[ By: Charles Onyango-Obbo ]
The other week we had that seemingly bizarre story from Zimbabwe. Police Sergeant Alois Mabhuno was jailed for 10 days for using a toilet reserved for President Robert Mugabe. His ordeal didn’t end there, as he was also demoted and banished to a remote rural police post.

The story sparked off an avalanche of jokes, but the one that best struck at the meaning of Mabhuno’s misfortune was by a fellow Tweep on the mini-blogging site Twitter.

He wrote of the irony that Mugabe could forgive Zimbabwe Central Bank Governor Gideon Gono for allegedly having an affair with First Lady Grace Mugabe, but couldn’t find it in him to forgive a poor cop who used his toilet.

For the record, Gono and Grace Mugabe flatly denied the allegations that were first reported by South African and British newspapers, then went viral on the Internet like a fire on accelerators.

It’s the gist of Tweep’s remarks, rather than whether Gono and Mrs Mugabe had an improper relationship, which interests us. For it correctly makes the point that in most political societies, particularly developing ones, the trappings and symbols of power often matter more than the unseen but real exercise of power.

Thus to the masses, a president’s signature to authorise the execution of 10 prisoners on death row, which is power over life, is not as impressive as having exclusive use of the First Toilet.

   Bob Mugabe ‘Prancing’
The First Toilet is a conspicuous item of privilege, and in a country where millions of people have none and cannot begin to fathom how a man can have an expensive one all to himself, it sets you apart more than some rumour about a governor having an affair with the First Lady. After all, infidelity is common, and even a poor villager will have some experience or knowledge of it.

The Commander-in-Chief’s washroom, on the other hand, belongs up there with other talismans like presidential whisks (Kenya founding Father Jomo Kenyatta’s comes to mind); the presidential staff (the most famous in East Africa being that of Kenya’s former president Daniel arap Moi’s); the Conqueror’s Leopard Cap (Mobutu Sese Seko’s); the VVIP White Handkerchief (former Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda’s); the First Bowler Hat (as with Malawi’s Kamuzu Banda); the list is long.

These props and talismans are much discussed and many ordinary folks will swear that they have magical powers that send conspirators in disarray, wad off assassin’s bullets, and can detect traitors in State House.The power structure in most of our countries is built around this exclusive use and access.

Thus when a president is going to the airport, the road is closed to all other users until he has passed. The president will have his own plate and coffee mug.

His own chef (and here everyone, from the Queen of England to crowd-hugging presidents like America’s Barack Obama, will go on foreign trips with their own cooks). And his own jet, needless to say. Power of course derives from many sources; the vote, the army, control of taxpayers’ money, patronage, to name a few.

But public awe, the perception of how Big a Big Man is, and the fear factor that all men of power need to intimidate competitors, that comes from things like exclusive First Toilets.

   [ By: Charles Onyango-Obbo ]
Africa’s longest ruling president, Omar Bongo of Gabon, has gone to meet his maker. The fact that Bongo was in power for a record 42 years means it is not enough for us to say we are rid of another corrupt strongman.

It is time to try and explain why people like him can survive for so long; why our leaders keep stealing our taxes and messing up our lives; and how come Comrade Bob Mugabe in Zimbabwe can run a once-great country into the grave, and yet some are still in office.

The short of it is that these rulers survive because they actually enjoy support. It could be from their tribe, the army, or like Bongo, they can buy loyalty with petrodollars, but that support is often more than what the democratic opposition can muster.

Even Uganda’s disastrous ‘Field Marshal’ Idi Amin had the undying loyalty of the rich class that grabbed the vast Asian “abandoned properties” after he expelled them in 1972. We tend to blame disorganised oppositions for the survival of wicked politicians like Togo’s Gnassingbe Eyadema. But wwhat else explains it equally is a cowardly, greedy, or ethnically-driven population.

Bongo, let’s be fair, was not your typically abominable African strongman. His prisons were not full of journalists and opposition politicians. Though most Gabonese still live in poverty, he managed to keep very many others happy by spreading the oil money around.

As The Guardian put it, Bongo “quickly realised that money could be more effective than bullets in keeping power.” Bongo’s case also suggests that instead of lumping the continent’s leaders together, we need to develop categories for classifying them. The list of African leaders here is by no means exhaustive.

1. The Predatory Dictators: These mostly rob, kill, and ruin everything. Here put several former presidents: DRC’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Liberia’s Charles Taylor, Uganda’s Idi Amin.

2. The Progressive Despots: These don’t democratise fully and fill their prisons with critics and independent journalists, but they still build roads, railways (Bongo spent $4bn on a railway network). Here I can think of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, Ghana’s Gerry Rawlings, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, and, from an earlier period, Cote d’Ivoire’s Felix Houphuet-Boigny. Bongo belongs here.

3. The Enlightened Strongmen: These are men who shake up their countries with bold reformists initiatives, and make them distinctly leaders in Africa in some areas, but they still keep a tight lid on political life: Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Mozambique’s former President Joachim Chissano, and throw in Djibouti’s Omar Guelleh.

4. The Heartbreaker Backsliders: These started out well, held a lot of promise, and even had remarkable records in their first years, but then they went into reverse gear. Either they became two-penny despots, changed constitutions to perpetuate themselves in power, or went to the far extreme to impose a regime of terror ? as Eritrea’s Issaias Afeworki. The least bad of the lot is someone like President Museveni. Robert Mugabe belongs here (can’t dismiss his early good works).

5. The Miscast Democrats: These are decent men and women, who came to power with huge majorities, but when they are in office, they don’t convert that mandate into good or enduring works. Liberia’s Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki typify this group.

6. The 8am-5pm Regulars: Here, think of the more technocratic African presidents who came to power as freedom fighters or were elected in free elections. They govern without any drama. Are in office by 8 am and leave shortly after 5 pm, balance the national budgets, keep inflation down, and leave a healthy country that made normal progress during their rule.

Botswana’s leaders – Sir Seretse Khama, Ketumile Masire (he used to walk to the newsstand opposite his office to buy newspapers and pick coffee at a corner cafe), Festus Mogae, and now Seretse Khama Ian Khama.

But, perhaps, even better examples are Mauritius’ Sir Anerood Jugnauth, and Rwanda’s Paul Kagame (Rwanda, typically, just became the first country in the Third World to introduce a national immunisation programme against pneumococcal disease, one of the leading killers of children in the world).

7. The Charmed Ones: These are leaders who are nation healers, inspirational, and we have to fight with the rest of an adoring world (where they assume a saintly status) to claim them as Africa’s own. We also like to gloss over their failings. Count Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere and the great Nelson Mandela, here.

Reference: Libya’s Gaddafi takes the mantle from Bongo

Limbaugh on Obama: “He’s a bad guy. He’s one angry guy. His wife is angry as well.” Then he called Obama — “Barack Ogabe” — “A well known Kenyan name.”

This FAT goon seems to be incapable of keeping his fluttering pink little dick tucked in between his FAT thighs.

From MediaMatters: Limbaugh Wire: 3/24/2009 Part III — Published Tue, Mar 24, 2009 3:37pm ET

This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Barack Ogabe
By Simon Maloy

To kick off the final hour, Rush noted a Reuters article headlined, “Resistance grows to Obama’s bigger government,” and encouraged us all to look at the bigger picture. Rush took us back to January 15, asking us to imagine where the country would be if, between now and then, there had been no resistance to Obama’s “assault” on capitalism. Before we could get around to envisioning that nightmare scenario, Rush explained why he took us back to that seemingly random date — the very next day, Rush first said he wanted Obama to “fail.” According to Rush, this was — he was — the tipping point, the “first breath” of opposition to Obama, without which there would be no opposition to Obama. But now, because of Rush’s desire that Obama fail, people are starting to raise questions. [ READ MORE ]

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

“

HARARE, Zimbabwe (CNN) — Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai was in stable condition and recovering from head injuries Friday night after a car wreck that killed his wife, Susan, medical sources told CNN.

The crash, on a busy two-lane highway between Tsvangirai’s hometown of Buhera and the capital city of Harare, comes just weeks after the start of a power-sharing agreement between Tsvangirai and his political rival, President Robert Mugabe.

Analysts say the crash is bound to raise suspicion of foul play, with one former U.S. diplomat calling for an outside investigation, saying it is not the first time that a political foe of Mugabe has been killed or injured in a car crash.

Members of Tsvangirai’s political party, the Movement for Democratic Change, said Friday that it was too early to tell whether the crash is anything other than an accident.

Tsvangirai’s aide and driver also were injured in the head-on collision with a large truck, according to his spokesman, James Maridadi.

Movement for Democratic Change spokesman Nelson Chamisa said he spoke to Tsvangirai at the hospital, and the party leader was in “relatively stable” condition. [ MORE ]

    Zimbabwean traffic police stand guard over the wreckage of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s
    vehicle, south of the capital Harare, Friday, March 7 2009.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

We have witnessed this mode of political assassination before — in Africa

Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Arap Moi, both of Kenya, Idi Amin of Uganda and many other African dictators killed their detractors by staging accidents.

Victims of Kenyatta’s assassinations include — Pio Gama da Pinto, Ronald Ngala (a land rights crusader), C. M. G. Argwings Kodhek (MP and human rights lawyer), and the populist MP from Nyandarua Josiah Mwangi (JM) Kariuki, fierce critic of Kenyatta’s land grabbing disease.

Daniel Arap Moi, Kenyatta’s vice president for many years, picked up the killing after Jomo died, when he became president of Kenya — murdering and then burning the body of Dr. Robert Ouko, the then Foreign Minister in his government.

Idi Amin of Uganda, who was perhaps the most brutal military dictator to wield power in post-independence Africa, “staged” numerous accidental deaths too — Anglican Archbishop, Janani Luwum, was killed in a simulated car crash in Kampala — a fate suffered by many other political opponents.

I have a very strong feeling that Mugabe wants Morgan Tsvangirai DEAD!

Therefore his visit to Tsvangirai’s bedside immediately after the “ACCIDENT,” smells every bit as devious as Jomo Kenyatta attending Thomas Joseph Mboya’s memorial in Nairobi, in 1969 — after hiring the assassin who gunned him down.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Tom Mboya Funeral

Tom Mboya & Dr. Martin L King at a civil rights rally in DC

African Nationalist Thomas Joseph Mboya coordinated an “airlift” in 1959 of 81 Kenyan students to the USA to attend college. With the help of Dr. King, the African American Students Foundation and its sponsors, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson, and Sidney Poitier, Mboya raised sufficient funds to cover the students’ travel expenses. One of the students was a certain Barack Husein Obama snr., the late father of US President Barack Obama. This rally was in Washington DC, 1959

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

 Author: Tongkeh Joseph Fowale
Introduction

The excitement and jubilation with which Africa greeted Barack Obama’s victory as 44th President of the United States of America suggests the continent’s expectations of Obama. It also reveals the hidden passion and desire of the “forgotten continent” to be seen and heard. To have a “Black Boy” (as Richard Wright would have it, – suggestive of a racial struggle) in the White House, at the helm of global power, is one of those rare events in modern history which our generation has been privileged to witness. This is not only because it has never happened before, but rather because it “might” arguably take a very long time to happen again. I do not claim to predict the future with absolute certainty. What I am trying to insinuate is that, even if America were o have another black President in the near or distant future, much reference would be made to Obama just like Obama’s victory owes a great debt to the dream and vision of Martin Luther King.

Does this suggest that Obama owes an incalculable debt to his ancestral and paternal home – Africa? Many pundits and analysts have invested considerable time and energy in trying to quantify how much Africa stands to reap from its son in the White House. Some see it in the form of direct material benefits – the flow of American dollars into Africa, increased aid and trade opportunities and policies to reach out directly and immediately to Africa’s poor masses. Others see immaterial benefits such as a greater commitment to advance democracy in Africa and efforts to assist African institutions such as the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) to grapple with the challenges facing the continent. Considered either or both ways, it boils down to one question – what does Obama hold for Africa?

A moment of great expectations

There are many African proverbs which suggest the advantages of having a brother in power or in any situation to improve the lot of his immediate family. One says that if your brother is a hunter, you will surely eat the heart of a lion one day. A similar proverb agrees that if you have a brother up the tree, you will never eat unripe fruits. How then can Africa continue to starve when its son is in control of the dollar-spinning machine? This line of thinking which largely defines the mindset of modern Africa is perhaps the most agreeable point from which to start any analysis of Africa’s expectations of Obama.

Upon close examination, however, one comes to realize that this general cry of “salvation at last,” this narrowly defined victory of the “black race” is nothing but the revelation of deep-rooted frustration that runs through the continent from top to bottom; from leaders to the masses. It once again highlights the need for a role model in a continent under the grip of ageing dinosaurs in the name of leaders who constantly renew their strength with the blood of their own people. These same leaders who suddenly rose, as if stung by a bee, to hijack Obama’s victory and redefine it along racial lines, are the same ones who stand directly opposed to what brought Obama to historical and global prominence – change.

Could Obama’s call for change make him prominent in Africa? One needs a simple experiment to answer this question. Let’s create a hypothetical situation where Obama, for love of race, were to return to Africa with his vision and passion for change. The chances are that Obama would be silenced from the very beginning. Chris Agbiti, writing on this subject, suggests that if Obama were to be brought up in Kenya, “with all his seeming grace and intelligence, he would have ended up, at best, as a very brilliant but frustrated University don holed up somewhere in one of our glorified secondary schools called University – like many other frustrated Obamas in our African society today.”

As clear as this picture is, one should add that Obama would get this position not by the strength of his brain but by his connection with the ruling elite at the family or tribal level, or by identifying with the ruling party. Without this connection, he would either need somebody up the “tree of power” or drink from the same cup with “holders of power” in one satanic cult or another. He would have to seek protection and promotion from one sorcerer or juju man. This entails blood. Here is where Obama would have to place the lives of his wife and children on the line. This is one of the possibilities that would be open to Obama if he returned “home.”

The second and higher possibility is that Obama would have to pay the ultimate price for trying to change a system that is antithetical to change. For this he would have to languish in jail. He would face torture, and charges would be levied against him, false charges manufactured by the system he would be trying to change. He would see the true face of injustice and pain. He would be forced to join the ranks of African youths fleeing the continent either as migrants or refugees. If Obama returned home, the same group of people who praise him on the basis of his “African roots” would be the same ones to remind him that he is not Kenyan or Ivorian because his mother came from here or there.

When African hypocrites line up to sing Obama’ s eulogies, none of them makes mention of Obama’s maternal contributions to his success. Nobody sees Obama as a product of an environment in which tolerance has prevailed, a society that has risen above trivial issues like race and color, where cultural diversity has been harnessed into national glory, where a “patchwork heritage” as Obama himself called it, has been transformed into national strength. No African leader has yet come to realize that kinship is a matter of ideas and not of race, region or color. No African leader has come to accept the fact that it is natural to differ, but necessary to tolerate. Leadership in Africa is a cult; power is an obsession, an addiction.

How then does Obama plan to engage these “permanent leaders” who abhor change? What is his rescue package for the oppressed African masses under the tyranny of their leaders? What will Obama do to change Africa? As yet there is no clear answer to these questions. The situation only raises more questions. Does the state of decadence in Africa today suggest that Africa lacks creative minds? Can those African babies who die in their thousands before their first birth days not be groomed into Obamas? Do African youths lack the steam and rigor necessary to become Obama? Putting these questions together, one arrives at a bigger and more complex question. Why do Africans excel only out of Africa? Statistics revealed by Obama’s campaign team confirm this thesis. These figures revealed that Africans are the most educated immigrant group in America and also that African born men and women have higher median earnings than all foreign born men and women in the U.S. What then can African leaders say about this flight of talent or brain drain of African youths?

During politically festive periods in Africa, the youths are constantly reminded that they are the future leaders of the nation. These liars in the name of leaders stay in power throughout (or twice) the lifetime of an African youth whose sojourn on earth today is decided by HIV/AIDS, hunger, disease and frustration. Those trapped in the crossfire of conflicts, ethnic cleansing and all forms of butchery do not live to tell the story. Their plight is, however, a sad reminder to Obama as to what African youths face on a daily basis. It is a wakeup call for change which will never come from Africa’s present leaders. What can Muamar Gadaffi say about change after 40 years in power? Omar Bongo – 41 (tipped President for life), Obiang Nguema – 28, Robert Mugabe – 29, Hosni Mubarak – 28, Paul Biya – 27, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – 22, Yoweri Museveni – 22, Omar Al Bashir – 19, Idriss Derby – 17, Yahya Jammeh – 14, Denis Sassou Nguesso – 12 (second shift in office), … and the list is elastic. These where the leaders who lined up to shower praises on Obama for being “democratically elected.”

Words of praise for Obama

Listen to African leaders as they blessed and glorified Obama after his election victory. The pride of place in this ranking goes to Mr. Mwai Kibaki, President of Kenya the country from where Obama traces his paternal roots. The Kenyan President described Obama’s victory as a “momentous” occasion for Kenya. He took the victory very personal, calling it “…our own victory because of his roots here in Kenya.” He bathed in pride as he heaved praises on Obama. “As a country, we are full of pride for his success.” Kibaki did not hesitate to tie Obama down to his Kenyan roots. “Your victory is not only an inspiration to millions of people all over the world, but it has special resonance with us here in Kenya.” Kibaki’s eulogy was long and passionate, but when all is said and done, this was the man who rigged elections in broad daylight early in 2008, reducing Kenya into an ethnic volcano. This coincidentally was the period when Obama’s campaign machinery was convincing the American electorate about the need for change.

Nigerian President Oumaru Yar’Adua who recently acknowledged that the elections which brought him to power were flawed, also had praises for Obama. “The election of Barack Obama … has finally broken the greatest barrier of prejudice in human history. I believe for us in Nigeria, we have a lesson to draw from this historic event. Adua also agreed that the election of Obama had “created a totally and completely new era.”

Denis Sassou Nguesso whose blood-sucking Cobras brought him to power in 1997 after a bloody coup, came forth with praises. He described Obama’s victory as a “moving historic moment,” and likened this victory to the triumph of vision. “We see how visionaries like Martin Luther King saw coming events. His dream has come true.”

Chad, the centre of a ruthless dictatorship and state brutality, also joined the queue of praise-singers. National Assembly leader, Nasser Guelindoksia agreed that Obama’s victory should serve as a beacon to other countries. “It’s an example to follow, especially by Africans as Americans show that democracy knows no color, religion or origin.”

Somalia, which recently topped the list of 20 failed states in Africa, and now the centre of instability and piracy, came forth to beg for salvation from Obama. Former President of the Transitional Somali government, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, defined Obama’s victory as “a great moment for America and for Africa.” He saw in Obama, an end to the crisis plaguing his country. “I am hopeful that he will help end the major crisis in the world, particularly the endless conflict in my country.”

Sudan, whose authorities preside over the butchery of Africans in Darfur, claimed to reflect on Obama’s message of change. Khartoum released its own message of congratulations to Obama. “We would hope that the slogan of President Obama – change – would be reflected in the foreign policy of the United States.” The tone also sounded personal and imploring. “We would like to see some real change between Sudan and the United States.”

South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, who has inherited the blame for not standing up to Mugabe’s atrocities, also expressed a lot of hope in Obama. “Your election … carries with it hope for millions of your country men and women as much as it is for millions of people of … African decent.” As long as Motlannthe continues to follow along the “softly, softly” approach initiated by his predecessor – Thabo Mbeki towards Robert Mugabe, the meaning of his “hope” will continue to baffle onlookers. Recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa targeting Africans also throw doubts on Mr. Motlanthe’s language of hope among Africans.

Even Robert Mugabe who has slapped democracy in the face by vowing that “only God” can remove him from power, also struggled to be heard. The Zimbabwean leader, who has made it clear that the opposition MDC will never rule Zimbabwe, used the same mouth to praise Obama. “As the government and people of Zimbabwe join you in celebrating this event in the history of the U.S.A, I take this opportunity to assure you Mr. President-elect that the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe remains ready to engage your government in any desirable endeavor to improve our bilateral relations,” he said. Mr. Mugabe, whose government has taken the blows of severe sanctions from the previous U.S administration, promised to mend ties with the new government under Obama.

Close to three decades in power, Mugabe continues to see international politics from purely racial lenses, and like his peers throughout Africa, domestic politics goes along ethnic lines pure and simple. With this racial obsession, Mugabe had, prior to the March general election in the U.S predicted that America would never have a black president. He had on several occasions thrown insults at former President George Bush’s Secretary of State – Condoleezza Rice, calling her a “slave” to white masters. Back home, Mugabe has embarked on a policy of zero-tolerance towards the opposition, and delivered death and misery to those outside his ruling tribe whom he identifies with the opposition. He continues to blame his countries woes on the West even as thousands of his people die of cholera.

The embattled leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangarai, expressed his hope to see the end of tyranny and the eventual triumph of democracy in his country. “This is the dream that we continue to aspire to, the right that we demand, and the change that we know will come to our country as long as we stay true to our democratic ideals,” he said as he joined the African voices hailing Obama.

Libyan leader, Muammar Gadaffi, the very symbol of African obsession with leadership and a synonym for controversy, saw Obama’s victory along racial lines. “This can be considered the beginning of victory for black people,” he declared. His Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Moseveni expressed surprise that American voters could transcend race. “That all the sections of the American people could transcend race and vote for an African-American is, indeed, an historic achievement for the U.S.A and the World – the latter by the force of example.”

In this loud chorus of praises, the single voice that carried meaning and substance was that of Nelson Mandela. Icon of the struggle against one of the worst forms of abuses on African dignity – apartheid, Mandela alone understood what it takes too change an asphyxiating system and the price that comes with it. “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.” Mandela also expressed hope and confidence in Obama’s determination to combat poverty and disease. “We are sure you will ultimately achieve your dream of making the United States a full partner in a community of states committed to peace and prosperity for all.”

Dealing with Africa

Though Obama faces a mountain of challenges in his early days in office and in the next four years – a crippling economy, the global financial crisis, restoring America’s damaged image around the globe, terrorism, Irag/Afghanistan, climate change etc, Africa still cries out loud for Obama’s attention if not because of the African blood that runs through his veins, then at least because of his conviction and commitment to change. This is where by every stretch of the imagination, Africa expects to take the pride of place in Obama’s busy schedule.

Will Obama’s approach towards Africa be based therefore on, or influenced by such considerations as race, history, sympathy or ancestry? Or will Obama fine-tune his Africa policy in line with America’s interests? These conflicting views create a new dimension to this discussion. While ultra-optimists can’t wait to see U.S dollars raining into Africa as sign of “Obama at work,” conservatives are very careful in their prognostics. The ageing Cuban revolutionary icon, Fidel Castro, who expressed confidence in “the intelligent and noble face of the first black President of the United States …,” also expressed doubts about Obama’s ability to work independently because of the constraints around him. “What will he do soon, when the immense power that he has taken in his hands is absolutely useless to overcome the insolvable antagonistic contradictions of the (American) system?”

While Castro sees Obama as the victim of a system, Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade, situates Obama within the proper context. “Obama is first and foremost an American. He’s not the only American to have roots outside the United States … but at the end of the day, they are all American.” Dr. Yash Tandon of the Switzerland based think-tank – South Centre, seems to agree with President Wade. “Obama after all is answerable to his electorate, and to his own congress,” he said.

This line of thinking leads to the logical conclusion that Obama’s policy towards Africa will be geared first and foremost towards the protection of America’s vital interests, and all other things in biblical terms “shall be added unto it.” This premise notwithstanding, it would be a distortion of history to discard the “African factor” (to avoid the explosive word “race”) in Obama’s climb to victory. “What remains to be determined…” says J. Peter Pham, “is what role Africa will play in the foreign policy of Obama and what approaches he might adopt with respect to the continent.” Pham goes further to highlight three challenges to American interest in Africa which require Obama’s urgent attention – terrorism, hydrocarbons and humanitarian challenges.

One important clue to understanding, or at least predict Obama’s level of engagement with Africa is his Africa Agenda, outlined in his campaign message. He spelt out three areas of priority. The first was to accelerate Africa’s integration into the global economy. The second was to enhance the peace and security of African states. The third was to strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organizations that are committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa.

Obama’s campaign promise touched on key areas of conflict. It identified Darfur as a priority and promised to end the genocide that has cost 2.500 African lives and displaced countless others. He promised to encourage dialogue to end the crisis in eastern Congo and support the UN military force – MONUC. In the Niger Delta, Obama promised to consult with the EU, AU and other stakeholders to stabilize the restless region. In Zimbabwe, he expressed the need to accelerate the pace of the recently signed power-sharing agreement and to move Zimbabwe from a Mugabe-controlled government to one that reflects the results of the March 29 election that was won by the MDC.

To check hunger in Africa, Obama promised o revive African agriculture with what he called Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA). This scheme hoped to ensure food security and alleviate high food costs in Africa. Still along this line of hunger and poverty alleviation, he promised to consolidate the gains of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and open up more U.S markets to African producers, and also encourage U.S companies to invest in Africa. With the help of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Obama expressed his intention to increase lending to small and medium size companies, thus create jobs, sustainable incomes and raise the living standards of Africans.

Obama’ campaign laid out strategies to redress Africa’s predicaments such as AIDS, climate change and promised to restore Africa’s dignity in a global community of nations. It recognized the need to alleviate poverty to rid Africa of terrorism. He promised a Global Education Fund to help fill the financing gap for primary education in Africa and the developing world. In a nutshell, Obama promised to make the Millennium Development Goals “America’s goals.”

At the diplomatic level Obama gave preference to dialogue on issues concerning Africa. He identified China as a major player in Africa and promised to engage China in constructive dialogue with Africa as a full member in this discussion. In his words, “the days of external powers on their own deciding what is best for Africa needs to come to an end once and for all.” Leadership in Obama’s vision is all “about recognizing the inherent quality, dignity and worth of all people.”

Conclusion

By every standard, Obama will be judged by his promises to Africa come 2012. His hair-raising inaugural speech on January 20th further raised African hopes to very high levels. “To the people of poor nations we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” To those countries that have fed themselves fat on Africa’s oil, minerals and labor, and who continue to do so, they too might have listened to Obama. “And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say that we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”

Obama’s message could not have been complete without a word for Africa’s dinosaurs all of whom had sought to curry favor by lavishing him with hypocritical praises. This is what they got in return. “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame the ills of their society on the west, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” Aware of what power means to African leaders, Obama warned further. “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.”

Edmund Burke, the Irish political theorist observed in the 18th century that “the only condition necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Placing Burke’s foresight in the context of new U.S – Africa relations, one can conveniently rephrase Burke to read “the only condition necessary for the continuation of suffering in Africa is for Obama to do nothing.” Are Africa’s dictators ready to “unclench their fists” for Obama to “extend a hand?” Can African masses, shun left, right and center turn to Obama? Will Africa become part of Obama’s world? These questions provide the answer to the question “What does Obama owe Africa?”

————————————————————————————————————-