outsidein »

• CAF on Togo

  January 31, 2010 @ 11:09 pm | by Bryan

  I sometimes wonder whether the ability to inhabit an alternate universe is a necessary qualification for entry into officialdom. How else does one make sense of CAF’s (The Confederation of African Football) decision to ban and fine Togo’s national football team for pulling out of this year’s Africa Cup of Nations?

  I’m struggling to understand how that kind of decision is reached. The football body’s executive committee met to discuss Togo’s exit from the competition, and then what? Someone said, “Sad as the fatal attack may have been, it’s imperative that we uphold Article 78 of our constitution?” And then what, the rest of the committee said, “Oh yes, article 78 … once you let go of things like Article 78, the whole game falls apart?”

  Who reads the 78th article of anything? The first 10 or 20, maybe, but the 78th? And even if the entire executive committee was intimately acquainted with that article, even if they thought it was vital that it be upheld, didn’t any of them have the decency to point out the obvious? That the sanctity of life, respect for the dead, simple decency – that these things trump rules, constitutions, articles and even the whims of big men in dark suits?

  The decision to ban Togo shames CAF. Either Piers Edwards is right and there’s a horrifying political dynamic to it – in which case CAF is guilty of trying to manipulate a tragedy for political gain – or my made up scenario isn’t too far from what really happened – meaning that CAF’s top brass are callous beyond words.

  In either case, they occupy a universe that is very different to the one in which ordinary fans of African football dwell. There may be a lot wrong with my continent, but the sort of attitude towards life that CAF has demonstrated is ordinarily only thought of as the pathology of criminals, bandits and the completely unhinged.

  Comments (12)

• 2010 pessimism

  January 4, 2010 @ 9:00 pm | by Bryan

  Regular readers of this blog may find the next statement hard to believe. I am, by nature, an optimist. Really, I am. But over the course of 2009, a cloud of pessimism settled over me. And to be honest, I don’t see it lifting over the course of the coming 12 months.

  Here’s an example of where my negativity stems from. Based on conversations with a mix of people in Belfast, it seems as though one of the largest determinants to peace and stability is economic well-being. Money, or more precisely, the process of pursing ‘the good life’ with a reasonable expectation of one day attaining it, can be positively distracting – in a “an idle mind is the devil’s playground” sense. Granted, an argument could be made for the role of things like intrusive body scanners and remote controlled planes that can bomb whole villages to smithereens. But does anyone really think that airport security, a hypertrophied ‘intelligence community’, or wars in far off places will rid the world of people like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, let alone the people who armed and trained him?

  Once upon a time, before that great IMF idea that was economic structural adjustment, Zimbabwe was a relatively prosperous little country. We were wealthier than most of our neighbours, so we did our bit to keep out the poorer Malawians and Mozambicans. Those who got into the country were tolerated, but I’m pretty sure we tried to keep them to a minimum. And then the IMF came along and in a relatively brief period of time, income inequality within the country soared. People who were relatively well off built large walls to keep out their poor fellow citizens. For the most part, the walls served their purpose, but with increasing regularity, some found ways over them. They would then help themselves to things they couldn’t otherwise afford while the owners of the big houses were asleep. There came a point where we wrecked the country. Things got so bad that even those living in big houses behind bigger walls began to struggle. So a lot of Zimbabweans, rich and poor alike, made their way to neighbouring and distant countries, sometimes illegally scaling real and metaphorical walls and fences.

  So why am I pessimistic? Because, it’s easier to build, buy and install body scanners and to blow stuff up than to try to understand the world on the other side of our walls. The world seems destined to imitate the likes of Johannesburg and Rio de Janeiro, who have found it easier to live with their fear than address the structures that give birth to their underworld. I’m pessimistic because I get the feeling that we’re a year closer to the day parts of the world are relegated to rubbish heap status, while others become fortified cities.

  But I could be wrong.

  Happy 2010.

  Comments (16)

• Di-Aping, climate change and the Holocaust

  December 21, 2009 @ 8:28 am | by Bryan

  

  [The Copenhagen Accord] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries. It is a solution based on values, the very same values in our opinion that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces. – Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping (Chief negotiator for the G77 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen).

  You’ve got to hand it to the Sudanese chair of the G77. Europe is still pretty touchy about the holocaust, and the suggestion that the continent is helping to get the gas chambers cranked up was always going to evoke a response. Di-Aping knows how to make headline grabbing statements, but is there any substance to his charge?

  First of all, there’s the suicide pact stuff. On that, I’m with Di-Aping. The smaller countries don’t really get much consideration (and that’s me trying to be as generous as possible to the rich and powerful ones). Barack Obama didn’t take Malawi, Bangladeshi, a couple of Pacific Island nations and Paraguay into a private room to discuss their grievances. Part of that is Malawi et. al. aren’t responsible for much of the greenhouse gases the world produces so they can’t be expected to be at the forefront of a new green revolution. That said, because they aren’t very well off and don’t have much political clout, the views of Malawi et. al. aren’t going to be seriously considered. Let’s face it, Greenpeace have a better chance of getting a hearing from the Obama administration on the effects of climate change than Malawi. I’m not the only one who thinks as much. According to Michael Levi of the Council for Foreign Relations, “The climate treaty process isn’t going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere.” “That elsewhere,” speculates the New York Times, “will likely be a much smaller group of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 percent of global warming emissions,” i.e. the 30 most powerful nations. As for the weak, heard of Darwin?

  Then there’s the values stuff. What values led to the holocaust? I’m no expert in this area. On some level, ‘The Pearl’ must be right – there was money to be made in the exploitation and murder of millions of innocents. More interesting philosophical and sociological explanations have been put forward, but when all is said and done, most come down to the fact that we (people) like situations that work to our favour, especially if the consequences (or victims) are safely out of sight. The structure of the global political economy, for example, is such that I can easily afford to buy a cup of coffee most mornings, while the farmer who grew and harvested that coffee might struggle to feed her family. The distance between us allows me to sleep peacefully at night.

  So maybe Di-Aping is right on both counts. Maybe the small and vulnerable will continue to pay the price for the short-sightedness of the rich and powerful so long as ‘the dollar bill’ lies at the centre of our global value system.

  Comments (15)

• The war crimes trial gimmick

  October 27, 2009 @ 12:15 pm | by Bryan

  

  Radovan Karadzic supporters drink and play gusle, a traditional instrument, in a bar in New Belgrade, Serbia, yesterday. Photographs: Amel Emric, Srdjan Ilic/AP.

  Former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, brought proceedings in the Hague to a standstill yesterday. He decided not to attend the opening of his genocide trial, claiming that he was unprepared. Karadzic is representing himself and the trial couldn’t go on without defence counsel. Big anticlimax.

  But maybe that’s the problem. These big war crime trials bear a striking resemblance to what I can only imagine medieval public executions looked like. I’m not sure how much they have to do with justice as opposed to public retribution. It’s as though the ‘international community’ needs to demonstrate, as visually as possible, that ‘international justice’ really exists and really works, and that – to quote a former US president who had a way with words – ‘evildoers’ really get their comeuppance in the end. I’m not sure.

  I don’t like Karadzic and what he represents. I think the people responsible for acts like Srebrenica make an incredibly strong case for capital punishment. At the very least, they should be tried quickly and if found guilty, locked away somewhere for good. But I also think that the likes of Karadzic, Slobodan Miloševic before him, and Saddam Hussein are right when they say that these genocide trials are gimmicky public spectacles rather than genuine attempts at delivering justice. Were justice the real aim, Karadzic apprehension would not have been the result of a political settlement nor would the massacre of thousands be attributed to just a handful of suitable villains. Also, assuming that justice is blind, the criteria for who counts as a war criminal would be less selective and less dependent on political considerations.

  Still, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT will eventually get underway. If he doesn’t inconveniently die during the process (like Milosevic), Karadzic will almost certainly be found guilty of something serious – crimes against humanity, violations of the laws of war, something. Some will celebrate the decision as a mark of progress. Others will hold their former leader up as a martyr. The news cycle will roll on. But I’m not sure very much substantive justice will have been done.

  Maybe this is why the African Union don’t want the International Criminal Court getting involved with the situation in Sudan or Uganda.

  Comments (17)

• Poverty tourism

  September 30, 2009 @ 9:21 am | by Bryan

  

  A view of the “informal settlement” of Mathare at Nairobi, Kenya. Photograph: Frederic Courbet.

  This isn’t new. It happens in parts of South Africa, and I’m pretty sure it also happens in other places. Kenya is now home to a new kind of income generating scheme – poverty tourism.

  That’s right, poverty tourism. People pay to see the misery of others and then… I don’t know what happens then to be honest. I’m sure the whole thing isn’t meant to be sadistic. I imagine that those paying to see these slum dwellers do it for noble reasons, like the desire to understand how the other half live, so they can more effectively campaign for them. But to me, it smells like the horrible product of a George Orwell and Stephen King collaboration.

  What’s next, Survivor Khayelitsha? A show in which regular folks from various rich nations get to spend twelve weeks in South Africa’s largest township with nothing but the average income of the typical shanty town’s resident? Following District 9’s lead, the contestants might have to supplement their diet with rats and who knows, maybe cat food? At what point does concern and empathy become vulgar voyeurism?

  In a fascinating report from Kenya, Fintan O’Toole shared a debate between two Masai men on modernisation and the future of the tribe. Arguing for the path of modernisation and integration into the wider Kenyan society, O’Toole reports that Leina Mpoke, programme director with Concern, said the following:

  …Masais are kept in the same category as wildlife. Even when tourists come to look at wildlife, without the Masai next to a giraffe or a Masai village near the lions, it’s not complete. I refuse that kind of consumerism where the Masai is rated the same way as a beast. But the Masai man of the old time is not the same as today. The Masai warrior insisted on facing his enemy man-to-man and believed that even arrows were for cowards. And they got killed.

  Unfortunately, the path favoured by Mpoke isn’t much brighter. The majority of those Masai who ‘integrate’ end up in slums. History suggests that it will be years before that group works its way up the social ladder. Until then, those who escape the humiliation of being photographed as part of the wildlife may very well end up being captured by the camera lens of another kind of tourist. This time, as the wildlife itself – part and parcel of the urban safari experience.

  Comments (23)

• Hooray for the G20?

  September 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pm | by Bryan

  

  “The fact that 20 or so individuals right now are determining economic trade policies for four to five billion people just isn’t right,” Mr. Griffith said. “That’s why we’re here.”

  Most news organisations are making a big deal over the fact that the G8 is being replaced by the G20. The fact that a handful of the most powerful ‘developing nations’ are being added to the elite club that gets to set the economic rules for the rest is supposed to represent the dawn of a new inclusive era or something. It does no such thing.

  Let’s take a look at some of these ‘developing nations’. China. India. South Africa. Turkey. Brazil. These aren’t exactly the nations that I would pick were I trying to get a good understanding of the concerns of the typical state in the South. China is China. India, while being home to some of the world’s poorest people, is also incredibly wealthy. So much so, the Indians not only sent a rocket to the moon, they were also the ones who recently discovered water there. They’re not exactly Malawi or Haiti – nations trying to come up with a formula for growing enough food to meet domestic needs. As for Brazil, the OECD has been trying to woo them for a while. The OECD, you may have noticed, have not expressed much interest in Cuba or Paraguayi. The G20 is so inclusive that neither Nigeria nor Egypt, Africa’s second and third wealthiest nations, were deemed worthy. And yet, just about all of Europe is represented there by the EU. But just to make sure, France, Germany, Italy and Britain get their own special seats. The same is true of North America – the US, Canada and Mexico are all members.

  So just to re-cap, the G20 is made up of Europe, North America, and everyone else with too much economic clout to ignore. And what happens when only the powerful get to make the rules? Let’s look at the response to the recent financial crisis, shall we? As was recently demonstrated on the excellent three part BBC television series, The Love of Money, the politically powerful got together with the economically powerful to craft a solution to the crisis. Unsurprisingly, it was decided that to avoid catastrophe, the economically powerful could not be allowed to fail. Equally unsurprisingly, the chosen mechanism of their rescue was a transfer of wealth from the rest, to those deemed to large to fail. Could it be that the proposal to transfer wealth to struggling mortgage holders instead of, or in tandem with the banks bailout, would have got more of a hearing were struggling mortgage holders part of the deliberations? Hoping that China, Brazil or even South Africa will represent Malawi’s economic interests is like expecting AIB or Bank of Ireland to ask the Finance Minister to consider my local credit union’s needs, and give some of the taxpayer money allocated to the banks to St. Anthony’s Credit Union instead. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  Like Trevor Griffith, I have serious problems with a small group from the most powerful nations making potentially life and death decisions for the rest of the planet. If however, that’s the direction the world is going to take, then at least let’s be completely honest about it and get rid of the charade that is the United Nations General Assembly. Maybe let’s get rid of the UN altogether? It can’t be that important if the real decision makers use it as a pit stop en-route to G20 meetings.

  Comments (19)

• Owning Congo

  August 19, 2009 @ 1:44 pm | by Bryan

  I have a friend who recently went on the dole. Determined to be independent, she began a new career doing freelance work. She doesn’t earn enough money to live off this, but it’s a start. What frustrates her is that there are times when she has to turn down work because of the structure of the welfare system. Sometimes, a little extra work can mean a disproportionate reduction in her welfare subsidy.

  Her situation came to mind as I read and thought about the infrastructure for minerals deal between China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC is probably the country most richly endowed with natural resources in Africa. Unfortunately, the former Belgian colony has been plagued by conflict since its inception. From Belgian, French and American sabotage soon after its birth, to what some dubbed ‘Africa’s World War’, it is little wonder that the country has had its share of tyrants. As Chomsky has pointed out, a harsh environment cultivates a certain type of leader because only they survive long enough to take the reins of power.

  But then Kabila Jr. and China happened. A deal was struck between the Congolese president and the Chinese in which the latter would build roads, railway tracks, hospitals and even two universities in exchange for copper and cobalt. The deal, valued at $9 billion, would see much needed infrastructure development in the DRC in exchange for vast quantities of its mineral deposits.

  To cut a long story short, the IMF decided that the Chinese weren’t offering the Congolese a fair deal, and that the DRC would be straddled with even more debt. Complicating matters is the fact $11 billion worth of debt relief that had been put on the table by Western donors would only be released on condition of IMF approval of the Chinese deal. In fact, IMF approval would also mean access to more development aid money and loans from Western governments and institutions.

  Yesterday, China and the DRC agreed to scale back their initial deal in order to obtain IMF approval. Honestly, I’m disgusted. Once upon a time the DRC belonged to King Leopold. Now, while they may not own it, the IMF has a lot of control over it’s economic and development policy. How that country choses to utilise its mineral wealth is subject to the wishes of the IMF. That’s even worse than my friend having to turn down work. It’s more akin to her being told by the department of social welfare which jobs she can take on and which she may not.

  All the antipathy towards the Chinese, based on the fear that they want to re-colonise Africa. misses an important point. Africa is already a colony in lots of ways. Just ask the Congolese.

  Comments (12)

• Clinton in Africa

  August 6, 2009 @ 1:57 pm | by Bryan

  

  As an aside, Hillary Clinton has moves! I’ve seen video clips of her boss dancing, and I’ve got to say, she could teach him a thing or two.

  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on an African tour that includes Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Cape Verde. It’s an interesting group of counties.

  Kenya is hosting the AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) forum, a US – sub-Saharan Africa economic gathering which includes discussions on trade matters. South Africa is the most politically and economically influential country in sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria is an important supplier of oil to the US. Angola is Africa’s largest oil producer, a recipient of large amounts of Chinese investment, and China’s biggest oil supplier. The DRC has enormous deposits of minerals and other natural resources.

  I’m sure Secretary Clinton will say all the things an American diplomat of her stature is expected to say. She has already stated that the US wants to be a ‘partner, not patron’ of Africa, a message that is in keeping with President Obama’s speech in Accra a few weeks ago. Democracy, human rights, corruption, good governance, and other catch phrases will be used liberally. But at the end of the day, what really matters is ‘securing US interests’. And that’s why China is so popular in sub-Saharan Africa.

  It is often said in Europe and America that China is a negative influence on Africa because it condones poor governance and it is only interested in exploiting Africa’s resources. Implicit in that assessment is the idea that Western governments instead care about poor Africans. Recent history does not necessarily bear that out. The difference between the Chinese and the US is that Chinese self-interest is more closely aligned with African interests, for the present time at least, than US self-interest. Chinese investment comes with infrastructural development. American investment comes with speeches on governance which America itself ignores if applying those ideas means losing out on Nigerian oil or the prospect of an Islamic militant group in charge of Somalia with popular support.

  There is an interesting video discussion on this topic here.

  Comments (3)

• A compromised dream

  July 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm | by Bryan

  

  According to his biographer, Mark Gevisser, Thabo Mbeki’s chief concern as South Africa’s first democratically elected government assumed office can be summed up by Langston Hughes’ poem, A Dream Deferred:

  What happens to a dream deferred?
  Does it dry up
  Like a raisin in the sun?
  Or fester like a sore–
  And then run?
  Does it stink like rotten meat?
  Or crust and sugar over–
  like a syrupy sweet?
  Maybe it just sags
  like a heavy load.
  Or does it explode?

  Based on my experiences in Zimbabwe, foreign news reports of riots tend to be exaggerated. Often, fairly contained events are blown up or made to look more widespread than they really are. I suspect that’s true in the case of the riots in Johannesburg.

  That said, Mbeki was right to worry about the Dream Deferred. Lord knows what will happen when poor South Africans of colour eventually discover that their dream was compromised away a long time ago.

  Comments (8)

• Jerusalema

  June 2, 2009 @ 11:40 am | by Bryan

  

  Gayatri Spivak’s essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” asks questions about whether society’s ‘underclasses’ can get heard. It is a question that I have been grappling with. Can those without power, both economic and political, express themselves to the rest of society?

  The Galway African Film Festival was held this weekend. The event included a seminar on East African film by film critic June Givanni. The main film, Jerusalema, was introduced by its producer, Tendeka Matatu. Both Givanni and Matatu had interesting things to say about the African film industry and perceptions of Africa abroad.

  As Givanni demonstrated through her numerous clips from Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia, there is plenty of film talent in that part of the world. Interestingly, African filmmakers tend to tell not just different stories, but they also tell them in different ways to the generic Hollywood template. Besides the fact that the films Givanni showed were remarkably entertaining, they also challenge the stereotypes about Africa. Unfortunately, you and I probably won’t get to watch any of them. Our ability to watch a film is the result of a series of decisions made by those in the film distribution business. As profit, not cultural enrichment or even entertainment is the end goal of this business, the tried and tested films are the ones shown in cinemas and are placed on store shelves. This is true even of a film like Jeusalma, perhaps the best film I’ve watched this year.

  The fact that Jerusalema is struggling to get adequate distribution is worrying. It was made by accomplished filmmakers. It is immensely fun to watch. And if you want to understand what contemporary inner city Johannesburg is like, apart from moving in, I doubt you could do better than watch this film. If Jerusalema can’t get a global hearing, forget their ability to speak, the subaltern are on life support. Matatu and Ralph Ziman, Jerusalema’s director, are part of a global middle class. They aren’t even the subaltern and yet their voices are barely audible. How then does the poor, rural child in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia or Latin America get heard? What sort of self-determination do they have?

  Having read Rod Stoneman’s Chavez – The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and the Media, I think the media, in a real way, gets to construct reality. The BBC has played a huge role in constructing Asia in my mind. So much so, there is little difference between their view of the region and mine. I suspect the same is true for many others. Unfortunately, their view on southern Africa, a region I know well, is wrong (in my opinion). It is, at the very least, at odds with that of the likes of Matatu and Ziman, whose own vies may be at odds with those of other Africa filmmakers and Africans who can’t afford to make films.

  If the power to represent, and in some ways to construct reality is proportional to economic power, maybe Spivak was right. Maybe the subaltern can’t speak. And maybe distributing Jerusalema isn’t profitable because we don’t want to come close to hearing them.

  Comments (4)