Leveraging on China’s Thirst to Develop Africa

By Norah Owaraga,
I recently heard a great daughter of Africa tell a story of two sisters who chose two different paths. One of them chose to take control of her destiny whilst another chose to allow others to take control of her destiny. The one that chose to take control of her destiny insisted on making her own choices, decisions and setting her own agenda. The other waited for others to give her choices, decisions and an agenda to follow. The two sisters are Asia and Africa.

More countries in both east and south Asia have progressed and are attaining the status of the so-called ‘developed’ countries that was previously the preserve of European and North American countries. China is one of those Asian countries that is successfully industrialising and successfully reducing the percentage of its citizens living below the poverty line. China is now looking towards Africa for raw materials, particularly oil, in order to sustain and further its development.

What factors have led to China’s success? China is most definitely in charge of its destiny. It is in full control when determining the terms of trade with others. China continues not only to invest in its infrastructure, but also investing in developing its human resources.

Fully aware that Europe and North America have a stronghold over the oil resources from the Arab world; it is in China’s interest, whilst using its historical connections with Africa, to focus its energies in establishing a strategic stronghold over the oil resources from black Africa. Indeed, China has already entered Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Angola and Somalia, amongst others.

Albeit its wealth in raw materials and all the ‘advice’ from foreign ‘experts’ (mostly European and North American) African countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, have either remained poor or gotten poorer over the years. It is reported that Nigerians were poorer in 2000 than they had been at the start of the oil boom in the early 1970s. Why? Is Africa in charge of its destiny?

In the past 50 years, Africa has oscillated from one development model to another as dictated by foreign ‘experts’. The models ranged from structural adjustment programmes to a multitude of poverty eradication strategies that are arguably promoting poverty. Corruption is rife at all levels of government. African leaders and the elite collude with foreigners to exploit Africa’s wealth for their own benefit. The list of African leaders that have amassed personal wealth from government coffers with impunity and in a heavy handed manner of brutality against the citizens of their countries is endless: Mobutu, Abacha, Bokasa, and many others.

Is China’s engagement with Africa any different from Europe’s or North America’s? Not really. China is offering an alternative bargain for Africa to choose from. However, it has the same level of priority as its competitors: Europe and North America (but significantly very low), when it comes to the development of Africa.

Some people argue that China’s trading offer to Africa may be better than Europe and North America’s. Better for whom? At the end of the day, for the development of Africa to occur, it is not the offer that really counts. What matters is what African leaders and the elite do with what Africa receives in exchange for its oil. I am sure we are all familiar with what happened in Nigeria, the biggest oil producing country in Africa, involving the Dutch oil company (Shell), the people of Nigeria as represented by the people of Ogoniland and the activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. The standard of living of the people of Nigeria is the same as those African countries that are not ‘blessed’ with oil. It falls in the category of countries with a Gross National Product (GNP) per capita of below USD 545. In contrast, I am also sure that we are all familiar with how another African oil producing country, Libya, utilised the revenue from its oil to develop its country. The standard of living of the people of Libya is one of the highest in Africa, falling in the category of countries with a GNP per capita of between USD 2,200 and USD 6000.

China’s thirst for Africa’s oil can only be a blessing to Africa if Africa leaders grow up, take the destiny of Africa in their hands and set the agenda for their engagement with China. Most importantly, African governments need to wake up to the realisation that it is their responsibility to develop Africa. Otherwise, China’s thirst will be quenched, the African leaders will be blessed with personal wealth and the people of Africa will, as usual, be cursed. Uganda is one of the African countries in which oil deposits have been discovered. So far, government discussion has hinged on how quickly we extract the oil and sell it. Very little or no attention is given on what and on how the Government of Uganda intends to utilise the revenue from the oil. A starting point would be the establishment of a national investment fund supervised by a Swiss banker!

Norah Owaraga is Advisor to Executive Director, Uganda Change Agent Association

“Cold Blooded Execution” of 13 Kenyans by Tanzanian Government puts the proposed East African Federation to Test.

Kenyan citizens living in Tanzania are now under close scrutiny and suspicion from police and members of the public following a spate of crimes allegedly committed by Kenyans. The suspicion is so deeply rooted that vehicles bearing Kenyan registration plates are not only stopped at every police roadblock but plain-clothes policemen also trail them. According to Tanzanian police, suspected Kenya criminals have gotten away with at least 5 major bank robberies over the last 6 months alone. This was not to be last week when a record 14 suspected criminals were shot at close range 13 of whom were Kenyans.

All Mystery surrounding the killings in the northern Tanzanian town of Moshi, put to test the fate of the proposed East African Federation. What the Tanzanian police called “a botched criminal attempt” took a diplomatic twist with the Tanzanian government warning, “Kenyan criminals could jeopardize the process towards regional integration”. While Tanzanian police maintain that the suspects were planning to stage a major bank robbery and rescue other Kenyan suspects held at the Karanga prison, detectives investigating the circumstances under which the 13 Kenyans were killed say that they were all killed at close range and it was not clear to conclude that they were actually planning to rob the said bank thus raising more questions as to the real reasons behind execution. Further investigation revealed that the 12 men and one woman had bullet wounds on their chests and heads. Of note is that some of those killed had past criminal records in Kenya.

Tanzania is on record because of its insistence for a stepwise approach to integration with the rest of the region rooting for a speedy integration process. Just last month after the 6th ordinary session of the EAC Heads Of State meeting, Tanzania was categorical that integration would flop due to among other reasons: Tribalism in Kenya and Uganda, an infiltration of crime and competition mainly from Kenya. With this in mind, last week’s execution seemed to put the final death nail to the proposed EAC federation unless Kenya and the rest of the region cleaned house to allay fears raised by Tanzania about the integration process. Tanzania’s minister for Internal Security, Mr Bakari Mwapachu, highlighted this when he said, “we are concerned about the rising criminal activities involving Kenyans………they are carrying weapons here as if we are at war. This will make us rethink the East African Community idea, because our citizens are now living in fear”.

According to the Kilimanjaro Police commander Mr Lucas Ngohboko, the 13 Kenyans killed last week had boarded 3 vehicles which the police had been trailing for a while. This raises questions because only one out of the three vehicles was spotted at the execution scene covered with blood from 14 dead bodies all shot at close range. Two other vehicles with six occupants apparently drove off. Just how would 14 fully-grown individuals comfortably fit in a small Suzuki Vitara designed to carry no more than 7 guys? Did the police give up on the other two vehicles?
The police added that the gang had harbored a house 6 Kilometers from Moshi where their plan was hatched. This too appeared not strong enough, so they added yet another explanation that they had noticed suspicious looking individuals whom they had been trailing for a while but when ordered to surrender, opened fire so naturally the police returned fire killing all of them.

The last reasons creates a rather suspect scenario, picture this: 3 vehicles but only one bullet ridden Suzuki Vitara found while the rest disappear in thin air with 6 occupants on board without a trace. 14 fully armed individuals squeezing into such a small vehicle when they had 3 at their disposal driving in the outskirts of Tanzania planning a robbery and a rescue mission from a prison. A FIERCE GUN battle that leaves all the 14 suspects dead from bullet sustained wounds and not a single police gets a scratch from the battle????
Media frenzy awash with congratulatory messages to the police by Tanzanians as 13 Kenyans are declared dead while a fire spiting Tanzanian minister of security issues warnings that such crime will make his people rethink the proposed East African Federation because they are now living in fear out of crime perpetrated by Kenyans.

We may argue that the suspects should have had their day in court because it is clear that police had overpowered them, but we should not entirely blame Tanzania for the incidence; of course anyone who take advantage of free movement of people and goods within the region to cause crime ought to be dealt with severely. This is especially true of some bad elements from Kenya who willingly go out of their way to reap where they have not sown. As the region progresses towards a more unified federation, we ought to learn from the past. Crime, suspicion and how we deal with either will only but halt all the gains yet to be reaped from one large East African Community

Looking at all the mystery surrounding the executions, do you think that the whole incidence was stage managed to give Tanzania more reasons to delay East African Community future plans?

Leaked: Report alleges Kenya's Former President looted billions

Republished from Kenya Imagine
Friday 31st August 2007

Former Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi declared that he would back incumbent Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki for a second term in the upcoming Kenyan General Elections later in the year. The news of the union of souls has been met with responses coming in at acres of newsprint and millions of gigabytes dedicated to suggesting various motives and calculations that would bring the two erstwhile foes together. It is with interest therefore that we read in today's Guardian of the findings of a leaked report commissioned by the government of Kenya into corruption and the Moi family.

The article published here in today's Guardian under the title The Looting of Kenya - The breathtaking extent of corruption perpetrated by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel Arap Moi was exposed last night in a secret report that laid bare a web of shell companies, secret trusts and frontmen that his entourage used to funnel hundreds of millions of pounds into nearly 30 countries including Britain.
The 110-page report by the international risk consultancy Kroll, seen by the Guardian, alleges that relatives and associates of Mr Moi siphoned off more than £1bn of government money. If true, it would put the Mois on a par with Africa's other great kleptocrats, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and Nigeria's Sani Abacha.


The assets accumulated included multimillion pound properties in London, New York and South Africa, as well as a 10,000-hectare ranch in Australia and bank accounts containing hundreds of millions of pounds."

It is now clear that the report, submitted to the government in 2004 has been kept under wraps against the spirit of the passionate declarations of 2002.

The Guardian's Nairobi correspondent Xan Rice claims to have seen a leaked copy of this report which makes serious allegations of corruption by relatives and associates of the former president.

According to the article some of the claims made out in the report include:

* More than £1billion pounds was moved out of Kenya

* The former President's sons - Philip and Gideon - are reported to be worth £384m and £550m respectively;

* His associates were said to have acted in collusion with Italian drug barons and been involved in printing counterfeit money;

While it is true that the report which was prepared by Kroll Associates is not a decision of a court, and therefore binding, it is odd that the government, elected on an anti-corruption platform and pledging to make a clean break with the past has not previously published the report. Alfred Mutua, the Government spokesman, in response to the charge, declares that the government found the report incomplete and therefore could not release it to the public.

But now the questions, and there are many. How much did the government pay for this ‘incomplete and inaccurate' report? Are the report and the shadow it casts over the former President the motivation for this week's power pact? Is this the proverbial pound of flesh? Does the burial of the report mean that the sins of the Moi era are dead and buried? Forever?

The report was exposed due to the efforts of Wikileak , a safe haven for whistleblowers and other persons of conscience working to end corruption.

Tanzania will not be bulldozzed by pundits into quiting SADC for COMESA

I recieved some serious bashing from N.Chiume, currently based New York because of my previous post(Tanzania diminishes chances of regional intergration), that he called a smokescreen that lays blame on the shoulders of Tanzania when it comes to EAC intergration. He raised some very pertinent issues that will deepen anyone's understanding about Tanzania and it's association with South Africa and SADC. Chiume is of the opinion that Kenya(ns) are out to deliberately soil Tanzania's name by publishing malicious articles through the media. He pointed out one case about KBC (Kenya Broadcasting Corporation) which he calls "Gorvernment owned media" that claimed Tanzanians had overwhelimingly rejected the proposed East African Federation. Below is what Chiume had to say in verbatim.

"I'm glad to be here. First, let me apologise for any distress that I may have caused you by certain choices of my words. It just shows the level of frustration people like myself feel whenever we read an article that carelessly misrepresents the facts with a pretext of "open[ing] up the issue for debate". It just makes it hard to have a constructive debate, that indeed we should all have, if we don't address the untruths from the offset.

Case in point, there was an article last week in Kenya Broadcasting Corp (KBC) website(which if I'm not mistaken, is still a Government owned media institution), twisting the results of the poll in Tanzania asking wether we should fast-track EAC or not. KBC reported that the overwhealing results against such a move meant "Tanzanians say no to EA federation". It went further claiming that Tanzanians "have rejected the plan for the East African political federation" while we all know that the referendum on this subject is still in the offing. Perhaps you can help me understand the motives a Government institution like KBC have in publishing such a misleading article?

Fact is, Tanzania has shown tremendous commitment to EAC, from hosting the HQ in Arusha, to building institutions like EAC Judiciary and Legislature, to negotiating and implementing the Custom Union despite the fact that its also a SADC member. Your claim that Tanzania's membership in SADC makes her "stand on EAC issues..always opposite the rest of the [EAC] members" are therefore absolutely baseless.

Asking Tanzania not to have "strong ties" with southern Africa is similar to asking Europe not to have strong ties with America! Tanzania is a founding member of SADC, and of SADCC, its predecessor. Our history, our engagement and our attachment to southern Africa since the days of Frontline States and prior to that cannot be lightly severed.

Therefore, there is nothing sinister that "raises questions" about Tanzania's friendship with South Africa - anybody who knows her history will appreciate it. If you can make an argument like that, then I could equally claim that Kenya's one foot in COMESA and another in EAC "raises questions" in the eyes of non-EAC members of COMESA, such as Zambia, Sudan or Eqypt because it shows Kenya's not commitment to COMESA! In that case, Kenya could equally be described as "an undecided country" that "is unstable in all its ways".

What is universally recognized is that as SADC moves towards becoming a trade bloc with custom union, then a common market etc (as opposed to a grouping for coordinating common economic projects); and as COMESA moves from a free-trade area to custom Union etc, countries like Tanzania - and so many others including Kenya and Uganda, will have to make the tough decision on how they can continue membership in increasingly conflicting organizations.

I'm saying this because one of the biggest misconception that individulss like yourself perpetuate is that somehow it will be hunky dory if and when all EAC members belonged in COMESA! It is as if no conflict will emerge out of EAC custom union with those of a future COMESA custom union.

Competition from Kenya isn't "mere BIG words". It does pose serious threat to the future of manufacturing in TZ. And its not true that these concerns have never been brought to the table by TZ. Case in point, the successful agreement in delaying implementing certain taxes within the EAC custom union to give manufactures in TZ some time to adjust to the new trade environment.

As we progress into common market, single currency and a political federation, these concerns are clearly being accelerated and reflected in the results of the fast-tracking poll in Tanzania. There is too much of selling of the positives of intergration and little in terms of addressing the adverse effects of it. For instance, Tanzania could well be forced with the reality of ceading the dominance of manufacturing to Kenya but that will only be okay of she is able to identify and begin to focus right now in alternative sectors that will bring them competitive advantage in the future, for example, in service economy. Hence, we will require economic programs to subsdize the manufacturing that will decline and to build up the service economy. The people in TZ are pressuring their Govt for answers to such issues, and are observing the gradual benefits that come with intergration before they can make a judgment that full EAC intergration will truly be benefitial to their daily livelihoods, not simply empty promises. The aim is not to ignore globalization but to ensure it really works for them.

The issue of belonging to multiple regional groupings is not uniquely Tanzanian. How come you never raised the conundrum that Kenya will face with the anticipated COMESA Custom Union while its already a member of EAC Custom Union?

Its quite absurd to imply Tanzania doesn't belong in Southern Africa (hence not a natural member of SADC) while at the same time urging it to join COMESA, a grouping with southern African countries further south of Tanzania like Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe! The next thing you will claim will probably be that Swaziland belongs in COMESA more than it does in SADC!

Tanzania happens to have strong links with southern Africa, as much as it has with Eastern Africa. To ask her to abandon its long standing relationships in favor of EAC only is just idiotic to say the least. We want to do business with as much neighbours as possible and South Africa has been a positive economic force in Tanzania, challenging the dominance of Kenya in the country. It appears that these constant concerns about Tanzania belonging in SADC are a manifestation of Kenya's nervousness towards South Africa coming to compete in its backyard through Tanzania.

Tanzanians will not be bulldozzed by pundits like yourself. The people of Tanzania have a right to know precisely how they will benefit from EAC Federation and its economic integration. The issues of job loss, land grabbing, political stability etc are very relevant to them. They have refused fast-tracking the Federation because the idea is unrealistic (in terms of implementing it within 5 years) but not because they are not in favor of the Federation. Most Tanzanians see it as something achiaveble by year 2020.

The debate we need is not why Tanzanians are ambivalent about EAC, but what can be done to address their concerns. Economic and targeted programs should be suggested to help countries like Tanzania whose economy will be negatively impacted, at least in the short-term. Such things will help to calm the jitters towards a noble idea of economic and political integration."

Tanzania diminishes chances of regional integration

On 20/08/2007, after the 6th ordinary session of the EAC Heads of State, I waited with bated breath for the announcement of a fully integrated East African Economic Union, a union redeemed from the fear and suspicion that previosuly led to breakup.
To my dismay, the same structural failings and issues that necessitated the first collapse still exist. During the first collapse it was easy to blame ideological differences between Tanzania and the rest of the East African Community since the latter was socialist while the former shared capitalistic ideologies. This aside, the real reasons as time came to reveal was the fear that Kenya dominated the rest of the community.

Following the collapse of the EAC and prior to the recent haphazard re-integration, arose the Common Markets for East and Southern Africa (COMESA ) the only remaining workable regional organisation that Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania had in common. This was until Tanzania opted out again to join South African Development Cooperation (SADC) , allying itself to what is clearly a grouping for Southern African countries.

This move, perhaps inoccuous has had varied ramifications. Within the past three years projects that would span the whole of East Africa have been marred with confusion due to differences between the states. For example Kenya had to opt out of Eassy project (East Africa Sub Marine System) a cables project that would have considerably lowered the cost of fibre communication in the region. Word was that South Africa was employing underhand tactics as far as ownership of the cables project was concerned, which developments caused Kenya to initiate a parallel project; TEAMS (The East Africa Marine System) to replace Eassy. As a member of SADC, Tanzania occupies an unenviable position in this regard, especially as although she is seen as siding with South Africa in SADC, she has not the clout that would make a difference in the southern group at all.

The meeting lasted several hours, and after what must have been intense haggling, the leaders emerged to announce failure to secure a smooth predictable transition to regional integration. However, of all the countries; Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, it is Tanzania that had the greatest objections to the speedy integration of the region. One major extenuation given was that Kenya would dominate the resultant economy. As a face-saving gesture, Tanzania agreed ,though apprehensively, to a Common Market, Union and currency by the year 2012. During this meeting, the rest of the East African states were categorical that they wanted a more expeditious integration of the different economies while Tanzania opted for a step-wise approach. This is understandable and has indeed been a constant refrain of many East Africans. Still many wonder, given her doubts ,is it Tanzania or is the thought of a formidable East African Region unworkable?

When Tanzania first ditched COMESA for SADC it gave what were seen as valid reasons as to why it made the move. Fast tracking to the present time and the very same country still has issues with the East African Community with the majority of its concerns relating to economic and political competition(again).

Granted, Kenya still dominates the region's economy and has been able to maintain this even in the absence of East African Federation. But it is not true to say that Kenya would benefit the most from the union. The uniform trade platform that would have been created to replace the current regime, would have boosted trade and promoted business and new jobs across the region.

Like in any union, there are teething problems and the peculiar concerns of individual members to address. Still, if as is becoming clear 4 out of 5 would be members of an East Africa federation are willing to go ahead with an economic union, why be precluded by Tanzania whose priorities are clearly obscured?