Review of the Rageh Omaar Report: ZIMBABWE - STATE OF DENIAL

I have just finished watching a forty-five minute report on Zimbabwe titled "Zimbabwe - State of Denial." The report by Aljazeera's star correspondent and the host of its WITNESS show, the British-Somali Rageh Omaar drew a grim picture of the situation in the country. It was a scathing criticism of Robert Mugabe and his party ZANU-PF. The president and his party are accused of single-handedly destroying Zimbabwe's economy and precipitating incredible levels of inflation. The country previously known as the food basket of the entire continent has, as a result of these policies, become dependent on international food aid. But that was not enough: Omaar also criss-crossed the country in order to interview members of the Zimbabwean opposition as well as white farmers. The story behind the land reforms which drew Western wrath at Zimbabwe is told from a different perspective. Yes, the land had been concentrated in the hands of whites (who make up two per cent of the Zimbabwean population), but Mugabe had only moved to take over their farms after he realized that he was losing the support of the people. According to the report, Mugabe never had a problem with white ownership of the land. He had, in fact, upon independence, gone to great lengths to comfort the white minority in the new Zimbabwe.


One will not come out supporting President Robert Mugabe after watching this film. It is decidedly unsympathetic to ZANU-PF. Omaar’s report is dismissive of the Western role in the economic collapse and does not give sufficient hearing to the plight of the landless millions of Zimbabweans. Yes, Mugabe is corrupt and manipulative. And yes, the land reforms have been marred by wide scale irregularities but still; their justness should not be questioned.

Africa at Fifty Years of Independence: A Discussion among Columbia Students

Abdallah Diagne, a sophomore at Columbia College, wrote the following piece after a lively discussion at an African Students Association meeting on the achievements - or lack thereof - of African nations 50 years after many of them gained their independence (editor's note: the passion and knowledge of my fellow ASA members never ceases to amaze and delight me, even when I don't agree with them):

On Monday February 22^nd I led a discussion for the African Students Association at Columbia University which focused the 50-year anniversary of the independence of many African nations. I began by introducing the viewpoints of some of the authors I read for my African Civilizations class focusing in particular on Fanon, Nyerere and Nkrumah and the notion of unity within the continent right after independence that a few of them deal with (highlighting Nyerere’s conception of a United States of Africa). I then proceeded to ask the ASA members whether they thought that unification was possible, and whether they could identify any hindrances to it. After a large diversity of responses was given, the discussion naturally progressed to Africa’s status after 50 years of independence and whether we have any reason to celebrate. I will talk about the general responses to those issues.

Regarding African unification in the direction of a United States of Africa, my first interlocutors identified situations in which steps toward unification were being taken. They mentioned that most African nations wanted to create a continental Bank of Africa that would be based in Lagos, Nigeria, and then reflected on what kind of difficulties it would create. Some snickering members questioned why Nigeria was the place chosen to locate a continental bank, due to the stereotypes of corruption associated with Nigerians especially after the recent 419 frauds. Our social chair then confirmed that Nigeria was actually almost universally selected to have the honor of hosting a continental bank, and even regional rival Ghana voted for her. This suggests that African nations trust what is arguably the largest economic power outside of South Africa and Egypt, presumably because it is capable of this task and because it is a nation that everyone can identify it. As West Africans (which about 90% of the people present were) we agreed that we do not identify especially well with South Africans and Northern Africans and we would rather be represented by a nation that most generally represents the African spirit. Once this agreement was reached, we moved back to the original question of whether a central bank was a good idea. A number of people said that it would be disastrous because not all nations have the same economic power and we would not want a repeat of what is going on with the EU where major countries like Spain and Greece are struggling economically because of the introduction of the Euro. Such a system would cause inflation in the poorer countries and deflation in the richer countries like Nigeria and Ghana.

We then evaluated Nyerere’s idea and discussed whether a United States of Africa was possible. No one believes that there will ever be unification on the continental scale, but it is plausible that regional federations will form. I told them to recall that most of the boundaries in Africa were arbitrarily determined by Europeans, so they would have been very different if Africans determined them. Most of the divided groups would be reunited, and the fact that they are located within different nations makes the transition to a federation easier. However, cultures in West Africa as opposed to Eastern or Southeastern Africa are too inherently different for their respective populations to coexist peacefully. We thus identified that social unity is the key to unification, and solidified our stance by affirming that local traditions are too strongly rooted for people to willingly give them up for the benefit of a larger nation. Eliminating all polytheistic religions would ease the process of unification, but most groups would not conform, potentially leading to unnecessary strife. It would thus in our best interest to attempt only to unify on a regional level where most of the ethnicities have enough in common to consent to coexist in a larger nation dominated by one political entity.

I mentioned at this point that most African nations were celebrating 50 years of independence later this year, and I urged the group to reflect on their individual nations and assess whether the situation has ameliorated since the Europeans left. I explained how most of the authors outlined the destructive effects of colonialism, with one striking account provided by Fanon when he “concede[s] that whatever proof there is of a once mighty Songhai civilization does not change the fact that the Songhais today are undernourished, illiterate, abandoned to the skies and water, with a blank mind and glazed eyes”. Since almost all the African nations are still seeped in poverty, did we really ameliorate our situation by being autonomous, or would we have been better off under European dominance? Did we do anything right? What is the purpose of celebrating 50 years of independence, and what should we celebrate anyway? At this point the entire mood of the room shifted from a tactful well-this-is-what-I-believe disposition to an all-out, unforgiving what-you-are-saying-is-rubbish one, and tempers flared. One Ghanaian student vividly declared that we may spend every minute of the entire year negatively reflecting on how terrible living in our respective countries may be, but we must allocate one day to at least celebrate that we are independent nations.

The naysayers and those who adopted the most cynical attitudes asserted that any acts of furthering the African cause are done for selfish reasons by individuals who are overly eager to have their efforts praised by an entire group of people. A story was brought up about how a Tanzanian 21 year-old took scrap parts from various machines to build a wind turbine which provided electricity for an entire village. He then focused on expanding his invention to benefit other villages in the area. The detractors argued that this was a selfish act for him to promote his intelligence, a point that I never fully understood. It was like they were admitting that no efforts by Africans is worthy of praise and the only admiration that matters is that given by Westerners. Since they discovered this technology long before we were able to use it on our own, such advances would hardly be front-page newsworthy. The most vocal critic of celebrating independence made the unpopular comment that Somalia, his home nation, is seeped with extreme corruption because they should never have been allowed to run the country themselves, and they should have either let British people do it, or propagate British institutions instead of tearing them down. As a result human rights are not respected, former top universities have no value, and the nation remains in general poverty.

Are such remarks generally applicable to all of Africa? Perhaps, seeing as the vast majority of countries have inordinate percentages of citizens living in poverty that die in hordes from diseases which in the Western world are very avoidable, and who are increasingly wary of governments that seem destined to oppress them. It is arguable that coup d’états would never take place in the Western world, while in Africa they are unfortunately commonplace. The pessimistic citizens have thus ample reasons to want to forgo any mass-scale celebrations of independence because there is very little success to celebrate. All agree that it is wrong to say that Africa has done nothing right since the decolonization movement, but those supporting this view will be hard-pressed to find evidence that would completely satisfy their critics. I thus concede that celebrating 50 years of independence by no means denotes celebrating 50 years of success, nor does it mean we are well on our way to traveling along an asphalt-covered road that the leaders of the decolonization movement probably foresaw in their dreams would exist. For now we must be content with journeying on a dirt road that someday will resemble its European or American brothers, but we should celebrate the fact that it has been 50 years and Africa is still independent – at least on paper.

It would not hurt to remain optimistic that someday our day will come, but for the most part patience is running out. I urged my friends to understand that no matter what appalling situation they can identify in their native countries, it is still possible to do something about it. As the new generation of ‘colonized intellectuals,’ they have much more than the power to change their nations’ fortunes. It just will not do to say that we need the British, the French or the Portuguese to install infrastructures that will help us to thrive in the future. Every child needs to stumble to learn how to walk, and we must always hope the stumbling time is behind us and that we finally have the firm legs to build the asphalt road and walk upon it with pride.

A Global Beat...for Peace

Take a second out of studying for midterms to check out this global effort at awareness on Sudan. This film, a Global Drumbeat for Peace, tells and shows the story of a drum beat (yes...a drum beat!) that starts in Sudan and gets passed around the world in hopes of having every-day people educate themselves on the current conditions in Sudan - of bringing the nation closer to peace. From Brazil, to Ireland, to Australia, individuals were giving voice to the strife that has taken place, and continues to take place...to this day.

Check out the video below -- Do you believe in the efforts put forth in this movie? Do you feel like it will truly do anything that it claims it will do? Tell us what you think!

http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_freevideo+%28RSS%3A+Video%29#/video/showbiz/2010/01/09/vassileva.intv.beat.for.peace.cnn

A Bridge Over the River Nile

The Nile is, perhaps, the essence of the African continent: all of its nuances and sundry distilled and typified into its very being. She is unwieldy, fertile, destructive, glorious and inevitably fraught with political dissent. She is also large – very large. At over four-thousand miles, weaving through nine countries and reaching widths of up to five miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. As with all of Nature's resplendent wonders, she is closely followed by the adulterating wiles of man. As contentious and volatile as the East African political landscape is, one unwavering constant has remained manifest since time immemorial: life itself heeds the beck and call of the River Nile, with all of her tortuous bends and turns. The undeniable significance of the river adds a further layer of gravitas, transforming what would ostensibly be harmless political squabbles into a matter of life and death.

The Nile sustains over three-hundred million people who reside in and around its Basin, extending from Burundi at its southern-most tip through the entirety of Egypt in the north, splitting into the vast Nile Delta and finally escaping into the vastness of the Mediterranean Sea. The Basin population is expected to double within the next twenty years, creating an unprecedented demand for water in a historically drought-ridden region. Of the 180 countries listed in the World Water Development Report’s ranking of water availability per capita, the Nile countries are conspicuously low: Kenya is ranked 154th, Uganda 115th and Ethiopia 137th, while the downstream nations of Egypt and Sudan are ranked 156th and 129th, respectively.

Burgeoning demographic growth, coupled with dwindling resources, is a recipe for political destabilization and armed escalation. At the heart of the issue lie the timeless truths of the African continent: scarcity, greed and inevitable international intervention. This crisis takes the discerning observer back to 1929 when the Nile Water Agreement, a thorny vestige of the colonial era that still bears legitimacy, was first established. The Agreement, brokered by the British, granted the Nile's downstream nations (Sudan and Egypt) extensive rights over the river's use and, more significantly, exclusive veto power concerning any public infrastructure projects built on or along the Nile by any of the upstream nations, much to the chagrin of countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Ethiopia. The logic behind their concern is that the unimpeded flow of nutrient-rich river water to the downstream states is threatened by the construction of dams, irrigation canals or hydro-electric turbines further up the river. The Nile's flow adopts a particularly sensitive demeanour in the Egyptian context: the country's sustenance hinges completely on the river and its population lives entirely along its banks as the rest of its territory is composed of the largest desert on Earth. The Agreement guarantees both Egypt and Sudan 56 billion cubic meters of the 74 billion cubic meters that constitute the Nile's total water flow (more than 75% of the total water volume). The upstream states claim that the Agreement rests upon an antiquated division that grants the downstream states a de facto monopoly over the rights and usage of the Nile's waters.

Several feckless attempts at reconciliation have been sought in the eighty-year interim since the Agreement's inception, with the most recent endeavour precipitating in the Nile Basin Initiative of 1993 which sought to "develop the Nile in a cooperative manner, share substantial socioeconomic benefits, and promote regional peace and security." Nonetheless, economic incentives, justified and zealous, die hard. The source-countries of the Nile (Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda) have unilaterally embarked upon their own agricultural and developmental infrastructure projects, most notably a 170 mile-long pipeline built in Tanzania, as well as the Tekeze Dam in Ethiopia. While reasonable in their nature, these projects and others like them have had indelible environmental effects on the Nile, most conspicuously in the formation of enormous water reserves which trap nutrient-rich silt necessary for the irrigation of farmlands further downstream. Egypt and Sudan deem any diversion of the Nile as nothing less than an act of war. Exacerbating the issue is the recent involvement of the World Bank in the foray, with the vocal backing of Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania and Congo. Many of the Nile Basin states view this intervention as a move toward destabilization, in particular on the part of Rwanda and Congo whom the Nile barely grazes. Of course, the downstream nations' vigorous rejection of water diversion is not to be deemed simply as innocent protest. Egypt's agricultural endeavours along the Nile have been marred by their grandiose, embarrassing and ostentatious nature. The earliest of these was Nasser's construction of the Aswan High Dam which resulted in the flooding and mass displacement of 300,000 Nubians. More recently was the Toshka Irrigation Canal Project which sought to construct a colossal artificial artery of the Nile that penetrated directly into the depths of the Sahara, in order to potentially turn the desert into farmable land. The project ended in fiscal, political and social disaster and firmly ingrained the image of Egypt as an irresponsible patron of the Nile in the collective conscience of the upstream states. Perhaps most damning of all were allegations that Egypt sought to create a waterway under the Suez Canal (named the Peace Canal) which would irrigate 600,000 acres of land in Northern Sinai with water from the Nile, and which would ultimately flow into Israel. Needless to say, these rumours struck a particularly contentious nerve among all of the Nile Basin states.

Where does this leave the Basin states? A political stalemate can maintain the semblance of stability for only so long. The conflict holds implications that are all too palpable for the populations of the Nile Basin and cannot continue to remain cordoned off behind the plush walls of foreign ministries and African Union assemblies. The Nile and her abuse are intimately connected to the beating hearts of three-hundred million souls. Compromise can no longer be deemed a lofty ideal, but must be treated as a tangible necessity. The unmoving hubris of the Basin states can only serve to usher in their own undoing.

Recommended Listening: New World Water - Mos Def

The Coup and The Council

Once again the tanks and armored carriers are rolling on the streets in the capital, leaving their unmistakable trail of destruction on the asphalt. The camouflaged soldiers have burst out of their barracks, commandeered the city and erected cantonments on intersections all across Niamey, Niger’s capital. The revolution has made another full circle, in French of course, in the ever more mouthful form of Conseil suprême pour la Restauration de la Démocratie.

As the first volley of shots was fired at the presidential palace, the African Union and ECOWAS, the two regional bodies that are supposedly the most involved in matters on the continent, were in the dark about the unfolding events. The ambushed officials in Abuja and Addis Ababa could only scramble for scraps of news while affecting postures of authority and concern. The one constant in all coup d’états – foreign involvement – was embodied by France, the former colonial power, confirming the intimate details of the military coup.

This is not the first time that such a strange sequence has played out in the African context: there was a similar response in the aftermath of the coup in Guinea-Bissau a year ago. All that the AU could do then was express a vague sense of apprehension and promise to deliberate on the matter. Despite the extensive political consultation that followed, it was clear the organization’s lack of essential information about the situation on the ground had limited the effectiveness of its intervention. Portugal (one of the poorest countries in Europe) exercised more influence than both the AU and ECOWAS combined as the confident statement from its foreign minister on the coup showed.

This obviously poses difficult challenges for both of these organizations. Despite the formation of the AU (formerly known as the Organization of African Unity), the continent’s political order is still vulnerable to foreign interference even after fifty years of independence. The political and economic security sought from the creation of these organizations has yet to materialize. The AU (and, in the case of West Africa, ECOWAS) should have been the most influential force during both coups, if for no other reason than the realization that instability and foreign meddling in one country can undermine the entire region.

This is not to say the continent's leaders are completely unaware of this. Discussions regarding the restoration of democracy in Niger are underway. And there have been successful political interventions that aimed to diffuse crises in Guinea-Conakry, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritania and Madagascar. These instances represent a more proactive stance on the part of the AU, ECOWAS and, in the case of Madagascar, the SADC, in attending to crises.

Military coups have declined in frequency, but this has yet to translate into stability or freedom from the grip of colonialism. Through extensive networks of security and economic apparatuses, the European capitals still maintain control of their former colonies. African governments depend on the metropolises for military hardware and training. The metropolises in turn use this opportunity to gain access to and establish links with key elements in the militaries they train: links that are vital for triggering coups when they are expedient. In this way the national security of African countries is compromised and key institutions are penetrated. The same vulnerability is true for the economies of former colonies as well.

It would be unfeasible to sever military and economic ties at this point but the continent’s leadership must collectively reflect on this problem. To release Africa from foreign domination, and from constant military revolts, there needs to be more secure networks for military and economic infrastructure. That means the creation of rigorous regional academies for all officers in the region. Such institutions would limit the vulnerability of intelligence and provide officers a forum to meet and share expertise and resource.

As for Niger, the engines of the tanks and army lorries are still roaring. When the dust stirred by their commotion settles we will learn the faces of the new young revolutionaries.

Up and Onward with Teddy Afro

There are sounds…and there is music. The latter, in the case of contemporary Ethiopian entertainment would be applied to a multitude of musical artists, but no one can deny the fact that Teddy Afro (real name, Tewodros Kassahun) has embodied what Ethiopian "musica" truly means, and goes beyond it’s definition. This prolific musician has transcended boundaries beyond belief, and has recently found himself in heated controversy surrounding that very dynamism of his work.

To give a brief background on Teddy, it would be useful to understand the types of music from his past album releases and its correlation with the current political scene of Ethiopia. One of his most popular albums, Abugida, built up the anticipation of what was yet to come from this musical phenom as it gave a snippet of the pride that he was going to be invoking amongst his fellow countrymen. Even as an Ethiopian-American at the tender age of eleven years old upon release of this album, I found myself listening to and engaging with this album on repeat every chance that I received, all while singing along to any and every word that I’d be able to latch onto. Belting out beautiful tunes ranging from a tribute to the late Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, in the track “Girmawineto” all the way to “Mona Lisa” which explicated upon the facets of beauty in all of humankind, Teddy Afro was just preparing his world-wide listeners for what they were about to hear…and witness.

Teddy Afro’s audience members were unprepared for the personal connection they received upon pressing play on his next, and third, album, “Yasteseryal”. What made Teddy’s tunes even more inspirational was that at the time of this album’s release, the political scene of Ethiopia was getting even more heated with political controversies that were unveiling itself over the course of the year, as they were, for the most part, tied to the General Election of Ethiopia in 2005. In turn, “Yasteseryal” did not cease in addressing these very pressing issues.

Boiling over with political out roar, “Yasteseryal” was a force, though cliché, to be reckoned with. One of the most famous songs on the album (and self-evidently the name of the album itself), “Yasteseryal,” spoke out against the current political regime all while sparking concern, and in some cases, fear on the part of the governmental officials. This in turn led to it’s (and several other songs on the album) to be banned from publically being aired via television or radio stations.

This controversy, however, seemed to be unceasing. Just shortly thereafter, in 2008, Teddy Afro was accused and jailed for a supposed hit-and-run manslaughter that many speculate to actually be a sentencing in response to his politically charged music and/or his call for unity amongst his Ethiopian kinsmen. Fortunately for Teddy Afro, and his fans across the globe, his sentence was reduced from six to two years; Throughout this time, however, fans were right by his side – though not physically, but definitely mentally and spiritually. I personally remember visiting Addis Ababa during the summer of 2008 and driving past Kaliti Jail (the prison within which Teddy Afro was imprisoned) and experiencing a sense of internal remorse and sorrow. As an eighteen-year-old American-born Ethiopian at the time, I deem that it was, and is, safe to say that Teddy Afro has managed to invoke within his listeners a feeling that cannot be explained by use of mere words found in the average dictionary.

Luckily, Teddy Afro was shortly released approximately eight months earlier than was intended…and his presence was felt on the continent of Africa, all the way to the continent of Asia. He was released with a bang, and the world reverberated with the tunes of Teddy’s re-debut after his highly anticipated prison-release. To this day, Teddy has had concerts all across the world, and one of his most famous shows to date took place at the famous DC Armory to celebrate the beginning of the 2010 New Year. What better way to ring in 2010 than to sway to the words of Teddy Afro’s inspirational music and lyricism…to jump in excitement and bask in the strumming tunes of traditional Ethiopian instrumentation played by the famed “Abugida Band”…or to even delight yourself in the forever-famous “Eskista” dancing with your fellow concert goers? Whatever your reasons for attending this legendary show, you were in for an experience…and one that will never be forgotten.

[On that note – Please enjoy the video provided. One of Teddy's most popular and passionate songs released, “Abebayehosh” gives a small taste of the melodic music that one can enjoy from this world-renowned musician, and that especially complements the New Years celebration…and beyond!]

Zimbabwe: One Year of Unity Government

A year has already passed since a national unity government was established in Zimbabwe. After sustained pressure from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) led by South African presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe and the leader of the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Morgan Tsvangirai agreed to share power in January 2009. The Global Political Agreement, as it was christened, not only invented the post of Prime Minister for Tsvangirai, but also stipulated that stabilizing the economy, lifting Western sanctions, reinvigorating of the rule of law, resolving land issues and drafting a new constitution be the first issues addressed by the government. Joint committees set up by the inclusive government would see that the provisions of the agreement were carried out.

Forming this unity government was not an easy process. It came at the end of a long, arduous labor, with the SADC serving as midwife. The negotiations broke down many times with both parties storming out of the talks but thanks to the intense pressure of the SADC and, in particular, the personal involvement of both South African presidents throughout the entire process, an accord was reached.

By all accounts this agreement has spared Zimbabwe from further plunging down into an intractable political abyss and, God forbid, a civil war. Except for isolated instances, the violence that followed the general elections has all but abated. It will take time for the economy to recover fully, but relief has otherwise been palpable with food shelves filling up again and market activities resuming vitality. As a result, daily hardships for most Zimbabweans have diminished. Yet as the government works to issue salaries on time in US dollar, and as this is contributing to the general easing of burden and distress for people, Western governments embargo remains in place. Having failed to derail the reconciliation effort of SADC, these governments seem as ever committed to overthrowing President Mugabe. Brussels welcomed Prime Minister Tsvangirai, but only as a means of empowering him and further isolating him from his partner, President Mugabe. Despite the red carpet treatment he has received, no indication has come from the European Union capital that it intends to ease the economic stranglehold it is has on Zimbabwe.

This is not to say that the unity government has otherwise been on schedule in fulfilling the other provisions of the unity accord. On the contrary, Mugabe and Tsvangirai have simply shifted their power struggle from the streets of Harare to the executive corridors of the government. The two gentlemen have worked diligently to agree on nothing. As the president, however, and the one in actual control, Mugabe assumes the lion’s share of any failure. He has been unwilling to allow his prime minister some authority as per the accord. Despite the GPA arrangement, Mugabe still holds enormous influence in his lap. As a result, efforts towards the reestablishment of the rule of law have gone nowhere. Corruption continues to gnaw the state organs and public service. Prime Minister Tsvangirai, on the other hand, has not done enough to distance himself from Western attempts to impose colonial terms on Zimbabwe. Under Tony Blair the British government had even contemplated a military invasion of the country. During the SADC mediation, the said government actively frustrated reconciliation efforts, inciting opposition parties to abandon talks. Its preferred solution for the crisis is to exacerbate the situation in order to induce general disorder or a military coup. For the GPA to succeed, Prime Minister Tsvangirai must make it clear that he rejects such harmful and undesired foreign meddling. He must also allay the suspicion of President Mugabe. It is of paramount importance that confidence in the unity government is restored as its potential cannot to be taken for granted. If not cultivated and built upon, it could easily evaporate and leave Zimbabweans in a precarious political situation once again.