Africa – Page 5 – Alex B. Hill

hangin’ in joburg

If you have been following this blog, I apologize for the extended interruption. The last post that I wrote was on the xenophobic violence, I was not a victim of that, no worries. The place where I am staying has very sporadic and unreliable internet, so my blogging and picture posting has been slowed because of that.

Short update: The xenophobia was near where I was staying (10km away), but never reached Zonkizizwe. I am still doing great and working hard at the VVOCF center for HIV/AIDS affected children. Yesterday was Zonke Testing Day, which was a huge success. Tomorrow I am leaving early in the morning to visit a Peace Corps friend in Mozambique.

Be sure to check back in later to read about the many adventures, success, and difficulties of my summer along with all the great pictures. My time in southern Africa is almost over as my flight leaves on the 10th of August. Sizobonana,

– Alex

a first glimpse: zonke

Health, On the Ground

The next few entries will be a bit back logged since I have now been in South Africa for over 2 weeks. Many of the next entries will deal with issues and topic areas that I have encountered as opposed to the day to day happenings

We woke up at 9am the next day to find our car nicely cooled down. I slept like a rock that night off the plane. We missed the breakfast at City Lodge and headed to Zonkiziwe. Rachel’s left-side driving is getting better. We were able to see more of Joburg in the light. It is like many African capital cities that I have visited – except wild driving is to a minimum (only on the shoulders), traffic lights work and road signs are followed, and there is the ever-present distinct smell of burning oil and gas. There were even police watching for speeders.

The informal settlements outside of Johannesburg are numerous and scenes from the Tsotsi movie were replicated in reality in an expansive wonder before my eyes. The South Africa seen by the majority of the population was nothing incredibly beautiful to behold – or was it? This would be my home for the next 3 months.

We finally found the correct, rock strewn street and arrived at the center. We met the director, Celumusa (Nomusa to those who cannot pronounce the click) and Phindile, China, and a whole group of excited youngsters. My introduction to the children was a lifting workout that included spinning one after another. China, not his real name, was very knowledgable and loved history. He likes to assert his dominance in repeating little remembered names and dates. We also later went shopping at a shopping center, very developed, but happened to almost take the wrong lane into head-on traffic.

It seems pictures will not work here either, wait a little bit longer.

Pictures Update: 29 December 2008
Sorry this is update is so late in coming, enjoy the newly posted pictures.

what are we to do when our children are dying?

Health

Yesterday the headlines in South Africa’s Times newspaper read, “Our children are dying.” In South Africa 75,000 children die before they turn 5 each year. As one of 12 countries, South Africa has a rising child mortality rate. Of these 12 countries the top causes of a rise in child mortality is war and HIV/AIDS (and the UN Security Council disregarded HIV/AIDS as not important enough). The statistics come from a report released two days ago by the national health department, the Medical Research Council and the University of Pretoria.

South Africa is experiencing one of the most severe HIV/AIDS epidemics in the world. It is said that one in five people in South Africa has HIV/AIDS. The Avert organization cites sources that say more South Africans spend time at funerals than they do “shopping or having barbecues” and “twice as many people have been to funerals in the past month than have been to a wedding.” In 1992, Nelson Mandela took the first big steps to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis when he addressed the National AIDS Convention of South Africa (NACOSA) to develop a national strategy. In six years (1996-2001) the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women doubled and since 2002 has steadily increased. In 2003, South Africa announced a plan to provide antiretroviral treatment to the public. Following in 2004, the South African government’s treatment program began in Gauteng Province and soon included other Provinces. In 2005 the prevalence rate was at a high of over 30% in pregnant mothers.

Why has South Africa faced such a difficult and severe epidemic? Why has it taken so long to get a government response prepared? During the time period of the 1990s into 2003 South Africa was in the midst of major political and social turmoil. While HIV/AIDS was a growing problem, the political issues were at the forefront. Responses to and a recognition of the epidemic was glancing at best. The fall of apartheid allowed leaders to focus on dealing with the epidemic and Mandela led the charge. However the leaders that followed were far from Mandela’s original plan. In 2000, President Mbeki denied, in front of the UN Assembly, that HIV caused AIDS. He had put together a committee of AIDS deniers to advise his HIV/AIDS response plan. Mbeki denied that HIV caused AIDS and instead focused on the idea that poverty was to blame. While the official position of the government has been stated as “HIV causes AIDS” (2002), Mbeki continues to question such a strong correlation. In other headlines that spread across the globe, former Deputy-President, Jacob Zuma went on trial for the rape of an HIV positive woman. In the court questioning he told the court that, “he thought the risk from HIV was small, and that he had taken a shower immediately after the sexual intercourse on the night in question, because – he believed – it was one thing that might reduce the chances of contracting HIV.”

As with many health and development topics there is no clear cut issue to focus on and so if you want to talk comprehensively about HIV/AIDS in South Africa you have to talk about the effectiveness of treatment programs, the stigma of the disease, the rape and sexual abuse of women from gender inequality, the inadequacy of school systems, the responses of government, HIV testing programs, and the effects of HIV/AIDS on children. This last issue I will focus more.

Today I am flying to South Africa to work for the next three months at a care center in a remote (urban) informal settlement called Zonkizizwe. Zonkiziwe is in the Ekurhuleni township in Gauteng Province. The center assists children affected by HIV/AIDS and as you can guess that is every child. With the statistic that one in five people are infected there is no way that each child is not potentially already infected, has lost a parent, or knows someone who is affected. Many women who are HIV positive do not receive the drugs that they need and so the disease is passed on to their babies – thus creating one of highest child infection rates. In a Department of Health survey (2006), it was found that 260,000 children under age 15 were living with HIV in South Africa. In Zonkizizwe this prevalence rate coupled with a poor schooling system is contributing to a ‘hopeless’ outlook for the future. Life in a township is difficult with poverty and inadequate schooling, but when HIV/AIDS is added into the equation there are lost parents, children missing school to work, and children infected without testing or treatment available. On being hopeless, Justice Cameron said, “We don’t accept ‘sad realities’ in South Africa. If we accepted sad realities, we would still have a racist oligarchy here.”

The center, VumundzukuBya Vana “Our Children’s Future” (VVOCF), seeks to be a place where children can actualize their potential through educational programs, learning about health and nutrition, self expression, and life skills development. VVOCF has a feeding program, a school uniform fund, and a number of smaller projects to help the children of Zonkizizwe advance. VVOCF was started through a partnership fostered by Dr. Jeanne Gazel through her research of the impacts of HIV/AIDS. With her connection to VVOCF she was able to bring Zonkizizwe closer to the MSU community as a Professor and Director of MRULE (Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience) by way of a pen-pal program. I first learned of the center and got involved through the pen-pal program. This summer I am looking forward to meeting my pen-pal as well as contribute to the development of the VVOCF center. Over the three months I spend in Zonkizizwe I will be helping to develop after school programs that can continue, staff development, English instruction, possibly a book club, and setting up the internship program for other students in future years. I am excited to see Johannesburg and the surrounding area and hope to travel to see Soweto, Durban, Lesotho, and visit a friend in Mozambique.

This summer brings another new and exciting view of the African continent and I cannot wait to learn about the people and culture where I will be living. As with all my experiences I enter with an open mind and an unburdened quest to learn. While in Zonkizizwe, South Africa the majority of my time will be spent learning. Even though I am going as an intern to work there is no way that I will be the only one providing education. I am excited to learn Zulu, hone my soccer (football) skills, and learn of life in Zonkizizwe from my pen pal and all the children that I will meet.

Read the VVOCF Blog.

Join the cause on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4478917646
“>Facebook.

when the rubber hits the road: rolling on the misfortunes of marcus garvey

Development, Research

What do you know about Liberia? Or do you even care?

Americans pay little attention to Liberia, and most Europeans think of the country as a joke. […] In case of apparently friendly relations between that country and European powers there has usually come to the surface some design to deprive Liberia of its territory or to secure some economic advantage. The American’s endorsement of the Firestone invasion of that African area shows that on this side of the Atlantic the same attitude has developed.

(Azikiwe 352)

The above quote best exemplifies what happened in Liberia in the 1920s in regards to the selling out of elite Liberians to US capitalist interests. Exploring the past is key to understanding how and why the exploitation of Liberians continues to happen today. Beginning as a colony for African-American settlement on the continent of Africa, Liberia grew from a small community of hopefuls into a nation rife with exploitation and a class system that denies the existence of, as Marcus Garvey might say, a “United Negro State.” With much help from the U.S. the new nation of Liberia was established and it started its long journey into the world of nations. (Pham 12) As it embarked on this journey it was not without the typical bumps and bruises. As Liberia encountered financial troubles it turned its back on the country’s founding principles. Thus the economic interests of the U.S. and the black Liberian elites superceded the facades of black-nationalism and Garveyism in the ‘black nation’ of Liberia.

Located along the western bulge of Africa, facing the Atlantic Ocean, the Republic of Liberia is a country of tropical rain forests and broken plateau. Liberia is a country about the size of the state of Ohio with a population estimated at a range from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000. Lying on the west coast of Africa, just north of the equator, Liberia is bound by Sierra Leone, French Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire. The only Negro republic in the world with the exception of Haiti, Liberia celebrated independence in 1947. (Browne 113) It was founded as a modern state with the creation of Monrovia in 1822. The motto of the new republic, “ The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here,” proclaimed that the state was established for Americo-Liberian settlers. The settlers with the help of the America Colonization Society (ACS) established the first colony for “free men of color.” This African nation that was established to improve the ‘black’ man’s position ended up giving in to corporate interests and ended up doing more harm than good. How could Liberia turn its back on the black-nationalist ideals and close its doors to the UNIA and Garvey’s movement that strengthened the new nation? Or did it? There was an ever-present conflict between the settlers arriving on the coast and the “natives” living in the interior of the nation. Garvey’s UNIA ‘back-to-Africa’ movement actually helped in creating tension and conflict in the new nation.

The key conflict created was the rift in class, with the government ruling class being Americo-Liberians. There has been a deep-seated belief among experts of the moribund League of Nations and among some students of colonial policy that the Liberian Government itself is one of the causes of the Republic’s retardation. (Browne 231) The Americo-Liberians and their descendents have controlled the government, and the result has been the development of a split between a small governing class and a large governed class, which has taken less interest through the years in the Liberian administration. This large class of the governed constituted the aboriginal element in Liberia. The inefficient acts of the Liberian government, selfishness of the ruling class, and activities of interlopers [US] who would exploit the Republic’s resources for their own gains led to the economic troubles of Liberia today. The country’s economy today is resultant of the self-sufficient economy of Africa, the capitalism of the ruling Liberians, and the financial exploitation of the American industrialists. (Brown 232)

The Garveyite movement had a key role to play in the settlement of Liberia. The movement was founded in New York in 1917 and Marcus Garvey became a self appointed Moses for the Negro people. (Aron 338) In brief, Garveyism is a Negro racist philosophy that frowns on what is known as the US social democracy or ethnic integration, namely the free social and cultural intercourse between white and colored people. (Aron 337) It advocates for the creation of Negro business as a step towards national redemption in Africa. The most active organization in promoting Garveyism was the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which was dedicated to heightening a sense of black dignity and culture. (Pham 38) Led by the Jamacian born Pan-Africanist, Marcus Garvey, the UNIA built a steamship line (the Black Star Line, which transported Negro’s back to Africa), sponsored colonial expeditions to Liberia, staged annual international conventions, inspired businesses, endorsed political candidates, fostered black history and culture, and organized thousands. (Stein 1) The Association pursued bold and broad general goals:

To establish a universal confraternity among the race; to promote the spirit of pride and love; to reclaim the fallen, to administer to and assist the needy; to assist in civilizing the backward tribes of Africa; to assist in the development of independent Negro nations and communities or agencies in the principal countries and cities of the world for the representation of all Negroes; to promote a conscientious spiritual worship among the native tribes of Africa; to establish universities, colleges, academies and schools for the racial education and culture of the people; to work for better conditions among Negroes everywhere.

(Sundiata 19)

The association’s goals were somewhat similar to those of the Zionists for the Jews: a national home for the Negro race and the revival of a Negro culture. (Aron 337)

The advent of Marcus Garvey coincided with the Great Migration of African-Americans from the American South. The Southern African-Americans were seeking better conditions and thousands left between 1910 and 1920. The first wave of 300,000 settled in Northern Liberia and a decade later 1,300,000 arrived. However, in 1921 and 1922 a number of UNIA officials left the association and a number of prominent African-Americans distanced themselves from the organization. Garvey’s power was brief and when he was deported to Jamaica the UNIA in the US all but died out. Garvey was tried for mail fraud in 1923 and later fined, but it was too late and the organization was already too battered. In 1925 Garvey was remanded to a federal penitentiary in Atlanta and in 1927 the final blow was delivered and Garvey was deported to Jamacia. This final step led to the execution of the UNIA’s importance on the continent of Africa. “The UNIA experienced such great success because Garvey was able to appeal to the under-privileged people, yet Garvey’s movement represented the yearnings of the would-be black bourgieouse.” (Sundiata 16)

The economic interest of the U.S. in Liberia began with the Firestone Rubber Company in 1924. Liberia was in a precarious financial situation and was in desperate need of investors. Delegations had been sent to Liberia from the UNIA to negotiate for a loan to the country in return for certain territories, which were to be used for pioneer settlements. Fifty thousand dollars worth of materials were shipped to Liberia. In 1920 Charles King became president and was immediately confronted with the country’s dangerous financial position. The UNIA in 1920 proposed to the Liberian leader that the group would raise nearly $2 million to relieve Liberia of its debt in exchange for an agricultural and commercial land grant. With options thin the Liberian leader, King, agreed to deal. That same year Garvey proposed to move the UNIA headquarters from the U.S. to Liberia. Liberia had been chosen to be a ‘black’ Zion and between 1920 and 1924, millions of African Americans were caught up in the thrill of having a ‘black nation’ of their own. (Sundiata, 1) In January 1924, Marcus Garvey unexpectedly announced that he would be moving the UNIA headquarters to Liberia. He boasted of the plans in the Negro New World and launched his $2 million dollar campaign. However, during the 1924 Negro Convention the Liberian government publicly issued a statement repudiating all agreements with UNIA and protesting to the American government on the UNIA’s activities in Liberia. Garvey raged, but soon after the Firestone Company was awarded the territories for some of its rubber plantations instead of Garvey’s UNIA plans. In an article written in 1955 Liberia is said to been ranked for many years as one of the important rubber producers of the world. The exploitation of this resource began in a significant way when the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was granted a concession by the Liberian government in 1926. Under the terms of the provision in the financial agreement, Firestone actually acquired control of the Liberian finances.

Although Americans made a major contribution to the founding of the Liberian nation in 1822, it was over one hundred years later before the US acquired a tangible economic stake in the West African republic. The change took place when the Liberian government granted the major rubber concession to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and accepted a large loan from one of Firestone’s subsidies. The Liberian government had teetered on the verge of bankruptcy several times since the 1860s. But the Liberian government’s turn towards Firestone in 1926 was more than another desperate effort to save the nation from bankruptcy. The loan was an integral part of the arrangement by which Liberia granted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company the right to grow rubber on a maximum of one million acres of land. (Chalk 12) By Granting Firestone a huge rubber concession and accepting stringent loan terms from an off-shoot of the same company, the Liberians seriously risked the loss of their sovereignty. The 1927 Loan from the Firestone Company opened a new phase in Liberian history, where national prosperity would increasingly depend on the success of foreign-owned private investments. (Chalk 12) The consequences of Liberia’s dependence on foreign capital for development has led it down a path of exploitation. The Firestone Agreement had not only economic and development consequences, but also political. At the same time that Firestone was looking towards Liberia, the British were looking to cut in on American rubber production. Therefore the Firestone Company went to the US Secretary of State and explained the agreement in order to get the US government on board with loans and support.

The Firestone Company was able to obtain a ninety-nine year lease “on a million acres of land suitable for the production of rubber or other agricultural products, or any lesser area that may be selected by the leasee.” At the same time Firestone made a loan of $2,500,000 to the Liberian government. Some supporters of the Firestone Company say that the company assisted the government and the economy of Liberia immensely by bringing investment capital to the country at a time when the conditions of the public finance were at their worse. In 1947 Raymond Leslie Buell described the impact of Firestone on Liberia as follows:

The Firestone Plantations Company represents the one concrete evidence of economic progress in Liberia since 1926. Its operations to date have proved more modest than at first contemplated. Instead of actually leasing a million acres of land, the company has taken up less than 200,000 acres, 80,000 are under cultivation. Instead of employing 350,000 native workers, as a Firestone pubication first predicted, it employs about 30,000, the actual force at work every day being about 26,000…. Even so, this is the largest rubber operation in the world.

(Browne 115-116)

However, the influence of Firestone in Liberian affairs represented a new brand of colonial exploitation

The two key reasons for the loss of support for Garvey’s movement in the 1920s were the interference of the colonial powers and the opposition of the Liberian oligarchy. (Sundiata, 16) “The Garvey Plan failed in Liberia not because it was illogical or unfeasible, but because key members of the Liberian political class opposed it from the outset.” (Sundiata 36) They opposed it from the outset because of the economic consequences that would follow. Garvey’s growing list of opponents (1922) launched a “Garvey must go” drive led by the NAACP. In addition, his efforts to negotiate a second colonization plan with Liberia were unsuccessful, in part due to being outbid for land by Harvey Firestone of Firestone Tire and Rubber Corp. There are significant documents that hold accounts of Garvey’s trial for mail fraud where he acted as his own attorney in pleading his case before the jury. (Grant 166) The causes are cited as being both economic and psychological. In a world dominated by white supremacy, a little bit of status goes a very long way. “In a world that subjected the majority of black imperialism and/or racial segregation, the oligarchy was deeply conscious of its relatively privileged position within the world schema.” (Sundiata, 36) Yet with that power and position the oligarchy failed to help the people once in their situation. The Liberian elites allowed economic interest of colonial powers or the US to take precedence over the principles of Black Nationalism, which are embodied in the Garveyite movement, on which the nation was founded. The firestone venture however is both a case of US economic nationalism and an unavoidable expedient altruism. The US was forced to seek an outlet in order to counter the rubber monopoly of Great Britain. And despite the unilateral agreement, Firestone himself noted that his interest in Liberia is to aid it, he said “there is some small satisfaction in just giving away money, but the greatest satisfaction is in giving others the chance to be independent” (Azikiwe, Ben 31) The greatest threat that the UNIA and Garvey Movement ran into in Liberia, the proposed experiment site, was that of class. As noted above the Liberian elites that ran the government were not at all connected to the people that they were ruling. This combined with the interference of the US led to the end of the Garvey’s movement and the current exploitation of Liberia.

The firestone agreement is chiefly responsible for the economic problems of Liberia today. The agreement granted Harvey S. Firestone not only a veto power on refinancing the country, but also elevates him to a dictatorship where he controls the economic destiny of the government. Like an octopus he has a stranglehold on Liberia, which will ultimately threaten if not completely decimate the political existence of the lone African Republic. It is thus believed that this agreement paved the way for US imperialism in Africa and economic exploitation. (Azikiwe, Ben 30)

The way was paved for the Firestone Tire Company and it gladly snatched the opportunity to drive away with Liberia’s resources. The African country founded by freed slaves from the US in the 1820s, is suffering from serious poverty and unemployment due to the Liberian Civil War that ended in 2003. The war destroyed the infrastructure and economy. Firestone, the multinational rubber manufacturing giant known for its automobile tires, has come under fire from human rights and environmental groups for its alleged use of child labor and slave-like working conditions at its plantation in Liberia. Recently in 2005, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) filed a lawsuit charging that thousands of workers, including minors, toil in virtual slavery at (Bridgestone’s) Firestone rubber plantation in Liberia. Operating in Liberia since the 1920s, Firestone continues to depend on the poor and illiterate workers to tap tons of raw latex from rubber trees using primitive tools exposing the workers to hazardous pesticides and fertilizers. (Rizvi) Firestone denies the use of child labor and claims that its jobs are among the highest paying in the country. But, rights activists who have visited the plantation in question attest to the desperation and fear conveyed by Firestone’s workers. “I have seen six people living in one room, without any toilet, electricity, or running water,” said an environmental lawyer from Liberia, “The company has no justification whatsoever to keep on exploiting those people.” The lawyer and many others say thousands of workers at the plantation cannot meet daily quota without unpaid aid, requiring them to put their own children to work or face starvation. The workers are assigned a quota, which takes 21 hours a day at least to complete, and if they cannot complete, their wages are halved, and they cannot earn a livable wage. Therefore, the workers have to make their families perform hard labor from early morning in order to meet the quota. The children work 12-14 hours a day and most do not have proper nutrition in their diets given the low wages. Most plantation workers, according to the lawsuit, remain “at the mercy of Firestone for everything from food to health care to education. They risk expulsion and starvation if they raise even minor complaints, and the company makes willful use of this situation to exploit these workers as they have since 1926.” (Rizvi)

This current situation brings up a very important and interesting question. What if Marcus Garvey had been successful in Liberia with his UNIA movement? What if the Firestone Company never had been granted a concession and established in the country? What if the Liberian elites held to the country’s founding principles? Would there be no exploitation today if they had given Garvey the land instead of the Firestone Company? The evidence is not concrete enough to say one way or the other if exploitation would or would not have happened in Liberia if actions had been different. It can be inferred that exploitation would have been delayed if the Firestone Company had not been given a concession. However, one cannot say that the Garvey Movement in Liberia would have been the best option for the country either. In the Garveyite’s view, both they and the native people had been betrayed by white American capital, represented by the newly introduced Firestone Rubber Company in 1927. (Sundiata 80) Garvey had tried to warn the Liberian government. Needless to say, Garvey’s warning failed to impress the Liberian politicians who, in pulling off the “big deal” with Firestone, were further enslaved by US capital. From his Atlanta prison Garvey warned that the Firestone investment was only the beginning of the United States monopoly control of African resources. (Sundiata 75) The slavery begun in 1926 continues today and one can see evidently that the failure of Garvey in Liberia dealt the deathblow to the organization. However, it not only dealt the deathblow for Garvey’s organization but it also locked the shackle of US exploitation on the arm of the Liberian people.

Works Cited:
Anonymous. Stop Firestone’s Exploitation and Cruelty. 12 November 2005. Stop Firestone Organization/ Amnesty International. (accessed 26 April 2006).
.

Aron, Birgit. “The Garvey Movement: Shadow and Substance.” Phylon (1940-1956), Vol. 8, No. 4. (4th Qtr., 1947), pp. 337-343. (accessed 18 April 2006).
.

Azikiwe, Ben. “In Defense of Liberia.” The Jounal of Negro History, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Jan., 1932), pp. 30-50. (accessed 18 April 2006).
.

Azikiwe, Nnamdi. “Liberia in World Politics.” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 20, No. 3. (July, 1935), pp 351-353. (accessed 18 April 22, 2006)..

Browne, Vincent J. “Economic Development in Liberia.” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 24, No. 2. (Spring, 1955), pp. 113-119. (accessed 18 April 2006). .

Lewis, Rupert. Marcus Garvey: Anti-colonial Champion. New Jersey: Africa Worls Press, Inc.,1988.

Dunn, D. Elwood. Liberia. England & USA: ABC-CLIO Ltd., 1995.

Stein, Judith. The World of Marcus Garvey: Race and Class in Modern Society. Baton Rouge and London: Lousiana State University Press, 1991.

Strong, Richard P. The African Republic of Liberia and the Belgian Congo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

Sundiata, Ibrahim. Brothers and Strangers: Black Zion, Black Slavery, 1914-1940. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003.

Pham, John-Peter. Liberia: Portrait of a Failed Nation. New York: Reed Press, 2004.

Rizvi, Haider. Tire Giant Firestone Hit with Lawsuit over Slave-Like Conditions at Rubber Plantation. 8 December 2005. OneWorld US. (accessed 26 April 2006).
.

Wilson, Charles Morrow. “Liberia.” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Jan., 1972), pp. 47-49. (accessed 18 April 2006). .

Note: Written in 2006 for a 2nd semester college writing course.

what apartheid has done with affordable transportation

Development

A week of riots and clashes sparked in the capital as the government attempted to raise fuel prices by 50%. Mozambique is often unheard of in international news, but a week of violent riots in Maputo leaving 100 injured and four dead were enough to bring the world’s poorest country to the headlines. The fuel price jump was proposed as a response to the 14% rise in diesel fuel costs. Food prices have also experienced an increase due to the rise in fuel costs. The reason that riots erupted was not only because of rising fuel costs, but mainly because of the low wages that people in Mozambique make. The more interesting question may be why is Mozambique so poor and why would the government seek a 50% increase in price to meet the demand?

Mozambique is moderately large country on the East coast of Africa. With a history of Portuguese colonial rule, civil war, effects of apartheid, and a wide-reaching famine, Mozambique has had great difficulty in bringing its people out of desperate poverty. Mozambique gained independence in 1975, but was quickly pulled into war against white rule in Rhodesia and South Africa. The apartheid government of South Africa not only oppressed its own people, it engaged in near full-scale war with Angola and Mozambique as well as raiding and blockading Lesotho, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. “This was a war against ordinary people, in which schools and health posts were primary targets and civilians were massacred on buses and trains. At least two million Mozambicans and Angolans died in the war South Africa waged against them; millions more had to flee their homes.” writes Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement in an Africa Action Report.

A generation of children never received education because schools were destroyed, mothers and children died because health services were devastated, and now the region cannot rebuild because they are asked to pay again for the injustices of the apartheid regime through debts. The war waged by the South African apartheid government made Mozambique one of the poorest countries in the world. Over one million people died between 1977 and 1992, the economy was destroyed along with the countryside, and the country was left with a legacy of landmines. The South African government supported a rebel group called RENAMO. RENAMO or Mozambican National Resistance was formed after independence as an anti-communist conservative political party. It fought against the FRELIMO (Mozambican Liberation Front) and the Zimbabwean government of Robert Mugabe which was overthrowing the white Rhodesian rule. RENAMO received support from South Africa as well as the Central Intelligence Organization of Rhodesia and the CIA of the United States. RENAMO was known for its widespread brutality and human rights abuses. It was instrumental in destroying the economy of Mozambique and ensuring that a southern African country under black rule could not be stable.

The US and South African backed RENAMO insurgency destroyed the basic infrastructure and industry of Mozambique. With this extreme loss of income Mozambique was forced to turn to the IMF and World Bank in order to create the infrastructure destroyed by apartheid. “Mozambique has been forced to delay universal primary education until 2010 because it has to repay the apartheid-caused debt.” notes the Africa Action Report. This debt cause by apartheid South Africa is easily deemed odious. Meaning the debts imposed were against the interests of the local populace, and as such should be written off as unlawful under international law.

On top of the apartheid debt and lack of infrastructure, in 2001 Mozambique experienced terrible flooding that has threatened nearly a quarter of the country with death by famine. Again in 2007 terrible flooding forced almost 60,000 people to be evacuated from the Zambezi River Valley. It was said to have been worse that the flooding in 2001. Roads were destroyed, bridges washed away, hundreds of homes disappeared under water – this on top of apartheid debt and a landmine scarred countryside. There is hope for Mozambique. Tourism is increasing and international investment is at a high, but at what cost? The government of Mozambique needs to ensure that it does not sell out its future in investment schemes that will rob indigenous peoples of their lands and leave the country empty of resources.

Mozambique has suffered and is still suffering from the white empowered South African apartheid government system backed by none other than the United States of America. If you would like to understand the current rioting in the capital of Maputo, you need only look back to apartheid to recognize why the 170th of 175 countries listed on the development index sits right next to the richest country in all of Africa.

more on politics in kenya

Development, Featured

Relative calm has returned to Kenya, the Rift Valley saw nearly 1000 people killed and 170,000 flee to their ancestral homes. Business are reopened, roadblocks removed, and armed police patrol the streets. Those who have fled may not face the violence any longer, but life in the camps is made no less difficult by the recent rains. The taxi service has resume, but access to food and medications is a rising issue. The armed patrols that used to be known for ruthless brutality are now seen as protectors. Kisumu, which saw widespread rioting, is back to calm. Maseno University is still not open because it cannot ensure security to its students. The Nairobi slums have remained mostly calm as the negotiations with Kofi Annan are taking place, however the slums saw the worst of the post-election violence. There are some reports that say the slums are now divided by ethnic lines. Mombasa, contributing 15% of Kenya’s economy through tourism, saw no real trouble except for tourists canceling their vacations. While the calm has returned the hopes of the country seem to teeter on Annan’s ability to forge a coalition government. What cannot be forgotten as these talks begin is the political and colonial history of Kenya (read more here).

Kofi Annan arrived in Kenya to broker a deal to bring together the two opposing sides of most recent election. After selling out to large development interests with the Green Revolution in Africa (Gates, Rockefeller) my trust in Annan to work in the best interest of the Kenyan people is not very high. He is calling for a coalition government where both sides will work towards reform for free and fair elections. However, Annan has angered the Kibaki government side in the negotiations. He has made some statements that are said to have undermined the government’s position in the post-election political conflict. The negotiations are now said to be close to an end deal. Annan has said that the idea for a “broad based” government deal is near final stages. Both sides recognize the need for a political solution. However, I feel the call for a coalition or broad based government is not the answer. Along with others I see this as against new and free elections. What is most troubling is that both Kibaki’s government team and Odinga’s ODM party have tabled proposals for power sharing and Annan speaks as if this is the final deal.

Kibaki ran for President with the promise that the government would pay for tuition fees while parents cover boarding and uniform cost in order to provide free secondary education. With ethnic divides flaring up over recent election scandal, 1000 dead and 600,000 displaced, Kenyans now have access to free secondary education. This program now has minimal impact given the recent violence. The government faces an uphill battle to provide this free education access. Children cannot attend school amid conflict and crisis. In 2002 Kibaki’s government provided universal primary education. The Kenya National Union of Teachers has asked the government to first focus on providing for the safety and security of teachers and students as well as reconstructing schools destroyed by the recent violence.

As the violence has subsided, hundreds of thousands displaced, universal secondary education provided, on top of all of this President Bush has begun a tour of Africa. Bush has stated that he is in support of a power-sharing model. The same power-sharing model rejected by both political parties. Bush is set to highlight success in African countries by speaking on democratic reform, economic and military assistance, and combating HIV/AIDS. All of which are topics that Bush has no real place to talk. The notion of democracy in the US is wrought with hypocrisy, economic and military assistance are centered around gaining power and access to resources in Africa, and the Bush administration’s actions to combat HIV/AIDS have been minimal at best (with an abstinence only policy). Bush is using his tour of Liberia, Ghana, Benin, Rwanda and Tanzania to show a compassionate side of US foreign policy. I would argue that no such side exists in our current political system. Bush is supposedly sending the Secretary of State to Kenya to convey his message in support of power-sharing to solve political crisis. The US seems to not be the only international actor concerned with the situation in Kenya. What may be most important here is not to come to a solution that the international community might like to see, but rather a solution that works for the Kenyan people and creates a long-term solution to the political turmoil rooted in the colonial history of Kenya.

african slaves brought more than their bodies

Development

Besides being the workhorses of a growing young nation, African slaves brought with them their music, art, culture, and food. All modern music can be traced back to roots in slavery and Africa: country, rock, jazz, and especially hip hop. The influences of African artistic expression and shared culture can easily be seen, but what is often looked over are the not so easily recognizable economic influences of African slaves.

At one point, when free labor was scarce and the trans-atlantic slave trade began to meet the labor demand, African slaves made up 40% of the American colonial population. Of the 6.5 million immigrants who crossed the Atlantic between 1492 and 1776, 5.5 million of them were African slaves. In our early history Africans filled the country that we now historically call white, anglo-saxon, and protestant. We talk about the start of our country as a haven for religious freedom, but where is that freedom represented in the 5.5 million enslaved African people? Now, we often talk about the foreign aid and development dollars that the US and other Western countries send to Africa, but what we often completely miss is how we gained that economic ability and power from the very people that we enslaved. Most every history book or other historical account will glide over the fact that while white Europeans were seeking new lives, the majority of the US population consisted of African slaves trapped in a structure that dictated their lives, and so the hypocrisy that is American began.

It is no mystery that African slaves brought many of their cultural traditions with them, but what many do not realize is the incredible impact those traditions have had and how those impacts continue today. The US used to grow and sell the top variety of rice, Carolina Gold. The first variety of rice ever grown in the US was brought over with African slaves. Owners of slave ships would take rice for the long journey to be able to deliver healthy slaves to the US .It is believed that this variety of rice has its origins in Africa. It is still unclear as to which part of Africa, but indicators are pointing towards somewhere in West Africa. This variety of rice was not only the first, but also one of the most lucrative crops in US history.

The National Geographic article states,

“The slaves used their rice-growing know-how to convert the swampy Carolina lowlands to thriving rice plantations replete with canals, dikes, and levies, which facilitated periodic flooding of the fields, McClung noted.”

Carolina Gold quickly became a top variety of rice because of its versatility and was a major export to Europe. The Carolina Gold variety of rice is just one example of how African slaves helped to build a US centered World Economy. From sugar, tobacco, cotton, and rice, African slaves laid the base for the production of agricultural commodities that would rule the colonial world and place the US at the top. Our economic power may come from the abundance of land in the US, natural resources, and our entrepreneurial spirit, but that spirit lay in the abilities of the African slaves, their agricultural knowledge and their utilization of the US land and other resources.

chinese exodus of influence

Development, Featured

In the early days of African discovery soldiers, missionaries, and explorers led the way towards the attempted understanding of and preceding conquest of Africa. This push came from the world powers of the day in Western Europe – now we see a new wave of settlers moving in on the African continent. However, this exodus should not be a surprise. Lured by the increase in wealth, property, and life style, Chinese migrants are starting new lives in Africa. Approved by the Beijing government, the migrants are involved in agriculture reform, construction (which is a huge Chinese business in Africa), and trade.

The Chinese relationship with Africa is strong and this new development should not come as a surprise. “To build a unified front against imperialism,” was the Chinese goal in the 1950s. This involved supporting the growing African decolonization, nationalist movements, and revolutions. There is a strong history of economic ties between China and Africa. We can see this in Chinese blue and white porcelain found at African gravesites from the expeditions of Zheng He. Zheng He left the Cape of Good Hope with the gift of a giraffe. Trade relations with China only increased from there.

China began its first bilateral agreements in 1956 with Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, and Guinea. China had been in agreement with the Soviet Union in supporting African revolutions, but China became more interested in providing financial and military support for nationalist movements. In the 1960s there were nineteen African countries with official ties to Beijing. The recent wave of nearly 750,000 Chinese migrants are not the first. In the 1960s Mao Zedong sent people to forge political ties with the continent. This newest wave or Chinese people is to strengthen the Chinese claims over raw materials and markets. The head of the China Export-Import Bank has said that he will support this migration with “investment, project development, and help with the sale of products.” Mr. Li says,”There’s no harm in allowing [Chinese] farmers to leave the country to become farm owners [in Africa],” he added.

Mission of the China Export-Import Bank:

The main mandate of the Bank is to implement the state policies in industry, foreign trade and economy and finance to provide policy financial support so as to promote the export of Chinese mechanical and electronic products and high- and new-tech products, to support Chinese companies with comparative advantages to “go global” for offshore construction contracts and overseas investment projects, to develop and strengthen relations with foreign countries, and to enhance Sino-foreign economic and technological cooperation and exchanges.

Beyond the trade relations that are now ever growing, the political ties have been and remain strong. During the 1960s China provided military and financial to nationalist movements as well as increasing development dollars – $100 million. They also sent 150,000 technicians to implement projects in agriculture, transport, and infrastructure development. China was involved in numerous independence movements. In the build-up to democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China was providing financial support, but it wasn’t enough. After Lumumba was assassinated by the efforts of the CIA, the Chinese demonstrated en masse. Millions gathered in Peking, 400,000 in Shanghai which solidified the Chinese influence and support for further revolutionary movements. A new regime was supported in Tanzania (1964) until Nyerere took power. Nyerere even adopted the Mao-style uniform. Chinese engineers built a railroad from Zambia to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania showing the Chinese economic might and proving that China was serious in Africa. China supported many nationalist and revolutionary movements (see map) with arms, money, medical supplies, scholarships, and guerrilla trainings and camps.

In 1971 China received 76 votes for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Of those votes 26 were from African countries and by the 1980s fourty-four African countries had established diplomatic ties with Beijing. These ties soon faded out, but have recently been rekindled in the 1990s and more recently in 2006. In the third China-Africa forum 48 African countries were represented. China now represents the leading Asian developing giant, above India, Singapore, and Thailand. China now rivals OECD countries or the developed West in providing foreign aid (rogue aid). China now outbids the World Bank and in 2006-2008 provided over $10 billion in loans to African countries.

China has regained its strong influence in African countries. Their power is unmatched and their recent wave of settlement unprecedented. This is a point of contention for both Western powers who may be afraid of the growing Chinese power and the people of African countries who should be wary of another exploiter. The Chinese may have a history of support, development, and influence, but that does not justify current action.

Featured entry on The Issue: China in Africa

kenya’s political history of turmoil

Development, Featured

If it happens in Africa it must just be the primal instinct based in tribalism. The mass media has been covering the situation in Kenya as a near exclusive tribal and ethnic conflict without accounting for the history of Kenya’s political turmoil and where ethnicity is put into a colonial context. The crisis in Kenya is not solely ethnic and tribal. It is a crisis based on democracy and fueled by past divisions created by British colonial rule.

What we have seen recently is a devolution of ‘democratic’ elections into ethnic conflict. The Presidential incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, was made President in previous elections as the opposition candidate was declared unable to run by the constitution. Moving into the most recent elections Kibaki did not have the majority support. However, in the end tallies of votes Kibaki came out ahead of the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. Odinga was running with his Orange Democratic Movement behind him. European Union observers declared Kibaki’s second term as stolen when the national vote counts came back different than the district vote counts, putting Kibaki as the winner. What we then saw was a devolution of a ‘stable democracy’ in to “tribal” conflict. But, before we can even begin to grasp what this means in Kenya we have to examine and understand Kenya’s history of colonial violence and created ethnic tension.

In 1888, the British took over the area known as Kenya as part of the 1885 Berlin Conference that divided the land area of Africa between the major European powers. The Germans formerly controlled the land. The colony known as British East Africa remained uninvolved in World War I. By the twentieth century 30,000 white British settlers began establishing themselves in the fertile highlands growing coffee and tea and commanding unjust political and economic power in the country. The highlands had traditionally been home to the Kikuyu people, who were forced off of their land and had to then seek jobs on their own former land under the employ of white settler farmers for a meager wage of newly imposed British currency. This injustice set off the start of the Mau-Mau rebellion lead by the Kikuyu people and the Land and Army Freedom movement in 1952. The country was placed under martial-rule. The British Long Rifles, the Home Guard (Kenyan soldiers), and the British army backed by Winston Churchill‘s command came together strongly against the movement and killed 42% of the rebel fighters. The capture and execution of Dedan Kimathi in 1956, the Mau Mau leader, essentially ended the rebellion. The Kikuyu rebellion was destroyed. The British consciously divided the Kikuyu and Luo people for fear that they would be too strong of a unifying force against their colonial empire. The Kenyan elites were able to take power with the election of the Kikuyu elite, Jomo Kenyatta.

The first elections in Kenya were in 1957. To the dismay of the British, the election was won by Kenyatta backed by his Kenya African National Union (KANU) party instead of the ‘moderate’ Africans the British had hoped for, but this was their own product of favoring the Kikuyu. Upon Kenyatta’s death Daniel arap-Moi took power, stepping up from his Vice Presidential role. His succession to president was strongly opposed by the Kikuyu elite, known as the Kiambu Mafia. He held power in uncontested single-party elections from 1978 until 2002. Moi dismissed political opponents and consolidated his power. He put down Kikuyu coup attempts through execution of coup leaders. Moi was central in the perpetuating Kenyatta’s single-party state, reflected in the constitution. In his 2002 and 2007 election wins, Moi exploited the mixed ethnic composition of Kenya and with a divided opposition of smaller tribes – Moi won. Moi represented an ethnic minority, the Kalenjin, that kept the Kikuyu out of power for many years. I am not sure if we are to assume the role of Moi as Vice President to Kenyatta was to appease the ethnic minority, but the Kikuyu’s role as a benefiting elite was lost with Moi’s succession.

Kenya’s 36 million people are divided among more than 40 ethnic groups, each with its own identity, cultural traditions and practices, and separate language. The main groups are Kikuyu (22%), Luhya (14%), Luo (13%), Kalenjin (12%) and Kamba (11%), according to government figures. Now we see the colonial policy of “divide and conquer” lives on. The tradition of corruption in Kenyan politics continues and Kikuyu is pitted against the various ethnic groups. However, this is a created ethnic conflict in a country where ethnicity and politics are conjoined. Kenyatta was a Kikuyu elite created by the British colonialism, Moi was essentially a dictator for 30 years, and Kibaki undemocratically stole power and now for a second time. Instead of a conflict rooted in tribalism this conflict, “suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago.” What is most surprising is not that there is now an ethnic conflict in Kenya, but that it did not happen sooner.

Surprisingly, CNN acknowledged the roots of Kenya’s ethnic political troubles. Neither candidate in Kenya’s elections really represented the people or true democracy. Odinga’s (Luo) Orange Democratic Movement was supported by Luhya and he promised to appoint a Luhya deputy if elected. Kibaki’s government has had troubles and scandals dealing with corruption and graft since beginning in 2002. The BBC also gives a more accurate account of the conflict in Kenya. They suggest that the headlines talking of tribalism should better read: “Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population.” But no one wants to read that. The main stream media has decided to final cover Africa as a front page story only because it provides a striking headline. As Kikuyu flee, the news wants to make Kenya out to be another Rwanda, but I wouldn’t venture so far to say that it has become that terrible. This sentiment of violence influences writers at every level. One student writer can only focus on the violence in her article.

The US has condemned the violence in Kenya. “We condemn the violence that occurred in Kenya as its citizens await these election results, and call on all Kenyans to remain calm while the vote tabulation process is concluded,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in a statement. The US would like to say how terrible it is that Kenyans have been denied democracy. However, I am not sure how we can claim to know democracy. Just as Kenyans, we too have never known real democracy in this two-party system full of government control and corruption. My swahili professor is from western Kenya, he is a Luo. The other day I asked him if his family was safe. He said they were, they had fled soon enough to miss the violence. I asked him about the history of ethnic favoring in Kenya and he said that it all started with Kenyatta. While this all goes on – colonial legacies of ethnic tension, stolen democracy, and a fear of continued turmoil, the US presidential primaries plug along. We as US citizens can only dream of democracy. While Obama, with Kenyan descent, gains popularity and primaries his family in Kenya watches. Will there be democracy gained anywhere? Will stolen votes bring conflict in the US too or maybe we do not have a knowledgeable enough electorate to protest.