By Rashid Suleiman

The founding father of Guinea-Conakry, Ahmed Sekou Toure, had one major difference with other despots of his time. While majority rose from military ranks, Toure was a civilian with no background in killings or coups.

Yet during his time, he was the undisputed ‘father of coups‘ in Africa and a top brain when it came to innovative methods of murder.

The firing squad, hangman’s noose, hackings and torture were the common methods employed by bloody dictators. But out of these, the most inventive were basically three.

He reportedly encouraged intermarriage within his Faranah clan to exclude outsiders.

There was the sledgehammer of death discovered by the great engineer of mass murder, Idi Amin Dada (Uganda), to save on bullets. In Ethiopia, the architect of death — Mengistu Haile Mariam — preferred the garrotte. He sometimes personally did the honours. But in Guinea-Conakry, death merchant Toure discovered a less violent but most painful method.

He killed his opponents, real or perceived, by feeding them on copious amounts of ‘black diet‘ — complete deprivation of food and water.

Its most prominent victims included army boss Gen Keita Noumandian followed by Minister of Development, Rural Economy and Labour Fodeba Keita and lawyer Diallo Telli, first Secretary-General of the defunct Organisation of African Unity. At the time of his arrest and detention in 1976, Telli was Guinea’s Justice Minister.

For better enjoyment of the ‘black diet‘, Toure set up exclusive prisons for political dissents, the most notorious being Boiro Camp in the capital Conakry.

Besides being a leading brain in the death industry, Toure was a master in unearthing coups against him though most existed in his fertile imagination.

Sadly for Guineans, the real or imagined coups provided a perfect opportunity for ‘father of nation‘ to go on killing and torturing sprees.

Almost a deity

By the time he died on the operating table in Cleveland, Ohio in the US (March 1984) after a cardiac arrest, over one million of Guinea’s then six million people had fled to exile.

Most Guineans did not believe news about his death, as they equated him to a deity.

After the discovery of each and every coup, Toure would deal with the plotters ruthlessly. He executed several people after he announced the first attempted coup in early 1960.

   [Enlarge]
PICTURE — The former President of Guinea, Ahmed Sékou Touré surrounded by his wife, Hadja Andrée, Mohamed, his son and Koureissy Sekou Conde, former Minister of Security, then a student at Universté of IPEGAN.

The bloodshed was repeated five years later when another putsch was discovered. More bloody purges followed in 1967 and 1969.

Despite the many coups against him, he effectively neutralised the Guinean military throughout his reign.

To prevent his overthrow by the soldiers he trusted, he personally controlled the supply of arms and ammunition to the military and put all armouries under his direct control. As a surety, he kept the keys to all the armouries.

He intentionally declined to expand the army and ensured a majority of the troops came from his Malinke tribe.

Spies in barracks

He reshuffled senior commanders and purged the military frequently — often without warning — and this instilled fear in soldiers.

He adopted the Russian style of appointing political officers but added another dimension because the appointments were made covertly so that political officers could act as spies in the barracks. The spies were often junior officers.

Many senior officers were caught by the intricate network of spies and died slow and painful deaths in prison, courtesy of the ‘black diet‘ or execution.

The spies came from his Malinke tribe, especially his Faranah clan or were related to him by marriage.

He ruled the country like a personal household.

Toure was given a rude awakening in 1966 when his only friend in Africa, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, was overthrown in a military coup. He immediately stepped up his anti-coup strategies.

He formed a people’s militia whose members were mainly drawn exclusively from the most loyal civilian members of the country’s sole political party.

In less than two years, the militia had grown to 25,000 men while the regular armed forces had a mere 6,000 soldiers.

The militia received high-level military training, equalling or even surpassing that of the armed forces. Each district in Guinea had a militia brigade.

The roles of the militia were many and often unclear. Toure said the force was meant to protect Guinea from external enemies and internal economic saboteurs like smugglers; to safeguard the country against putchists and internal enemies of the revolution; and to guard strategic points like the radio station, airports, banks and power installations.

Usually, when Toure unearthed a coup, the foreign masters behind it were invariably France, the defunct Soviet Union, the then West Germany or white-ruled Zimbabwe.

The dictator boxed himself into a tight corner right from Guinea’s independence in 1958 when he humiliated the French in a referendum to decide the future of Francophone colonies in Africa.

There were two choices in the referendum — total independence or limited autonomy within the French Commonwealth. The rest of French colonies voted for autonomy while Guineans under the hypnotic influence and persuasion of Toure overwhelmingly voted for total independence.

His slogan ‘We prefer poverty in liberty than slavery in riches‘ was effective in getting the 95 per cent ‘No‘ vote.

Lone Ranger

Thus a year after Ghana became the first sub-Saharan country to gain independence, Guinea became the first French colony in the continent to gain its freedom.

Immediately after independence, the irate French still smarting from the referendum humiliation went on the offensive against Toure and his newly independent state.

France recalled all its professionals in Guinea, which the former colony heavily relied on. To make matters worse, the departing professionals deliberately left the country in a shambles. They carted off as much property as they could and destroyed what remained.

They went as far as vandalising equipment and facilities, ripping off telephone lines from offices. Then France cut off all aid to the young nation while French businessmen withdrew their commercial and industrial investments in the country.

A number of countries came to Guinea’s aid, with the most notable being Ghana, which forked out a £10 million loan; Soviet Union arrived with technicians, a sports stadium, bulldozers and semi-luxurious goods while China provided agricultural experts.

Throughout his rule, Toure maintained what came to be known as positive or practical neutrality in dealing with the Cold War. He was no pawn of the East or West and accepted help from any quarter.

He was fiercely protective of Guinea’s independence and never accepted aid or any help that interfered with the sovereignty of his country.

He was rabidly anti-imperialists and hated Gaullism (the conservative policies of Gen Charles de Gaulle, France leader after World War II) with a passion.

Foreign Sojourns

Toure’s positive neutrality was practised at the global and African level and this earned him several foes in the continent. Apart from Nkrumah his other friend in Africa was, Modibo Keita, Mali’s founding President.

Otherwise in West Africa, he was largely on his own especially after the overthrow of Keita and Nkrumah.

For years, he had sour relations with his staunchly pro-French neighbours, Ivory Coast and Senegal. In Africa, many countries were opposed to his rule and lone ranger antics. His hard line opposition to France and other colonial masters saw him clash with several African leaders.

For years, he gave the OAU a wide berth after the overthrow of Nkrumah. For a quarter of a century, he never visited France until 1982. Later, he opened a new chapter of rapprochement both in Africa and the world.

He embarked on foreign sojourns and other leaders reciprocated by visiting Guinea, the most prominent of which was then French President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing. He was grouped with Keita of Mali and Nkrumah as the avant-garde of African politics. When Nkrumah was overthrown, he offered him asylum and bestowed on him the title of co-president till he died in 1972.

Vast Resources

Like his peer, Hastings Kamuzu Banda in Malawi, Toure has been hailed in some quarters as a hero or condemned as a paranoid and ruthless dictator who murdered his people at will and impoverished his country.

Guinea is a poor country yet it is abundantly endowed with mineral resources like diamonds, iron ore and bauxite.

Under Toure, the country was reputed to hold at least half of the world’s known high-grade bauxite reserves. But by the time of his death, the country was in economic ruin.

With independence approaching, he became Vice-President of the Government Council of Guinea — a position equivalent to that of a prime minister. In 1958, the country gained full independence after elections won by PDG with Toure as president.

Hardline Socialist

Being a master organiser, he made Guinean Democratic Party or Parti Democratique de Guinee (PDG) and himself the ultimate arbiters of power. The party, under his command, directed all national activities and had an elaborate organisation right from the grassroots.

The Guinean dictator was a hard line African socialist and a political organiser par excellence. He was a charismatic and colourful professional politician endowed with supreme self-confidence and an indomitable spirit.

He was an accomplished orator and demagogue with a common touch who could keep an audience mesmerised for hours. But he had little patience and dealt with his opponents ruthlessly.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama?

On the campaign trail, the debate over foreign policy has been muted of late. That might be because more important topics such as lipstick and hockey moms have taken center stage. But the contrasts between the presidential candidates also seem to have softened. Their differences over Iraq policy have shrunk as the place has stabilized somewhat and the Iraqi government looks for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. Both candidates oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Both support a vigorous fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet there’s clearly a fundamental difference between the two that might best be captured by asking a simple question: What kind of world do we live in? Neither candidate has been asked this, and I doubt either would answer as frankly as I am suggesting, but here’s my guess — drawn from their writings and speeches — about what each might say.

We live in a very dangerous world, John McCain would respond. In his eyes, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors — funded and supported by states that adhere to their views — pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the “first serious crisis since the end of the Cold War.” The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power — hard power — to defeat the enemy and spread freedom.

Barack Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the Cold War — when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities — we face lesser threats today. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these
countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight al-Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes such as Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq war, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that led the United States to an unprovoked and hugely costly invasion and occupation. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek — in development and democracy-building — we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s — more so than most U.S. politicians seem willing to admit. We live in remarkably peaceful times. A University of Maryland study shows that deaths from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the past half century. A study from Simon Fraser University finds that casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since Sept. 11, 2001. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan — that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.

It’s also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Since the end of the Cold War, similar alarms have been sounded several times. In the 1990s, the Cox Commission argued that China was building a military to rival ours, citing numbers that soon proved to be bogus. Then there was Saddam Hussein, who was described as a powerful and imminent threat to the United States. In fact, the greatest problem we have faced in Iraq is its weakness, its utter dysfunction as a state and a nation.

Rhetoric about transcendent threats and mortal dangers grips the American imagination. But it also twists U.S. foreign policy in ways that can prove to be extremely costly to the country and the world.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Full Text of Speech
Theme: “A World that Stands as One”

July 24th, 2008
Berlin, Germany

   Obama worked out at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, Germany

   [Enlarge Image]

Popularity: 14% [?]

Post-colonial Africa must diversify the foreign cultures from which it seeks to learn. There is excessive reliance on the West as the only source. What is there in Japanese culture that has enabled the Japanese to beat the West at their own industrial game?

In 1868, the Japanese asked themselves: ‘Can we economically modernise without culturally Westernising?’ They embarked on selective industrialisation under the slogan of ‘Western technique, Japanese spirit.’ Fifty years later, they had become an industrial power to reckon with. What was there in Japanese culture that enabled them to remain Japanese culturally and still pull off an industrial miracle before World War II?

Then, Japan was briefly occupied by the Americans after WWII. When the occupation ended, Japan embarked upon its second industrial miracle, less culturally selective than the first, but even more technologically triumphant. What was there in Japanese culture that made such miracles possible?

Africa needs to look eastwards towards the Japanese experience for cultural insights relevant to modernisation and development. Africa’s post-colonial condition is full of the baggage of the old colonialism. How do we decolonise post-coloniality? What is the exit strategy out of dependency?

Africa should look more closely at countries like South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and others in Asia that had the same per capita income as Ghana in 1957. They have since left most of Africa far behind in per capita income and industrial growth. To what extent are the economic achievements of the ‘Asian Tigers’ due to cultural factors? Can foreign cultures be studied for lessons that are relevant for others?

Of course, Africa has been studying Western culture for decades in the hope of stimulating its development. It is time that it diversified the cultural models it examines for developmental lessons. Such diversification may help reduce our dependency upon the West in other areas of endeavour as well.

One strategy in the fight against that dependency is horizontal integration. It involves not only national integration within each country, but regional integration as well. Pan-Africanism then becomes an instrument of horizontal integration; and Pan-Africanism is partly rooted in cultural and racial identification.

In reality, Pan-Movements are born out of a combination of nightmare and dream, anguish and vision. What was the nightmare and dream that released the forces culminating in the formation of the European Union as a success story?

Pan-Europeanism had two parents: poetry and war. Poetry provided the vision and the sensibilities of being European; war provided the practical impetus, either through conquest (as European nations expanded and contracted) or through a desire to avoid future wars. That was EU’s combination of nightmare and dream.

After World War II, the Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community illustrated the creation of deliberate Pan-European interdependence to avoid future risk of war.

The Cold War simultaneously divided Europe between East and East and united Europe within each camp. Once again, nightmare and dream played their paradoxical integrative roles.

Two schools of thought

The poetry of Pan-Europeanism goes back at least to the European Renaissance, as Europeans were stimulated by a new sense of shared civilisation. By the time of the French Revolution, William Wordsworth could proclaim passionately:

• Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive

• But to be young was very heaven.

However, the French revolution was also a combination of both poetry and war, the two major stimuli of Pan-Europeanism. The French revolution was both nightmare and dream.

Does Pan-Africanism have a comparable stimulus of poetry and war?

The real stimulus for Pan-Africanism has been the combined power of poetry and imperialism, rather than poetry and war. The poetry includes legends of past heroes and makers of history. There have been two schools of Pan-African cultural nationalism: romantic primitivism and romantic gloriana.

Romantic primitivism celebrates what is simple about Africa. It salutes the cattle-herder, rather than the castle-builder. In the words of Aime Cesaire:

• Hooray for those who never invented anything.

• Hooray for those who never discovered anything.

• Hooray for joy! Hooray for love!

• Hooray for the pain of incarnate tears.

• My negritude is no tower and no cathedral.

• It delves into the deep red flesh of the soil.

Conversely, romantic gloriana celebrates Africa’s more complex achievements. It salutes the pyramids of Egypt, the towering structures of Aksum, the sunken churches of Lalibela, the brooding majesty of Great Zimbabwe, the castles of Gonder. Romantic gloriana is a tribute to Africa’s empires and kingdoms, Africa’s inventors and discoverers, great Shaka Zuku, rather than the unknown peasant.

Both forms of Pan-African cultural nationalism were a response to European imperialism and its cultural arrogance. Europeans said that Africans were simple and invented nothing. That was an alleged fact. Europeans also said that those who were simple and invented nothing were uncivilised. That was a value judgment.

Romantic primitivism accepted Europe’s alleged facts about Africa —that it was simple and invented nothing, but rejected Europe’s value judgment — that Africa was, therefore, uncivilised. Simplicity was one version of civilisation. Romantic primitivism said:

• Hooray for those who never invented anything.

• Who never discovered anything…

Romantic gloriana, on the other hand rejected Europe’s alleged facts about Africa —that Africa was simple and invented nothing; but it seems to have accepted Europe’s values that civilisation is to be measured by complexity and invention.

Same African countries can produce both types of Pan-African nationalists. Senegal’s Leopold Senghor had been a major thinker and poet of the Negritude school. Negritude is associated with romantic primitivism. Senghor’s most hotly debated statement is: Emotion is black…Reason is Greek.

Cheikh Anta Diop, Senegal’s Renaissance man, belonged more to the Gloriana School. He spent much of his life demonstrating Africa’s contributions to global civilisation. And he was most emphatic that the civilisation of Pharaonic Egypt was a black civilisation.

This was all in the grand Pan-African tradition of romantic Gloriana.

   [Enlarge Picture]
About The Author(s): Prof. Ali Mazrui is Chancellor of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture, Kenya. Additionally, he is the Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities, Professor in Political Science, African Studies, Philosophy, Interpretation and Culture and the Director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies (IGCS). Mazrui also holds three concurrent faculty appointments as Albert Luthuli Professor-at-Large in the Humanities and Development Studies at the University of Jos in Nigeria, Andrew D. White Professor-at-Large Emeritus and Senior Scholar in Africana Studies at Cornell University. [MORE >>] [Personal Website] [More Articles By Prof. Mazrui].

Popularity: 14% [?]

Popularity: 15% [?]