John Sammon
You’ve heard of a Freudian slip. This is where you accidentally reveal some hidden thing in which you believe. Time and again, Republicans have revealed, sometimes outright, while at the same time attempting to pander to the American people as working class heroes, that they consider Americans to be superior to other peoples. Especially white Americans.

Do you? Because you’re American, do you feel you’re better? One of the chosen people?

During the first debate, McCain wouldn’t look at Obama. This is because McCain thinks of Obama as an upstart nigger.

McCain’s handlers told him about this gaff, and in their last debate, McCain literally hugged Obama (a theatrical ploy to gain votes by trying to show he’s friendly to blacks).

The reason for the original snub is also the reason McCain is against any dialog (communication) with countries we’ve decided we don’t like, like Syria. Syria might use its influence in the region to help control terrorism.

I’m only saying it’s a possibility.

Instead, turn your back. Because hostility and non-communication are better, despite the fact that in the past we’ve befriended some ruthless dictatorships, while selectively condemning others. We originally befriended Saddam Hussein, and only turned on him when he wouldn’t act like the good puppet we thought we had in our pocket.

Why do Republicans constantly talk about God and America as though we’re the only country in the world whom God favors? As though we’re the only country that matters?

Here’s the way they (Republicans) word it.

• “I’m fearful his America is not my America” (implies ownership of America).

• “Our troops are on a mission from God” (implies God is a four-star American general).

“Bomb bomb bomb…bomb bomb Iran” (sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann). Meant as a joke by McCain, it trivializes, dismisses as nothing, the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people, including women and children.

There are three main dysfunctional reasons to think we’re better.

1. We’re more powerful militarily.

2. We’re richer.

3. We know God. Others don’t.

To Republicans, there are niggers here in this country, that we (whites) are better than. But there are others. Many others.

Here is a partial list of countries, who, according to the right wing, could also be considered niggers:

Canada – A bunch of displaced French frogs and faggots in Mountie suits up in the north woods. Even though they’re socialistic and soft on terror, at least, they stay where they are.

Unlike –

Mexico – Cactus niggers. Ruining the United States by coming here, illegally populating huge tracts of land of which they used to own that we illegally but patriotically stole from them. I don’t like ‘em, but I’ll let ‘em landscape my yard.

Arabs – Sand niggers. A worthless bunch of stinking, sheep-stealing, turban-wearing Sabu-fetch-my-slippers assbites…..except the Saudis (the springboard for Al-Qaeda), whom, even though they’re inferior…we can tolerate because of their oil. Their royal family act a lot like we do.

The British – They support every war we engage in. They’re faggy and weak looking but at least they’re white, and they gave us the Beatles.

Japan – They’re still just Japs. We’ve watched too many old World War Two movies to change that.

The Russians – Godless, communistic-inclined Bolsheviks who attacked Georgia. Only the United States has the right to attack other countries (Palin said we might attack Russia).

China – A bunch of modernizing Chinks whom we as yet have no problem with.

South America – All those countries down there, a bunch of stupid looking, weak-coffee-colored Indians walking around like they don’t have a clue. Sandals on their feet. No shopping malls. They’re lucky we tolerate them.

All of Africa – If God didn’t intend them to be unlucky, he wouldn’t have put them in huts as ignorant, disease-ridden savages. If you want the true story of Africa, watch Tarzan movies.

Pakistan – More turban heads. We’re going to violate their sovereignty without their permission to go after terrorists. We can fight a war with them since we have two other wars we haven’t won. We’ll have ourselves in a war with those ignorant bastards and we’ll make it look like they started it.

——————————————-

Popularity: 6% [?]

Listening to Chinese and African leaders pronounce so passionately about Sino-African relations, one gets the impression that the citizens of China and Africa now walk hand in hand in that kind of love, peace and harmony which is preached only by the Holy Bible. Advocates of this alliance have blown it out of proportion, further creating the false notion that China has agreed to inherit all of Africa’s troubles, including the perennial problem of migration. This single problem without doubt, is the most visible manifestation of frustration among Africa’s youths. The Beijing Olympic Games provided an opportunity for a proper reassessment of China’s attitude towards African migrants.

China won the bid to host the Olympic Games in July 2001. Since then, Beijing and other co-host cities have been beehives. China’s entire economic, political/diplomatic and security machinery were activated to ensure a blemish-free Olympics. The construction of giant stadiums, roads, railways, new airport terminals and hotels all attest to the importance China attached to the XX1X Olympiad, the first event of such magnitude in the history of modern China.

Besides such visible projects, the invisible but potentially devastating problem of security remained a major worry for Beijing. Directly linked to this was the omnipresent population crisis especially as China despite its demographic burden had to make space for an estimated 1.5 million more people from around the world. On the eve of the Games, China’s capital, Beijing, held about 250,000 foreign nationals. To ensure the smoothness of the Games therefore, and to protect life and property during this trying period, Beijing invested considerable energy on security.

The mass mobilization of security personnel and equipment in the months preceding the Games came along with a volley of laws. These laws touched on an old problem-migration which logically is a by product of China’s economic boom in recent years. China’s rise to economic prominence has made it a center of attraction for migrants from all over the world. Africans increasingly count among this rising number of foreign migrants. This population pressure from outside has added to an even bigger problem of internal migration from China’s country sides to its bulging cities. This population crisis was therefore the basis of the series of immigration laws which Beijing dished out in rapid succession in the months preceding the Olympic Games.

In a previous article titled “The long road to the east: African immigrants in China.,” I observed that African migrants greatly differ in their opinions about China. Theses opinions depend largely on the opportunities exposed to them. By extension of this logic, such opportunities would depend on whether these migrants find themselves in what I called “Afro-friendly” or “Afro-phobic” provinces, cities or towns. However, much has changed since then. Whether In “Afro-friendly” or “Afro-phobic” places, the message is clear. The possibilities and chances for African migrants in China are becoming slimmer and slimmer. The remaining possibilities are; sinking underground in the face of police checks (for those without papers), proving their worth and loyalty so that they can be covered by their employers (for those in regular employment), switching to other visa categories (which are easy to renew) or return home voluntarily or otherwise.

The African continent has been part of China’s Olympic story in many ways. Cordial diplomatic relations and firm economic ties were the twin forces shaping Sino-African relations when Beijing won the bid to host the Games in 2001. This relationship grew stronger over the years, attracting the scorn of the West. In very bitter terms, the West criticized China on grounds of undermining democracy and human rights by supporting rogue and Pariah states in the continent. Western human rights activists and pro-democracy lobbyists used the cases of Sudan and Zimbabwe to brand the Beijing Games as “genocide Olympics.” The call for the boycott of the Games was very strong in the west. But as the world came to realize, “high politics” triumphed. The opening ceremony saw the conspicuous presence of Presidents George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, two western leaders whose nations had stood at the fore of the boycott controversy. President Bush’s excuse was that he did not want “to politicize” the Olympics.

While the West took China head on in ferocious debates about democracy, human rights and other abuses in Africa, Africa stood firmly by China’s side. In a true spirit of solidarity, not one African country raised a finger about China’s hosting of the Games. Since 2000, African leaders made several visits to Beijing while Chinese leaders also returned these visits to rekindle the flames of this cooperation. In the several accidents and disasters that struck China in the months preceding the Games, Africa showed sympathy to China in kind and cash. In the Sichuan earthquake of May 12 for example, the poor African Island of Mauritius provided China with an aid package worth $300,000 while Morocco responded with $1 million. Except for a few isolated cases of anti-Chinese protests in Africa, the continent continues to welcome waves of Chinese migrants who comb through every available economic opportunity in the continent from agriculture through mining to trade. African migrants face a completely different reality in China.

In all fairness, China’s Olympic laws did not discriminate against any race, color or nationality. The laws were justified on grounds of security especially given that crime rates are already on the rise in China’s major towns and cities. According to security records, foreigners have been implicated in many of these crimes especially those including fake documentation, theft, financial fraud, drugs and even extreme crimes such as murder. These Olympic laws also sought to ensure stricter vigilance on foreigners at a time when western criticisms forced China to raise its security antennae. The spiral of protests that greeted the Olympic touch relay in western capitals, western sympathy for the Tibetan course and China’s fear of outside conspiracy in insurgent activities, especially in the restless Xingjian province, all inspired these laws.

What made Beijing’s immigration laws different from previous immigration laws was the panic and shock wave it generated among the foreign migrant population in China, especially Africans. Hitherto, such laws (which were either imagined or real) were as many as the sands in the sea. It was more of street talk than laws. Each day had its law, each city, each province and indeed each situation had its law as far as immigration was concerned. This is what Chinatravel.net, an official source for immigration news meant when it said “Ask 100 people a question and get 100 different answers, or ask 100 people a question and get the same answer.”

To better grasp the essentials of this piece, a brief discussion about visa categorization in China is instructive. There are basically four categories of visas for foreigners living in China. Tourists are expected to apply for an L visa. Students are issued an X visa. The F visa is for business people while workers need a Z visa. Of the four, the “F” used to be called the “golden card Visa” because of its numerous advantages. It was easy to get, good for up to a year and easy to extend. In April 2008, the validity of this visa was reduced to between 5-30 days. It was automatically replaced in this importance by the Z visa which now remains a treasure among foreign migrants.

The task of issuing a Z visa is the responsibility of two important administrative bodies- The Foreign Experts Bureau (FEB) and the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The FEB assesses the academic, professional and health credentials of the applicant and issues a Foreign Expert’s Certificate which is a precondition for obtaining a Z visa from the PSB. As a rule, once approved by the FEB the applicant is qualified for a Z visa or work permit. But in recent months, especially after the Beijing immigration laws there are mounting cases of applicants successfully passing through the FEB scrutiny only to be denied visas by the PSB for reasons that never go beyond “a new law.” This is where African migrants because of ingrained prejudice suffer most. During visa-festive periods Africans have to criss-cross Chinese towns and cities to identify places where laws are lax. The unfortunate ones (these being the majority), end up with expired visas, opening another painful chapter in their sojourn in China.

Facing the new ordeal

Although on the surface, China’s Olympic laws did not target any country or race, it is not difficult to identify elements of anti-African bias in them especially at the level of implementation.

There is a vast difference between the making of laws and the implementation of these laws in China. In many cases, the high level of inconsistency and ambiguity exposes these laws to several interpretations, reinterpretations and sometimes conscious or inadvertent misinterpretations. In many “Afro-phobic” towns, cities and provinces, these laws are interpreted and implemented by the boss in his/her office and not by any official text. This explains why obtaining work visas before, during and after the Olympics was a function of many things. The most important of them being the bargaining power of the applicant or his employer. There are few cases of luck and of course there are Chinese employers who will defend their African workers to any extent. This again is the exception not the rule.

It is interesting or surprising to find that many schools still carry job adverts prohibiting Africans from applying. The more cautious require applicants to send a recent picture. This is the short way of filtering black from white, or Filipino from westerner. In cases where the desired color or nationality is not forthcoming, Africans are reluctantly employed. Here, they face challenges that range from “accent” to questions that run back to the poverty and misery in Africa. The question of wage discrimination between Africans and whites is an open secret. Only very few Africans can count among those who have successfully paved their way through all the established barriers to reach the height of self esteem.

In the every day vocabulary of “new laws,” China in April 2008 published a list of countries whose nationals were no longer eligible to apply for visas from Hong Kong and Macau. The African countries involved were; Tunisia, Algeria, Congo, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Libya, South Africa, Morocco, Nigeria, Sudan and Sierra Leone. These laws also introduced some drastic changes. F visas issued in China could no longer be renewed in China. Given the large number of Africans involved in trade with China, the difficulties created for the African business community were enormous.

The law also made it impossible to switch visa types from L to F and it suspended the issuing of multiple entry visas. The cumulative effect of these laws was the emergence of a black market for visa trade. Because of the colossal sums that changed hands, many dishonest visa agents joined the fray. African migrants in large numbers have continued to lament in agony as they helplessly watch themselves sink into that dreaded group of wanted illegal immigrants hunted night and day by China’s police forces. The situation has worsened recently because foreigners are subjected to instant checks and it is almost impossible to carry out any official transaction without valid papers.

It is impossible to estimate the number of Africans awaiting deportation in China’s cells and prisons. It is difficult to estimate the number that is on the run. It is equally very hard to tell which new laws will come out tomorrow to spell out the fate of Africans. But one thing is certain; things will never be the same again in this country where Confucius once had fine words for foreigners. “What a joy it is to have friends coming from afar.”

To deny the positive role China has played in the lives of some African migrants would be gross dishonesty. It would be what is known in proverbial terms as eating and wiping one’s mouth on the ground. Many Africans still attest to the kindness of the Chinese people. Many more are still in regular employment, earning wages they could never dream of getting back home. Africans have also been part of the large community of foreigners who have enjoyed unimaginable privileges and immunities in China.

But when all is said and done, African migrants have a right to demand for more in terms of better treatment. At a time when the entire world frets about Sino-African cooperation, at a time when China claims to be Africa’s protector, at a time when Beijing claims to owe a collective social responsibility towards Africa, the first people to feel the impact of this high-pitched language should be the Africans on Beijing’s doorsteps. By virtue of the supposed closeness between China and Africa, these Africans expect a pride of place when it comes to dealing with foreigners.

One asset which Africans have, and which not even history has succeeded in taking away from them is the ability to resist, adapt and develop survival instincts. Africans have survived the worst forms of repression in human history. They have endured discrimination of all forms. African migrants have faced torture, repression and repatriation in all imaginable parts of the world. They are therefore no strangers in this game. But as Niccolo Machiavelli once observed, “diseases are difficult to diagnose but easy to cure when they are young. At an older stage, they become easy to diagnose but difficult to cure.” This is where Chinese immigration authorities have to do some thinking when it comes to dealing with African migrants.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Writes: CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO

Kenya, and now Zimbabwe. Is power-sharing the panacea?

BOYS WILL ALWAYS BE BOYS. A few weeks ago, some male-dominated African lists on the Internet circulated the photos of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe’s daughter Bona, and that of his opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai’s, Rumbi (Zimbabweans have such wonderful names!)

Members were asked which one of them they thought was the more beautiful. Also, which one of the two they would like to marry.

I thought, knowing that most of the chaps that I knew on the lists were anti-Mugabe that Bona would lose.

However, when it comes to matters of women, most men will gladly leave politics at the door, so Bona got many admirers. In the end, it was very close.

   [Bona Mugabe (left) and Rumbi Tsvangirai][Click Pics To Enlarge]
Bona, as the daughter of a president, clearly was receiving the care of a well-paid beautician. She had a glossier look than Rumbi. Half the men, on the other hand, said Rumbi didn’t have Bona’s grim look (much like her father), and exuded more character.

Only one bloke, Thomas (not his real name) rose beyond the limited choices being offered, and said he would marry both! His position was slammed as unprincipled and weak, because he feared the responsibility of choice.

This seemingly frivolous Internet fun game, however, proves how unpredictable African politics can be, and demonstrated that what is ideal and “right” is not always the best and most practical.

Mugabe had sworn that he would never share power with Tsvangirai, after he lost the first round of elections and unleashed so much terror on Tsvangirai ahead of the second round, that the opposition had little choice but to pull out. This left Mugabe to run against himself, and claim a sham victory.

Zimbabwe just plunged further into crisis. Inflation rose to over 20 million per cent, and unemployment skyrocketed to 80 per cent.

As The Observer (London) reported in a long insightful piece, the central bank knocked 10 zeros off the Zimbabwe dollar at the beginning of August because shops and banks could not cope with calculations in the trillions.

When it was launched on August 1, the new dollar was Z$4 to the Pound, but on the black market, it immediately slumped to Z$25. It continued crashing dramatically, and within a month, the black market rate was Z$13,000.

With worthless bank notes, and too broke to print more, three weeks ago the Government announced that it would legalise the use of US dollars and South African Rand as everyday currency.

It would seem that shortly after, Mugabe finally realised that he had run out of wiggle room, and put in a call to South Africa President Thabo Mbeki, who had been mediating the power-sharing talks that seemed doomed to fail.

THE RESULT IS THAT ALL THE MEN who said they would marry Bona Mugabe, would now have a father-in-law with less power than he wielded two months ago.

Those who went for Rumbi Tsvangirai, expecting their father-in-law would be an opposition leader, who came close to becoming Zimbabwe’s president, but not close enough, would have one who is a prime minister and controlling about 51 per cent of the Government.

Thomas would be the greatest winner, with one father-in-law being president, and the other prime minister. It couldn’t be better. However, his fortunes have been scorned.

Daily Nation’s sister publication The East African had South African judge Johann Kriegler, who is heading the commission of inquiry into what went wrong in the December 2007 election, saying he thought these Mwai Kibaki-Raila Odinga, and now Mugabe-Tsvangirai power-sharing deals were undermining Africa’s democracy.

He argued that they offered presidents, who are not ready to retire when their time has come, or who have lost elections, to cling on to power. Within a day, there were many such reservations being aired about the Zimbabwe deal.

Kriegler’s view is particularly interesting, because he should be aware of what is touted as the most successful power-sharing deal in Africa — the transitional government between the African Nation Congress’ leader Nelson Mandela, and F. W. de Klerk, who was president and leader of the racist National Party that had jailed him for 27 years.

This is not to say there are no problems with governments where power is shared.

Because there can never be two winners in an election contest, they reward losers and turn the logic of elections — the idea that the person or party that is preferred by most voters should form government — on its head.

And while power-sharing might give unpopular incumbents a way back into power through a back door, they can also equally hand disorganised opposition groups a slice of power that they were denied at polls.

On balance, if Kenya’s example is anything to go by, the competition between coalition partners for the affection of the public seems to be the greatest incentive for performance there is.

And because they are wooing voters, each of the sides is eager to be seen as more enlightened than the other, and therefore tends to avoid being repressive. The result is that Kenya is probably freer today, than the previous time when it had been freest — the first years of Kibaki 2003-2007.

About The Author: Charles Onyango-Obbo is Uganda’s leading political commentator. He is Nation Media Group’s managing editor for convergence and new products. Charles writes for The Monitor, Uganda’s only independent daily and most influential newspaper and The East African, a NationMedia publication. Be sure to check out his Article Archive featuring hundreds of Charles’s greatest publications…..Click Here To Read More Articles By Onyango-Obbo

Popularity: 8% [?]