An Open Letter Ms Reine Alapini Gansou, Chairperson of the African Commission

Balangbaa: The Campaign for Civil Disobedience in The Gambia.

An Open Letter
Ms Reine Alapini Gansou,
Chairperson of the African Commission
C/o Kairaba Beach Hotel
April 26, 2011

Dear Ms Gansou,
This no-confidence protest letter is addressed you in your capacity as Chairperson of the African Commission. The aim is bring the spotlight on the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS), which is located in Banjul. And the intent is for you bring the concerns of the citizens of the host country of the 49th Ordinary Session, The Gambia, to the African Union (AU) body in order to educate policy-makers and the powers-that-be about what a sham the ACDHRS has become. First, allow me to diverge into another important area of concern to Africans all across the continent. As passive observers of the shenanigans that have dominated the operations of the African Union and its predecessor, the Organization of African Union (OAU), Africans have become frustrated with the redundancy, wastefulness and utter uselessness of the continental body and regional institutions such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The picture that has emerged is that the African Union and its predecessor the OAU have existed solely to serve the interests of the leaders of its member states. To that effect, these institutions have become white-elephants where millions of dollars are wasted each year for the purpose of preserving the selfish interests of corrupt leaders and brutal regimes. The past five decades have seen African leaders and their corrupt regimes squander the goodwill and economic fortunes of African countries and reduced their people to devastating poverty far worst than the one left behind by our colonial experience.
It is an absolutely disgraceful paradox that the continent with the largest share of the world’s natural resources, also shamefully boasts its poorest people. After fifty years of political independence, this lunacy and the political conundrum our continent is plunged into by the cruel machinations of greedy and self-centered despots and wayward bureaucracies, defies human imagination. This selfishness and greed, which cuts across Africa’s failed regimes is inexplicable in any rational way. Each year, for the past fifty years, the United States and European powers have transferred billions of dollars to regimes all across the continent, yet we have noting to show for it. Instead, Africa’s ever worsening poverty, which has generated civil wars and created civil strife in countries across the continent, will continue to fester and claim the lives of millions more Africans. And this is just the beginning. In the 1960s and 1970s, Africa was generally better off economically than the vast majority of Asian and Latin American countries such as China, India, Vietnam, South Korea, but today, African leaders visit these countries with their hands tucked between their legs shamefully begging for charity aid. Even today, almost every country in African is dependent on foreign aid to survive, and some, like The Gambia, depend on foreign aid from the United States and Europe for up to 80% of annual national budgets. Institutions like the AU and ECOWAS are still funded directly by benevolent Western governments and the United Nations. Despite this incredible transfer of wealth to the abjectly poor African countries, a World Bank study found that in 2005 alone, African politicians and bureaucrats looted $148 billion from their countries and stashed these funds in foreign bank accounts. This amount was more than the total foreign aid transfer to African countries for that year. This staggering amount of money is absolutely mind-bugling, yet it is true.
Now back to the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS), an organization which has been in existence for nearly a quarter century, but which has done nothing to challenge the incredible human rights violations of Africa’s misanthropic  despots, in particular, the idiot we have in The Gambia; Yahya Jammeh. The ACDHRS has never issued a press release to condemn any one of the more than one hundred and thirty murders and executions of Gambians, Senegalese, Nigerians and Ghanaians, all of who met their sad fates at the hands of Yahya Jammeh’s agents of death. Never once has the ACDHRS made a public pronouncement or produced a document that challenges Yahya Jammeh’s criminal regime for its gross human rights violations. Meanwhile, the murders, executions, tortures, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and other serious violations perpetrated by Yahya Jammeh’s regime continue unabated. And now, the ACDHRS has turned into a white-elephant despite the inconsequential forums the organization is involved in, such the 49th Ordinary Session, taking place in Banjul right now. Each year, millions of dollars are being wasted in holding these meaningless meetings which have never produced any worthwhile results as far as we African are concerned. It would appear people who attend these useless meetings do so for the money and other perks they receive. Given its history of uselessness and inefficiency in the face of the ongoing human rights violations in The Gambia, which includes extra-judicial executions, forced disappearances, tortures and incarcerations in Africa’s worst prison, Mile 2 Prisons, The Gambia no longer deserves the privilege to host the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS). As a result, Gambians demand that the ACDHRS be moved to another country that deserves the unique honour of hosting the Center. As it is, the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS) exists to throw millions of dollars down a bottomless pit. The money wasted to pay unearned salaries and other perks could be better utilized to serve other useful purposes. Since Yahya Jammeh uses the ACDHRS to project an unreal image of The Gambia, Gambians demand that the ACDHRS be defunded and relocated elsewhere.

By Mathew K Jallow: Balangbaa: The campaign for Civil Disobedience in The Gambia.

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

African Union and The Economic Community Of West African States

By Nnamdi Frank Akwada

Recent events in Cote d'Ivoire and Libya have exposed the ineffectiveness and obscurity of the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS). Both organizations have remained on the sidelines while uncertainty, insecurity, and authoritarians have held the African continent ransom. Indeed Pan-Africanist leaders like George Padmore, W. E. B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe would be mortified by the paralysis and ineptitude in the most natural endowed continent of the world. So called rulers in sub-Saharan African nations have indolently sat by while Black and Brown Africans are murdered in Libya. In Cote d'Ivoire the situation is at best pathetic and at worse criminal negligence. 

Due to the dictatorial tendencies of our heads of governments who do not seem to be constrained by constitutions and/or term limits, ECOWAS and AU have tacitly allowed Mr. Laurent Gbagbo in Abidjan to continue clinging on to power. While stubbornly refusing to handover power after occupying the presidency of Cote d'Ivoire for ten years, Mr. Gbagbo has spearheaded the mass murder of innocent civilians including unarmed women protesters. Sadly this same individual who was once incarcerated and forced out on exile is now the conduit of undue hardship to his people. The Ivorian army has derogated their responsibilities to their citizens while clamoring to maintain the hegemony of a particular sect in the country. Streams of Ivorians are now forced to flee their beloved country to become refugees, paupers, and prostitutes in neighboring countries. 

However, in response to the crisis in Abidjan the ECOWAS countries have allowed their threat to use force with installing President Alassane Ouattara the legitimate winner of the November 28 2010 elections, fall on deaf ears. The African Union (AU) has also been shameful in dealing with contemporary situations in the continent. When they met in Addis Ababa Ethiopia for the just concluded African Union Summit, the AU enshrined Dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea as the next chairman of the organization. The aforementioned tyrant and fraudster who has been in power since 1979 after he executed a bloody coup was charged with the task of resolving the impasse in Cote d'Ivoire. In a continent that is at the precipice of holding elections in one-third of her 55countries, no better choice was made for the chairperson of the AU. As a testament to how out of touch with reality the African Union and our so-called leaders are, they literally rolled out the proverbial red carpet for Dictator Obiang Mbasogo. 

Furthermore, the AU banded together with their opaque notion of solidarity and ignoring other pressing issues in the continent. Ironically, people in Sudan, Tunisia, and Egypt were voting and protesting against the “recolonialization” of their nations by rulers and systems who view their countries as personal properties and wealth mines. As Egypt was burning and true peoples' democracy attempted to wrestle power from Dictator Hosni Mubarak, our dear AU kept mute and instead accepted his delegates to the summit in neighboring Ethiopia. This deafening silence and apathy have continued with the developments in Tripoli Libya. The AU and ECOWAS have stood by as sub-Saharan Black African have been stereotyped, brutalized, and murdered by both Dictator Muammar Gaddafi and some in the pro-democracy movement of this North Africa nation.

Press reports indicate that there are thousands of Black Africans stranded in the Libyan-Tunisia, Libyan-Egyptian, and Libyan-Algerian borders. Individuals and families with children have been relatively abandoned as refugees in faraway lands to fend for themselves. There does not appear to be any progressive (proactive) logistic plans to get the Nigerians, Ghanaians, and Malians who are the majority of strained Black African refugees back home. The powers that be in ECOWAS and by extension sub-Saharan Africa have not thought it wise to send out their presidential jet fleets to liberate their people. The governments in Abuja and Accra appear to be incognito in regional and global affairs that demand accelerated response from them. Until now no statements and/or ultimatums have been issued to the Libyan government and people to protect and preserve the lives of Black Africans who are victims, caught up in these ongoing North African disputes. Neither has transparent diplomatic channels and pressures been brought to bear on the mad Dictator in Tripoli.