Côte d'Ivoire's civil war Coming to a crunch, Rebel troops are gaining ground

SKIRMISHES in Côte d’Ivoire between political rivals have grown into a full-blown civil war. Rebel forces allied to the winner of last year’s presidential election are sweeping through the country from the west, causing 1m people to flee their homes, many of them to neighbouring countries. West African governments are under increasing pressure to intervene.

For the moment, the forces allied to last year’s election winner, Alassane Ouattara, are on the offensive. They have advanced on several fronts and claim to control two-thirds of the country, including the towns of Bouaflé and Sinfra. Fighting was also reported in Bouna and Bondoukou. As The Economist went to press, the rebels had taken Yamoussoukro, the capital, and the port of San Pedro. Now the commercial capital, Abidjan, in the south-east, is in their sights.

But the fighting is far from over. Forcibly dislodging Laurent Gbagbo, the defeated president, from his palace in Abidjan may come at a high price. His men are supported by mercenaries and are better armed. Mr Gbagbo has called for mediation and a ceasefire, but given no public sign that he is prepared to step down.

A summit meeting of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on March 24th implored the UN to mandate its forces to stop the fighting. The regional block failed to dispatch its own vaunted force, the only step likely to end the conflict in the short run. Mr Ouattara has called for it, but Ghana and the Gambia objected. Their motives are murky. The Gambia’s president, Yahya Jammeh, is an old chum of Mr Gbagbo, and Ghana makes money from the conflict. Its smugglers have taken over much of the Ivorian cocoa trade, which has been crippled by the imposition of UN sanctions.

A further obstacle to action from ECOWAS is Nigeria. The only west African state with the military beef to lead an intervention is generally in favour of dispatching peace-making troops but is preoccupied with its own elections this month. But the fighting in Côte d’Ivoire is intensifying so ferociously that Nigerian leaders may have to turn aside from campaigning in the interest of regional stability.

The African Union has been trying for months to persuade Mr Gbagbo to go, but some governments still support him. At the UN the appetite for involvement in African civil wars has been sated for the moment by its intervention in Libya. ECOWAS is Côte d’Ivoire’s best—and perhaps last—hope of avoiding the fate of Angola, where a disputed election in 1992 reignited a long-running civil war and fuelled it for another decade.

West African countries have a history of drawing their neighbours into their civil wars and many now fear the Ivorian rot will spread with the refugees streaming out of the country. Some neighbours are already suffering. Three million ethnic Burkinabes, a sixth of Burkina Faso’s population, live in Côte d’Ivoire and many have started to leave. Mali and Ghana too are facing an influx of refugees.

But worst affected country so far is Liberia, which ended its own civil war only in 2003. Its feeble economy is strained by 100,000 newly arrived Ivorians. The most recent lot could make trouble. Unlike the first to arrive, they are not all ethnic kin of the local population, which supported Mr Ouattara. Some of the refugees around the town of Janzon are wearing campaign T-shirts endorsing Mr Gbagbo. There are fears that the refugees might ignite long-simmering ethnic tensions. Graham Greene once wrote that during travels in Liberia’s troubled hinterland he “learnt to love life again”. Few Ivorians seem likely to concur.

Source:The economist

Gambia ALERT: Sports journalist in court for hosting aggrieved golf workers

MFWA-The Kanifing District Magistrate Court will on March 31, 2011 continue with the criminal trial of Bakary B. Baldeh, a sports producer and presenter of West Coast Radio, a privately-owned FM station, over a February 11 sports programme that the Gambian authorities claimed was criminal and meant to incite violence among Gambians.

This will the third time that Baldeh will appear before the court to answer charges of “conspiracy to commit felony”, and a “conspiracy” to incite violence. The charges stemmed from the presenter’s hosting of two aggrieved golf workers who had accused Ebrima Jawara, President of the Gambia Golfers Association and the son of former President Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, of unfair treatment during a recent national golf tournament in the country. The tournament was sponsored by PresidentYahya Jammeh. Baldeh has since pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
On its website on March 25, the pro-government Banjul-based The Daily Observer newspaper reported that Baldeh is being tried as a result of an alleged complaint filed by Ebrima Jawara. However, Media Foundation forWest Africa (MFWA) sources in the Gambia said that that was not the case and that Jawara has denied that he initiated the action.
Baldeh was arrested on March 23 after being invited to the Karaiba police station in the Kanifing Municipality in the northern part of Banjul together with the station’s proprietor, Peter Gomez. While Gomez was released after a brief interrogation, Baldeh was illegally detained for three days. He was released on March 25 after making his first appearance in court. 
Meanwhile, Baldeh has decided to temporary suspend his programme until his ordeal is over, according to the Daily Observer. 

Source:MFWA

Gambia News: IEC sets date for Presidential poll

Banjul - The head of the Gambian election commission, Alhaji Mustapha Carayol, announced on Wednesday that presidential elections would be held on November 24.

President Yahya Jammeh, who took control of the West African country in a military coup in 1994 and has won three elections since, has said he will seek another term.

Gambia, a sliver of land straddling the river of the same name, has been a rare example of stability in West Africa, though human rights watchdogs say this has been achieved at great cost to human rights and press freedoms.

Jammeh's rule has also been characterised by what critics say is paranoia and superstition.

He has jailed several members of his inner circle in recent years for allegedly plotting to overthrow him and earned international notoriety in 2007 by claiming he could cure HIV/Aids with herbs.

Carayol also announced that parliamentary elections would take place early next year and municipal elections in early 2013.


Source:News24.com

Gambia:The cruel primitiveness of Yahya Jammeh's psychopathological idiosyncrasies

By Mathew K Jallow

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the two main characters, Napoleon and Squealer, ostracized Napoleon's partner Snowball and drove him from the farm by making false allegation of impropriety and economic sabotage against him. The duo then proceeded to consolidate their power and enrich themselves; looting, raping and imposing an unbearable tyranny over the rest of the animal kingdom. Animal Farm's storied narrative may not necessarily have a moral lesson, but it is a timeless melodrama symbolizing the nature of human greed and man's capacity for evil deeds.

This tragic Orwellian characterization of his times may be a work of fiction which could easily have been written by William Shakespeare six centuries earlier or crafted into a tragic theatre play by Sophocles twenty-three centuries ago, but the substance of the story is predictably relevant in our times. If the harrowing rancor that bedeviled the relationship between the governing Napoleon and Squealer duo and the governed kingdom animals spells the genius of Orwell, perhaps it is worth adding the gift of clairvoyance to his deserved collection of accomplishments and accolades.

Animal Farm captures the human features that spell out the moral bankruptcy characteristic of the Machiavellian school of thought; the acquisition and retention of absolute power, wealth and privilege at any cost, which is symptomatic of dictatorships throughout history. One would think Animal Farm was written with today's rulers in mind, for its narrative suddenly comes alive again in the stories of tyranny and dictatorship so prevalent on our African continent. Close to home, the Animal Farm story when superimposed on our troubled past decade and half history will showcase a compelling narrative of boundless lunacy, jaw-dropping greed and out-of-this-world cruelty. And each day that passes, Animal Farm's main evil character Napoleon, looks more like a Napoleon of a different era and of a different time, yet alive and well in The Gambia; Yahya Jammeh.

The horror stories, known and unknown, of our recent past history under Jammeh's burdensome and unbearable tyranny, bear that out. Like dictators past, Yahya Jammeh has embrace Niccolo Machiavelli theories and lessons in leadership, lock, stock and barrel, unedited and without moral reservation. Jammeh's continues to adapt so creatively to the times, not for the better, but for the worst; never deviating from the core Machiavellian doctrine, which has defined his sixteen-year long reign of terror. The executions and murders of innocent citizens and non-citizens alike, may account for the greatest stains on the regime's unflattering resume, but other bizarre behaviors that have courted public attention and deservedly so, point to a level of desperation that has compelled Jammeh to outdo himself in the severity of the agents and mechanisms of terror that he employs to secure compliance from a servile people.

In a society malleable to psychological manipulation, Yahya Jammeh's attempts to use of mysticism and mystification of himself, has resulted in his declaration of possessing supernatural powers that enable him to perform cures of terminal diseases; a public declaration that left the scientific world and prestigious medical research institutions around the globe gasping with dizzying incredulity. The effects of his herbal "cures" and devil worship on the vulnerable and desperately sick is yet unknown, but that has not stopped Yahya Jammeh giving false hopes to the poor and desperately sick. But if this alone is not strange enough, the witch-hunting exercise around the country two years ago, made the Salem, Massachusetts witch-hunting in 1692 almost look like a child's play.

The desperation of the target population; the old and weak, created such a sense of despondency around the country, some people were willing to cut Yahya Jammeh life short to save the country of his monstrous and demonic behavior, even if meant losing their own lives in the process. But Yahya Jammeh who is habituated to creating social disruptions that have far-reaching psychological impacts that are often severely traumatic to his victims, has again graduated to a new dimension of craziness that is leaving many families worried if not downright scared that their loved ones may fall victim to Yahya Jammeh's over handed and over-bearing behavior.

Three weeks ago, Yahya Jammeh's regime arrested and detained some family members of politician Mai Fatty, and last week, a former young Gambian military officer exiled in Senegal, Musa Drammeh, bore the brunt of Jammeh's cruel vengeance when his family was arrested and detained without cause. This is a new departure from the norm for Yahya Jammeh, and it is bound to cause consternation in the minds of Gambians vulnerable to abuse and intimidation by the Jammeh regime. Gambians must raise their voices and refuse to be silenced any longer, and if the cases of Musa Drammeh and Mai Fatty's families are anything to go by, we once again might be in for a long dark, night. But one thing is certain, Yahya Jammeh's bizarre behaviors and maltreatment of innocent Gambians is the cruel epitome of the primitiveness of his psychopathological idiosyncrasies.

This demented new chapter thrust before our discriminating consciences, must concern us all greatly. And as the famous and timeless German poetry quote goes: At first they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me ~ Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1946.

Côte d’Ivoire: Forces behind the crisis and what’s at stake

BY Maurice Fahe


As Côte d’Ivoire’s political deadlock continues, Maurice Fahe discusses the country’s geostrategic importance for the West, the long-term role of foreign multinationals in the country, the political implications of ‘Ivoirité’ and the differences between the current crisis and that of 2000.


Since 28 November 2010, the situation in Côte d’Ivoire has been one of two presidents, two governments. This situation would be amusing were the current and future consequences not pogroms, deaths, summary executions, arrests, illegal detentions and economic, social and human devastation. So how are we to make sense of recent developments?

THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM AND THE WORSENING OF INTER-IVORIAN CONTRADICTIONS

We will settle here to return to the development of the crisis of capitalism, the handling of this crisis by capitalist policy and the resultant consequences, not only for the secondary imperialist powers but also and above all for the world’s dominated capitalist countries, particularly those in Africa. In so doing we will recall that from 1981, the dominant capitalist powers proclaimed, through the voice of President Reagan (supported by his European colleagues), ‘that they know better than the countries of the South themselves what’s good for them’ in dealing with the debt crisis which US policy had plunged them into in the first place. The Washington Consensus and structural adjustment policies were the results of this political stance which have been implemented and executed with such efficiency since this date, and remarkably so in Côte d’Ivoire.

The world’s largest producer of cocoa, with considerable mineral prospects (especially oil), UEMOA’s (Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine) largest economy, ECOWAS’s (Economic Community Of West African States) second largest, the main migrant hub in sub-Saharan Africa, located in the Gulf of Guinea and as a springboard into the hinterland countries (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), Côte d’Ivoire enjoys a role of undeniable geostrategic and geopolitical importance. The stakes for neoliberal policy in the country are high.

THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND THE IVORIAN CRISIS AND WHAT’S AT STAKE

The interest of the United States in Africa and its clear will to establish itself in the Gulf of Guinea dictate the importance the country attaches to its presence in Côte d’Ivoire. Its presence in Côte d’Ivoire not only increases competition between imperialist rivals (of the Triad) for the conquest of markets and the control of raw materials but also heightens the greed of the secondary imperialist powers, notably France and its will to doggedly defend its zone of influence and place in the Ivorian market.

Yet in a country where the financial market is limited, privatisations benefit primarily from those with the capacity to mobilise considerable capital to buy up public sector or public–private firms. In the competition that sets American imperialism against the secondary imperialist powers (most notably France) for the control of the Ivorian agro-industrial sector, America wins the day. As American multinationals edge their way into Côte d’Ivoire, the United States is constructing, not in Lagos or in Accra, but in Abidjan, a surveillance centre covering all of sub-Saharan Africa, along with the most significant diplomatic representation in Africa south of the Sahara after South Africa.

In order to preserve its positions inherited from the colonial and post-colonial period and its place in the Ivorian market, France often has to lean on political power. This enables France to protect its interests, with the exception of the agro-industrial sector, notably the coffee–cocoa subsector where American competition is particularly tough, principally from the American multinationals (ADM, Cargill) but also from the Anglo-Suisse (Nestlé, Armajaro). In January 2001, the cocoa war begun in 1987 was essentially brought to an end. Although French interests remain predominant, American interests essentially control the strategic cocoa sector. The presence of such interests means that the United States can from now on use Côte d’Ivoire as a base of support for their policy of expansion in the Gulf of Guinea designed to guarantee at least 25 per cent of their oil supply in the near future. As for the European Union, in which France has fully integrated itself since the Single European Act, in addition to a number of special interests (AIGLON and REINART in cotton, the Belgian group SIPEF for palm oil, DOLE for bananas, PANWELL-GMG for rubber, etc), its interest in Côte d’Ivoire is increasing as the crisis of immigration intensifies. The EU believes that if Côte d’Ivoire proves itself capable of welcoming migratory fluxes to which it has closed its doors, the country would hold a solution to African immigration crisis. Under current conditions, this objective can only be reached if Côte d’Ivoire regains peace and stays open for business.

FORMAL DEMOCRACY AND THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THE IVORIAN SITUATION

On 30 April 1990, the freedom of participation in lawful political activity was granted to groups and classes hostile to the one-party system. Meanwhile, Bédié had hauled himself up to power thanks to the death of Houphouët-Boigny, the benefit of the application of Article 11 of the constitution of 3 November 1960 and the help of Paris, only to find himself faced with a fierce competitor in Alassane Ouattara, the former prime minister of Houphouët-Boigny. As he wasn’t certain of winning a free electoral confrontation against Ouattara, he decided instead to oust him. For this he had not only to erase the memory of profiteering which had stuck to him like a leech since his journey to the head of the Ministry of Finance, but also and above all to award a legal dressing to the stripping of eligibility he imposed on those he knew to oppose him. So on 13 December 1994, as the executive authority, Bédié passed, through a national assembly at his complete devotion, an electoral law which under the pretext of reserving the right to vote for nationals only reserved eligibility to the presidency of the republic to people of Ivorian origin. A few months later, this restrictive, reactionary system – which immediately excluded Ouattara and a section of the ruling class from universal suffrage – received the name ‘Ivorité’.

In resorting to such a problematic political distraction, Bédié simultaneously demonstrated his incapacity to achieve the conditions necessary for the collective domination of the ruling Ivorian classes. For this domination depended on the rotation of the ruling classes at the head of the state which was as essential for the concealment of the country’s widespread poverty as it was for allowing the continued pursuit of empty policies and the country’s economic pillage. This explains his overthrow and the indifference in which he made himself part of France yet linked to Côte d’Ivoire by a defence treaty with a secret clause requiring him to save the regime in the case of internal subversion. The same causes produce the same effects: Bédié’s conversion to ‘Ivorité’ and refusal under this same principle to organise open elections to all who condemn General Guei and defend both his fall and the conditions in which it occurred. In offering a constitutional legitimacy to ‘Ivorité’,Guei destroyed the hope of a possible reconciliation of the ruling classes and in so doing a return to the conditions of order indispensable to the pursuit of neoliberal policies. Consequently, he condemned himself and promoted Gbagbo, the only ‘true Ivorian’ still in the race.

On 26 October 2000, Gbagbo was ‘finally recognised as the winner’ by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court after protestors supported by a military and police squadron stormed the palace, forcing General Guei to flee. On 24 October, Gbagbo proclaimed himself head of state of Côte d’Ivoire, had declared the dissolution of the transition government (…) asked all militants to rise up to obstruct the imposter (…) and that (…) Ivorian patriots take to the street until the law is recognised and until Guei backs down.

An electoral victory, a victorious insurrection or a successful putsch? It remains but the taking of power by Gbagbo, which gave place to pogroms, the massacre of more than 300 protestors, of which at least 200 republican militants whom the party had called to challenge the presidential elections, and a mass grave of 57 victims. After Djeny Kobena (general secretary of RDR) had been declared Ghanaian and consequently stateless and ineligible in 1995, after the candidature of Alassane Ouattara had been rejected for ‘doubtful nationality’ in 2000, the ‘Ivorité’ enshrined in the constitution produced these most terrible effects. People didn’t want to see so as to see nothing. In the end, it seems that it was the retreat of Guei that allowed Côte d’Ivoire to avoid a similar scenario to that of today.

October 2000 appears in this way like a dress rehearsal that was paving the way for the current situation. Yet the most likely hypothesis today is that the showdown is a conscious and systematic strategy of the taking or preservation of power by the principal political representation of the Ivorian petty bourgeoisie and of its boss, Laurent Gbagbo. This, along with his political practice, leaves one to think that Gbagbo would not have obtained a majority in an open and transparent electoral process free from violence. From this hypothesis follows that after noisy and principled condemnations, with the self-interest of those involved coming to the fore, the ‘international community’ would end up aligning itself with the opinion of whoever held real power, which in this instance would be Gbagbo. Gbagbo imagined that he could, as in 2000, proclaim himself elected. To do so he was hoping not only to use the weaknesses of his enemy and the opposition to the ‘international community’s’ interests, but also the aspirations of the African people to the freedom and total independence of Africa. This explains the deceptively anti-colonial propaganda and of the pseudo-nationalisations that have been flowing like a flood since 28 November 2010.

Although strange, unsettling and desperate, the situation of the two ‘presidents’ at the head of the same Côte d’Ivoire is not simply the reproduction of a situation already seen in October 2000. The current situation is the immediate consequence of the failure of various efforts to politically neutralise Ouattara, implemented by men and political parties who, for the needs of the survival of their regime and to prolong their own presence at the head of the state, present themselves to Ivoirians dressed in the banner of red, white and blue. As with Bédié and Guei yesterday, Gbagbo today does not represent the interests of the hurting Ivorian people. He is neither anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist nor patriotic in the sense that to be patriotic means to defend national interests. An examination of Côte d’Ivoire’s economic development since 26 October 2000 is enough to realise this.

Even if Ouattara will not resolve all the problems facing Ivoirians as his campaign slogan leaves one to believe, at the least – hope the Ivoirian masses who still believe in a true democracy – his rule will establish the permanent collapse of chauvinism draped in the coat of patriotism, otherwise known as ‘Ivorité’, and a return to peace. The Ivoirian people undeniably aspire to freedom, justice, peace and bread. Ouattara is suggesting to them that they ‘live together’. It’s the belief in this campaign promise, but above all the aspiration to change which explains, for right or for wrong, the popular support he receives. The future will tell us if this support is justified. As for the real question of freedom, justice, peace and bread, the answer remains subject to the recovery of sovereignty and independence, the liquidation of the domination of the ruling classes and imperialist powers and the liquidation of the current semi-colonial state. In today’s conditions, neither Ouattara nor Gbagbo is capable of bringing an adequate response to this question.

BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF PAMBAZUKA NEWS 

No-fly zone strikes terror in African leaders’ hearts

By CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO 

Though Africa’s response to the UN-backed attacks on Libya is muddled, those like Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni who are crying loudest, have good reason to.

Even within the East African Community, where in the past three years the governments have been fairly united in their views on international issues, there are sharp divisions in their approach on Libya.

African presidents’ response to the Libya crisis breaks down into three positions that have recently emerged:

The first position generally accepts the UN resolution that voted to use all necessary means to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, but is critical of the way the bombings are being conducted.

They believe the Western countries that are enforcing the no-fly zone are going beyond the intention of the resolution, and are instead seeking “regime change.”

This qualified criticism of the ongoing military action is best evidenced in a long article written by President Yoweri Museveni and published in Ugandan newspapers last week.

While acknowledging that Libya’s embattled leader Muammar Gaddafi had made many mistakes, including brutally repressing his people, he sharply criticised the attacks.

He called UN resolution 1973, which authorised military action to protect civilians, “rushed,” and accused the West of “double standards.”

In his view, the Libyan crisis should be resolved through dialogue between Gaddafi and the rebels.

Adopting a Museveni-like posture, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma also criticised the air strikes, suggesting they were part of a “regime-change doctrine.” South Africa voted in favour of UN resolution 1973, and still supports the objectives of the resolution.

Kenya too moved towards a measured criticism of the air strikes, with Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka saying in parliament on Wednesday that he would have preferred negotiations with the embattled strongman rather than the aerial bombardments by the French, British and United States forces.

Because he said it was his view, it was not immediately clear whether that was the government’s position too.

Libya was one of the countries the VP visited in the first round of the shuttle diplomacy that secured the backing of the African Union for Kenya’s bid to defer the cases against the Ocampo Six at the International Criminal Court.

Gaddafi supported the Kenyan case. However, Kenya was one of the countries that voted on March 1 to suspend Libya from the UN Human Rights Council due to its government’s violent attacks on protesters.

All 192 member nations of the United Nations General Assembly have voted to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council.

It was one of the most solidly unanimous votes in the UN, prompting US permanent representative to the United Nations Susan Rice to describe the vote as “unprecedented” and “a harsh rebuke.”

Second: The voices supporting the strike against Libya are led by another East African leader, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame.

In a brief interview with a reporter in London early last week, Kagame backed the bombing raids on Libya, arguing the situation in the North African country had degenerated “beyond” what the African Union could handle.

Kagame, who had just delivered a keynote speech at the Times CEO Summit Africa, said, “Rwanda’s position is the African Union’s position. The African Union’s position was that there was a need to understand what was going on in Libya and based on that, then action taken be supported… But what was happening on the ground was beyond what Africa’s position [envisioned].”

Third: On the opposite side of Kagame, are Zimbabwe and Algeria. In his typically pungent fashion, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe on Monday described the Western countries acting against Libya as “bloody vampires” and called the UN resolution a “mistake.”

“There is no reneging on the resolution any more; it’s there, it’s a mistake we made... we should have never given the West [the green light to act on Libya] knowing they’re bloody vampires of the past; all this room to go for our people in Africa and try to displace a regime,” President Mugabe said.

Significantly, he spoke after a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qoshan. China abstained on the UN vote.

In less dramatic tones, Algeria on Tuesday called for an immediate end to Western military intervention in Libya.

Algeria’s state news agency on Tuesday quoted Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci as saying, “We judge this intervention to be disproportionate in relation to the objectives set out by the United Nations Security Council resolution.”

Likewise, Namibia’s President Hifikepunye Pohamba said the strikes amounted to interference in the internal affairs of Africa.

Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia likewise accused the international community of “double standards,” by imposing a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya while doing little to end abuses in crisis-torn Ivory Coast.

“The contradictions between principle and national interest... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in Ivory Coast) as... men, women and children are slaughtered in equal, even if less egregious violence,” he said.

It would seem that, like the Arab League, most African countries initially supported the UN resolution against Gaddafi for tactical reasons — it would not do to be seen to be defending someone who is accused of carrying out mass murder of protesters.

Also, their calculation could have been that the resolution of itself would be enough to frighten Gaddafi into stepping back from his attacks on civilians. It didn’t.

Now that the attacks are on, they have introduced a new wrinkle.

Most African leaders seem frightened by the precedent they set.Their fears will not be helped by comments by William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary who, speaking at the same Times Summit as Kagame, compared Mugabe and the embattled and discredited Ivory Coast “president” Laurent Gbagbo to Gaddafi and hinted Britain might play a role in changing the political situations in their countries too.

For all the noise, there is quite a bit of dry-eyed scheming by African leaders who are busy setting out their regional political stalls.

For Museveni, there is the concern that the Libya campaign will distract attention from something much closer home in East Africa — Somalia, where he has troops serving in the peacekeeping force Amisom.

For the Nigerians, it is the failure of the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone in a West African troublespot, Ivory Coast. Furthermore, unlike Uganda or Rwanda, which have the luxury of being far away from Libya, Nigeria is separated from Libya to the north by Niger, and to the northwest by Chad.

Apart from Ivory Coast, there is an even bigger headache for Nigeria.

Various reports have it that Gaddafi hired nearly 10,000 Malian Tuaregs in his army as part of a sort of Foreign Legion, which his critics say is a mercenary outfit.

Observers say West Africa is quaking in its boots at the prospect of thousands of heavily armed and well-trained Tuaregs returning to Mali — next door to Ivory Coast.

On Wednesday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, probably aware of the risks and wanting to seize the initiative, gave the strongest hint yet that he was willing to consider more forceful action to deal with Gbagbo.

A day later, James Gbeho, head of the West African regional body Ecowas (Economic Community of West African States), said the region’s leaders had agreed that they “will apply to the UN for a mandate to militarily intervene [in Ivory Coast] as a last resort.”

This confirms the possibility that when Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Ajumogobia criticised the Libya attacks, he was mainly seeking to put the UN Security Council in a guilt-lock that would ensure they back tougher action on Ivory Coast.

Museveni too, whose government, together with Burundi, are the only AU states providing peacekeeping troops to Somalia, will hope he can force the UN Security Council’s hand in the Horn of Africa.

That is why Museveni appeared to waffle in his criticism, attacking Gaddafi while faulting the US-led attacks on Libya — because he did not want to come across as a Muammar apologist.

And, unlike Mugabe, he argued that the UN resolution was rushed, not wrong.

It is just as well. The US, sometimes acting alone, and Nato, provide critical support for Amisom.If they cut back, the mission could collapse. It is easier and cheaper for them to buy Museveni’s silence, so in the coming months the UN might come through with a more generous resolution on the AU peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

For Africa, the UN resolution against Libya brought with it other complications even if there had been no military attack.

Countries are already under pressure to seize Libyan regime assets.

Five days before the UN resolution, there were media reports in South Africa that President Zuma had ordered the Treasury to freeze assets linked to Gaddafi and his associates.

“The process is underway and we are writing letters informing them that no money will be allowed to leave South Africa,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela said.

In Uganda, there was enough unease to force the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs James Mugume, to come out and deny that Libyan government assets in the country would be seized.

However, the main independent newspaper, the Daily Monitor, reported there was still uncertainty over Libyan regime investments.

According to the Monitor, the Libya African Investment Portfolio (LAP) has investments of more than $375 million in Uganda covering different sectors including real estate, hotels, telecommunications, oil and manufacturing. 

A day after that report, the government announced it was freezing the assets — even though it opposes the bombing of Libya.

In Zambia too, the government has announced it will freeze Gaddafi family assets. 

The danger for Libya is that even before the sanctions, its companies were embroiled in too many business and regulatory disputes, and the UN resolution could embolden rivals to pounce on them, or regulators to punish them.

According to the Monitor, and as reported in this newspaper at the beginning of the crisis, the LAP-owned Uganda Telecom is struggling to shake off a lawsuit demanding the payment of a combined sum of about Ush30 billion ($13 million) accumulated from alleged non-payment of interconnection charges for a period of about three years. 

Its dispute with the country’s largest telco, MTN, which is in court, deteriorated further two weeks ago when MTN announced it would sever its interconnection agreement with UTL over its failure to clear a Ush20 billion ($8.7 million) debt accumulated through non-payment of interconnection charges since 2007. UTL, however, disputes the debt.

Other players including Airtel Uganda and Warid Telecom have reportedly also threatened to take serious action against UTL if it doesn’t clear a combined debt of about Ush12 billion ($5.2 million) that the two telcos say accumulated through non-payment of interconnection charges. The LAP Green Network has a 69 per cent stake in UTL.

In Rwanda, where the Libya Arab Africa Investment Company (Laico) has interests in a hotel, Novotel Umubano, and telecommunications, senior officials told The EastAfrican that it is in dispute with the government and regulator over failure to perform on its sale agreement.

In 2007, LAP Green bought 80 per cent of the capital of telecoms operator Rwandatel. The LAP Green Network is part of the Libya-Africa Investment Portfolio (LAP).If the shooting and killing continues in Libya, and the push for sanctions against Tripoli becomes massive, it could be a nightmare for a continent that has only recently started to restore some international business confidence after years of failed state-managed economies and reckless nationalisation.

This is mainly because the trail of Libyan money in Africa is simply too long.

Libya investments

Libya has put $65 billion into sovereign wealth funds, including one specifically designed to make investments in Africa.

The money is invested through the $5 billion Laico, through Libya Oil Holdings, the Libya African Investment Portfolio and the Libyan Foreign Investment Company (Lafico).

The Libya Africa Investment Portfolio was launched with $5 billion in capital, but it is not clear how much cash it holds now.

LAP this year helped set up a London asset management firm called FM Capital Partners.

The head of the firm says it will invest about 40 per cent of the Libyan assets it has under management in African projects.

Another of the fund’s projects is LAP Green Network, a mobile phone operator that has commercial operations in Niger, Ivory Coast, Uganda and Rwanda and is planning to launch operations soon in Chad, Sierra Leone, Togo and Southern Sudan.

LAP is also the main shareholder in Afriqiyah Airways.

The name is Arabic for Africa and it says its mission is to link African states to each other.

It operates routes that are poorly served by major airlines. Destinations include Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso, Bangui in the Central African Republic and Douala in Cameroon.

Laico has investments in hotels, banking, real estate, textiles, and aviation in South Africa, Madagascar, Comoros, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Central African Republic, Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania, Benin, Togo, Ghana, and Liberia, and Guinea

In the long-term, the collateral damage from the Libya crisis could stretch on for years to come, and leave a nasty taste in Africa’s mouth.Small wonder African presidents are doing strange loops and hoops over the no-fly zone.

Source:theeastafrican.co.ke

Gambia News :Independent Journalists Denied Entry at National Assembly

Journalists from independent press have been denied entry by state security agents to cover the State Opening of the National Assembly on Friday by President Yahya Jammeh despite having official accreditation.  
Reporters from Foroyaa, Today, The Point, Marketplace (Magazine), News and Report (Magazine), The Voice, and The Daily News private newspapers, frustratingly stood at the door to the National Assembly for about an hour before they were allowed-in by frown-faced security agents after the newly appointed press director at State House, Fatou Camara pleaded with them.
In very strong terms, Gambian president Yahya Jammeh recently dispelled reports that his government is restricting independent press to access official information. However, Friday’s incident could be said to lay bare Jammeh administration’s unwillingness to open doors to the private press.  
Mr Lamin Jahateh of Marketplace briefly explains here how it all happened:
“Go away; we don’t need the private press here. Go!” a female security agent barked at us. She shut her eyes at us as we pulled-out and put on view the accreditations given to us by the National Assembly to cover the ceremony.
To our surprise, a reporter from Daily Observer, a pro-government newspaper, came and met us standing. As soon as he told the security agents: “I am from Daily Observer,” they ushered him in a full escort. He entered through the door used by dignitaries.
After standing under the sun in frustration for almost thirty minutes, we then approached Fatou Camara, the newly appointed Director of Press and Public Relations at Office of the President and explained the situation to her.  “Ok, let me come,” Fatou told us.
We beamed in anticipation that very soon we will enter. But Fatou never returned up until a Foroyaa newspaper, Abubacarr Saidykhan, went to find out whether the DPPR will come or she has forgotten us. 
About ten to fifteen minutes later, Saidykhan then appeared with a glimmer of hope: “Follow me,” he told us in a strong voice, accompanied by gesticulation. As we followed Abubacarr, we met Fatou Camara pleading with the NIA officers at the door for them to allow us in.  One of them then nodded his head in acceptance that we can enter. “But you said seven, so only seven of them will enter,” one of them firmly told Fatou Camara. This is how we entered, thanks to Fatou Camara.  We spent almost an hour standing outside before we were allowed to enter. The president was more than mid-way into his speech by the time we entered.”

Source:dailynews.gm

GAMBIA NEWS: PROSECUTION WITNESSES TESTIFY IN IRAN ARMS DEAL CASE

By Innocent Anaba, Lagos
On Monday trial commenced before a Federal High Court, in Lagos, of an Iranian and Nigerian, who is being prosecuted by the Nigerian Government for alleged illegal importation of arms into Nigeria from Iran, as a former suspect, Mr. Muhammed Tukur, was called as prosecution witness.
The witness, a clearing agent, who testified at the resumed hearing in the matter, told the court that he and the accused persons had tried to clear the 13 containers at the Nigeria port, before they were discovered to contain arms and ammunition by security agents.
Azim Aghajani, an Iranian, and Alli Abass Jega, a Nigerian, are facing a fresh four- count of illegal importation of arms and ammunition into the country (Nigeria), comprising bombs, grenades, rockets among others.
The accused according to the charge, were alleged to have imported ‘without license’ 13 container loads of firearms and ammunition into Nigeria from Iran contrary to S1. (14)of the Firearms Act, Cap MI7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
Tukur, who testified in court, said he was misled into collaborating with the accused, adding that it was Jega, who introduced him to Aghajani sometimes in July 2010 and co-opted him into the deal to assist in the clearing of the 13-containers of firearms and ammunition after it was already brought into Nigeria.
Tukur, who had described Jega as “a brother and friend,” said he was made to believe that the containers contained building materials which were to be trasported to The Gambia and that he and Aghajnai went to pay the shipping charges of the sum of N1. 2 million at the Fanu Terminal before the containers were moved to Apapa Wharf, Lagos, Nigeria. 
According to him, the money was brought by Aghajani, who also gave him his business card during their talk. 
The said business card was tendered in evidence by the prosecution and admitted by the court.
Tukur added, ”I was on the ground on the day when the State Security Service, SSS, operatives came to examine the containers. I was present as Jega’s representative when the containers were found to contain arms. I was arrested immediately. That was the first time I knew the containers contained arms and not building materials as I was earlier told. That was how I became a suspect at a stage in this matter” 
Mr. Ewuola Ayomipo, second prosecution witness, told the court that SSS obtained evidence that there was e-mail communication between Jega and Aghajani. According to Ayomipo, an SSS officer, he obtained both the e-mail address and the passwords of the accused ‘voluntarily’ from them while they were being interrogated by the SSS.
He also told the court that he gained access into their e-mail accounts and discovered that there were communications between them. At that point, a printed copy of the said message was tendered by the prosecution and admitted as exhibit. 
Mr. Alamina Legg-Jack, a Deputy Controller of Customs, told a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, Nigeria, on Tuesday, at the resumed trial of an Iranian and Nigerian, who are being prosecuted for alleged illegal importation of arms into the country, that representatives of the United Nations and the United States government were allowed by the Nigerian government to inspect the arms illegally shipped into Nigeria from Iran.
Legg-Jack, the 4th prosecution witness, told the court that one of the 13 containers was half-opened before he got to the scene at the examination Bay at the Apapa Port, while the remaining 12 were opened in his presence.
An Iranian, Azim Aghajani, and a Nigerian, Alli Abass Jega, are both standing trial before Justice Okechukwu Okeke.
He also said the containers were re-sealed by the customs and the operatives of the State Security Services, SSS, before they were transferred to the depot of the Nigerian Navy for safe keeping.
According to him, while the containers were still with the Navy, he was invited on two occasions to supervise the inspection of the arms and ammunition with the first occasion being when a team of United Nations, which came to inspect the weapons.
He said that the second time he was invited to supervise the inspection of the arms and ammunition was when a representative of the United States government came for inspection of the seized weapon.
He said, “I was in the office on October 26, 2010 when the Area Commander of Customs sent me a letter that a cargo had arrived for our inspection. I sent a team of my men to the scene. Later they telephoned me when they opened the first container and discovered arms and ammunition. I called the Area Commander on phone and told him of the discovery of my men.
“I left immediately for the Examination Bay; upon getting there, the examination of the first containers was still in progress. I saw some of the crates removed from the first container on the ground. They contained arms and ammunition. The remaining 12 containers were opened and examined in my presence, the first row of crates in each of the containers contained marble stones, while all the remaining contents were full of arms and ammunition such as mortars, rockets and hand grenades.’
“After the inspection, the containers were re-sealed and were being watched by men of the customs and operatives of the SSS, until December 4, 2010 when they were transferred to the depot of the Nigerian Navy,” he added.
The matter has been adjourned till April 13, and 14, 2011 for continuation of hearing. 



Source:foroyaa.gm