by: Austin Ejiet (Daily Monitor)
The cold war had reached its zenith, with the ideological power blocks jostling for supremacy and global domination. Perceived to be exceptionally vulnerable to communist seduction, Africa in particular, was under constant surveillance.
Without the benefit of prior colonial influence, the Soviet bloc was quick to pounce on some African despots mouthing half-cooked Marxist slogans, persuading the good man to allow them open military bases in exchange for military hardware.
The West on the other hand was loathe to see its spheres of influence, nurtured for over a century as colonies, protectorates or “overseas dominions,’ sliding to the other side. The slightest hint of intransigence was dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly.
The demise of the Cold War and the failure of Communism to take root in a serious manner anywhere in Africa eased the stranglehold and spelt the end of military coups.
Unconstitutional changes of governments continued, of course, but via civil wars, rebellions and self-styled liberation struggles. That phase, too, is beginning to fade away. These bush wars, some of them lasting as long as 30 years, are costly in terms of lives - military as well as civilian – and in terms of wasteful expenditure and the wanton destruction of valuable infrastructure.
So Africa has had to move on. The new type of coup is characterised by massive rigging of the elections by whoever happens to be in control as the incumbent.
In the rare case that the competitors successfully mobilise against electoral theft, the modern African potentate either arm-twists the electoral commission to release fraudulent results , or, failing that, simply refuses to concede defeat, declares himself victor and gets himself sworn in for a fresh term.
But Africans have had enough of these charades. The electoral thief will, of course, send out his crack troops to smash a few skulls with police batons.
In the event of that not working , the president will order his troops to shoot to kill. When even that fails to quell popular outrage, the president will invite his, “defeated” opponent to discus how to share power. It is a coup d’etat, elaborate perhaps, but a coup nevertheless, more bloody and more frightening than its ancestor of the 60s and 70s.
That is the route that Kenya and Zimbabwe have chosen to pursue, though in the case of the latter, it is not yet a done deal. Which is perhaps why the military chiefs in the Republic of Mauritania have reverted back to the old – fashioned and swifter way.
President Sidi Cheikh Ould Abdallah was elected to the presidency of Mauritania 15 months ago, ending decades of military rule. Ten days ago, he was shown the exist when he committed the unpardonable folly of dismissing some of the army chiefs.
Hasn’t this man heard of ex- president Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa of Uganda? Doesn’t he know the elementary axiom that you don’t touch the military when you have no military bastion of your own?
The Generals have also accused him of failing to rein in the skyrocketing food prices. Moreover, the fallen president is said to have exhibited unacceptable levels of corruption by allowing his wife to loot the state.
He is also said to have given his daughter a position of power not commensurate with first daughters. Perhaps he also promoted his son to the rank of Lt. Colonel, but I can’t testify to the veracity of this assertion.
So, why have the African Union (AU), the European Union and the US government refused to recognise the new rulers? Why is everybody threatening to withdraw financial support?
Why were Mwai Kibaki and Robert Mugabe allowed to attend the AU summits in Ethiopia and Cairo after the two had clearly carried out coups d’etat in their respective countries? When is a coup not a coup?
Austin Ejiet can be reached at ejieta@yahoo.com
Monday, August 18, 2008
when is a coup d’etat not a coup?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Is Thabo Mbeki the source of South Africa Xenophobia?
The seemingly well orchestrated xenophobic attacks (pitting locals against hapless “black foreigners” in the township of Alexandra, north of Johannesburg) has left many injured, dead or displaced after they were forcefully evicted and their houses destroyed. The violence has shown no signs of abating and has been spreading fast to the city center and across the Gauteng region. Reports indicate an increase of violence against women and children who have been left to bear the brunt of this insensitive fervor. According to Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) which has treated many victims of live bullets, beatings and rape, it is a classic refugee situation that will eventually overwhelm the authorities. South African police were stretched so thin that the military had to be deployed to help quell the situation. Why the violence?
It is particularly shameful for the "Rainbow Nation" considering its past record on human rights abuses and democracy. South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki knows that what is happening in today is a replay of the situation in Zimbabwe some 10 years ago when Comrade Robert Mugabe began a controversial land redistribution program that saw many commercial farms seized from white farmers and turned over to blacks sending its economy into a spin. Zimbabwe has never recovered. The only difference comes in who is executing the anti “rest of Africa” policy in which poor South Africans are being used by hidden forces out to gain with the exit of black immigrants. It is therefore not strange that such violence can occur at a time when the country is preparing to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup and Mbeki ousted from the ANC leadership. Many hoped that the World Cup would bring new opportunities for the entire continent. But it seems South Africa is not ready to share such glory with the “rest of Africa”. It took days of violence for authorities to notice its magnitude. The statement from President Mbeki that “Citizens from other countries on the African continent and beyond are as human as we are and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity", was just that, a statement…a mere rhetoric.
“It has to do with two things. First of all there is resentment against the same person being at the helm, which is good for democracy. And also Mr. Mbeki had a distance between himself and the general population, and Mr. Zuma on the other hand is a very populist kind of a speaker and has closed relations with people on the ground. I think the two balance each other. It’s not necessarily a rejection of Mr. Mbeki’s policies. It is a rejection of Mr. Mbeki’s personality,” he said.
Pakerndorf described Mbeki as a foreign educated South African while Zuma educated himself while serving jail time for the ANC.(Continues below)
*********************************************************
Top posts in May 2008:
1. South Africa Violence: Why is Brother Fighting Brother?
2. Africa Day is not Socialism Day!
3. Keen on business, China is yet to flex its formidable military muscle in Africa
4. Top secrets: Gaddafi plotted to bomb Kenya
5. Democracy, reforms can end fear of instability
6. Kenya tea loses its flavor in Pakistan
NOTE:
Are the Xenophobic attacks in South Africa Justified?
(Give you view on the violence in South Africa in the poll at the top of this page)
*********************************************************
“If you go back in history, Mr. Mbeki left the country when he was still a teenager and spent most of his time in Europe and latter part in Lusaka, Zambia and hasn’t had a real connection with people on the ground or ordinary South Africans” Pakerndorf said.
He said the fact that Mbeki turned South Africa’s economy around matters little to ordinary South Africans.
“What is interesting and important is that people on the ground actually expect that their lives should be better and could be better. They see their fellow black South Africans moving ahead, some of them becoming millionaires, moving into brick houses. And I think that’s part of what you see happening here. People on the ground are simply saying no more of the same. We want to be part of the economy,” Pakerndorf said.
Since the apartheid era, many locals have slipped into abject poverty despite the newly expanded freedom that has done little to improve the quality of life of many in the rainbow nation. However, all blame should be targeted towards the South African government and not the immigrants many of whom are playing a positive role in the country’s development. The South African Xenophobia began with the end of apartheid, NOT yesterday like we are being made to believe. Granted, there are many South Africans who live in “the rest of Africa” but it would be despicable if they too were to undergo the same wrath.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE BLOG
Monday, May 26, 2008
Top secrets: Gaddafi plotted to bomb Kenya
by KAMAU NGOTHO (Daily Nation)
Like with politics, espionage knows no permanent friends or enemies, only the convergence of interests.
Said to be the second oldest profession, at times it appears to have even lesser morals than the first.
No surprise that when relationship between Nairobi and Washington were at the ice cold, it was still business as usual for legendary Kenyan spy chief James Kanyotu and the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States.
Early one morning in February 1991, Mr Kanyotu found himself with a difficult assignment. His friends in the CIA had called with an urgent and unusual request.
They had with them 600 Libyan dissidents they wanted sequestered in Kenya before they could be flown to a safe haven out of the reach of mercurial Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
The dissidents had been spirited out of Libya in a daring secret move and first flown to the then Zaire, now Democratic Republic of Congo.
But the CIA was not confident that Zaire was a safe haven. (Post Continues Below)
*****************************************************
Last Week's Top Post
Democracy, reforms can end fear of instability
By Raila odinga (Kenya's Prime Minister)
While we are rightly proud of having constructed Africa’s first ever Grand Coalition Government as a way to bring a halt to post-election violence and division, the fact remains that it is a novel experiment in which both coalition partners and Members of Parliament are trying to figure out how to do things the right way....(click to Read More)
*****************************************************
The country’s dictator, Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko was a US ally and had himself come to power in the 1960s as a CIA protégé.
But the Americans considered him unstable, unreliable and unpredictable.
His avarice and love of money was legendary, and it would not be beyond him to cut a deal with Col Gaddafi and turn over the dissidents in exchange for handsome sums wired to his numerous Swiss bank accounts.
The Americans wanted their charges out of Congo speedily, and Kenya seemed like the best choice.
But there was one problem. President Moi at that time had no time for the US.
Kenya was in the throes of the multi-party campaign and the US had come out strongly in favour of the push for democratisation.
Mr Moi was particularly irked by President George Bush’s ambassador in Kenya, the outspoken Smith Hempstone, who consorted openly with and supported the growing opposition of the day and had been dismissed as the Nyama Choma (roasted meat) ambassador.
An approach through Mr Hempstone would not work, for Moi would have loved nothing better than to tell the envoy to ‘shove it’.
A direct approach from Washington, either through the Secretary of State or the President himself, was also considered but none wanted to chance reaching Moi when in one of his foul moods and risk a humiliating rejection.
So the CIA turned to Mr Kanyotu to soften President Moi for them. It was a difficult assignment on two grounds. First of course was Mr Moi’s growing anger with the United States.
The Libyan leader by then was on the American list of unfriendly regimes.
He was fiercely anti-American, and was accused of financing Middle Eastern terrorist groups that were increasingly aiming at targets in the West.
The Libyans at the time were also moving aggressively to position themselves in sub-saharan Africa, unlike many other North African countries, which viewed themselves primarily as members of the Arab world.
That was where Mr Kanyottu found the chink in President Moi’s armour.
Libyan interests in the region had in the past few years been viewed suspiciously by Kenya, which was alarmed by the countries seeming support for dissident movements.
From the early 1980, the Libyan embassy on Loita Street had become a popular calling place for radial student activists from nearby University of Nairobi.
Usually it was to pick up freebies in the form of Mr Gaddafi’s writings, including his famous Green Book, and other literature and posters on Libyan and on the Palestinian cause.
Mr Kanyotu’s agents kept a close watch around the embassy, paying particular attention to student leaders whom they thought might be tempted into going beyond mere infatuation with Gaddafi and enlisting into something sinister.
Libya at the time already had a strong presence in neighbouring Uganda, which under President Yoweri Museveni had become the favoured transit point for Kenyan dissidents fleeing the country for exile in Europe.
By early 1991, Kenya had already severed diplomatic relations with Tripoli after accusing the northern African country of sponsoring anti-Moi elements.
Some student leaders at the University of Nairobi had also been arrested and charged with espionage for allegedly spying for Libya.
Even without the Libyan link, President Moi at time viewed President Museveni as a dangerous radical all too keen to spread his ideology across the region.
Kenya and Uganda had engaged in a brief shooting war across the common border only a few years previously, and still regarded each other with deep suspicion.
With all the information at his fingertips, Mr Kanyotu was able to convince President Moi that the real threat lay not in US support for the multi-party campaign in Kenya, but in Libyan support for dissidents who might want to forment a revolution via neighbouring Uganda.
Mr Kanyotu thought, Moi — even for ego purposes only — would relish the moment to show both Col Gaddafi and Mr Museveni who was boss in the region. Mr Moi gave his nod, and working under the strictest security, Mr Kanyotu’s men and the CIA hurriedly constructed a camp to hold the Libyans at a remote point off the Thika-Garissa highway. Within a week, a makeshift barracks was in place complete with a borehole and a fully-equipped dispensary.
To throw off-scent any nosy characters, signposts were erected purporting that American peace-corps were coming to help sink boreholes in the remote reaches of Mwingi District.
On D-Day, Mr Kanyotu joined the CIA team at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport shortly after midnight. Also present was Mr Hempstone.
As Nairobi slept, two US Air Force jets taxied at the far end of the apron. Unmarked buses from the Kenya Army were in place to transport the delicate human cargo.
Before dawn, the Libyan exiles were sound asleep in their new, but temporary, Kenyan home.
Mr Gaddafi, probably through Ugandan and Soviet intelligence sources in Nairobi, soon came to learn about the presence of Libyan dissidents in Kenya.
He was furious, and immediately set about planning how to retaliate.
Gaddafi’s first option was lightning air strike to bomb the camp and kill as many of the residents as possible.
The other was to bring in a commando squad by land, raid the place and capture some of the dissidents.
To keep him off-scent, Mr Kanyotu and the CIA put up several decoys that kept the Libyan intelligence operatives on a wild goose chase.
Meanwhile, the Americans found a permanent refuge for the dissidents, and before the Libyan forces could strike they were secretly flown out of Kenya under cover of darkness.
After ranting and raving for a period, Mr Gaddafi concluded the Kenyan leader was no pushover and offered to make peace.
TO READ THE REST OF THE BLOG CLICK HERE
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
South Africa Violence: Why is Brother Fighting Brother?
The recent outburst of criminal violence against Africans seeking employment has less to do with ‘xenophobia’ as touted by the reactionary press but more to do with chronic unresolved anger of the black South African masses. In other words, defenseless people are merely convenient scapegoats for something deeper and more sinister which, unless addressed immediately will drag South Africa and the region into a slippery abyss. (Continues below)
****************************************************************
NOTE:
Are the Xenophobic attacks in South Africa Justified?
(Give your view on the violence in South Africa in the poll at the top of this page)
****************************************************************
In the closing chapters of the apartheid catastrophe (when the ANC was abandoning its ‘humane’ guerrilla war and was at last prepared to take the lives of its oppressors) a wave of alarm swept through the intelligence echelons of apartheid’s secret supporters [in London, Washington, Tel Aviv, Berlin and Paris] in the West. These nations had given tacit approval to Pretoria’s brutal suppression of black aspirations for freedom and skillfully used the canard of the ‘communist threat’ to justify their business ties to one of the most reprehensible regimes to ever besmirch the earth.
The Cuban-Angolan victory at Cuito Cuanavale sounded the death knell of the regime. If the region, perhaps the continent, were not to descend in a Gotterdammerung of racial war which the Boers would certaimly have lost, something had to be done fast. The townships were becoming no-go areas. A blood-lust had developed among the Africans, promising a horrific revenge if the regime fell to the people.
Centuries of humiliation, denial of basic human rights and de facto slavery guaranteed that a black popular revolution would make the bloodletting of the French and Haitian Revolutions look like a picnic. In fact, in the township resistance councils, lists were already drawn up for those who would receive justice in peoples’ courts and how to deal with collaborators and spies. If Mandela had died in custody, nothing would quell the people’s rage. Mandela had to be freed, but with conditions. Under no circumstances would a revolutionary situation be allowed to develop. Thus deals were made.
Mandela will probably carry the secrets to the grave but the fact remains, deals were made to abort the people’s just anger. Bishop Tutu called for forgiveness as did Mandela-forgiving his jailers. Mandela, the charismatic icon called for peace.
Many were perplexed. There would be no toppling of the symbols of repression- the grim statues of white oppressors who had brought so much pain for so long; no Nuremberg trials for the architects of the egregious example of man’s inhumanity to man; no accounting for 400 years of humiliation, for as long as apartheid existed, no black person anywhere in the world was free. Although a stain on the honour of the African people, not a single perpetrator of apartheid answered for his crimes. Yet the rage remained. With no outlet since this was denied in the name of ‘forgiveness’ and ‘reconciliation,’ the rage had to be expressed elsewhere.
The anger and horrific brutality expressed in South African violence and crime are not the acts of mad people, but the acts of people made mad by the denial of justice and closure against those who oppressed them for so long. These people have been placed out of reach by the insane generosity of ‘forgiveness’ and ‘reconciliation’ offered without the consent of the people. The unfortunate ‘immigrants’ who have every right to be in South Africa, since without their unswerving support and solidarity apartheid could never have been toppled, are convenient scapegoats subjected to ‘xenophobia’ –destined to be the new divisive buzzword- while the government stands aghast, caught off guard by a situation they should have seen coming. This is a very, very dangerous time not just for South Africa, but the entire Continent.
How can Pan–Africanism succeed if African nations maintain their unrealistic solitudes as ‘nations,’ seeking answers in the West rather than within themselves, nurturing dependencies on Western ‘aid,’ clinging to alien ideas and cultural mores rather than rediscovering and redefining what it means to be African? How can Mozambicans, Malawians, Somalis and others of the region be called ‘foreigners’ by their fellow Africans while nationalities from Eastern Europe, Lebanon and the descendants of apartheid’s founders claim that they are Africans with more privileges than the indigenous people? Who are the real foreigners? Who really takes the jobs? Who controls the economy? Who is the real threat?
Just the way historical injustices contributed immensely to Kenya's post election crisis, the ANC government needs to address this problem swiftly before it becomes a chronic sore. It is time that African nations thought long term in all their deliberations and addressed issues exhaustively to avoid future skirmishes. Africa can ill-afford yet another divisive, brutal conflict which pits brother against brother while 'well wishers' wait on the sidelines to open new refugee camps.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE POSTS IN THIS BLOG
Amengeo Amengeo is a specialist in Spanish, Latin American, Caribbean as well as African History. He has also been a journalist, civil servant and graphic artist
