By: Rashid Suleiman

In the days before the Second Liberation, there were African presidents. Then there was the African president. His name was Kamuzu Banda.

Banda confounded both friend and foe. He blew cold and hot, played saviour and the devil all once. He was considered one of Africa’s most influential leaders in the last 50 years. Yet, he was among the last despots of the last century.

In sartorial elegance, he was more steadfast than Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. He was never seen in public without his trademark black three-piece suits, flywhisk, walking stick, homburg hat and handkerchief.

In education, he was as learned as Dr Agostinho Neto of Angola or Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah.

Banda’s penchant for a flashy life saw him construct a sprawling 300-room palace, with a school and a supermarket.

In brutality, he was matched by Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Sekou Toure of Guniea-Conakry, Michel Micombero of Burundi, Macias Nguema of Guinea-Malabo, and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia.

In effecting a personality cult, he overshadowed accomplished purveyors of the art like Mobutu and Eyadema. He was the personification of eccentricity. He had battalions of women dancers who entertained him wherever he went.

He caused a stir in the early 1980s when he banned American pop group Simon and Garfunkel song Cecilia from the radio. This was at a time when his relationship with his mistress, Cecilia Tamanda Kadzamira, was going through a rocky period, and he clearly did not like the lyrics of the song (”Cecilia/I’m down on my knees/I’m begging you please to come home“).

Because of his conservatism, Malawi was one of the last countries to have television, in the 1990s.

In amassing a personal fortune estimated at $320 million, Banda proved that he was as greedy and fabulously wealthy as Mobutu.

Like Houphouet-Boigny or Mobutu he constructed a sprawling 300-room palace, complete with a school and a supermarket.

He was also a man of unprecedented feats. He is the only African who left his country and stayed out for 42 years but returned to lead it to independence and rule it for 33 years. He refused to return home at one time in fear that his newly found financial resources, earned as a doctor in England, would be wiped out by his extended family.

Man of many feats

Banda is the only first generation African president who remained a ‘bachelor’ till death. His lifelong partner Cecilia Tamanda Kadzamira was just a mere live-in official hostess.

Only Algeria’s Houari Boumedienne shared with Banda the dubious distinction of never having appointed a vice-president.

Banda is one of the few African presidents with multiple birthdays. For long, his official birthday was given as May 14, 1906. But when he died in 1997, his death certificate stated that he was 99 years old, meaning he was born in 1898. Oxford University Press record that he was born in 1902.

Banda was the only African president to establish diplomatic ties with apartheid South Africa. In 1972, he became the first foreign potentate to visit apartheid South Africa since King George VI of England in 1947.

Even by the high African standards, Banda was considered a dictator par excellence. Between 1970 and 1971, he declared himself president for life of both Malawi and the ruling Malawi Congress Party. Like Amin, it is said he murdered his enemies and fed their corpses to crocodiles. In a BBC interview in the early 1990s, he threatened that should Malawian exiles calling for introduction of multipartism return home, he will feed them to crocodiles.

At the height of his power, it is said only one person in Malawi rubbed Banda the wrong way and lived to tell the tale. It is still a mystery how Gwanda Chakuamba survived the bloody purges of the dictator. He was jailed for 22-years for treason and was released at the advent of multipartism in the only presidential pardon granted by Banda in his 33-year-rule.

Banda presided over a police state where any form of dissent brought sudden death, torture, exile or deportation.

The former dictator closely monitored and controlled his peoples’ lives. It was compulsory for all adult Malawians to be card carrying members of MCP. The party cards were to be carried at all times because of random police checks. The cards were sold even to unborn children. No picture, poster or clock was hanged higher than Banda’s official portrait that adorned walls of official buildings. He prescribed a dress code for men and women in Malawi and forced foreigners to conform to it.

Women were not allowed to bare their thighs or wear trousers. Men were banned from growing beards or long hair because it signalled dissent.

Male visitors to Malawi could be seized and forced to have a hair cut. Those wishing to get visas to Malawi in the 1970s were met with the following notice: ‘Female passengers will not be permitted to enter the country if wearing short dresses or trouser suit, except in transit or at lake holiday resorts or national parks. Skirts and dresses must cover the knees to conform with government regulations. The entry of hippies and men with long hair and flared trousers is forbidden‘.

Control Freak

Any foreigner who violated the rules was deported.

Moviegoers had to watch a video of Banda first before the main course. Kissing was not allowed in public and state agents cut out scenes that contained kissing in movies.

Picture - Kamuzu Banda, Ethiopia’s Haile Selassie, Kenya’s Jomo-Kenyatta and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt - In The 60’s

All the movies were first viewed and edited by Banda’s censors before they were shown. The same was done to books. The secret police frequently opened private mail for editing. They tapped phone lines and cut off calls when a speaker said a critical word against the government. During Banda’s reign, TV was banned in Malawi.

His censors ripped out pages of publications like Time and Newsweek that they considered offensive to him. History that pre-dated Banda’s rise to power was discouraged and publications on the era were destroyed.

Despite his bad side, Banda is respected in some quarters and ranked with such luminaries like the late Sir Seretse Khama of Botswana, Kenyatta, Kaunda AND Houphouet-Boigny for the prestige they brought to their countries through the sheer force of their personalities and character. He has been hailed as a national and African hero though others denounce him as a despot.

It is said that Malawians will never achieve the unity they had under Banda. He is still remembered as a man who loved and cared for his people. He is credited with developing Malawi’s education, health, infrastructure and agriculture. Under his rule, the country became self-sufficient in food.

He has been hailed as a champion of women’s rights at a time when this was not fashionable in Africa. He founded an organisation to cater for women’s rights and needs. The Chitukuko Cha Amai m’Malawi was tasked with encouraging women to excel in government, education, the community, church and other spheres of life.

Though his date of birth is in dispute, there is little doubt that Banda was born in Kasungu in Nyasaland (the colonial name of Malawi) to Mphonogo Banda and his wife Akupingamnyama Phiri of the Chewa tribe.

In 1905, he was baptised by the Church of Scotland and took the name Hastings. Later he would add the Ngwazi (lion) as part of his name. Either in 1916 or 1917 he left with an uncle, Hanock Msokera Phiri, on foot to then Southern Rhodesia – the modern day Zimbabwe.

Young Banda

In 1917, he trekked from Zimbabwe to Johannesburg where he worked in the mines till 1925 when African Methodist Church Bishop WT Vernon offered to pay for his education so long as he made his way to America. He left for New York the same year and did his high school at Wilberforce Institute, the current Central State University in Ohio.

   Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s Mausoleum [Enlarge]
He graduated in 1928 and started earning money through public lectures organised by a Ghanaian educationist he had met in South Africa. During one of the lecturers, he met a Dr Herald who helped him enrol as a premedical student at Indian University. He transferred to University of Chicago and graduated with a B Phil, majoring in history, in 1931.

He studied medicine at Meharry Medical College and qualified as a doctor in 1937. He was forced to get a second medical degree to qualify to practise in the British Empire. He got the degree from the University of Edinburgh in 1941. He practised medicine in Newcastle and London but in 1946, he was prevailed upon to represent Nyasaland African Congress at the 5th Pan Africanist Congress. That marked his entry into politics.

While in England, he was fiercely opposed to the proposed federation of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) that became a reality in 1953. Two years earlier, he had been expected to return home but he chose to move to Ghana after a scandal in which he was accused of adultery with his receptionist. He moved together with the receptionist to Ghana.

After pleas from prominent Malawi politicians, Banda returned home in 1958 – 42 years after he left – to take up the leadership of the independence struggle and Nyasaland African Congress - the forerunner to Malawi Congress Party.

Strangely, he could not speak his mother tongue Chichewa and needed an interpreter. The job first fell to John Msonthi and later John Tembo, who became his strongman till death.

After stirring trouble in the colony, Banda and several of his colleagues were arrested in 1959 and jailed in Gweru in modern day Zimbabwe. He was released in 1960 and shipped to Britain for talks leading to independence. He became Prime Minister in 1963 and led the country to independence a year later.

Fall from grace

Right from the start of his political career, Banda made no secret that he was dictator. When a number of his ministers presented him with suggestions on how to reduce his powers a month after independence, he responded with tough action. He sacked four of them while two others resigned. All ‘detractors’ fled to exile.

In 1966, a new constitution made the country a one party republic with Banda as first president. He proceeded to rule the country as an unchallenged despot till the wind of change swept him out of power in the 1990s.

First, a special assembly stripped him of his powers in 1993 before Bakili Muluzi of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in the country’s first multiparty polls gave him a comprehensive whitewash the following year. He passed away in South Africa in 1997.

In his will, he instructed his long time companion, Cecilia Kadzamira, known throughout his rule as the “official hostess” to turn part of his home in his hometown of Kasungu, into a museum.

Popularity: 11% [?]

History can be at times repeated – as farce; but the farcical has always been an inseparable element of the human condition.

A retrospective view over the Kennedy years and the Cuban Missile Crisis management helps us understand the real challenge the assassinated Democrat President had been for part of the American establishment.

Contrarily to the nightmare of the Johnson and Nixon years, with Vietnam, Angola, Abyssinia, South Yemen, Mozambique turning to communist or pro-communist regimes, the brief period of JFK’s tenure demonstrated the limits of a well propagated myth, the bi-polar world politics and the so-called Cold War.

The Vilification of the ‘Other’

The bipolar world never truly existed; it was a media fabrication based on the traditional political game, the vilification of the ‘other’. This game serves political elites and establishment mainly in inner politics, in shaping popular imagination and the so-called public opinion in a very lucrative way; the vilification of the ‘other’ pays also dividends at the level of foreign policy and exports’ increase.

When a political establishment needs to impose mind and thought control and divert the average people from vital issues, all they need is to portray another state as enemy and to instigate into the public imagination dire images and horrible descriptions. With the outright majority being thus entrapped in an unreal situation, the most vital issues for the establishment can be tackled without criticism, interference or opposition as they go easily unnoticed.

The vilification of the ‘other’ helps pressurizing countries in the periphery about inexistent dangers that are depicted as real and possible to face only by following allied directives, purchasing arms, and re-aligning their foreign policy accordingly.

The true reality of the post-WW II world is that in 1945 there was only one true world power left, namely the United States, and that viewed comparatively with the rest, it could and should definitely be called ’superpower’.

With Japan, Italy and Germany destroyed, with France liberated from the Nazi occupation, with Britain economically exhausted and drained, and with the USSR’s most important territory totally destroyed during WW II, it is difficult to find out a real counterbalance to the only – omnipotent in 1945 – superpower US.

The Creators of the Myth of the Bipolar World

What could have been the real objectives of those who diffused through the world media the myth of the bipolar world, and how can we identify them? What world developments did the creators of the myth of the bipolar world try to keep secret and unnoticed by the average Americans?

Average people usually forget; new unreal images and fresh imaginative narratives, diffused through the media, contribute greatly to this situation. Before WW II, there was not any alliance between the United States and the European capitalist countries; there was simply a common rejection of the Soviet regime, but this was a secondary element. Even the Western European opposition to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was not widely shared in 1930s’ America.

If we go back to the end of WW I, we realize that President Wilson’s idealism consisted in a true impediment for the Anglo-French tandem of the Entente Cordiale, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Scrutinizing the American foreign policy of the late 19th and early 20th century, we can certainly identify it as anti-colonial, humanist, and idealist. The American anti-colonial policy was particularly highlighted in the wars against the Spanish colonial empire; but America was not in bad terms with Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. We can however attest an animosity between the United States and the Austrian – Hungarian monarchy, viewed as the representative of a Medieval Order of things and situations to which the rise of America had to put a dead end.

It is undisputedly confirmed that America was largely manipulated in order to enter WW I against Imperial Germany.

What did America get instead?

Nothing!

Not even Iraq!

The dismembered territories of the demised Ottoman Empire were divided to English and French zones of ‘mandate’. The developments that led to America’s entrance into war with Imperial Germany and the final outcome, after the post-WW I treaties had been signed, demonstrate that America had been simply used by the colonial empires of France and England for their exclusive benefit.

Not a real achievement for Washington D.C.!

The same concerns America’s entrance into WW II. Thinking that the United States had any sort of obligation toward England and France in 1940 consists in mere projection of today’s viewpoints into another era. A sizeable part of the American establishment, particularly former President Herbert Hoover, argued that it would be a folly for America to rush to save England. The same person had however not hesitated to send humanitarian help to Central Europe and Communist Russia in 1921! It all relates to a completely different approach than that of conventional Americans presidents of the last 45 years.

How can one summarize the various aforementioned points? In fact, for the entire first half of the 20th century, the colonial powers (England and France) managed to inflect the anti-colonial ideology and policy of America, and use the vast resources of the fast expanding country to their benefit. This enterprise has been carried out by the pro-British part of the American establishment; the best representatives of this circle of power are the Federal Reserve, large part of the Banking sector, the Oil sector and more particularly Standard Oil and the derivative companies. They all viewed America as a mere instrument for their global objectives.

Behind them were hidden the Anti-Christian circles of the Freemasonic European establishment well known at those days for promoting outrageous Anti-Italianism, Anti-Germanism, Anti-Ottomanism, Anti-Russianism, atheism, Anti-Catholicism, demolition of the historical European Code of Ethics, evolutionism, materialism, relativism, and all sorts of corrupt practices. They have however pursued the same policies ever since, and down to our times.

The next step was the invention of the Myth of the Bipolar World whereby the US would be portrayed as the leader of the Free World, the Champion of the Free Market, the Paragon of the Democratic Parliamentary System, and the Beacon of Human Rights, whereas the USSR would be depicted as the focus of evil.

What was the functionality of the Myth of the Bipolar World?

At a moment colonial England and France were totally exhausted and their resources drained, in the aftermath of WW II, the concept of the frontal opposition between the communist and the capitalist worlds would help

1. England and France transform their colonies to independent states and their colonial domination to postcolonial rule (without America or the USSR being involved in the process),

2. the colonial structure of vast part of the world be left intact,

3. the dependence of the former colonies on the respective metropolises be effectuated as part of the entire plan, and

4. America and the USSR pursue an arms race that would be an incredible burden for both economies

5. other countries rise (or rise again) to power status (entirely or partly). China, Japan, Germany, Italy, Brazil and Mexico are some of the examples in this case.

6. perpetuate the world order set up earlier by the colonial powers whereby any other power, namely America, the USSR, China, interfering in a former colony, would not be able to destabilize and/or overthrow the prevailing colonial structure

7. England and France finally recover and, through a criminal plan, impose throughout Western Europe a complex totalitarian system which would enable them to come back as a global superpower (Europe) through the immoral practice of conditioning financial help to smaller countries on deliberately demanded social and foreign policy compromises.

In fact, America has already paid dearly for the takeover of its political life by an illegitimate and unrepresentative gang which disregarded the real national interests of America that are in full accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the Principles of the Founding Fathers.

America had indeed a different socio-economic system than that of the USSR. But this did not necessarily imply geo-strategic differences of primary order. Since the mid-20s, Stalin’s rise to power heralded the consolidation of the ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ in one country (USSR), and the abandonment of the dream of the international revolution.

If we take into consideration Lenin’s position on the various peoples and nations in the USSR, America was certainly closer to the USSR than to the Western European colonial powers. Tyrannical practices carried out in France against the various oppressed ethnic groups would be considered as absolutely inhuman and appalling in America. Minority languages were prohibited in France and the terrorist practice was imposed in a brutish way reminiscent of African tyrannies.

The maltreatment of the Breton minority in France was characteristically illuminated in the sentence “In the streets, it is prohibited to spit and to speak Breton” (http://ouiaubreton.com/spip.php?article4311). America was criminally kept unaware of similar practices carried out in France (against the Bretons, the Alsatians, the Basks, the Occitans, the Catalans and the Corsicans), in England (against the Welch, the Irish and the Scots) and in Spain (against the Catalans, the Basks and the Galicians).

NATO – A Trap for the US

In fact, by engulfing the US politics into the swamp of the myth of the bipolar world, the pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment prevented the planning and the deployment of a genuinely American – and therefore anti-colonial – foreign policy emanating from the Declaration of Independence and the chief principles of the Founding Fathers.

The implementation of such a foreign policy would cost much less to the US, and as it would be in direct opposition to the Anglo-French colonial policy, it would eliminate any eventual Soviet policy of infiltration.

By genuinely siding with the oppressed and tyrannized, destitute and needy nations of Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe and America, the US would become the principal Advocate of the Global Liberation, adroitly shaping a comprehensive political project of anti-colonial education, cultural authenticity, liberal (anti-dirigisme) economics, democratic political structure, and genuine nation building.

An American Anti-Colonial Alliance would contain the USSR more efficiently and would result in complete and comprehensive decolonization, national emancipation for dozens of states, and irreversible decadence for the colonial states England, France, Spain and Portugal.

In the 50s, the rise of a US-led Alliance encompassing Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Kabylia (liberated from the French colony ‘Algeria’), Italy, Denmark (including Greenland), Sweden, Turkey, Iran, India, Thailand, Australia (forcefully proclaimed as Republic), Japan, the Philippines, and Polynesia (liberated from the French tyranny), and the decolonized Congo, Somalia, Angola, Madagascar and Mozambique would serve America’s interests far better than NATO.

In fact, one of the major misconceptions of the American foreign and defense policies was the establishment of NATO. The USSR would not expand beyond the border lines of 1945 – 8, and with America forging an anti-colonial alliance, European unification would prove to be impossible.

Not only Anti-Americanism would never go beyond the limits of England and France (two nations that have spent billions of dollars in anti-American activities and propaganda) but America would not embark on a ruinous arms race that spoiled the country’s chances of sustainable economy without deficits. It was already clear that the Soviet system would fail, due to inner contradictions and inconsistencies, and collapse sooner or later.

The American – Western European alliance triggered Anti-Americanism among Third World countries and many Western Europeans who envisioned a possible political space for themselves between the USA and the USSR. This mistake was detrimental for the US global interests.

Contrarily, an American – Third World alliance would leave no political space for the Europeans to cover, would ostracize the Soviets from the Third World, and would help America materialize the objective of being the world’s champion of Democracy, Equity, Justice, and Human Rights.

However, this would be detrimental for the pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and for their plans that were geared to target the destruction of the uni-polar political system in which the world entered practically at the end of WW II, with the demise of Nazi Germany.

Long Term Objectives of the Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment

For a myriad of American statesmen, consultations with Europe are essential. Thus, you can automatically understand that they don’t truly care for America’s integrity and prevalence – let alone the long term imposition of a Pax Americana.

For them, Western Europe, evolving around the Anglo-French pseudo-democratic establishment, is the center of the world. It sounds odd how people like Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Clinton, and Cheney, who have admittedly been so eloquent about the America’s destiny to lead the world, may have had this sort of back thoughts.

They may actually have not; not all of them truly ruled the country. But their mentors, the Rockefeller family and their likes, certainly viewed America’s role as a mere instrument of the Old European Freemasonic guard.

With the rise of 27-member Europe, 63 years after the end of WW II, the time has come for some dramatic changes that will affect the entire world.

Their long term objectives encompass the following:

1 - the termination of the American supremacy (this will be completed with a nuclear attack against Iran, and the dire consequences that it will entail),

2 - the return of the US to a sort of reassessed isolationism in the New World,

3 - the rise of Europe as the main power in the West,

4 - the creation of a sizeable periphery of Europe in Africa and the Middle East (the project has just started, Mediterranean Union),

5 - the recognition of Europe’s role to be involved in Jerusalem and to protect Israel,

6 - the provocation of a terrible war in the Middle East,

7 - the subsequent turmoil in Europe with clashes between indigenous nationalists and Muslim immigrants,

8 - the White Terror (following the imposition of indigenous nationalists) and the rise of a totalitarian European Empire that will cancel Christianity, introduce another religion, and typically annex the Middle East (involving new mass transportations to a new – different – “Israel”),

9 - the departure of few selected top elite people (along with their clones and relevant technological infrastructure) to the space, and

10 - the ensuing clash of the European Empire with Russia and China and a nuclear hecatomb.

Nothing of all this can be materialized as long as the United States remains the world’s only superpower. American supremacy started indeed being shaken with the demise of the Soviet Block and the USSR (1989 – 1991).

The narratives of tele-guided media forgery have it that America was catapulted to supremacy as the world’s only superpower only in 1991. This is a preposterous interpretation. There is nothing falser than this.

In fact, the Soviet Union was never a counterweight, except in myth, in mythical and forged narratives of masterminded media, in the shameful lies in which the entire world had been plunged for four (4) entire decades (1950 – 1990).

Soviet Union was financially insignificant, and without its fixed currency (which demonstrated nothing more than the economic policy of a tyranny), the country could have been bought up many times by a few leading US corporations. In the early 70s, Japan and Germany were economically and financially far more significant than the Soviet Union with its anachronistic system of production and distribution.

JFK and the Revelation of the Uni-polar World

Militarily, the USSR certainly expanded and at a certain moment possessed higher number of otherwise useless conventional weapons that were not employed – except in Iraq, Syria, Abyssinia, Afghanistan and some other peripheral and insignificant territories. But does it truly matter for a supposedly influential country to produce loads of anachronistic weapons that can ensure only a spectacular defeat (like the notorious Soviet tanks of Saddam Hussein)?

Beyond the conventional weapons, the Soviet Union reached up to the point of possessing more nuclear heads than the US. But the Soviet regime – contrarily to today’s rulers of Kremlin – was irremovable from its policy of nuclear balance. This system of international politics was then much safer than ours, because it entailed the guarantee of non use of the nuclear weapons that simply drained the resources of the two countries. With the now rising nationalistic and imperialistic policies, this guarantee does not exist anymore.

In fact, with the implementation of one interpretation of the Marxism - Leninism in Soviet Union, the country ceased to exist at the political level; it became a non – topos, a Utopia self-condemned in barter trade, unrepresentative currency exchange rates, and utter isolation. The Soviet Union and its East European satellites were in fact a neutral territory, a no-man’s-land impossible to be integrated into the world political system.

This became very clear at the times of the Cuban Missile Crisis; despite the apparent interaction and the political game (mostly played by Tovarich Andrei Gromyko theatrically saying ‘Net’ in every session of the UN Security Council), the Soviet Union would never risk to be turned from political no-man’s-land to physically annihilated territory.

President J. F. Kennedy’s public denunciation of secret societies and commitment to making visible the hidden reality of the uni-polar system were the real reason of his assassination. If he had been ‘allowed’ to pursue his policy further, the world would have soon been very different, and the Soviet Union would have collapsed much earlier. Following these developments, the then 6-member European Community would have never been able to form a large Union of states.

It was a mere customary act for JFK’s opponents to carry out the assassination, but there was a critical corroboration of the need for such an assassination; there was Lyndon Johnson available to replace an assassinated President Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson was a person controlled – only too well – by the Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and beforehand placed in the correct position: that of the Vice President.

At this point, it would be necessary to quote the following insightful details: “Lyndon B. Johnson was initiated on October 30, 1937 in Johnson City Lodge No. 561, at Johnson City, Texas, but completed only the Entered Apprentice, or first, of the three Masonic degrees. For this reason, he is not included in the gallery”.
(http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/index.html)

The Democratic Nomination – Denver 25 - 28 / 8/ 08

There are policies that can consolidate the already shaken American supremacy; and there are policies that can trigger the final demise of the American supremacy and our entrance into a multi-polar world.

The few words of criticism uttered by Barack Obama with respect to the Oil cartel suggest that he belongs to the world of JFK. This means that he can have the same destiny as the 35th President of the United States, if he intends to pursue a policy that would guarantee American supremacy and world peace. The Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and behind them the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, and above all the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge would do all that it takes to prevent a development that would avert the aforementioned, well planned world clash.

If Barack Obama has a chance to save America and let the world survive, he should avoid the lethal mistake of entrusting the position of the Vice President to either Al Gore (with slim chances) or Hillary Clinton (with stronger chances).

With any of these two persons nominated in Denver as Vice President, Barack Obama, even if he manages to win the November 2008 presidential elections, prevailing over the Republican nominee, the notorious Free Mason John McCain (http://www.radaronline.com/features/2008/05/secret_societies_bohemian_grove_masons_trilateral_commission-print.php), will have to either obey rules that are given by invisible masters in striking contrast with the American national interests or wait the moment of his premature and undeserved death.

Note: Hillary Clinton with the face turned to the right side, and with the right hand elbow based on something (in this case the chair’s arm) and the right hand palm covering the left hand palm; the right hand index and little fingers are slightly extended to help shape the symbol the two horns. These are typical freemasonic posture and gestures showing details about Hillary Clinton’s grade.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Writes: James N. Kariuki

Obama, nuclear weapons and the race factor — Given the history of nuclear weapons relative to the non-white world, and noting the ongoing ‘loose talk about nukes’ in the US regarding Iran, it is fitting that Barack Obama should aspire to eliminate all nuclear weapons, American and otherwise. Perhaps, he owes it most to his ancestral Diaspora.

In early August 1945, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The indiscriminate damage of life and property was immeasurable. It was a massive collective punishment, a classic case of the power of modern civilisation without its mercy.

Ever since, the world has been haunted by two questions. Was the use of nuclear devices necessary? Would the US have used nuclear weapons against white Germany? Critics remain deeply divided.

President Harry Truman’s sympathisers however, support his logic that the bombs were vital to shortening the war in the Pacific and saving American lives.

Doubters insist that by mid-1945, Japan was virtually a crippled enemy. Nazi Germany had already surrendered in May 1945.

Combined bombardment

How much longer could Japan have endured under the combined ‘conventional’ bombardment of the Allies and, possibly, Russia?

In short, the American use of atomic weapons was unnecessary, prompted and made easier by the fact that the victims were non-white. Indeed innuendoes abound that America used the Japanese as guinea pigs to demonstrate the ravaging power of its new, barbarous weapon.

Twenty years later, the same US was bogged down in the protracted Vietnam War, and language of nuclear weapons resurfaced in American politics. The 1964 Republican presidential contender, Barry Goldwater, openly recommended using low-yield nuclear weapons for defoliation of Vietnamese woodlands.

Goldwater’s ‘nuclear reckless talk’ ultimately cost him the presidency. But in the hunt for it, he had arrogated to himself the right to entertain nuclear language that could have resulted in annihilation of a Southeast Asian nation.

Again, the collective victims would have been non-whites — men, women and children alike.

Castro’s autobiography

In a 2007 autobiography, Fidel Castro: My Life, the Cuban icon narrates the story that for Angola’s freedom, Cuban and Angolan troops fought against an apartheid army and government that had eight Hiroshima/Nagasaki-size atomic bombs secretly “provided by the US through … Israel.” Were those weapons developed during the South African-Israeli nuclear collaboration or were they US-made? In either case, the targets were black people.

As SA approached freedom, the West became increasingly nervous over the prospects of blacks inheriting a nuclear state.

Accordingly, Nelson Mandela and his associates were vigorously coaxed into dismantling the bombs and signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Racist SA could be nuclear; democratic one could not.

Given the history of nuclear weapons relative to the non-white world, and noting the ongoing ‘loose talk about nukes’ in the US regarding Iran, it is fitting that Barack Obama should aspire to eliminate all nuclear weapons, American and otherwise. Perhaps, he owes it most to his ancestral Diaspora.

Popularity: 14% [?]

   Prof. Ali Mazrui
Last week in this space I posed a challenge to the United States of America: Will it realise its potential of becoming humankind’s post-racial garden of Eden, completing the odyssey from Africa as the first Garden of Eden? Or will the country waste that opportunity through bigotry, prejudice, and conflict?

This week we raise the question: What are the migrations that initiated the linkage between the first Garden of Eden and the second Garden of Eden? The garden of birth was Africa; the garden of potential post-raciality is the United States. Will the human race need the Edenisation of America towards the post-racial age?

The story of Adam and Eve occurs in three of the great world religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Only two of the three Abrahamic religions have featured prominently in the belief systems of the African peoples – Christianity and Islam. Christianity and Islam have cast a shadow on the migrations of African peoples from the continent of the First Eden to the shores of the Second.

Central to the transfer of the African peoples from Africa to America was of course the role of Europe. If Africa invented the human race, Europe perfected racism. Europeans then inaugurated the most extensive trade in slaves ever attempted in human history. Both European racism and European slave trade helped to set the stage for creating a multi-racial ‘New World.’ The final Eden was slowly in the making.

It is common knowledge that one of the ways by which Europeans legitimised the slave trade was by portraying Africans as heathens and cannibals. What is not often realised is that African resistance to European enslavement was in turn partly inspired by African fears that those white-skinned people were the ones who were cannibals.

As a Dutch contemporary Willem Bosman summed it up, “Sometimes we deal with slaves from deep in the interior, who convince each other that the reason why we buy and transport them is to fatten them and sell them again for an appetising meal.”

What was happening was the forceful transfer of citizens of the world’s first Garden of Eden (Africa) to the shores of what may well turn out to be the world’s final Garden of Eden- the USA. That part of the population of the United States that was of African descent was historically destined to play decisive roles in the evolution of the second Eden towards its historic destiny.

The anti-slavery spirit of resistance among Africans was inspired by many factors, including love for freedom and a determination to remain on the soil of their ancestors. But a perception of the white man as a cannibal, as the ultimate serpent who might eat up the African, aggravated African anxieties.

In 1752 one European captain in the harbour of Paramaribo, Suriname, was worried about whether his enslaved Africans on his ship Prins Willem V would jump overboard because “they feared they would be eaten” on arrival at their destination.

And an 18th century European handbook for slave traders urged the slavers to “assure the slaves, after they have been purchased, that they should not be afraid- that white people were not cannibals…” In our terms, the serpent was historically deadly, but was not a man-eater in the literal sense.

Back in Africa, indigenous rulers differed in their attitude to the slave trade. John Thornton reminds us that Queen Nzinga Nbande of Matamba in Angola tried to mobilise and coordinate opposition to the Portuguese slave traders in the 1630s and 1640s. But the Portuguese fought back and unfortunately got African allies in opposition to Queen Nzinga.

In the 18th century, Tomba, the leader of the Baga on the Guinean Coast, also tried to stop the slave trade but was opposed by resident Europeans, Mulattoes and African collaborators.

Agaji Trudo was one of the greatest kings of Dahomey. He was hostile to the slave trade, and invaded coastal Aja kingdoms partly in a bid to stop the trade. His successes were short lived. Racist Europe persevered.

Our essay here poses the issue of whether there is a secular historical and collective version of the biblical story of Genesis. Should we look at Africa as the first Garden of Eden – the original habitat of the human species, fallible, mortal and therefore profoundly human? Should we look at the United States as potentially the second Eden, the future vanguard of a post-racial world?

In 1978 William Julius Wilson alerted us about The Declining Relevance of Race. Prof Wilson might have been prophetic rather than descriptive.

America as the second Garden of Eden must first get its racial house in order. Between now and the end of the 21st century, America has to learn how to cope with race and ethnicity, with an increasingly aging population, and with the gender gaps of privilege in its population.

America must learn how to accommodate its impatient youth, how to re-define its moral values, and how to become the final burying ground of sectarian hatreds and racial strife on the world scene.

Here is the Tale of Two Edens – Africa where the human species began, and America where the human species stands a chance of attaining its optimum post-racial fulfillment, guided by African Americans as sons and daughters of the first Eden.

That Africa was the first Garden of Eden is a fact of history and paleontology. There was light in the Dark Continent before there was light anywhere else. That America is the second Garden of Eden is still a matter of hope and aspiration. Let there be divine light on America too.

Thus is it written: There was made the first man, the African living soul.

Then, the last ideal, the American life-giving post-racial spirit.

Millennia after Adam there arose an Obama. It is now conceivable, nay credible, that our great grandchildren, of all ethnicities and all faiths, of all colours and all national origins, may witness such a miracle of a post-racial dawn before the end of this century.

Popularity: 27% [?]

Introduction
 
Africa’s rise to prominence in the geopolitics of the 21st century is explained largely by the renewal of great power interest in the region of the world once dismissed as the “forgotten continent.” This great power concern reproduces the same power-play which is reminiscent of the Cold War when inter-locking and overlapping interests of great powers significantly shaped the outlook of international politics. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union gave rise to a new environment which President George H.W Bush called a “New World Order” in 1990. This new World Order or globalization as it came to be called, saw the expansion of capitalism across regional and continental boundaries at the expense of its reeling rival, communism.

Barely a decade after President Bush’s ordination of a new global environment, another world order was gradually emerging. This “Third World Order” as it has also been named, is championed by a rising eastern giant, China. The unprecedented rise of China as an economic power capable of steering the course of the global economy provides a credible alternative to the western-driven concept of globalization. The imagined rivalry between these two power blocs is the concern of this article.

In the course of expending its economic and political power, China has embraced Africa in an economic alliance which is proving to be worrisome to the West. Africa on its part, hit by the pressures of globalization and frustration following several centuries of unrewarding ties with the West has been more than enthusiastic in courting with China. This Sino-African alliance is at the core of the “Third World Order” which China is today leading. The impact of this alliance is conjured in the words of William Wallis. “The contours of a new order are still being drawn, but China’s growing stake in the continent has already shaken up an old and fraying one dominated by cautious western donors and former colonial powers”

Prelude to the “Third World Order”

Modern Sino-African cooperation or the “Third World Order,” is the full-blown stage of a relationship that traces its history as far beak as the 10th century and beyond. To fast forward this story, the most convenient and agreeable point from which to pick up an analysis of this relationship is the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. This period which was largely characterized by the politics of the Cold War, saw the young communist China struggling against the odds of western capitalist domination. The shared historical, economic and cultural experiences between China and Africa marked the beginning of what Chairman Mao Ze Dong called a “Third World alliance” against western oppression.

As China and Russia struggled to battle against the forces of capitalism in the Cold War, Africa became a theatre for this fray. The resultant “proxy wars” in the continent provided an opportunity for China and Russia to extend military assistance to anti-colonial forces throughout Africa. During this period of massive Sino-Soviet military assistance to Africa, economic considerations were minimal. The relationship was shaped largely by ideological and strategic imperatives which were the defining features of the Cold War.

China gained another significant edge in Africa following disputes with Russia over the leadership of the communist world and differences over the international orientation of communism. The Sino-Soviet split as this difference came to be known, gave China considerable leverage to carve out its own “sphere of influence” in Africa. A practical manifestation of this Sino-Soviet gulf was seen in the nature of assistance given to the liberation forces in Zimbabwe in the 1970s. While China offered training to Zimbabwean guerillas in the manner of a People’s army, Russia did it in the light of a regular army. This difference not withstanding, the bottom line remained the struggle against western oppression of what China saw as “the masses of the third world.” In this military connection, Soviet arm sales to Africa rose from US $150 billion in the 1960s to US $2.5 billion in the 1970s. China on her part, sold $142 billon worth of military equipment to Africa between 1955 and 1977

Besides the Sino-soviet split, China reaped considerable diplomatic gains in Africa with the waning of Moscow’s influence due largely to the growing dissention within the Russian empire. When Russia ceased to exert any significant influence in Africa, this vacuum was immediately filled by China. This diplomatic triumph was followed up on three major fronts-economic, diplomatic and technical. Sustained dialogue through an unbroken chain of visits by Chinese officials to Africa has remained the strong point of China’s diplomatic offensive. Way back in the 1960s, Premier Zhou En Lai vowed to support African people in what he called “their struggle to oppose imperialism and old and new [forms of] colonialism and to win and safe guard national independence”

This spirit of cooperation, fraternity and support constitutes the foundation of modern Sino-African alliance, an illustration of Third World and South-South cooperation. It was re-echoed in 2006 in a policy document which Beijing called “China’s Africa Policy.” This document called for “sincerity, equality, mutual benefit and common development,” and emphasized the need for a beneficial “cultural exchange” between China and Africa. This is the strength of the “Third world Order” that faces the “New World Order” in the 21st century.

The economic foundations of the “Third World Order”

The concept of globalization is rooted mainly on the economic strength and expansion of capital. As agreed by Bonaglia, Pinaud and Wegner, globalization comprises entirely of “the deepening of financial and trade integration associated with technological progress and multilateral liberalization.” So too is the economic regime of the “Third World Order.” Sino-African economic cooperation involves several facets, the most important among them being trade, investment, aid and infrastructure development. Among these, trade has a pride of place and a long history in this alliance. When China started buying cotton from Egypt in 1956 very few observers could foresee a possible Chinese trade domination of the entire continent in less than half a century.

Today, China imports a wide range of commodities from Africa. These include oil, iron ore, cotton, diamonds, logs and several other minerals. African agricultural products which have suffered from the cruelty of globalization now find profitable markets in China. Burkina Faso, Benin and Mali provide China with 20 percent of its cotton imports. The Ivory Coast and Ghana are important sources of cocoa and Kenya sells large quantities of coffee beans and tea to China. Namibia provides large shipments of fish and fishmeal.
 
The figures about China-Africa trade illustrate the depth of this economic cooperation. This trade rose by 700% in the 1990s. In 1999, the trade volume stood at US $6.5 billion. From 2002 to 2003, trade doubled to US $18.5 billion. In 2005, it stood at US $39.7 billion and again jumped to US$50 billion in 2006. A year later in 2007, it rose to $55 billion. In February 2008, Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao optimistically predicted that Sino-African trade would reach $100 billion in 2010 removing China from its current third position into being Africa’s first trading partner. “The opening of new trade and investment corridors between developing countries…confirmed as a growing phenomenon in UN figures…is a discovering sight for the old powers,” says Conal Walsh.
 
Trade in oil is among China’s priority areas in Africa. Projected to become the world’s biggest oil importer soon after 2010, China seeks to expand its foothold in the African oil sector at all cost. In Nigeria, Africa’s largest exporter of crude, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has paid $2.7 billion for the right to explore oil. In Angola, China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC) gained a 50% stake in the BP operated Greater Plutonic project. In Sudan where the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) helped develop Sudanese oil fields (in the chaotic 1990s), China receives 60% of Susan’s oil output. In Somalia, CNOOC has signed a production sharing deal with the transnational government of Somalia, one of the world’s most volatile countries. China already stands on the doorsteps of Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo, Africa’s frontline oil producers.

In the mineral sector, China stretches its hands very far into Africa. President Hu jintao’s inauguration of an African economic and Trade Zone during his Africa tour of 2007 is proof of China’s emerging monopoly in the mineral trade in Africa. The Chinese –controlled Chambisi Copper Smelter in Zambia is at the heart of this economic zone and is a joint venture between China Nonferrous Metal Mining (CNMC) and Yunnan Copper Industry (YNCIG). China also lays claims on vast mineral resources in neighboring Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe, spited by the west, has passionately embraced a “look east policy” with inspiration from China.

In other areas of the continent, China remains the talk of the day. In Angola, China outbid Brazil in 2005 for the sight to tap into iron ore deposits. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, China struck a deal last year with 8 $ billion dollars which gives China 68 percent stake in Grecamines, the state copper mining company and costs would be repaid in minerals over 30 years. In the Ivory Coast, China exercises control over a manganese mine at Lozoua where it exports manganese to the Chinese market. In Gabon the state owned China National Machinery & equipment Import & Export Corporation struck a $ 3 billon deal to mine Iron ore in Belinga. In Mauritania, China’s Transtech Industry (together with a Sudanese company) agreed to invest more than $600 million in the construction of a railway line in exchange for an estimated 165m tons of phosphate used in the production of fertilizers. While China imports cobalt from the DR Congo, South Africa remains China’s largest supplier of ore and manganese. China’s push into the African mineral market continues to grow despite western outcry.

Besides trade in oil, minerals, agriculture and manufactured goods, aid is another key pillar in Sino-Africa economic cooperation. The most Significant difference between China’s aid to Africa and that of the west is that Beijing does not attach too many strings and “conditionalities” on its loan packages. These “soft loans” to Africa do not follow along the lines of western bureaucracy nor do they respect the western “equator principles” of lending. Estimates put Chinese loans to Africa at $19billion as of 2006. These loans despite western outcry on humanitarian grounds have been seen as positive instruments for Africa’s development. “What the Chinese are doing is taking a long term perspective of the ability to repay debts” says Donald kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank. “Take a country with [a] rich subsoil that is emerging from war. In terms of its static numbers it doesn’t look good. It would be a HIPC case or a grant case from the traditional donors,” he said. The Chinese are looking at it and saying ‘what is the capacity of this country which is not exploited?’ So they exploit that capacity, build infrastructure. It is a different analysis,” Kaberuka concluded.

Since the 1990s, the range of Chinese investment in Africa has broadened significantly. It has evolved from a few sectors such as resource development, including oil, agriculture and fishing to other areas such as textiles, consumer electronics, tourism telecommunications and road construction. By the end of 2006, the accumulated amount of Chinese investment in Africa totaled $11.7 billion. In 2005, the total Chinese Direct investment in Africa was $400 million, constituting 1.3% of total inflow of direct investment in Africa in that year. This investment driven by China’s booming economy is having a significant impact on Africa’s economic growth “China’s fast rising demand for commodities, spurred by industrialization is having an increasingly significant impact on world commodity markets as well as the resource rich regions of the world-particularly Africa and Latin America,” says Tamara Trush, Senior economist at Deutshe Bank.

Attracted by the improved political and economic climate in Africa and Africa’s untapped resources, there are currently between 800 and 900 Chinese enterprises doing business in Africa. The pressures of globalization and liberalization have also forced many African countries to open up to the outside world, thus embracing “easy-coming” investment from Chinese companies. A bulk of these companies are privately owned and driven largely by commercial motivations. These commercial motivations and their resultant constraints are some of the reasons for the rise of anti-Chinese sentiments in certain parts of Africa as workers clamor for higher wages and better working conditions.

In response to this budding resentment, Beijing has adopted or modified the language of “corporate social responsibility” to (re)define its economic ties with Africa. “For the Chinese enterprises, there is a growing awareness of this importance,” says Yang Guang, Director of the Institute of West Asian and African Studies. “This is not only for Africa but they [Chinese companies] are also aware that without achieving a kind of win-win solution, without helping the local people to see the result of development, investing counties will not sustain their achievement in this continent.” Continued Guang, “so we can see especially the large scale Chinese companies, they have already begun to pay attention to this and are doing a lot of things in this regard. For instance, many of them are involved in building schools and hospitals for the local people where they have their investment, and they also pay attention to the localization of labor to hire local laborers.”

To illustrate his thesis of China’s corporate responsibility in Africa, Guang pointed out that Chinese companies doing business in Africa have created a record number of 70 thousand jobs. He also cited the case of China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), the leading company in Africa which began its first report on corporate responsibility since 2006. “If they want to be good competitors in the market, they will have to fulfill better their corporate responsibilities,” Guang concluded.

China’s corporate responsibility and investment in Africa are largely facilitated by the flow of capital in the form of Foreign Direct Investment. Besides its record $7600 billion worth of investment in Africa, FDI is spreading across dozens of African countries as Chinese companies expand their search for raw materials in Africa. In recent years, China’s largest acquisitions have been in Africa. The monumental $5.5 billion offer by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) to buy 20.5 percent share in South Africa’s Standard Bank is proof of this South-South economic vibrancy. This deal between the largest bank in China, and the largest bank in Africa seeks to establish what Jacko Maree, Standard Bank Chief Executive calls a “financial services gate way” linking these two regions.

In an effort to strengthen this flow of financial capital and promote what analysts call a “go out” policy, Beijing has encouraged state-owned banks to look for overseas acquisitions in order to gain expertise and improve China’s relatively unsophisticated banking system. In this regard, the Chinese Export-Import Bank (EXIM Bank), China’s biggest Africa-related lender, said by the end of the first half of 2007, it had authorized loans worth $13.3 billion for African projects and had disbursed half of that money. This is the financial muscle which Beijing is flexing in Africa, pricking the conscience of the West and in the process provoking hostile criticisms.

These criticisms as they continue to grow fall on deaf ears as China remains defiant and unwilling to let go of its gains and prospects in Africa. Observes William Wallis, “for Africa’s traditional allies in the West, which as recently as the 2006 Summit of industrialized nations at Gleneagles were overhauling their own commitment to the continent, the terrain has shifted. Chinese funding of infrastructure, trade and development in Africa has grown to rival theirs, surpassing lending by multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and IMF.” Continued he, “the unmatched firing power of Chinese state companies and their willingness to secure supplies at all cost are at the same time driving competitors away,” Wallis affirms emphatically.

The physical impact of China’s presence is seen in the transformation of the African landscape through infrastructural development and technology transfer. This infrastructural transformation is considered vital to the economic development of Africa which had before now been hampered by the absence of infrastructure. The most significant developments in the infrastructural and technological history of modern Africa took place with the coming of China. Among these achievements are the Chinese constructed TAN-ZAM railway line in Southern Africa, a hydroelectric dam in Ghana and a mobile phone network in Ethiopia. China helped Nigeria in launching its satellite into space, one of the rare technological successes in sub-Saharan Africa. These gigantic achievements add to the list of roads, railways, bridges, dams, hospitals, airports, schools stadiums and legislative building constructed by Chinese engineers.
 
Except for the skeptics, there is unanimous agreement that China’s part in infrastructure development could help open up the continent and make business more competitive. It also leads to the transfer of technology which holds long term economic benefits for the continent. “Chinese companies are not only investing in Senegal, but transferring technology, training and know-how to Senegal at the same time. China which has fought its own battles to modernize has a much greater sense of the personal urgency of development in Africa than many western nations.” Said Senegalese President Abdoulage wade. “Today…economic relations are based more on mutual need and the economic reality that the EU and U.S. cannot compete with China,” Wade said.

President Wade is one of the several African leaders who have given a warm embrace to Chinese trade, investment and infrastructural development. In praise of Chinese infrastructure, Wade contends firmly that “these are improvements …that stay in Africa and raise the standards of living for millions of Africans, not just an elite few.” The vocal Wade has on many occasions juxtaposed Chinese benevolence with western hypocrisy towards Africa. “If Europe does not want to provide funding for African infrastructure- it pledged $15 billion under the Cotonou Agreement eight years ago; the Chinese are ready to take up the task, move rapidly and at less cost.” In Wade’s words, China has lessons to offer both Africa and Europe. “Not just Africa but the West itself has much to learn from China. It is time for the West to practice what it preaches about the value of market incentives,” Wade wagged at the West.

How strong is the “Third World Order”?

Despite western outcry about Sino-Africa economic cooperation, there is abundant evidence to suggest that these fears are highly exaggerated. China’s trade, loans and infrastructural projects have been the central objects and targets of criticism. China is blamed for flooding African markets, destabilizing local economies and selling goods of inferior quality to Africans. China’s loans are said to overlook human rights abuses and thus encourage corruption in Africa. The West also frets about China’s closeness with oil and mineral rich countries in Africa such as Sudan and Zimbabwe and its military connections with these rogue and pariah states. Chinese infrastructure projects in the continent are also predicted to end up as white elephant projects.

How justified these claims are, remains an object of intense debate. This debate notwithstanding, it could be grossly misleading to assume that this alliance goes without friction. Available evidence also suggests that western estimates about the scale of Chinese expansion in Africa is more apparent than real and China has not (yet) gone the distance it is believed to have covered in Africa.

Thabo Mbeki, South African President and one of the leading figures in African diplomacy was one of the many Africans to raise concerns about unguided optimism in Sino-African relations. He is considered as the most prominent case of African “push-back” when it comes to dealing with China, especially in the area of trade. “The challenge is that you could develop a relationship between China and African states which in reality isn’t different from the relationship that developed between Africa and the former colonial powers,” Mbeki warned.

As proof of his determination to restrain China’s unbridled trade advances, Mbeki’s government imposed quotas for Chinese textiles in an effort to revive and protect South Africa’s staggering garment industry which is threatened by cheap Chinese textiles. Mbeki’s move was a warning signal to China, and a lesson for the rest of Africa on how to deal with the “new guest.” Mr. Mbeki had earlier warned that African states run the risk of getting stuck in “an unequal relationship” with China.

Recent anti-Chinese protests in Zambia in 2006 also point to the fragility of this alliance. Poor safety conditions left 50 workers dead in a Chinese owned mine where 55 workers had earlier fallen ill from poisoning in 2003. The Chinese-owned Chambisi copper smelter has been the scene of repeated strike actions as African workers clamor for better pay and improved working conditions. Michael Sata, the opposition leader in Zambia accused China of transforming Zambia into what he called a “dumpling ground for their human beings.” Zambia’s capital Lusaka holds about 30.000 Chinese who are often viewed with scorn as exploiters especially as they pick up jobs from street hawking to industrial manufacturing. This is a growing phenomenon throughout Africa as William Wallis observes “it is possible to find Chinese foot massage parlors in Chad, doughnut hawkers in Cameroon and vegetable producers in Khartoum’s market”

Elsewhere in the continent African leaders are caught between embracing a new comer and retaining traditional alliances. Nigeria, one of America’s biggest oil suppliers in Africa is moving towards China with a lot of caution. Nigeria has made it clear that China will have to face competition from western energy companies and also national companies from India, South Korea and Malaysia. “Nigeria had been keen to cooperate with the Chinese in oil and gas but the government hasn’t given them the level of special treatment the Chinese would have wanted,” says Dapo Odesanya. Despite China’s overtures her citizens have been caught up in the spade of kidnappings that characterize the volatile Niger Delta region. Ethiopian rebels also killed nine Chinese oil workers in the Ogaden region in April 2007

In the oil sector where dissenting voices are loudest, facts and numbers on the ground tell a different story. Chinese national oil companies produced about 267.000 barrels of oil equivalent a day in Africa only one third of the amount produced by Exxon Mobil the largest foreign producer in the continent. Being a late comer, Chinese oil companies still stagger behind western oil giants in Africa. In 2006, Africa accounted for only 8.7% of China’s total oil imports as compared with 36% for the EU and 33% for the U.S. These western oil interests together with their home governments which cry out loud against China continue to enjoy the advantage of time, space and efficiency in the African oil market. “While keeping an eye out on China,” says Firose Manji, “Africans should not be distracted from paying attention to the West’s continued exploitation of the continent including the use of military might to protect its economic interests.”

Firosi maintains strongly that China is still a small player in Africa when compared with others from the West and elsewhere. She insists that Asian players such as India, Singapore and Malaysia are stronger powers in Africa in terms of FDI. These countries are the principal sources of FDI to Africa. On the other hand, when put together, the entire flow of FDI from Asia is completely eclipsed by that from the capitalist West. Borrowing from UNDP figures of 2007, Firosi compares the amount of western investment in Africa with that of China. As of 2003, the UK possessed $30 billion worth of FDI stock in Africa, the U.S. $19 billion, France $11.5billion and Germany $5.5 billion. China trailed behind with only 3% of its FDI destined for Africa while 53% of Chinese FDI went to Asia. Though recent estimates show that China has closed this gap to become Africa’s third trading partner, it highlights the contention that western criticisms have been based more on fear than fact.

Another emerging phenomenon which has the possibility of intensifying the existing crack in Sino-African relations is the problem of migration. Population movements between China and Africa have increased steadily since the 1990s. While the estimated 900 thousand Chinese migrant workers in Africa invade jobs ranging from agriculture through street peddling to industry, it is a different situation for Africans in China. These Africans who live under the constant fear of deportation are subjected to color prejudice in the job market where teaching is their only option. To secure these jobs and keep them, are the twin challenges facing African migrant workers in a society where “native speakers” are preferred irrespective of academic or professional qualifications. Obtaining and or renewing work visas for Africans is the mother of all problems, besides discriminatory salaries they receive on basis of their color. For many of these educated Africans, driven from home by harsh poverty and uncertainty and wandering in a wilderness of thorny discrimination, Sino-African cooperation remains a farce.

Conclusion

The tussle between the two rival blocs in Africa reached climax when the World Bank which has exercised unrivalled, albeit counter-productive control over Africa before the coming of China, started calling for the latter to be more transparent about its African plans. Earlier in 2006, Paul Wolferwitz, then President of the Bank accused China for ignoring human rights and environmental standards when lending to Africa. Bob Geldof, the Live 8 campaigner also warned that attempts to stamp out corruption in Africa risk being undermined by soft loans and naked mercantilism from China.

When the World Bank, the backbone of globalization joined this fray on the side of the West, it unvealed the significance of this rivalry in the geopolitics of the 21st century. In response, China has challenged the credibility of the World Bank. “The World Bank always wants countries to join them and follow their processes. But is the record of the World Bank so good?” asks Zhong Jianhua, China’s Ambassador to South Africa. “To work together is good. But you do not expect others to follow instructions” he affirmed.

Behind the shadows of this war of words is the emerging “African renaissance” declared by President Thabo Mbeki in 2000. Its symbolic instruments- African Union and NEPAD attest to Africa’s resolve to take its destiny into its own hands. It also confirms Africa’s right to carve out its own path and shun what Coral Walsh calls “finger-wagging lectures from their former colonial masters.” Former South African President Nelson Mandela reminds African leaders of the need to pick their friends with utmost care as this might prove to be a decisive moment for Africa. “Africa is beyond bemoaning the past,” Mandela said. “The task of undoing that past is on the shoulders of African leaders themselves, with the support of those willing to join in a continental renewal. We have a new generation of leaders who know that Africa must take responsibility for its own destiny, that Africa will uplift itself only by its own efforts in partnership with those who wish it well.”

Popularity: 36% [?]