Introduction
1. State and class in pre-colonial West Africa
2. Tribalism, colonialism and capitalism
3. Religion, racism and class
4. Sharia in Nigeria: a class analysis
5. The poverty of education in Ghana
6. South Africa in the twentieth century
Commentary and analysis to persuade people to become socialist and to act for themselves, organizing democratically and without leaders, to bring about a world of common ownership and free access. We are solely concerned with building a movement of socialists for socialism. We are not reformists with a programme of policies to patch up capitalism.
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2025
Monday, October 21, 2024
Southern Africa - severe drought warning
‘Southern Africa is currently in the grip of its worst food crisis in decades, with more than 27 million people facing severe hunger due to the impact of a months-long drought, the UN’s World Food Program (WFP) said.
The drought, which is attributable to the El Nino weather phenomenon, has ravaged crops, killed livestock, and left entire communities without sufficient food supplies, creating what WFP spokesperson Tomson Phiri described as a potential “full-scale human catastrophe.”
During a press briefing in Geneva, Phiri highlighted the urgency of the situation, stating “the need for action has never been clearer.”
“This is the worst food crisis in decades,” the WFP spokesperson said.
Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have declared national disasters because of the drought, while Angola and Mozambique are also severely affected. The WFP estimates that around 21 million children in the region are now malnourished, exacerbating an already dire situation as communities face soaring food prices and dwindling resources.
The WFP has outlined plans to provide food and cash assistance to more than 6.5 million people across the seven hardest-hit countries until the next harvest in March. However, the states have so far received only 20% of the $369 million they require.
The drought, which the US Agency for International Development described as the most severe in 100 years during the crucial January to March agricultural season, has wiped out vast swathes of crops. This crisis has caused food prices to skyrocket, which has exacerbated the challenges facing vulnerable communities.
In addition to the food crisis, the drought has had other far-reaching consequences. Zambia, which relies heavily on hydroelectric power from the Kariba Dam, has faced severe power blackouts as the dam’s water levels have dropped dramatically. In April, Zimbabwe, which shares the dam with Zambia, declared a national disaster in response to the crisis, which it described as the worst in 40 years.’
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
Africa's digital divide
Whatever one thinks about the content of the World Wide Web, it’s a valid opinion to think that not all the content available on the Internet is of a positive nature, nevertheless the Internet is an important resource of modern liafe.
In comparison to the rest of the world, Africa, as a whole, appears to be at at a disadvantage in being able to use the assets that the Internet provides.
‘Less than 40% of people living in Africa have internet access, a report by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has shown.
While connectivity has been increasing globally, with about 5.4 billion people or 67% of the world’s population currently online, only 37% of the population in Africa use the internet, according to ITU’s Facts and Figures 2023 study.
This represents a decline in internet users compared to 2022, when the figure was around 40%. The continent currently has the lowest internet penetration in the world.
Meanwhile, about 90% of the population in Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States and North and South Americas use the internet, the data showed.
“Steady but uneven progress in global internet connectivity highlights the disparities of the digital divide and is leaving people in low-income countries behind,” the authors of the report noted.
The researchers cited lengthy power outages and a lack of digital infrastructure coverage in Africa as the main reasons for the poor connectivity.
The ITU study also revealed that in low-income countries not only do fewer people have internet access but those who are connected use less data.’
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
The Passing Show: African Edition
Don't do as I do
Sir Roy Welensky has made the point several times recently that African politicians in the Rhodesian Federation must not presume to aspire to the Premiership. For example, in a statement reported in The Times (18/1/60) Sir Roy said: “Ambitious African leaders wanted a break-up of the Federation because it would mean fulfilment of their personal ambitions to be Prime Ministers and Ministers of black States."
Socialists have their own opinions about "ambitious African leaders," or about ambitious leaders of any nationality. But if anyone can lecture others about their "personal ambitions to be Prime Ministers," surely Sir Roy Welensky can't. He used to be Premier of Southern Rhodesia, and is now Prime Minister of the Rhodesian Federation. Another case, it seems, of "Don't do as I do, do as I say.”
Capital is safe
Any capitalist who is still dubious about the new independent capitalist states now being set up throughout Africa can take heart from a letter written by Sir Robert Kirkwood which appeared in The Times of 27/1/60. Sir Robert, writing from Jamaica, points out that: “When I first came here, 20 years ago, the average white Jamaican openly and vociferously argued, and genuinely believed, that the “black man" was quite incapable of running the country. And even conservative coloured and black Jamaicans averred that universal adult suffrage could never work here."
But the British ruling class decided to set up the West Indies as an independent federation. The result has been a great development of capitalism. As the letter says: "More economic progress has been achieved in the short time since Jamaicans elected under universal adult suffrage took over the Government than in the previous century."
Even capital owned by Europeans is quite safe: “Nor have I ever detected that our politicians' felt the slightest inclination to penalize capital of any description going about its legitimate business."
The “legitimate business" of capital being, of course, to wring surplus value out of the workers. Sir Robert warns of the dangers of thwarting the "rightful ambitions" of the native ruling class:
"I am certain that most of our present West Indian leaders, who have earned general commendation from Europeans resident in these parts, as well as in their missions abroad, would have been capable. only a few years ago. of leading revolutions, bloody revolutions, if their rightful ambitions to govern in their own homes had been indefinitely and unreasonably deferred."
The letter goes on to assure fainthearts that the African nationalists, too, only wish to develop capitalism in their own countries:
"Although I nave not visited Africa myself. experienced and reliable Jamaican friends of mine who know the leaders in Kenya, Nyasaland, the Rhodesias, etc., tell me that most of these men. though dedicated and even fanatical nationalists, are, for the most part, far from holding radical views in economic matters. My friends consider that once elected to power these men would seek advice and assistance, and govern with a sense of responsibility and attention to what is best for the, economic, development of their respective homelands."
It is obvious that Sir Robert Kirkwood, at least, does not see any danger to capitalism when formerly colonial countries become independent.
Diamonds thicker than dogma
The diamond producers of the Western world let the Central Selling Organisation of the De Beers group of companies handle virtually all their diamonds: thus this South African concern is able to maintain high prices and high profits for the shareholders of the diamond companies. The Observer (24/1/60) called it “one of the most efficient organisations for resale price maintenance that capitalism has yet produced." But recently the Russians discovered large new deposits of diamonds in north-cast Siberia and in the northern Urals. It was feared that once the exploitation of these new mines got under way, the Russians would export their surpluses, and undercut De Beers organisation. This would mean a slump in prices and in profits. But now all is well. The Russians have agreed to let the Central Selling Organisation market all the diamonds they export to the Western world.
As The Guardian says (19/1/60): "The agreement to channel these sales entirely through the De Beers organisation shows that the Soviet authorities have no intention of underselling South Africa, but intend to fall in with the price maintenance arrangements of the African producers in order to get the best possible returns.” So the Russian and the South African capitalists join hands to safeguard their surplus value.
Publicity
The recent banning by South Africa of a number of the SPGB's pamphlets has led to a certain amount of publicity for the party there. An article appeared in the Johannesburg Star on November 3rd. 1959. There are the sneers which one might expect when a capitalist paper deals with a Socialist Party, but at least the article contained the following:
"The SPGB believes in no war. no leaders, no bosses, no capitalism, and no Soviet Communism. It believes in the common ownership of the means of producing and distributing the world's goods, and does not believe that Russia or China any more than the United States or Britain have achieved this."
Free publicity for the Socialist Party can hardly have been one of the results the South African Nationalists aimed at when they clamped their censorship down on our pamphlets.
Intermingling
You may not be interested in boxing, but it could hardly have escaped your attention last summer that a certain Ingemar Johansson had taken the world's heavyweight title from the previous holder, Floyd Patterson. The South African government believes, however, that such knowledge as this would be seditious for all except the white population of South Africa. As it was reported in the Johannesburg Star (14/7/59):
"Non-whites arc not allowed to see any film containing "scenes of intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans.'' That is why non-whites have been banned from seeing the film now circulating of the recent Johansson-Patterson world heavy-weight title fight. Johansson is white, but Patterson is a negro. So the film cannot he screened at all in non-white cinemas. And in those where non-whites may sit in the gallery and whites in the stalls, the non-whites have to wait outside until this newsreel ends before taking their seats."
If the South African government really thinks that this will keep the coloured population ignorant of the fact that a black man and a white man fought for the title, they must be well out of touch with reality.
Alwyn Edgar
(This article first appeared in the March 1960 Socialist Standard, and has just recently been added to our online archive).
Sir Roy Welensky has made the point several times recently that African politicians in the Rhodesian Federation must not presume to aspire to the Premiership. For example, in a statement reported in The Times (18/1/60) Sir Roy said: “Ambitious African leaders wanted a break-up of the Federation because it would mean fulfilment of their personal ambitions to be Prime Ministers and Ministers of black States."
Socialists have their own opinions about "ambitious African leaders," or about ambitious leaders of any nationality. But if anyone can lecture others about their "personal ambitions to be Prime Ministers," surely Sir Roy Welensky can't. He used to be Premier of Southern Rhodesia, and is now Prime Minister of the Rhodesian Federation. Another case, it seems, of "Don't do as I do, do as I say.”
Capital is safe
Any capitalist who is still dubious about the new independent capitalist states now being set up throughout Africa can take heart from a letter written by Sir Robert Kirkwood which appeared in The Times of 27/1/60. Sir Robert, writing from Jamaica, points out that: “When I first came here, 20 years ago, the average white Jamaican openly and vociferously argued, and genuinely believed, that the “black man" was quite incapable of running the country. And even conservative coloured and black Jamaicans averred that universal adult suffrage could never work here."
But the British ruling class decided to set up the West Indies as an independent federation. The result has been a great development of capitalism. As the letter says: "More economic progress has been achieved in the short time since Jamaicans elected under universal adult suffrage took over the Government than in the previous century."
Even capital owned by Europeans is quite safe: “Nor have I ever detected that our politicians' felt the slightest inclination to penalize capital of any description going about its legitimate business."
The “legitimate business" of capital being, of course, to wring surplus value out of the workers. Sir Robert warns of the dangers of thwarting the "rightful ambitions" of the native ruling class:
"I am certain that most of our present West Indian leaders, who have earned general commendation from Europeans resident in these parts, as well as in their missions abroad, would have been capable. only a few years ago. of leading revolutions, bloody revolutions, if their rightful ambitions to govern in their own homes had been indefinitely and unreasonably deferred."
The letter goes on to assure fainthearts that the African nationalists, too, only wish to develop capitalism in their own countries:
"Although I nave not visited Africa myself. experienced and reliable Jamaican friends of mine who know the leaders in Kenya, Nyasaland, the Rhodesias, etc., tell me that most of these men. though dedicated and even fanatical nationalists, are, for the most part, far from holding radical views in economic matters. My friends consider that once elected to power these men would seek advice and assistance, and govern with a sense of responsibility and attention to what is best for the, economic, development of their respective homelands."
It is obvious that Sir Robert Kirkwood, at least, does not see any danger to capitalism when formerly colonial countries become independent.
Diamonds thicker than dogma
The diamond producers of the Western world let the Central Selling Organisation of the De Beers group of companies handle virtually all their diamonds: thus this South African concern is able to maintain high prices and high profits for the shareholders of the diamond companies. The Observer (24/1/60) called it “one of the most efficient organisations for resale price maintenance that capitalism has yet produced." But recently the Russians discovered large new deposits of diamonds in north-cast Siberia and in the northern Urals. It was feared that once the exploitation of these new mines got under way, the Russians would export their surpluses, and undercut De Beers organisation. This would mean a slump in prices and in profits. But now all is well. The Russians have agreed to let the Central Selling Organisation market all the diamonds they export to the Western world.
As The Guardian says (19/1/60): "The agreement to channel these sales entirely through the De Beers organisation shows that the Soviet authorities have no intention of underselling South Africa, but intend to fall in with the price maintenance arrangements of the African producers in order to get the best possible returns.” So the Russian and the South African capitalists join hands to safeguard their surplus value.
Publicity
The recent banning by South Africa of a number of the SPGB's pamphlets has led to a certain amount of publicity for the party there. An article appeared in the Johannesburg Star on November 3rd. 1959. There are the sneers which one might expect when a capitalist paper deals with a Socialist Party, but at least the article contained the following:
"The SPGB believes in no war. no leaders, no bosses, no capitalism, and no Soviet Communism. It believes in the common ownership of the means of producing and distributing the world's goods, and does not believe that Russia or China any more than the United States or Britain have achieved this."
Free publicity for the Socialist Party can hardly have been one of the results the South African Nationalists aimed at when they clamped their censorship down on our pamphlets.
Intermingling
You may not be interested in boxing, but it could hardly have escaped your attention last summer that a certain Ingemar Johansson had taken the world's heavyweight title from the previous holder, Floyd Patterson. The South African government believes, however, that such knowledge as this would be seditious for all except the white population of South Africa. As it was reported in the Johannesburg Star (14/7/59):
"Non-whites arc not allowed to see any film containing "scenes of intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans.'' That is why non-whites have been banned from seeing the film now circulating of the recent Johansson-Patterson world heavy-weight title fight. Johansson is white, but Patterson is a negro. So the film cannot he screened at all in non-white cinemas. And in those where non-whites may sit in the gallery and whites in the stalls, the non-whites have to wait outside until this newsreel ends before taking their seats."
If the South African government really thinks that this will keep the coloured population ignorant of the fact that a black man and a white man fought for the title, they must be well out of touch with reality.
Alwyn Edgar
(This article first appeared in the March 1960 Socialist Standard, and has just recently been added to our online archive).
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
U.S. Special Operations Numbers Surge in Africa’s Shadow Wars
Africa has seen the most dramatic growth in the deployment of
America’s elite troops of any region of the globe over the past decade,
according to newly released numbers.
A report in the Intercept by Nick Turse highlights some proxy operations overseas by the US military as follows.
In 2006, just 1% of commandos sent overseas were deployed in the U.S. Africa Command area of operations. In 2016, 17.26% of all U.S. Special Operations forces — Navy SEALs and Green Berets among them — deployed abroad were sent to Africa, according to data supplied to The Intercept by U.S. Special Operations Command. That total ranks second only to the Greater Middle East where the U.S. is waging war against enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
“In Africa, we are not the kinetic solution,” Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, told African Defense, a U.S. trade publication, early this fall. “We are not at war in Africa — but our African partners certainly are.”
That statement stands in stark contrast to this year’s missions in Somalia where, for example, U.S. Special Operations forces assisted local commandos in killing several members of the militant group, al-Shabab and Libya, where they supported local fighters battling members of the Islamic State. These missions also speak to the exponential growth of special operations on the continent.
As recently as 2014, there were reportedly only about 700 U.S. commandos deployed in Africa on any given day. Today, according to Bolduc, “there are approximately 1,700 [Special Operations forces] and enablers deployed… at any given time. This team is active in 20 nations in support of seven major named operations.”
Using data provided by Special Operations Command and open source information, The Intercept found that U.S. special operators were actually deployed in at least 33 African nations, more than 60% of the 54 countries on the continent, in 2016.
Special Operations Forces deployments in 33 African countries in 2016.
“We’re supporting African military professionalization and capability-building efforts,” said Bolduc. “The [Special Operations forces] network helps create specific tailored training for partner nations to empower military and law enforcement to conduct operations against our mutual threats.”
The majority of African governments that hosted deployments of U.S. commandos in 2016 have seen their own security forces cited for human rights abuses by the U.S. State Department, including Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, and Tanzania, among others.
According to data provided to The Intercept by Special Operations Command, elite U.S. troops are also deployed to Sudan, one of three nations, along with Iran and Syria, cited by the U.S. as “state sponsors of terrorism.”
“U.S. [Special Operations forces] have occasionally met with U.S. State Dept. and interagency partners in Sudan to discuss the overall security situation in the region,” Africa Command spokesperson Chuck Prichard wrote in an email.
Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw added, “Their visit had nothing to do with Sudan’s government or military.”
A report in the Intercept by Nick Turse highlights some proxy operations overseas by the US military as follows.
In 2006, just 1% of commandos sent overseas were deployed in the U.S. Africa Command area of operations. In 2016, 17.26% of all U.S. Special Operations forces — Navy SEALs and Green Berets among them — deployed abroad were sent to Africa, according to data supplied to The Intercept by U.S. Special Operations Command. That total ranks second only to the Greater Middle East where the U.S. is waging war against enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
“In Africa, we are not the kinetic solution,” Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, told African Defense, a U.S. trade publication, early this fall. “We are not at war in Africa — but our African partners certainly are.”
That statement stands in stark contrast to this year’s missions in Somalia where, for example, U.S. Special Operations forces assisted local commandos in killing several members of the militant group, al-Shabab and Libya, where they supported local fighters battling members of the Islamic State. These missions also speak to the exponential growth of special operations on the continent.
As recently as 2014, there were reportedly only about 700 U.S. commandos deployed in Africa on any given day. Today, according to Bolduc, “there are approximately 1,700 [Special Operations forces] and enablers deployed… at any given time. This team is active in 20 nations in support of seven major named operations.”
Using data provided by Special Operations Command and open source information, The Intercept found that U.S. special operators were actually deployed in at least 33 African nations, more than 60% of the 54 countries on the continent, in 2016.
Special Operations Forces deployments in 33 African countries in 2016.
“We’re supporting African military professionalization and capability-building efforts,” said Bolduc. “The [Special Operations forces] network helps create specific tailored training for partner nations to empower military and law enforcement to conduct operations against our mutual threats.”
The majority of African governments that hosted deployments of U.S. commandos in 2016 have seen their own security forces cited for human rights abuses by the U.S. State Department, including Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, and Tanzania, among others.
According to data provided to The Intercept by Special Operations Command, elite U.S. troops are also deployed to Sudan, one of three nations, along with Iran and Syria, cited by the U.S. as “state sponsors of terrorism.”
“U.S. [Special Operations forces] have occasionally met with U.S. State Dept. and interagency partners in Sudan to discuss the overall security situation in the region,” Africa Command spokesperson Chuck Prichard wrote in an email.
Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw added, “Their visit had nothing to do with Sudan’s government or military.”
Monday, February 01, 2016
The sweet bitter truth on cocoa
Africa supplies 76 percent of world’s cocoa. West Africa
alone cumulatively supplies two thirds of the global cocoa, as Ivory Coast
leads the pack with 1.65 million tonnes. This is followed by Ghana, Nigeria,
Cameroon and Togo which altogether produce 1.55 million tonnes. Cocoa is also
grown in Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Madagascar, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia
and Sao Tome & Principe. while about 76 per cent of total cocoa produced is
from Africa, less than five per cent of the wealth in the value chain is
retained in the continent.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) says the crop’s by-products are consumed mainly in industrialised
countries, with major buyers being the chocolate processing and confectionary
industry. Exporters of raw cocoa get approximately $10 billion a year, but the
total annual value of chocolates, all made from cocoa, is over $100 billion,
according to Olusegun Aganga, Nigeria’s immediate past minister for industry,
trade and investment. Aganga explained at the Nigerian Cocoa Value Addition
Summit in 2014 that the total value of all finished goods made from cocoa is
estimated to be as high as $200 billion a year. Africa is missing in this big
market. Many African cocoa producers have failed to emulate Brazil and
Malaysia, where the local processing industry absorbs most of the production.
Forbes conducted a search for the ten world’s biggest
chocolate consumers. No African country is on the list. Countries on the list
include Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Norway. Others
are Sweden Australia, the Netherlands, the United States and France. It is
instructive that the production plants of major candy and chocolate makers,
which depend on cocoa from Africa for production, are all outside Africa. Amano
Artisan, Askinosie, Biommer, Castronovo, Equal Exchange, Guittard, Mars, Mast
Brothers, among many others are in the United States. Others such as Domori,
Bonnat, Barry Callebaut, Hachez, Haigh’s, Royce, Thorntons, among hundreds of
others, are scattered around Europe, Australia and Asia.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Chinese Neo-Colonialism
China’s increasing role has created unease in America and Europe. The
US and EU obviously fears losing business: African trade with China
surpassed that with America in 2009. China has participated in 16 U.N.
peacekeeping missions in Africa and is planning to create its first military base
in Djibouti. African countries also have discovered that Beijing desires what
the U.S. demanded in the past: political loyalty, resource control, investment
return. Beijing also often demands concessions for land, minerals or other
commodities in return. Moreover, it often requires use of Chinese firms, even
bringing laborers from China. This limits the economic benefit to Africa and is
seen as a new version of neocolonialism. The “Ugly Chinese” looks much like the
“Ugly American” of days gone by. Explained a recent Rand Corp. report: “Labor
unions, civil society groups and other segments of African society criticize
Chinese enterprises for their poor labor conditions, unsustainable
environmental practices and job displacement.” The Rand report says “African
perceptions of China include a mix of approval, apathy and contempt.”
President Xi Jinping recently promised African officials $60
billion in new investment. Most of the $60 billion will be concessional loans. Even
cheap loans may become a significant burden to repay. Observed The Times:
“Infrastructure projects in Nigeria have been fueled by the same manic lending
that has also created mountains of debt for China’s economy at home.”
Inevitable defaults will cost both Africa and China.
Moreover, Africa long has been awash in “aid” from
multilateral development banks, but much of that has been stolen or wasted.
Beijing’s experience so far is no different. For instance, more than $1 billion
essentially vanished, noted the Economist magazine, after being invested in a
palm oil plantation in a region where “there were no roads, the river was
barely navigable and villagers were hostile.” Because of the lack of
conditionality, observed Brad Parks of the research lab AidData, “African
officials know that they have more leeway with Beijing’s money, and they use it.”
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
The African Wealthy
If you look at the asset allocation of the average South
African millionaire, about 30% of their assets are in business interests, 25 %
in equities, about 20% in property and then rest will be in cash, fixed income
instruments, bonds and alternative investments like collectables like art
The African luxury sector generated an estimated $8 billion
in revenue in 2014; with $2.8 billion coming out of South Africa.
Collectables such as art, wine and classic automobiles are
increasingly popular and accounted for $5.3 billion of the total assets of
African high net worth individuals at the end of 2014, according to New World
Wealth. $32 million was generated in South African sales of super-luxury
watches in 2014; up from $23 million in 2013.
The South African yacht industry generates about $150
million per year. Angola and South Africa are the top spots for yachting in
sub-Saharan Africa. Morocco and Egypt are the top spots in North Africa. The
yacht owners are mostly male, between the ages of 40 to 50, with average
earnings of over $300,000 per year.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Pygmies Exploited
Survival International was founded in 1969 and is the only
international organization supporting tribal peoples worldwide.
Tribal children in the African rainforests have been paid in
glue to sniff, and alcohol, in return for menial work, a new Survival International report has revealed.
The report found instances of market traders in the Republic
of Congo plying children from the Bayaka tribe with glue in 2013, in exchange
for cleaning out latrines.
In Cameroon Baka tribespeople, illegally evicted from their
forest homes, are often paid in five glasses of moonshine in exchange for half
a day’s manual labor. A combination of poverty and depression caused by the
theft of their land forces many to turn to heavy drinking as an escape from
their troubles.
Across much of central Africa, dispossessed hunter-gatherer
peoples are frequently paid in addictive substances, most commonly home-brewed
alcohol.
Atono, a Baka man forcibly evicted from his land said: “Now
we are falling ill because of the change in our diet. Our skin doesn’t like the
sun and life in the village. In the forest we are healthy and put on weight.
Now no one has any muscles, everyone looks ill. We are forced to drink to
forget our troubles.”
Problems of addiction and substance abuse are common among
tribes who have had their land stolen from them. In Canada, alienated Innu
children whose people were forced to abandon their nomadic way of life turn to
sniffing gas from plastic bags. Likewise in Australia, rates of alcoholism
among Aboriginal people are higher than among the wider population.
Boniface Alimankinni, an Aboriginal Tiwi Islander, said: “We
had no self-respect and nothing to give our sons except violence and
alcoholism. Our children are stuck between a past they don’t understand and a
future which offers them nothing.”
Drug addiction and alcoholism are not inevitable for tribal
peoples. They are the result of failed policy, imposing “progress” and
“development” on peoples who are otherwise largely self-sufficient.
Industrialized societies subject tribal peoples to genocidal violence, slavery
and racism so they can steal their lands, resources and labor. These crimes are
often carried out in the name of progress and development.
Friday, January 22, 2016
‘Philanthrocapitalism’ - another word for global capitalism.
Colin Todhunter on the Countercurrents website reviews the
latest report on the Gates philanthropy in Africa. He highlights one criticism
- the foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, pushing
for the adoption of GM, patented seed systems and chemical fertilisers, all of
which undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the
vast majority of food security across the continent.
According to the report, the BMGF is promoting a model of
industrial agriculture, the increasing use of chemical fertilisers and
expensive, patented seeds, the privatisation of extension services and a very
large focus on genetically modified seeds. The foundation bankrolls the
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in pushing industrial
agriculture.
A key area for AGRA is seed policy. The report notes that
currently over 80 per cent of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of
small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA
is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the
introduction of commercial seed systems, which risk enabling a few large
companies to control seed research and development, production and
distribution.
In order for commercial seed companies to invest in research
and development, they first want to protect their ‘intellectual property’.
According to the report, this requires a fundamental restructuring of seed laws
to allow for certification systems that not only protect certified varieties
and royalties derived from them, but which actually criminalise all
non-certified seed.
The report notes that over the past two decades a long and
slow process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along
with the BMGF and others, has opened the door to multinational corporations’
involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable
seed enterprise on the African continent.
At the same time, AGRA is working to promote costly inputs,
notably fertiliser, despite evidence to suggest chemical fertilisers have
significant health risks for farm workers, increase soil erosion and can trap
small-scale farmers in unsustainable debt. The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of
the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser.
Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically
intended to “help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain” in Africa. The report
describes how one of the largest of AGRA’s grants, worth $25 million, was used
to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in
2012, whose very goal is to “at least double total fertiliser use” in Africa.
The AFAP project is being pursued in partnership with the International
Fertiliser Development Centre, a body which represents the fertiliser industry.
Another of AGRA’s key programmes since its inception has
been support to agro-dealer networks – small, private stockists of
transnational companies' chemicals and seeds who sell these to farmers in
several African countries. This is increasing the reliance of farmers on chemical
inputs and marginalising sustainable agriculture alternatives, thereby
undermining any notion that farmers are exercising their 'free choice' (as the
neo-liberal evangelists are keen to tell everyone) when it comes to adopting
certain agricultural practices.
The report concludes that AGRA’s agenda is the biggest
direct threat to the growing movement in support of food sovereignty and
agroecological farming methods in Africa. This movement opposes reliance on
chemicals, expensive seeds and GM and instead promotes an approach which allows
communities control over the way food is produced, traded and consumed. It is
seeking to create a food system that is designed to help people and the
environment rather than make profits for multinational corporations. Priority
is given to promoting healthy farming and healthy food by protecting soil,
water and climate, and promoting biodiversity.
Recent evidence from Greenpeace and the Oakland Institute
shows that in Africa agroecological farming can increase yields significantly
(often greater than industrial agriculture), and that it is more profitable for
small farmers. In 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (Olivier
de Schutter) called on countries to reorient their agriculture policies to
promote sustainable systems - not least agroecology - that realise the right to
food. Moreover, the International Assessmentof Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was the work of over 400 scientists and
took four years to complete. It was twice peer reviewed and states we must look
to smallholder, traditional farming to deliver food security in third world
countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable.
Colin Todhunter concludes Bill Gates “is spearheading the
ambitions of corporate America and the scramble for Africa by global
agribusiness.”
Friday, June 12, 2015
Managing Africa For Business, Not People
African leaders on Wednesday signed a potentially historic, 26-nation
free-trade pact to create a common market spanning half the continent,
from Cairo to Cape Town.
The deal on the Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) is the culmination of five years of negotiations to set up a framework for preferential tariffs easing the movement of goods in an area that is home to 625-million people.
Analysts say the pact could have an enormous impact on African economies, which despite growth still only account for about 2% of global trade.
The deal will integrate three existing trade blocs – the East African Community, the Southern African Development Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) – whose countries have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $1-trillion (€885-billion).
The TFTA pact is to be unveiled officially on the weekend of June 14 and 15 at the summit of the African Union in Johannesburg.
The TFTA pact was launched at a summit in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Members of the three blocs range from relatively developed economies such as South Africa and Egypt to countries such as Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique, which are seen as having huge growth potential.
But hurdles remain, with the timeline for bringing down trade barriers yet to be worked out and the deal needing ratification in national parliaments within two years.
“What we are doing today represents a very important step in the history of regional integration of Africa,” Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said as he opened the summit.
World Bank president Jim Yong Kim told the summit that the TFTA would allow Africa “to make tremendous progress and move the entire continent forward”.
“Africa has made it clear that it is open for business,” he said.
“The geographical area covers Cape to Cairo ... the agreement paves the way for a continental free trade area that will combine the three biggest regional communities,” said Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.
Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe said the deal would create a “borderless economy” that would rank 13th in the world in terms of GDP.
Negotiators drafted the deal this week at Sharm el-Sheikh and said they had addressed concerns such as management of trade disputes and protection for small manufacturers once the TFTA comes into force.
Officials said the agreement envisions the eventual merger of the three blocs.
“The ultimate goal is to ensure easy movement of goods in these countries without duties,” said Peter Kiguta, director general of the East African Community.
World business leaders have welcomed the TFTA, with experts saying that only 12% of Africa’s trade is between countries on the continent.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said in 2013 that if Africa is to boost its intra-continental trade, it must focus on creating “more space for the private sector to play an active role”.
Analysts say that although the continent’s growth over the past 15 years outstripped global GDP expansion by nearly three percentage points, falling commodity prices, power shortages, political instability and corruption are holding back its economies.
“What we have realised is that having one trade regime is better than the costly multiple trade regimes,” said Comesa secretary general Sindiso Ngwenya, who led negotiations among the three blocs.
from here
No mention of the workforce or consultation with any civil groups.
We wish you luck, workers of Africa.
The deal on the Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) is the culmination of five years of negotiations to set up a framework for preferential tariffs easing the movement of goods in an area that is home to 625-million people.
Analysts say the pact could have an enormous impact on African economies, which despite growth still only account for about 2% of global trade.
The deal will integrate three existing trade blocs – the East African Community, the Southern African Development Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) – whose countries have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $1-trillion (€885-billion).
ADVERTISING
The TFTA pact was launched at a summit in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Members of the three blocs range from relatively developed economies such as South Africa and Egypt to countries such as Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique, which are seen as having huge growth potential.
But hurdles remain, with the timeline for bringing down trade barriers yet to be worked out and the deal needing ratification in national parliaments within two years.
“What we are doing today represents a very important step in the history of regional integration of Africa,” Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said as he opened the summit.
World Bank president Jim Yong Kim told the summit that the TFTA would allow Africa “to make tremendous progress and move the entire continent forward”.
“Africa has made it clear that it is open for business,” he said.
“The geographical area covers Cape to Cairo ... the agreement paves the way for a continental free trade area that will combine the three biggest regional communities,” said Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.
Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe said the deal would create a “borderless economy” that would rank 13th in the world in terms of GDP.
Negotiators drafted the deal this week at Sharm el-Sheikh and said they had addressed concerns such as management of trade disputes and protection for small manufacturers once the TFTA comes into force.
Officials said the agreement envisions the eventual merger of the three blocs.
“The ultimate goal is to ensure easy movement of goods in these countries without duties,” said Peter Kiguta, director general of the East African Community.
World business leaders have welcomed the TFTA, with experts saying that only 12% of Africa’s trade is between countries on the continent.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said in 2013 that if Africa is to boost its intra-continental trade, it must focus on creating “more space for the private sector to play an active role”.
Analysts say that although the continent’s growth over the past 15 years outstripped global GDP expansion by nearly three percentage points, falling commodity prices, power shortages, political instability and corruption are holding back its economies.
“What we have realised is that having one trade regime is better than the costly multiple trade regimes,” said Comesa secretary general Sindiso Ngwenya, who led negotiations among the three blocs.
from here
No mention of the workforce or consultation with any civil groups.
We wish you luck, workers of Africa.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
"Exploitation of a Higher Kind" - G7 In Africa
Under the specious claim of delivering "aid to Africa," western
governments are backing an initiative—described by some as another form
of "colonialism"—that is effectively enabling the corporate takeover of
African nations by some of the world’s biggest food and agriculture
companies.
On Wednesday, as corporate executives, politicians, and G7 officials assembled in Cape Town, South Africa for a closed-door meeting of the G7’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a coalition of small scale farmers, unions, workers, and food sovereignty groups released a statement condemning the program.
Though the public-private initiative has been championed by U.S. President Barack Obama, among others, as a means to combat poverty in Africa by bolstering "sustained, inclusive, agriculture-led" growth with the goal of raising "50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years," its critics say the New Alliance actually undermines the rights and food security of citizens of its partner nations.
In fact, some suggest, the rise of such programs signals a shift in the way the world is governed.
'Colonialism' continued
Under the New Alliance, ten African governments—Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania—have "committed to develop or revise policies that will facilitate responsible private investment in agriculture in support of smallholder farmers." However, the opposition coalition says, since its inception in 2012, there is little evidence of any positive impact. Instead, the policy changes have paved the way for corporate exploitation of local land and people.
According to the coalition statement, the New Alliance policies "facilitate the grabbing of land and other natural resources, further marginalize small-scale producers, and undermine the right to adequate food and nutrition"—all in the interest of courting large multi-nationals.
For example, at the urging of the New Alliance, a bill often referred to as the "Monsanto law," which criminalizes the saving and swapping of seeds, is poised for passage by the parliament of Ghana. A recent report put forth by international peasant farmer and food justice groups La Via Campesina and Grain notes that students and union groups who have been fighting the bill say it is a "precondition sought by transnational corporations as a requirement for operating in Africa."
Also, under commitments made by the governments of Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania, a seperate report (pdf) published on Wednesday by the international NGO ActionAid USA found that small farmers are being forced off their property as 1.8 million hectares of the countries' most desirable farmland has been offered to foreign investors, amounting to little more than what they call a corporate land-grab.
And in Tanzania, a New Alliance initiative threatens (pdf) to displace more than 1,300 people as the government works to recategorize village land to make it available for a Swedish-owned EcoEnergy sugarcane plantation.
While the benefits of such "investment" are tempting at first, many on the ground are now realizing what's at stake.
Josaphat Mshighati, head of programs and policy for ActionAid Tanzania, told Common Dreams that instead of increasing food security, farmers are losing access to the land in exchange for jobs laboring at an industrial agriculture plantation, whose sole crop is being raised for export.
"It is a form of colonialism," Mshighati said. "Small holder farmers are turned into labourers serving in big, private agriculture investments and some of them totally lose their access to productive land. Hence, they become much more dependent."
Further, he added that African governments including Tanzania are "being pushed to change their seed policies to allow for 'more modern seeds' that will definitely be supplied by big private companies. Thus, the indigenous seeds will perish in few years and all farmers will have to rely on seeds from the western companies."
Finally, the government policy changes that are forcing people off their land, he said, will ultimately "create disharmony between citizens and the government." All of these impacts, Mshighati concluded, "can be related to the previous history between Africa and the west—exploitation of a higher kind."
Doug Hertzler, senior policy analyst with ActionAid USA, also told Common Dreams: "Unfortunately G7 governments policies seem to be more about increasing corporate profits through access to African land and labor, and opening markets to sell patented seeds and pesticides rather than realizing the right to food."
On the other side of the New Alliance arrangement, private sector companies—which include some of the world’s biggest food and biotechnology corporations—have described through Letters of Intent how they plan to pursue allegedly "responsible investments in African agriculture and food security through models that maximize benefits to smallholder farmers."
These commitments have been made by food and agriculture giants including Syngenta, Monsanto, Nestle, Bayer CropScience, and Coca-Cola, among many others.
A model of corporate governance
After initially participating in the New Alliance Leadership Council, last year Oxfam International announced it was pulling out.
"The voices of farmer’s organizations, women’s producer groups and civil society organizations and CSO groups have, on the whole, been ad hoc and inadequately integrated into this policy planning," explained Tim Gore, head of policy, advocacy and research for Oxfam International's GROW campaign. This has lead to "serious concerns that the priorities of the Alliance reflect the interests of its more powerful members."
The New Alliance-backed changes in government policy have created an environment that threatens to "'tip the balance' of investment towards larger players, rather than small-scale producers and family farmers, and could harm the environment through the industrial, high-input model of agriculture," Gore said.
Finally, he warned, "this creates an acute risk that the members of the Alliance have created a form of global governance which is exclusive and potentially self-serving."
As critics note, the New Alliance model adheres to the same neoliberal ideology as 'trickle-down' economics, which has been increasingly discredited.
Dan Iles, food sovereignty campaigner with Global Justice Now, described the New Alliance as "a branding exercise," under which western governments have funneled aid money previously committed to alleviating poverty in Africa and essentially channeled it into the pockets of big, international agriculture corporations.
The U.S. alone has committed at least $2 billion dollars for the effort.
Similarly, an August 2014 report (pdf) by the Global Policy Forum describes the New Alliance as "a political process designed to reserve corporate actors a seat at the table," where business is giving a role "almost equal to governments." The initiative, the report continues, "serves as an excellent example of a form of governance that is increasingly gaining importance on a global scale."
As writer and activist Martin Kirk explained to Common Dreams, while the New Alliance puts on a "very humanitarian face" it is part of a trend that is "actually shifting how we govern the world." The model, Kirk says, is also being followed by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum.
"In the public imagination, nation states are the main actors, when actually the corporate interests—which are not connected to the public world and whose primary purpose is to maximize profit—are now given equal weight," continued Kirk, who is a member of The Rules, a global network dedicated to tackling root causes of inequality and poverty.
The danger, Kirk continues, is that the New Alliance promotes this corporate concept as the only solution to overcoming hunger, when it fact it is "far from the only one."
A local answer
While most of the small scale farmers, villagers and other individuals directly impacted by the New Alliance initiative are unaware of upper-level mechanisms behind their forced relocation or intrusive growing restrictions, there are tremors of resistance.
Nearly 100 farmers organizations, social movements, and civil society groups from around the world endorsed the statement on Wednesday. Meanwhile, growing protests against pending policy changes, such as the "Monsanto law" in Ghana, are further spreading the word.
If outside actors want to help strengthen food security in Africa, advocates say that the solution must lift up the local community.
Small-scale farmers are currently producing 70 percent of the food in Africa, according to the coalition statement. "Addressing food and nutrition insecurity on the continent requires the full participation of those who are already producing, and promoting an agricultural system based on human rights and food sovereignty through local control over natural resources, seeds, land, water, forests, knowledge and technology."
Josaphat Mshighati said that the biggest hurdle for small farmers is a lack of rain, so directing funds to nation-based agricultural development programs, such as small and medium irrigation projects, would provide a huge boost for the local economy.
And Dan Iles added: "What small scale farmers need is investment in infrastructure that links them more locally and regionally...Where control and ownership over the means of farming, buying and selling food and the culture of food is held by farmers (and people)—not outside elites."
from here
On Wednesday, as corporate executives, politicians, and G7 officials assembled in Cape Town, South Africa for a closed-door meeting of the G7’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a coalition of small scale farmers, unions, workers, and food sovereignty groups released a statement condemning the program.
Though the public-private initiative has been championed by U.S. President Barack Obama, among others, as a means to combat poverty in Africa by bolstering "sustained, inclusive, agriculture-led" growth with the goal of raising "50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years," its critics say the New Alliance actually undermines the rights and food security of citizens of its partner nations.
In fact, some suggest, the rise of such programs signals a shift in the way the world is governed.
'Colonialism' continued
Under the New Alliance, ten African governments—Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania—have "committed to develop or revise policies that will facilitate responsible private investment in agriculture in support of smallholder farmers." However, the opposition coalition says, since its inception in 2012, there is little evidence of any positive impact. Instead, the policy changes have paved the way for corporate exploitation of local land and people.
According to the coalition statement, the New Alliance policies "facilitate the grabbing of land and other natural resources, further marginalize small-scale producers, and undermine the right to adequate food and nutrition"—all in the interest of courting large multi-nationals.
For example, at the urging of the New Alliance, a bill often referred to as the "Monsanto law," which criminalizes the saving and swapping of seeds, is poised for passage by the parliament of Ghana. A recent report put forth by international peasant farmer and food justice groups La Via Campesina and Grain notes that students and union groups who have been fighting the bill say it is a "precondition sought by transnational corporations as a requirement for operating in Africa."
Also, under commitments made by the governments of Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania, a seperate report (pdf) published on Wednesday by the international NGO ActionAid USA found that small farmers are being forced off their property as 1.8 million hectares of the countries' most desirable farmland has been offered to foreign investors, amounting to little more than what they call a corporate land-grab.
And in Tanzania, a New Alliance initiative threatens (pdf) to displace more than 1,300 people as the government works to recategorize village land to make it available for a Swedish-owned EcoEnergy sugarcane plantation.
While the benefits of such "investment" are tempting at first, many on the ground are now realizing what's at stake.
Josaphat Mshighati, head of programs and policy for ActionAid Tanzania, told Common Dreams that instead of increasing food security, farmers are losing access to the land in exchange for jobs laboring at an industrial agriculture plantation, whose sole crop is being raised for export.
"It is a form of colonialism," Mshighati said. "Small holder farmers are turned into labourers serving in big, private agriculture investments and some of them totally lose their access to productive land. Hence, they become much more dependent."
Further, he added that African governments including Tanzania are "being pushed to change their seed policies to allow for 'more modern seeds' that will definitely be supplied by big private companies. Thus, the indigenous seeds will perish in few years and all farmers will have to rely on seeds from the western companies."
Finally, the government policy changes that are forcing people off their land, he said, will ultimately "create disharmony between citizens and the government." All of these impacts, Mshighati concluded, "can be related to the previous history between Africa and the west—exploitation of a higher kind."
Doug Hertzler, senior policy analyst with ActionAid USA, also told Common Dreams: "Unfortunately G7 governments policies seem to be more about increasing corporate profits through access to African land and labor, and opening markets to sell patented seeds and pesticides rather than realizing the right to food."
On the other side of the New Alliance arrangement, private sector companies—which include some of the world’s biggest food and biotechnology corporations—have described through Letters of Intent how they plan to pursue allegedly "responsible investments in African agriculture and food security through models that maximize benefits to smallholder farmers."
These commitments have been made by food and agriculture giants including Syngenta, Monsanto, Nestle, Bayer CropScience, and Coca-Cola, among many others.
A model of corporate governance
After initially participating in the New Alliance Leadership Council, last year Oxfam International announced it was pulling out.
"The voices of farmer’s organizations, women’s producer groups and civil society organizations and CSO groups have, on the whole, been ad hoc and inadequately integrated into this policy planning," explained Tim Gore, head of policy, advocacy and research for Oxfam International's GROW campaign. This has lead to "serious concerns that the priorities of the Alliance reflect the interests of its more powerful members."
The New Alliance-backed changes in government policy have created an environment that threatens to "'tip the balance' of investment towards larger players, rather than small-scale producers and family farmers, and could harm the environment through the industrial, high-input model of agriculture," Gore said.
Finally, he warned, "this creates an acute risk that the members of the Alliance have created a form of global governance which is exclusive and potentially self-serving."
As critics note, the New Alliance model adheres to the same neoliberal ideology as 'trickle-down' economics, which has been increasingly discredited.
Dan Iles, food sovereignty campaigner with Global Justice Now, described the New Alliance as "a branding exercise," under which western governments have funneled aid money previously committed to alleviating poverty in Africa and essentially channeled it into the pockets of big, international agriculture corporations.
The U.S. alone has committed at least $2 billion dollars for the effort.
Similarly, an August 2014 report (pdf) by the Global Policy Forum describes the New Alliance as "a political process designed to reserve corporate actors a seat at the table," where business is giving a role "almost equal to governments." The initiative, the report continues, "serves as an excellent example of a form of governance that is increasingly gaining importance on a global scale."
As writer and activist Martin Kirk explained to Common Dreams, while the New Alliance puts on a "very humanitarian face" it is part of a trend that is "actually shifting how we govern the world." The model, Kirk says, is also being followed by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum.
"In the public imagination, nation states are the main actors, when actually the corporate interests—which are not connected to the public world and whose primary purpose is to maximize profit—are now given equal weight," continued Kirk, who is a member of The Rules, a global network dedicated to tackling root causes of inequality and poverty.
The danger, Kirk continues, is that the New Alliance promotes this corporate concept as the only solution to overcoming hunger, when it fact it is "far from the only one."
A local answer
While most of the small scale farmers, villagers and other individuals directly impacted by the New Alliance initiative are unaware of upper-level mechanisms behind their forced relocation or intrusive growing restrictions, there are tremors of resistance.
Nearly 100 farmers organizations, social movements, and civil society groups from around the world endorsed the statement on Wednesday. Meanwhile, growing protests against pending policy changes, such as the "Monsanto law" in Ghana, are further spreading the word.
If outside actors want to help strengthen food security in Africa, advocates say that the solution must lift up the local community.
Small-scale farmers are currently producing 70 percent of the food in Africa, according to the coalition statement. "Addressing food and nutrition insecurity on the continent requires the full participation of those who are already producing, and promoting an agricultural system based on human rights and food sovereignty through local control over natural resources, seeds, land, water, forests, knowledge and technology."
Josaphat Mshighati said that the biggest hurdle for small farmers is a lack of rain, so directing funds to nation-based agricultural development programs, such as small and medium irrigation projects, would provide a huge boost for the local economy.
And Dan Iles added: "What small scale farmers need is investment in infrastructure that links them more locally and regionally...Where control and ownership over the means of farming, buying and selling food and the culture of food is held by farmers (and people)—not outside elites."
from here
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Pledge
Nigeria’s president-elect is already making waves with his pledge to
attack corruption, starting with the missing 20 billion dollars
allegedly swiped from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation during
the previous administration.Muhammadu
Buhari pledged to pursue the claim of former Central Bank governor,
Lamido Sanusi, who was suspended last year by former president Goodluck
Jonathan after he warned of massive mismanagement by the oil
corporation. His claim was never investigated by the ex-president.
“This issue is not over yet,” declared Buhari, who will be sworn in on May 29. “Once we assume office we will order a fresh probe into the matter… We will not allow people to steal money meant for Nigerians to buy shares and stash (them) away in foreign lands.”
Buhari’s warning to those who pocketed national funds thrilled Africans as far away as Zambia and prompted an editorial in The Post newspaper.
“Nigerian President-elect General Muhammadu Buhari’s message on corruption brings some hope for that country and our continent,” wrote The Post’s editor in a piece viewed 1,294 times.
The editorial continued: “We wish this was the message we were getting from our own President, Edgar Lungu. But it is not. If there is anything Edgar hardly talks about, it is corruption.
“What we have in Zambia today is a corrupt government… This is a government where those in leadership are the ones getting government contracts. They are the suppliers of government. Leaders and cadres of the ruling party are the ones doing business with government.
“If one scrutinises all government contracts, it will not be difficult to discover that almost all of them have been given to people connected to the ruling party and its leadership…. When one criticises such practices, he is seen to be hurtful, frustrated.
“Look at how quickly those in the leadership of government, from president to the lowest cadre, become rich! What is the magic? Where is the money coming from? It is from corruption, from bribes, from selling government policy. There is no other source of that money other than corruption.”
Africans surveyed by the group Afrobarometer in 2013 expressed similar views and many believe the situation has deteriorated in the last decade.
In the survey of 34 countries, 56 percent of the 51,000 people surveyed thought their governments were doing “fairly badly” or “very badly” in the fight against corruption. Only 35 percent said their governments were doing “fairly well” or “very well”.
Among those most dissatisfied by official efforts to end corruption were Nigerians and Egyptians at the top, followed by Zimbabweans, Ugandans and Sudanese, Kenyans, Malians, Tunisians, Togolese, Tanzanians and South Africans.
from here
“This issue is not over yet,” declared Buhari, who will be sworn in on May 29. “Once we assume office we will order a fresh probe into the matter… We will not allow people to steal money meant for Nigerians to buy shares and stash (them) away in foreign lands.”
Buhari’s warning to those who pocketed national funds thrilled Africans as far away as Zambia and prompted an editorial in The Post newspaper.
“Nigerian President-elect General Muhammadu Buhari’s message on corruption brings some hope for that country and our continent,” wrote The Post’s editor in a piece viewed 1,294 times.
The editorial continued: “We wish this was the message we were getting from our own President, Edgar Lungu. But it is not. If there is anything Edgar hardly talks about, it is corruption.
“What we have in Zambia today is a corrupt government… This is a government where those in leadership are the ones getting government contracts. They are the suppliers of government. Leaders and cadres of the ruling party are the ones doing business with government.
“If one scrutinises all government contracts, it will not be difficult to discover that almost all of them have been given to people connected to the ruling party and its leadership…. When one criticises such practices, he is seen to be hurtful, frustrated.
“Look at how quickly those in the leadership of government, from president to the lowest cadre, become rich! What is the magic? Where is the money coming from? It is from corruption, from bribes, from selling government policy. There is no other source of that money other than corruption.”
Africans surveyed by the group Afrobarometer in 2013 expressed similar views and many believe the situation has deteriorated in the last decade.
In the survey of 34 countries, 56 percent of the 51,000 people surveyed thought their governments were doing “fairly badly” or “very badly” in the fight against corruption. Only 35 percent said their governments were doing “fairly well” or “very well”.
Among those most dissatisfied by official efforts to end corruption were Nigerians and Egyptians at the top, followed by Zimbabweans, Ugandans and Sudanese, Kenyans, Malians, Tunisians, Togolese, Tanzanians and South Africans.
from here
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Oppression In Africa - There Is An Alternative
With the proliferation of NGOs in
post-independence Africa and subsequent NG-organising, there is a
lack of acknowledgement of the interlocking nature of the factors and
systems of oppression and how they continuously work together to
produce domination, discrimination and marginalisation in this
continent. Indeed as many commentators would agree, all of Africa’s
so hyped ‘advancement’ has been founded on pyramids of
oppression. In addition various forms of oppression overlap rather
than ran parallel in the lives of affected people. Embedded in
colonial histories and exacerbated by modern fundamentalist
ideologies, the neo-liberal policies and processes in Africa have
advanced further doom to already disenfranchised groups.
If one sampled any country in Africa, one would identify multiple local and national organising for change, resisting repression, fighting impunity or demanding transformation of the structures that discriminate. This is definitely a lot of traction and resources to ‘create’ a new order and better life for the citizens of Africa. But a critical question that must be raised is whether these efforts address the symptoms or the structural bases of the social problems they seek to resolve?
The answers to these queries can only be got if we are able to critically analyse the models that have attempted to resolve social problems in Africa. The ‘development’ approaches that have been fronted in the continent to resolve the social challenges have strengthened bureaucratic hierarchies either within governments or NGOs, systematically disempowered populations, strengthened elitist diagnosis of social issues and propagated other forms of oppression more than what they seek to eradicate. It is hard to forget the long-term effects of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) on this continent both socially and economically in the 1990s, which communities have to grapple with to date.
UNMASKING OPPRESSION IN AFRICA
But what do we mean by oppression in Africa? We can only understand what oppression is by putting a face to it, and more importantly, by removing the tint that has been placed on our eyes by the perpetrators of the oppression. A myriad of social problems chart our countries and continent, for example reproductive oppression, peasant farmers exploitation, farm workers’ unfair treatment, asset stripping of widows, destruction of the natural sacred sites by greedy encroachers and denial of rights to indigenous communities.
But how has oppression been manifested in these sites of struggle? The legacy of colonialism best depicts the different origins of the struggle to resist oppression in Africa. Colonialism (Clarke 1991) and neo-colonialism is a new form of slavery after the original slavery reached its saturation point. Its legacy and those of its concomitants such as racism, patriarchy, sexism or any other oppression has created huge inequality gaps between individuals in this continent, marginalisation and exclusion.
Yes oppression can be visible in certain obvious situations but in many more scenarios it isn’t. In Kenya, for example, a systematic and patriarchal structure in government planning has continuously wanted to control woman’s reproductive life as inspired by Malthusian constructs that believe that over-population has led to increased poverty levels. Women, especially those living in the economically disenfranchised communities, have continuously born multiple burdens of oppression starting from control and exploitation of their bodies through to attempts to conform their bodies to what are assumed to be natural, cultural and religious orders. Exploitation proceeds to control of women’s labour on what they should engage in to make livelihoods. The most affected in reproductive oppression are women, as health planning in most countries is removed from other social justice issues that affect women and their communities such as economic justice, environment degradation, refugees’ concerns, disability and discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual orientation and exclusion of women from decision making.
The reaction of civil society organisations to reproduction-related problems in communities has been to drive initiatives that narrow down advocacy for women’s reproductive rights without going further to confront the structures that produce reproduction oppression. This is such a limiting approach that ignores the intersection of these struggles.
DOES OPPRESSION WORK DIFFERENTLY OR COLLABORATIVELY?
African farmers especially those in government sanctioned irrigation schemes have had to shoulder the burden of poverty and exploitation on the altar of neoliberalism. The Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kenya, a smallholder rice production programme, has born the brunt of an inter-play of oppressive structures, legislation and system. Established in the 1950s by the British settler farmers with massive financial and political support from their government, the scheme has seen decades of peasant farmers’ economic exploitation in low produce prices and loss of farming autonomy. This imperialist structure then transformed to colonial rule exploiting African political detainees in the establishment of irrigation canal networks and rice production. An illegitimate legal regime was established to manage the conduct of the detainees. The independence government and other successive ones, which claimed to have gained power through popular support, have refused to scrap these punitive, colonial and out-dated laws. An uneven structure of global trade processes has not spared the farmers who now have to grapple with market liberalism that has led to cheap rice from all over the world adversely affecting Kenyan rice prices. So, how come these layers of oppressive systems and processes can consistently collude from generations to generations?
One cannot fail to trace the oppressive legacy of colonial occupation when analysing the situation of tea plantations in Kenya. The common assumption is that of worker exploitation in terms of poor pay and working conditions. But beneath these narratives are huge problems that came along with settler occupation. Massive fields were appropriated from native communities, which had strong spiritual, economic and social meanings. This displacement led to overpopulation and the current unresolved land disputes in Kenya’s Rift Valley region. Oppressive land legislation has failed to ensure restitution of land taken away by the colonialist. The current structure of labour management that is highly misogynist and capitalist has heavily borrowed from the way the colonialists treated the African worker, as thousands have worked as casuals for years and with no regard for their rights. The trade unions, which were bastions of worker organising, have been co-opted by governments that heavily support the exploitative corporations, which are British (colonial) owned. So, did the oppressive imperial colonial structure ever end with flag independence?
HOW DO WE CONFRONT THIS INTERMESH OF OPPRESSION?
Oppression must be dismantled. This is not an easy response. My argument as inspired by Paulo Frere’s (1994) beliefs in the ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ is love and dialogue. Organising to dismantle oppressive structures and frameworks has to be grounded in revolutionary love during our struggle. CSOs that claim to represent communities must be by guided this transformative spirit that is driven by love to transform the structure and one that doesn’t view issues as standing alone. Critical dialogues on the historical, political, economic and social contradictions, which form the impetus of oppression and status quo must be entertained in all our organising.
This is not a project-based apolitical work by NGOs; it is a lifelong emancipatory war or work that seeks to question the assumptions underlying rules and systems that propagate oppression. We must wake up as organisers to the fact that we cant homogenise communities. It is an acknowledgement that certain oppressive systems can also privilege certain people. This intermesh of oppression in Africa is strong and needs multi-issues- organising strategies to replace it. It is a matter of system change, not reform! Because it doesn’t work for you!
If one sampled any country in Africa, one would identify multiple local and national organising for change, resisting repression, fighting impunity or demanding transformation of the structures that discriminate. This is definitely a lot of traction and resources to ‘create’ a new order and better life for the citizens of Africa. But a critical question that must be raised is whether these efforts address the symptoms or the structural bases of the social problems they seek to resolve?
The answers to these queries can only be got if we are able to critically analyse the models that have attempted to resolve social problems in Africa. The ‘development’ approaches that have been fronted in the continent to resolve the social challenges have strengthened bureaucratic hierarchies either within governments or NGOs, systematically disempowered populations, strengthened elitist diagnosis of social issues and propagated other forms of oppression more than what they seek to eradicate. It is hard to forget the long-term effects of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) on this continent both socially and economically in the 1990s, which communities have to grapple with to date.
UNMASKING OPPRESSION IN AFRICA
But what do we mean by oppression in Africa? We can only understand what oppression is by putting a face to it, and more importantly, by removing the tint that has been placed on our eyes by the perpetrators of the oppression. A myriad of social problems chart our countries and continent, for example reproductive oppression, peasant farmers exploitation, farm workers’ unfair treatment, asset stripping of widows, destruction of the natural sacred sites by greedy encroachers and denial of rights to indigenous communities.
But how has oppression been manifested in these sites of struggle? The legacy of colonialism best depicts the different origins of the struggle to resist oppression in Africa. Colonialism (Clarke 1991) and neo-colonialism is a new form of slavery after the original slavery reached its saturation point. Its legacy and those of its concomitants such as racism, patriarchy, sexism or any other oppression has created huge inequality gaps between individuals in this continent, marginalisation and exclusion.
Yes oppression can be visible in certain obvious situations but in many more scenarios it isn’t. In Kenya, for example, a systematic and patriarchal structure in government planning has continuously wanted to control woman’s reproductive life as inspired by Malthusian constructs that believe that over-population has led to increased poverty levels. Women, especially those living in the economically disenfranchised communities, have continuously born multiple burdens of oppression starting from control and exploitation of their bodies through to attempts to conform their bodies to what are assumed to be natural, cultural and religious orders. Exploitation proceeds to control of women’s labour on what they should engage in to make livelihoods. The most affected in reproductive oppression are women, as health planning in most countries is removed from other social justice issues that affect women and their communities such as economic justice, environment degradation, refugees’ concerns, disability and discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual orientation and exclusion of women from decision making.
The reaction of civil society organisations to reproduction-related problems in communities has been to drive initiatives that narrow down advocacy for women’s reproductive rights without going further to confront the structures that produce reproduction oppression. This is such a limiting approach that ignores the intersection of these struggles.
DOES OPPRESSION WORK DIFFERENTLY OR COLLABORATIVELY?
African farmers especially those in government sanctioned irrigation schemes have had to shoulder the burden of poverty and exploitation on the altar of neoliberalism. The Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kenya, a smallholder rice production programme, has born the brunt of an inter-play of oppressive structures, legislation and system. Established in the 1950s by the British settler farmers with massive financial and political support from their government, the scheme has seen decades of peasant farmers’ economic exploitation in low produce prices and loss of farming autonomy. This imperialist structure then transformed to colonial rule exploiting African political detainees in the establishment of irrigation canal networks and rice production. An illegitimate legal regime was established to manage the conduct of the detainees. The independence government and other successive ones, which claimed to have gained power through popular support, have refused to scrap these punitive, colonial and out-dated laws. An uneven structure of global trade processes has not spared the farmers who now have to grapple with market liberalism that has led to cheap rice from all over the world adversely affecting Kenyan rice prices. So, how come these layers of oppressive systems and processes can consistently collude from generations to generations?
One cannot fail to trace the oppressive legacy of colonial occupation when analysing the situation of tea plantations in Kenya. The common assumption is that of worker exploitation in terms of poor pay and working conditions. But beneath these narratives are huge problems that came along with settler occupation. Massive fields were appropriated from native communities, which had strong spiritual, economic and social meanings. This displacement led to overpopulation and the current unresolved land disputes in Kenya’s Rift Valley region. Oppressive land legislation has failed to ensure restitution of land taken away by the colonialist. The current structure of labour management that is highly misogynist and capitalist has heavily borrowed from the way the colonialists treated the African worker, as thousands have worked as casuals for years and with no regard for their rights. The trade unions, which were bastions of worker organising, have been co-opted by governments that heavily support the exploitative corporations, which are British (colonial) owned. So, did the oppressive imperial colonial structure ever end with flag independence?
HOW DO WE CONFRONT THIS INTERMESH OF OPPRESSION?
Oppression must be dismantled. This is not an easy response. My argument as inspired by Paulo Frere’s (1994) beliefs in the ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ is love and dialogue. Organising to dismantle oppressive structures and frameworks has to be grounded in revolutionary love during our struggle. CSOs that claim to represent communities must be by guided this transformative spirit that is driven by love to transform the structure and one that doesn’t view issues as standing alone. Critical dialogues on the historical, political, economic and social contradictions, which form the impetus of oppression and status quo must be entertained in all our organising.
This is not a project-based apolitical work by NGOs; it is a lifelong emancipatory war or work that seeks to question the assumptions underlying rules and systems that propagate oppression. We must wake up as organisers to the fact that we cant homogenise communities. It is an acknowledgement that certain oppressive systems can also privilege certain people. This intermesh of oppression in Africa is strong and needs multi-issues- organising strategies to replace it. It is a matter of system change, not reform! Because it doesn’t work for you!
Socialists are working together wherever they are in the world to bring about that system change for we are all agreed that reform, like the capitalist system itself, definitely does not work for us, the great majority. Join us in the struggle and make it happen!
Saturday, February 14, 2015
The Scramble For Africa: A Continuing Narrative
Most historians generally regard the 1884 Berlin Conference as the index point on the scramble for Africa continuum and it is by all means a continuum. The African continent has played host to several dividing interests and a number of proxy wars from the slave trade to outright colonialism and the cold war where countries like Angola were split in two by opposing superpowers.
In 2014 not much is different. There are new faces and new players. The Asian Tigers, having spent the latter half of the last century gaining prominence like many before them, have arrived at African ports eager to see what the motherland has to offer. They are not alone of course. Countries like Turkey and Brazil are also upping their stake on the continent. And then there are the usual suspects – the United States, Russia and the EU, which, on paper, makes a continent with teeming populations seem all the more crowded. But Africans, for better or worse, have always been accommodating.
The continent seems to inspire people to rush towards it in frenzied anticipation – hence the tagline Scramble for Africa. During the slave trade and the age of empire it was the European powers – Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and admittedly even the Arabs. Post-colonialism and independence saw the courting of Russia and the United States. And now, after the fall of communism and the rise of the Asian Tigers, it seems there is a supposed new scramble between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China.
THE NUMBERS
Since the beginning of the noughties (the years 2000–2010) global foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) region has increased dramatically, from over $33.5 billion to $246.4 billion in 2012 and, according to a 2010 report by Mckinsey & Company, the rate of return on FDI in Africa was higher than any other region in the first decade of the 21st century. Additionally the International Monetary Fund projected what has since become an oft-cited refrain in the international finance and development sector which is that Africa was growing faster than Asia.
China reportedly surpassed America in trade with Africa in 2009 and has since consistently matched its ambition with investment in various projects. The stock of FDI in SSA from the EU, China, Japan and the US grew by nearly five times between 2001 and 2012 from $27.2 billion to about $132.8 billion; growth that was primarily driven by China whose FDI grew at an annual rate of 53 percent compared to 14 percent of the US. This growth in investment is also reflected in Sino-African trade volumes, which have skyrocketed since their tepid numbers in 2000 – Sino-Africa trade hit $198.5 billion in 2012 compared to 108.9 billion between the US and Africa. Standard Charted estimates that trade between China and Africa will hit $385 billion in 2015.
In all this it is noteworthy that the EU, Africa’s traditional trading partner, still retains the highest volume of trade, doubling its volume of trade inside the last decade and recording over $200 billion in trade in 2013. Given its colonial history the United Kingdom was the clear leader, totalling 104 projects in the SSA region.
CHINA 2 AMERICA 1: IS ANYONE REALLY COUNTING?
From all relevant data available it would seem China has made inroads into the continent and are in pole position to benefit from their relationships and investments and while there is no agreed final figure on the sum of direct investments in Africa, it is estimated anywhere between $20 billion and $40 billion at any point. On record is the fact that China is now Africa’s top business partner with trade exceeding $166 billion. It is anticipated that China will continue to further its interest on the continent as it expands its presence on the world stage, moving comfortably into the role of superpower it has long been destined for.
The US has recently seen a decline in trade, which many have attributed to the near collapse of financial markets and the economy in the twilight years of the last decade along with a foreign policy that has shifted to resetting relations with Russia, ending wars and conflicts in the Middle East and courting Asia.
The two sides have also cast suspicion on the other motives. America labels China’s interest on the continent as neo-colonialist and China accuses America of double-standards and neglect; all reminiscent of two suitors quick to point out the other’s flaws, while ignoring the flaws in themselves.
IT IS THE ECONOMY. STUPID.
Noticing China’s growing influence some African countries have taken protectionist stances, as is their right. Whereas some like Nigeria and South Africa, who have benefitted from the Chinese largesse and who have been guilty of the same behaviour in some African countries, have increased the rhetoric against their once benevolent Asian counterparts.
This speaks to an assumed and convenient naiveté that Africans employ whenever the world system doesn’t work to their advantage – the Chinese are not coming to Africa because they are enthralled by our landscapes, warm personalities and wildlife, they come to Africa because we have something they want and that must be our entry point in all negotiations: what can we get back in return and at what cost?
We haven’t been very successful in the past at stopping those who arrived at our ports looking to take advantage, now we are in better control of the relationships and as such we should move to several points of realisation, some of which are that Africa does not need benevolence; we need development.
The Chinese are the latest in a long line of explorers who have reached the hinterland and they won’t be the last. However, what matters is Africa remains in control of that relationship and there are encouraging signs that that is beginning to happen. In South Sudan a Chinese citizen was expelled in connection with alleged misappropriation; Congo kicked out two rogue commodity traders and Algerian courts have banned two Chinese firms from participating in a public tender.
One can only hope that such circumspection and swift movement will be applied to erring and corrupt indigenous officials but that is another topic.
A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
In all this talk of a Sino-American scramble for Africa commentators often neglect to mention the paltry one percent and 3.4 percent of the total percentage of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) by the US and China respectively; numbers that barely constitute a skip let alone a scramble for Africa.
This adheres to a basic truth that many Afro-optimists have known for a while that, despite our natural resources and in spite of all the aid sent our way, Africa must own its own development process, it must set its own standards and find the most efficient way to marshal its own resources.
No matter their best intentions, no matter the depth of their forays, the Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese, Martians from Mars, the host of heavens cannot do this for us. The scramble for Africa, such as it is, may never really end but it is about time the search for African solutions began.
by Babatunde (Tundé) Oyateru from here with links
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Turning The Commons Into a Marketable Commodity
Africa's land and seed laws under attack
The lobby to industrialise food production in Africa is not only pouring money into plantation projects on the ground, it is changing African laws to serve foreign agribusiness as well. This is the main finding of a new report from the civil society organisations Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and GRAIN.
The report, "Land and seed laws under attack", documents who is pushing what changes in these two battlegrounds across Africa. Washington DC, home to the World Bank, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the US Agency for International Development, stands out the biggest source of pressure to privatise African farm resources right now. But Europe, through the European Union and various donor mechanisms, is also deeply involved, providing funds and legal frameworks like the plant patenting scheme known as UPOV.
Privatising land and seeds is essential for the corporate model to flourish in Africa. With regard to agricultural land, this means pushing for the official demarcation, registration and titling of farms. It also means making it possible for foreign investors to lease or own land on a long-term basis. With regard to seeds, it means having governments require that seeds be registered in an official catalogue in order to circulate. It also means introducing intellectual property rights over plant varieties and criminalising farmers who disregard them. In all cases, the end goal is to turn what has long been a commons in Africa into a marketable commodity that the private sector can control and profit from at the expense of small farmers and rural communities.
"More than 80% of all seed in Africa is produced and disseminated through informal seed systems, that is, on-farm seed saving and exchange between farmers," points out Bridget Mugambe of AFSA. "Marginalising and criminalising farmers' seeds through UPOV and by introducing strict marketing regimes will be great for multinational seed companies but a disaster for our small family farmers," she says.
The land privatisation agenda is also quite threatening. "In the name of land securitisation, which may sound great to vulnerable rural communities, donors and African governments are actually pushing to create Western-type land markets based on formal instruments like titles and leases that can be traded in one way or another," explains Ange David Baïmey of GRAIN. "In fact, the explicit aim of many initiatives, such as the G8 New Alliance, is to secure investors' rights to land."
The thinking is to make Africa more attractive to business. But this will only erode the rights of rural communities prevent them from continuing to serve as the backbone of the region's food and farming systems.
The report, "Land and seed laws under attack: Who is pushing changes in Africa?" is available at grain.org/e/5121
from here
Why So Many Myths and Lies About Africa? Who Benefits?
One of the myths outlined in the report The
Poor Are Getting Richer and Other Dangerous Delusions that Global
Justice Now (previously WDM) released last week to coincide with the
Davos World Economic Forum, is that Africa needs our help. A
variation of this myth, that African agriculture needs help from rich
Western countries, is constantly spun out by the media, investors,
agribusiness companies and other transnationals. It sometimes feels
like we’re being forced to participate in a modified version of the
BBC Radio 4 show The Unbelievable Truth where panellists
have to give a lecture full of lies while smuggling a handful of
truths past the other players. In the case of the ‘Africa needs our
help’ narrative, the game is played so that a handful of truths are
used to smuggle some hugely significant lies past unsuspecting
governments, NGOs and civil society.
Take the issue of agricultural production in Africa. The truths that the mainstream narrative pick out are that one in four people in Sub-Saharan Africa are undernourished, and that Africa has the lowest levels of agricultural productivity in the world, with extremely low levels of inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds and irrigation. It is also true that high population growth rates, high levels of poverty, poor infrastructure and low levels of investment have compounded the problem and made food difficult to access for millions of people.
But from these truths, the mainstream narrative moves to a false conclusion: that with the financial and technical help provided by rich countries and international development agencies – such as the $10 billion of ‘responsible private investments’ committed through the New Alliance to date – employment and food production will receive a huge boost and Africa will finally be able to feed itself.
It is certainly true that millions of people in Africa suffer from hunger and malnutrition, but nonetheless this narrative is partial and misleading. It is missing context, crucially failing to ask why this has happened in a continent that used to be self-sufficient in food in the 1960s. There are two main reasons for this, and they point to a very different solution to the problem of African poverty.
Firstly Africa’s agricultural production was designed during the colonial era to benefit rich countries in the North with their enormous appetite for raw materials and luxury (non-staple) foods. In 2011, the top five exports out of Africa (by value) were cocoa beans, coffee, cotton, rubber and tobacco; more useful for satisfying rich consumers than feeding poor communities.
Secondly, African countries have been forced to deregulate their trade by rich countries and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions continue to lend money to developing countries while encouraging them to privatize public services and deregulate their economies. So, countries end up importing staple foods like wheat, palm oil, maize, sugar and soya-bean oil – crops largely produced by rich countries in the North, which can afford to heavily subsidize their agricultural sector. They have also opened up Africa to agribusiness companies that are rapidly increasing their control of resources such as land, water and labour.
Mainstream media, transnational corporations and government agencies tell us that Africa needs GM technology and chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields. What they don’t tell us is that the use of GM seeds actually leads to falling crop yields in the long term, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.
More and more evidence has been pouring in which shows that sustainable agriculture – or agroecology – can produce yields comparable to, and often larger than, industrial agriculture. But that’s not all. There are also huge positive knock-on effects of agroecology, such as increasing biodiversity, increasing income and employment opportunities, reducing the gender gap, improving health and nutrition, and helping to mitigate climate change.
Whether it’s by practising agroforestry, rice-duck farming or organic farming techniques, the evidence in support of agroecology is now indisputable. What we need is the political will to challenge the myth of corporate-controlled agriculture through reform of the aid system, opposition to unfair trade agreements, and by promoting the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty to help small-scale farmers regain control of Africa’s food system.
from here
Take the issue of agricultural production in Africa. The truths that the mainstream narrative pick out are that one in four people in Sub-Saharan Africa are undernourished, and that Africa has the lowest levels of agricultural productivity in the world, with extremely low levels of inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds and irrigation. It is also true that high population growth rates, high levels of poverty, poor infrastructure and low levels of investment have compounded the problem and made food difficult to access for millions of people.
But from these truths, the mainstream narrative moves to a false conclusion: that with the financial and technical help provided by rich countries and international development agencies – such as the $10 billion of ‘responsible private investments’ committed through the New Alliance to date – employment and food production will receive a huge boost and Africa will finally be able to feed itself.
It is certainly true that millions of people in Africa suffer from hunger and malnutrition, but nonetheless this narrative is partial and misleading. It is missing context, crucially failing to ask why this has happened in a continent that used to be self-sufficient in food in the 1960s. There are two main reasons for this, and they point to a very different solution to the problem of African poverty.
Firstly Africa’s agricultural production was designed during the colonial era to benefit rich countries in the North with their enormous appetite for raw materials and luxury (non-staple) foods. In 2011, the top five exports out of Africa (by value) were cocoa beans, coffee, cotton, rubber and tobacco; more useful for satisfying rich consumers than feeding poor communities.
Secondly, African countries have been forced to deregulate their trade by rich countries and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions continue to lend money to developing countries while encouraging them to privatize public services and deregulate their economies. So, countries end up importing staple foods like wheat, palm oil, maize, sugar and soya-bean oil – crops largely produced by rich countries in the North, which can afford to heavily subsidize their agricultural sector. They have also opened up Africa to agribusiness companies that are rapidly increasing their control of resources such as land, water and labour.
Mainstream media, transnational corporations and government agencies tell us that Africa needs GM technology and chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields. What they don’t tell us is that the use of GM seeds actually leads to falling crop yields in the long term, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.
More and more evidence has been pouring in which shows that sustainable agriculture – or agroecology – can produce yields comparable to, and often larger than, industrial agriculture. But that’s not all. There are also huge positive knock-on effects of agroecology, such as increasing biodiversity, increasing income and employment opportunities, reducing the gender gap, improving health and nutrition, and helping to mitigate climate change.
Whether it’s by practising agroforestry, rice-duck farming or organic farming techniques, the evidence in support of agroecology is now indisputable. What we need is the political will to challenge the myth of corporate-controlled agriculture through reform of the aid system, opposition to unfair trade agreements, and by promoting the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty to help small-scale farmers regain control of Africa’s food system.
from here
One of the myths outlined in the report The Poor Are Getting Richer and Other Dangerous Delusions
that Global Justice Now (previously WDM) released last week to coincide
with the Davos World Economic Forum, is that Africa needs our help. A
variation of this myth, that African agriculture needs help from rich
Western countries, is constantly spun out by the media, investors,
agribusiness companies and other transnationals. It sometimes feels like
we’re being forced to participate in a modified version of the BBC
Radio 4 show The Unbelievable Truth where panellists have to
give a lecture full of lies while smuggling a handful of truths past the
other players. In the case of the ‘Africa needs our help’ narrative,
the game is played so that a handful of truths are used to smuggle some
hugely significant lies past unsuspecting governments, NGOs and civil
society.
Take the issue of agricultural production in Africa. The truths that the mainstream narrative pick out are that one in four people in Sub-Saharan Africa are undernourished, and that Africa has the lowest levels of agricultural productivity in the world, with extremely low levels of inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds and irrigation. It is also true that high population growth rates, high levels of poverty, poor infrastructure and low levels of investment have compounded the problem and made food difficult to access for millions of people.
But from these truths, the mainstream narrative moves to a false conclusion: that with the financial and technical help provided by rich countries and international development agencies – such as the $10 billion of ‘responsible private investments’ committed through the New Alliance to date – employment and food production will receive a huge boost and Africa will finally be able to feed itself.
It is certainly true that millions of people in Africa suffer from hunger and malnutrition, but nonetheless this narrative is partial and misleading. It is missing context, crucially failing to ask why this has happened in a continent that used to be self-sufficient in food in the 1960s. There are two main reasons for this, and they point to a very different solution to the problem of African poverty.
Firstly Africa’s agricultural production was designed during the colonial era to benefit rich countries in the North with their enormous appetite for raw materials and luxury (non-staple) foods. In 2011, the top five exports out of Africa (by value) were cocoa beans, coffee, cotton, rubber and tobacco; more useful for satisfying rich consumers than feeding poor communities.
Secondly, African countries have been forced to deregulate their trade by rich countries and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions continue to lend money to developing countries while encouraging them to privatize public services and deregulate their economies. So, countries end up importing staple foods like wheat, palm oil, maize, sugar and soya-bean oil – crops largely produced by rich countries in the North, which can afford to heavily subsidize their agricultural sector. They have also opened up Africa to agribusiness companies that are rapidly increasing their control of resources such as land, water and labour.
Mainstream media, transnational corporations and government agencies tell us that Africa needs GM technology and chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields. What they don’t tell us is that the use of GM seeds actually leads to falling crop yields in the long term, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.
More and more evidence has been pouring in which shows that sustainable agriculture – or agroecology – can produce yields comparable to, and often larger than, industrial agriculture. But that’s not all. There are also huge positive knock-on effects of agroecology, such as increasing biodiversity, increasing income and employment opportunities, reducing the gender gap, improving health and nutrition, and helping to mitigate climate change.
Whether it’s by practising agroforestry, rice-duck farming or organic farming techniques, the evidence in support of agroecology is now indisputable. What we need is the political will to challenge the myth of corporate-controlled agriculture through reform of the aid system, opposition to unfair trade agreements, and by promoting the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty to help small-scale farmers regain control of Africa’s food system.
Ian Fitzpatrick
- See more at: http://newint.org/blog/2015/01/26/african-agriculture-myths/?utm_medium=ni-email&utm_source=message&utm_campaign=intl-enews-2015-01-28#sthash.WREhwFex.dpuf
Take the issue of agricultural production in Africa. The truths that the mainstream narrative pick out are that one in four people in Sub-Saharan Africa are undernourished, and that Africa has the lowest levels of agricultural productivity in the world, with extremely low levels of inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds and irrigation. It is also true that high population growth rates, high levels of poverty, poor infrastructure and low levels of investment have compounded the problem and made food difficult to access for millions of people.
But from these truths, the mainstream narrative moves to a false conclusion: that with the financial and technical help provided by rich countries and international development agencies – such as the $10 billion of ‘responsible private investments’ committed through the New Alliance to date – employment and food production will receive a huge boost and Africa will finally be able to feed itself.
It is certainly true that millions of people in Africa suffer from hunger and malnutrition, but nonetheless this narrative is partial and misleading. It is missing context, crucially failing to ask why this has happened in a continent that used to be self-sufficient in food in the 1960s. There are two main reasons for this, and they point to a very different solution to the problem of African poverty.
Firstly Africa’s agricultural production was designed during the colonial era to benefit rich countries in the North with their enormous appetite for raw materials and luxury (non-staple) foods. In 2011, the top five exports out of Africa (by value) were cocoa beans, coffee, cotton, rubber and tobacco; more useful for satisfying rich consumers than feeding poor communities.
Secondly, African countries have been forced to deregulate their trade by rich countries and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions continue to lend money to developing countries while encouraging them to privatize public services and deregulate their economies. So, countries end up importing staple foods like wheat, palm oil, maize, sugar and soya-bean oil – crops largely produced by rich countries in the North, which can afford to heavily subsidize their agricultural sector. They have also opened up Africa to agribusiness companies that are rapidly increasing their control of resources such as land, water and labour.
Mainstream media, transnational corporations and government agencies tell us that Africa needs GM technology and chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields. What they don’t tell us is that the use of GM seeds actually leads to falling crop yields in the long term, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.
More and more evidence has been pouring in which shows that sustainable agriculture – or agroecology – can produce yields comparable to, and often larger than, industrial agriculture. But that’s not all. There are also huge positive knock-on effects of agroecology, such as increasing biodiversity, increasing income and employment opportunities, reducing the gender gap, improving health and nutrition, and helping to mitigate climate change.
Whether it’s by practising agroforestry, rice-duck farming or organic farming techniques, the evidence in support of agroecology is now indisputable. What we need is the political will to challenge the myth of corporate-controlled agriculture through reform of the aid system, opposition to unfair trade agreements, and by promoting the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty to help small-scale farmers regain control of Africa’s food system.
Ian Fitzpatrick
- See more at: http://newint.org/blog/2015/01/26/african-agriculture-myths/?utm_medium=ni-email&utm_source=message&utm_campaign=intl-enews-2015-01-28#sthash.WREhwFex.dpuf
Friday, December 12, 2014
AFSA Open Letter Opposing Human Feeding Trials Involving GM Banana
To:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Dr Wendy S White, Iowa State University
The Director, Human-Institutional Review Board, Iowa State University
Dear Sirs/Madam
We, the undersigned, representing diverse constituencies from across Africa and the world, working towards food sovereignty, are strongly opposed to the human feeding trials taking place at the Iowa State University involving the so called genetically modified (GM) ‘super banana’ - GM Matooke, Sweet and Roasting bananas.
These trials funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are being carried out under the leadership of Dr. Wendy White of the Iowa State University, on 12 young students, with the intention of introducing the GM banana first in Uganda and later, to other countries in East Africa. The GM banana, currently undergoing field trials in Uganda, was developed by scientists at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, similarly also funded by the Gates Foundation.
Despite claims to the contrary from the promoters and developers of GM crops, and to reiterate what nearly three hundred global scientists have stated in an Open Letter in December 2013[i], there is no consensus that GM crops are safe for human consumption. Most of the research carried out by independent scientists on GM crops directly contradicts the results of biotech industry-sponsored studies that claim no evidence of risk or harm.
This so-called ‘Super-banana’, has been genetically modified to contain extra beta-carotene, a nutrient the human body uses to produce vitamin A. Unlike current GM crops in commercial production where agronomic traits have been altered, scientists have spliced genes into the GM banana to produce substances for humans to digest (extra beta carotene). The GM banana is a whole different ballgame, raising serious concerns about the risks to African communities who would be expected to consume it. Production of vitamin A in the body is complex and not fully understood. This raises important questions including inter alia, whether high levels of beta- carotene or vitamin A may carry risks and what the nature of those risks might be. While a risk assessment is a pre-requisite for GM foods under many national jurisdictions, the need for specific and additional food safety assessment for nutritionally enhanced GM crops such as the GM banana is acknowledged by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as genetic modifications result in a composition that may be significantly different from their conventional counterparts[ii].
We question what firm conclusions can be drawn from feeding trials of young people residing in the United States for poor rural farmers and consumers in Africa, given all the differences in lifestyle and diets between these two populations?
What other foods will these students be eating with the GM bananas, and how will these be eaten? Will the participants in the USA be eating this in the same way? Will it have the same color and same levels of water composition? Would cooking the GM bananas result in a loss of beta-carotene? Will participants be given portions of fats and oils (such as butter) to supplement the banana, as was the case in feeding trials with Golden Rice to facilitate the absorption of beta-carotene? If so, then the GM banana feeding studies may be of little relevance to rural Ugandans and other East Africans who prepare the Matooke variety simply by steaming and mashing.
Great strides have been made in the Philippines, another target country for Vitamin enhanced GM crops, through government programs that supply supplements and improve access to vitamin A rich foods, to overcome Vitamin A deficiencies. This is done without the enormous costs or unknown long- term impacts on health, the environment and farming systems that are entailed by using GM crops. And it is more completely in control of the user society.
Africa, the USA, and indeed the rest of the world, do not need GM crops. These crops divert resources away from more locally appropriate and controlled agricultural solutions to nutritional concerns. If indeed the aim of those involved in the promotion of the project is truly to combat Vitamin A deficiency then surely they should be advocating for the consumption of more diverse fruits and foods, such as sweet potatoes that are rich in Vitamin A and that are in abundance in Africa. Ironically, the promotion of a GM food staple high in Vitamin A, risks perpetuating monolithic diets, the very causes of Vitamin A deficiency in the first place.
This letter is in solidarity with farmers and communities in Africa and around the world, which have resisted the genetic modification of their staple foods- from Ghana, Kenya and Zambia- to Mexico, India and the Philippines. We will not stand by idly as attempts are made to systematically genetically modify Africa’s staple foods and in the process gain a massive positive public relations coup by claiming to have conquered health problems at the unnecessary risk to Africans.
Finally, we demand that the full contents of this open letter are shared with the human subjects of these trials in the USA.
Bridget Mugambe
Policy Advocate
Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)
from here with the list of 122 signee organisations
Friday, June 27, 2014
Africa - Migration Dynamics
Below are links to articles in this special issue of Pambazuka News, each in their own way relevant to current discussions in the western world about the 'whys and whos and where froms' of immigrants. Three months ago Pambazuka issued an invitation for articles on the subject. Here are some - in their diversity.
JS
JS
Africa and its Diaspora in migration dynamics
Tidiane Kasse
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/92259
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)