africavenir.org - RSS: E-Library-News

Aminata Traoré: "Le naufrage et l'offense - Le Mali est à rendre au Maliens"

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:45:00 +0200

Nous publions ici un manifeste rédigé par Aminata Dramane Traoré sur la situation actuelle du Mali. Aminata Traoré s'est vu refusé le visa d'entrée sur le territoire francais récemment pour ces prises de position altermondialistes et critiques envers l'intervention militaire de la France au Mali. « Toute société impérialiste voit dans l’Autre la négation de l’idéal qu’elle s’efforce, elle-même, d’atteindre. Elle cherche à le domestiquer en l’attirant dans le champ d’application de son idéal et en l’y situant au degré le plus bas » Wolfgang Sachs 1. QUE SOMMES-NOUS DEVENUS AU MALI ? « A qui allons-nous rendre les clés ? » est la question posée par Pierre Lellouche, député UMP et Président du groupe Sahel de la Commission des Affaires Etrangères de l’Assemblée Nationale française à propos du Mali. C’était le 22 avril 2013, lors du débat parlementaire qui a précédé le vote de la prolongation de l’opération Serval. Comme pour lui répondre, Hervé Morin, ancien ministre (UMP) de la Défense dit « Mais il n’y a personne à qui passer la main ». Comme une lettre à la poste, la prolongation demandée a été adoptée à l’unanimité. S’agissant de l’organisation de l’élection présidentielle en juillet 2013. La France officielle est non seulement unanime mais intransigeante Je serai « intraitable » a prévenu le Président François Hollande. Ce mot est dans toutes les têtes ici et nous a blessés. Le ministre de la Défense Jean Yves Le Drian estime à ce sujet qu’ « il faut dire les choses fortement » (RFI). Les Maliens qui ont accueilli le Président François Hollande en libérateur s’imaginaient que l’Opération Serval débarrasserait rapidement leur pays de Al Qaeda au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI) et ses affiliés d’Ansar Dine et du MUJAO et que la vie reviendrait comme avant. L’intervention militaire a incontestablement réduit la capacité de nuisance des djihadistes en en tuant quelques centaines et en détruisant d’énormes stocks d’armes et de carburant. Mais les villes de Gao et Tombouctou sont libérées sans l’être totalement puisque des groupes que le discours officiel qualifie de « résiduels » opèrent dans ces localités et y commettent des attentats. Fait plus préoccupant, Kidal est entre les mains du Mouvement National de Libération de l’Azawad (MNLA) qui interdit à l’armée malienne d’y accéder. De peur de s’enliser, la France revoit ses effectifs à la baisse sans pour autant se retirer. Sa coopération avec la Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO) dans la mobilisation des troupes africaines de la Mission Internationale de Soutien au Mali (MISMA) étant loin d’être satisfaisante. La Mission multidimensionnelle intégrée des Nations unies au Mali (MINUSMA) entrera en action en juillet. La France ne s’enlisera pas. Mais dans quelle aventure a-t-elle embarqué notre pays alors qu’il ne s’y était pas préparé ? Et quel Mali laisserons-nous aux générations futures ? Celui où le départ du dernier soldat français a été l’un des temps forts de sa décolonisation et qui aujourd’hui perd ce qui lui restait de souveraineté ? Confiant dans son rôle de libérateur, le Président Hollande nous a promis lors de son passage à Bamako une nouvelle indépendance, « non pas contre le colonialisme, mais contre le terrorisme ». Comme s’il appartenait à la France de nous sauver d’un péril auquel elle n’est pas étrangère si l’on remonte à son intervention en Libye. L’Homme malien est-il suffisamment entré dans l’histoire ? Est-il sujet de son propre devenir de manière à jouir de son droit de dire « non » aux choix et aux décisions qui engagent son destin ? La militarisation comme réponse à l’échec du modèle néolibéral dans mon pays est le choix que je conteste. Interdite de séjour dans les pays de l’espace Schengen, je regarde avec admiration et respect, la mobilisation et la détermination des peuples d’Europe à lutter contre le même système qui en toute quiétude nous broie, ici en Afrique. 2. L’EFFONDREMENT DU CAPITALISME MALIEN « GAGNANT » Le Mali ne souffre pas d’une crise humanitaire et sécuritaire au nord du fait de la rébellion et de l’islam radical et d’une crise politique et institutionnelle au sud en raison du coup d’Etat du 22 mars 2012. Cette approche réductrice est la première et véritable entrave à la paix et la reconstruction nationale. Nous avons assisté surtout à l’effondrement d’un capitalisme malien prétendument gagnant au coût social et humain fort élevé. Ajustement structurel, chômage endémique, pauvreté et extrême pauvreté, sont notre lot depuis les années 80. La France et les autres pays européens ont juste une trentaine d’années de retard sur le Mali, et ses frères d’infortune d’Afrique, soumis depuis plus de trois décennies à la médecine de cheval du Fond Monétaire International (FMI) et de la Banque mondiale. Selon le CNUCED (rapport 2001), l’Afrique est le continent où la mise en œuvre des PAS a été la plus massive, la plus poussée et la plus destructrice le long des décennies 80 et 90 au cours desquelles les institutions internationales de financement ne se sont préoccupées que de la correction des déséquilibres macro-économiques et des distorsions du marché en exigeant des Etats des documents de stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté (DSRP). Le credo de Margaret Thatcher « There Is No Alternative » (TINA) marche à merveille sous nos cieux. Il revient à dire au plan économique « libéralisez vos économies à tout prix », au plan politique « Démocratisez selon nos normes et nos critères » et dans le cas du Mali « votez en juillet ». A cet agenda, suffisamment périlleux, s’ajoute, à présent, le volet militaire « sécurisez vos pays selon nos méthodes et conformément à nos intérêts ». Sacrifié sur l’autel du commerce dit libre et concurrentiel, mais parfaitement déloyal comme l’illustrent les filières cotonnière et aurifère, et sur celui de la démocratie formelle, le Mali est en train de l’être, également, dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme. La rébellion du Mouvement Nationale de libération de l’Azawad (MNLA), le coup d’Etat, et le recrutement des jeunes chômeurs et affamés au nord comme au sud du pays par AQMI, Ansar Dine et MUJAO s’inscrivent dans un environnement national explosif. Il a été marqué en fin 2011 et début 2012 par des marches de protestations contre la vie chère, le chômage, la précarité, le référendum constitutionnel, la question foncière, la corruption et l’impunité. Mis à part la petite minorité des nouveaux riches, c’est le peuple malien qui est le grand perdant de l’ouverture de l’économie nationale aux forceps. Il est diverti par le discours mensonger et soporifique sur l’exemplarité de notre démocratie et de nos performances économiques qui étaient semble-t-il les meilleures de l’UEMOA. Les voix discordantes sont ostracisées. 3. DENI DE DEMOCRATIE Démocratique à l’intérieur de ses frontières, lorsqu’on considère la teneur et la vivacité du débat dans l’hémicycle et dans la rue sur le mariage pour tous, par exemple, elle se montre intraitable dans ses relations avec le Mali. Ne pas voir le moindre mal dans son retour en force. Ne rien savoir de ses desseins ou faire semblant de ne pas savoir. Chanter et danser à sa gloire si l’on veut être dans ses bonnes grâces, exister politiquement et circuler librement en Europe. S’y refuser, reviendrait à ne pas être avec elle, donc contre elle. On se croirait au lendemain des attentats du World Trade Center aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique en 2001, au moment où le Président américain Georges W Bush déclarait : « Ou bien on est avec nous, ou bien on est avec les terroristes ». Dans mon cas ce sont les idées de gauche sur les ravages de la mondialisation néolibérale en Afrique qui sont devenues subversives. Elles m’avaient pourtant valu d’être l’invitée du Parti Socialiste à son université de la Rochelle en 2010. Pour brouiller le sens de mon discours et de mon combat j’ai été qualifiée d’abord de pro-putschiste et d’anti-CEDEAO, avant l’étape actuelle de mon assignation à résidence. Je suis redevable à Karamoko Bamba du mouvement N’KO de cette pensée africaine selon laquelle « celui qui a le fusil ne s’en sert pas pour prendre le pouvoir. Et celui qui détient le pouvoir l’exerce dans l’intérêt du peuple et sous son contrôle ». Pourquoi devais-je faire porter l’entière responsabilité de l’effondrement de l’Etat aux laissés-pour-compte d’une armée gangrenée, comme les autres institutions de la République, par la corruption, le népotisme et l’impunité ? Il ne peut être reproché aux militaires de ne pas savoir défendre un pays dont les élites politiques et économiques, non seulement acceptent de l’ouvrir au marché dans les pires conditions mais en profitent pour s’enrichir. Le naufrage est d’abord le leur pour avoir revendiqué un modèle économique qui rime avec le désengagement et le délitement de l’Etat, la ruine des paysans, la clochardisation des troupes et le chômage endémique. S’ils n’avaient pas les moyens d’appréhender les ravages du système dans les années 80, nos dirigeants politiques ne peuvent plus l’ignorer au regard de l’impasse dans laquelle ce système a conduit la Grèce, l’Espagne, le Portugal, Chypre et… la France, leur mode de référence. 4. DE L’OSTRACISATION A LA CRIMINALISATION C’est le 12 avril au moment de me rendre à Berlin à l’invitation de la gauche allemande (Die Linke) et à Paris à celle du Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) que j’ai appris que j’étais devenue persona non grata en Europe à la demande de la France. Il en est de même pour Oumar Mariko, le Secrétaire général du parti SADI (Solidarité Africaine pour la Démocratie et l’Indépendance). L’ambassade d’Allemagne m’a donné un visa qui m’a permis de me rendre à Berlin en passant par Istanbul (Turquie) au lieu d’Amsterdam (Pays-Bas) comme initialement prévu. Quant à l’étape de Paris, elle a tout simplement été annulée. J’ai pris connaissance de mon statut de persona non grata par le message suivant qui m’a été adressé par la Fondation Rosa Luxembourg « L'ambassade d'Allemagne à Bamako nous a informé ce matin que la condition indispensable pour votre visa pour l'Allemagne est que vous ne voyagez pas via un pays de Schengen. C'est pourquoi nous avons acheté un nouveau ticket (des vols via Istanbul/Turquie) que vous trouvez ci-joint. Je suis désolé que de ce fait vous n'avez pas la chance de rester trois jours à Paris. Mais l'ambassade d'Allemagne nous a informé que la France a empêché qu'on vous donne un visa pour tous les pays Schengen. On va venir vous chercher à l'aéroport à Berlin lundi. » L’Association « Afrique Avenir » en co-organisatrice de l’une des conférences à Berlin a protesté et ses principaux partenaires ont réagi à leur tour. Je remercie tous ceux qui m’ont témoigné leur solidarité et rappelle ici le sens de mon combat, pour ceux qui considèrent que la France a le droit de porter atteinte à ma liberté de circulation en raison de mon désaccord avec Paris lorsqu’il ne pratique que la politique de ses intérêts. Qui peut me reprocher ce que les auteurs du rapport d’information du Sénat français disent si clairement en ces termes « La France ne peut se désintéresser de l’Afrique qui est, depuis des décennies, sa profondeur stratégique, qui sera demain, plus peuplée que l’Inde et la Chine (en 2050, l’Afrique aura 1,8 milliards d’habitants contre 250 millions en 1950), qui recèle la plupart des ressources naturelles, désormais raréfiées et qui connaît un décollage économique, certes, inégal, mais sans précédent, qui n’est plus, seulement, porté par l’envolée du cours des matières premières, mais aussi, par l’émergence d’une véritable classe moyenne ». Si le constat sur les enjeux démographiques et économiques est fondé, le « décollage économique » auquel ce rapport fait allusion est incertain, source de conflits parce qu’inégalitaire, ne profitant d’abord qu’aux entreprises étrangères et à une partie de l’élite politique et économique. Les enjeux de l’intervention militaire en cours sont : économiques (l’uranium, donc le nucléaire et l’indépendance énergétique), sécuritaire (les menaces d’attentats terroristes contre les intérêts des multinationales notamment AREVA, les prises d’otages, le grand banditisme, notamment le narcotrafic et les ventes d’armes), géopolitique (notamment la concurrence chinoise) et migratoires. Quelle paix, quelle réconciliation et quelle reconstruction peut-on espérer lorsque ces enjeux sont soigneusement cachés au peuple ? 5. L’INSTRUMENTALISATION DES FEMMES L’interdiction de l’espace Schengen ne me vise pas en tant que femme mais elle démontre que celles qui refusent d’être instrumentalisées dans la défense des intérêts dominants peuvent être combattues. J’en fais la douloureuse expérience au niveau national depuis longtemps déjà, mais ne m’attendais à être ostracisée de la part du pays des droits de l’homme, précisément, au moment où mon pays est en guerre. Il viole ainsi la résolution 1325, relative à la participation des femmes à la prise de décision à tous les niveaux, à la prévention ou à la résolution des conflits ainsi qu’à la reconstruction. Dois-je rappeler que le 8 mars 2013, Journée Internationale des Femmes, le Président François Hollande répondait à son prédécesseur, Nicolas Sarkozy qui s’interrogeait sur la présence de l’armée française au Mali, qu’elle y est allée « parce qu’il y avait des femmes victimes de l’oppression et de la barbarie ! Des femmes à qui l’on imposait de porter le voile ! Des femmes qui n’osaient plus sortir de chez elles. Des femmes qui étaient battues ! ». A propos de voile, je suis l’une des rescapées maliennes et sahéliennes de l’analphabétisme qui tente de déchirer celui, pernicieux, de l’illettrisme économique qui maintient les Africains dans l’ignorance la plus totale des politiques néolibérales et fait d’eux du bétail électoral. Le Président Hollande se montrerait-il si intraitable quant à la date de l’élection présidentielle au Mali s’il avait devant lui un électorat malien qui place la souveraineté économique, monétaire, politique et militaire au cœur du débat politique ? A propos des femmes qui ‘’ n’osaient plus sortir de chez elles’’, je sortais jusqu’ici librement de mon pays et parcourais tout aussi librement l’Europe et le monde. Quelle que soit l’issue de la situation que je traverse en ce moment, elle ne peut qu’être dissuasive pour les autres Maliennes et Africaines qui ont envie de comprendre le monde global et de lutter pour ne pas le subir mais en être des citoyennes averties et actives. 6. AIDE AU DEVELOPPEMENT OU A LA MILITARISATION Au djihadisme armé il faut, semble-t-il, une solution armée. La voie est ainsi ouverte dans un pays comme le nôtre aux achats d’armement au lieu d’analyser et de soigner le radicalisme religieux qui prospère là où l’Etat, ajusté et privatisé, est nécessairement carencé ou tout simplement absent. Faire l’âne pour avoir du foin, est le comportement qui prévaut dans ce contexte de pauvreté généralisée tant au niveau des Etats que de certaines organisations non étatiques. Et la guerre -comble de l’horreur- est aussi une occasion d’injecter de l’argent frais dans notre économie exsangue. Déçue par les hésitations et les lenteurs de l’Europe dont la solidarité s’est traduite jusqu’ici par la formation de l’armée malienne et de certains soutiens bilatéraux, la France invite au partage de l’effort financier entre Européens dans la défense de leurs intérêts stratégiques en Afrique de l’Ouest. D’autres bailleurs de fonds y seront associés. Le 15 mai 2013 à Bruxelles, les bailleurs de fonds examineront le plan d’actions prioritaires d’urgence (pour 2013 et 2014). Les ressources qui seront mobilisées (ou annoncées) profiteront-elles au peuple malien, qui ne sait plus où donner de la tête ou irrigueront-elles les mêmes circuits économiques selon les mêmes pratiques qui ont aggravé la pauvreté et les inégalités. Dans le cadre de la reprise de la Coopération, le ministre français délégué auprès du ministre des Affaires étrangères, chargé du Développement annonce 240 millions d’euros destinés à financer l’agriculture, les services de bases dont l’eau et l’électricité dans les régions du nord, le retour des populations. C’est le lieu de rappeler que Tripoli la capitale Libyenne a abrité, les 29 et 30 novembre 2010, le Troisième Sommet Afrique-UE où le Guide libyen, Mouammar Kadhafi, a accueilli, en grande pompe, les dirigeants de 80 pays africains et européens. La création d’emplois, les investissements et la croissance économique, la paix, la stabilité, les migrations et le changement climatique étaient à l’ordre du jour de ce sommet. Les participants s’étaient mis d’accord sur un « plan d’action » pour un Partenariat Afrique-UE de 2011 à 2013. L’UE a, à cette occasion, réaffirmé son engagement à consacrer 07% de son PNB à l’aide publique et au développement d’ici 2015 et d’affecter 50 milliards d’euros aux objectifs généraux du partenariat envisagé entre 2011 et 2013. Nous sommes en 2013 et fort loin des objectifs de développement du Millénaire et des voies et moyens de les atteindre en 2020. Car le ver dans le fruit. La paix, la réconciliation et la reconstruction du Mali, n’ont aucune chance d’aboutir si elles doivent reposer sur des arrangements politiciens en vue d’engranger l’ « aide extérieure ». L’Etat, ou ce qui en reste ainsi que les rebelles se battent et négocient dans le cadre du même paradigme qui a aggravé le chômage, la pauvreté et les tensions. Les différends se règlent en termes d’investissement, dans les infrastructures, le lieu par excellence de l’enrichissement rapide et de la corruption. La liste des travaux d’infrastructures mal exécutés ou non réalisés est longue. Elle explique en partie le mécontentement des populations du septentrion qui souffrent pendant que des maisons individuelles poussent au su et au vu de tout le monde grâce aux détournements de fonds et l’argent du narcotrafic. 7. OSONS UNE AUTRE ECONOMIE Rien ne sera plus comme avant. Ce qui était difficile risque de l’être davantage avec la militarisation qui absorbera des ressources dont nous avons cruellement besoin pour l’agriculture, l’eau, la santé, le logement, l’environnement et l’emploi. Opération Serval, Mission Internationale de Soutien au Mali (MISMA), Mission Intégrée de Stabilisation Multidimensionnelle des Nations-Unies, la défense de notre pays et notre sécurité, avant d’être militaire, est d’abord un défi intellectuel, moral et politique. Je me suis reconnue dans les propos du candidat François Hollande lorsqu’il déclara qu’ « il est temps de choisir une autre voie. Il est temps de choisir une autre politique ». Ce temps est, assurément, venu et pour la France et pour ses anciennes colonies d’Afrique. Il est celui des transitions économiques, sociales, politiques, écologiques et civilisationnelles qui n’ont rien à voir avec la feuille de route de la « communauté internationale ». Elles renvoient à un changement de paradigme. Que les dirigeants africains qui ont intériorisé le discours mensonger sur l’inéluctabilité de cette guerre afin d’en finir le péril djihadiste ne s’y trompent pas : l’effet de contagion qu’ils redoutent, tient moins à la mobilité des djihadistes qu’à la similitude des réalités économiques, sociales et politiques induites par le modèle néolibéral. Si les chefs djihadistes viennent d’ailleurs, la majorité des combattants sont des jeunes maliens sans emplois, sans interlocuteurs, sans perspectives d’avenir. Les narcotrafiquants puisent, eux-aussi, convoyeurs et revendeurs de drogue parmi la même jeunesse désemparée. La misère morale et matérielle des jeunes diplômés, des paysans, des éleveurs et d’autres groupes vulnérables constitue le véritable ferment des révoltes et des rebellions qui, mal interprétées, alimentent, de l’intérieur bien des réseaux. La lutte contre le terrorisme et le crime organisé, sans effusion de sang, au Mali et en Afrique de l’Ouest passe par l’analyse honnête et rigoureuse du bilan des trois dernières décennies de libéralisme sauvage, de destruction du tissu économique et social ainsi que des écosystèmes. Rien n’empêche les centaines de milliers de jeunes Maliens, Nigériens, Tchadiens, Sénégalais, Mauritaniens et autres, qui viennent chaque année grossir le nombre des demandeurs d’emploi et de visas, de rejoindre le rang des djihadistes si les Etats et leurs partenaires techniques et financiers ne sont pas capables de remettre le modèle néolibéral en question. 8. L’INDISPENSABLE CONVERGENCE DES LUTTES Je plaide pour un élan de solidarité qui prenne le contre-pied de la militarisation, nous restitue notre dignité, préserve la vie et les écosystèmes. Tout irait dans le bon sens si les 15.000 soldats étaient des enseignants, des médecins, des ingénieurs et si les milliards d’euros, qui vont être dépensés, étaient destinés à ceux et celles qui ont le plus besoin. Nos enfants n’auraient pas besoin d’aller se faire tuer en soldats mal payés, en narcotrafiquants ou en fous de Dieu. Nous nous devons de nous atteler, nous-mêmes à la tâche primordiale de la transformation de notre moi profond, ébranlé et de notre pays meurtri. L’avantage considérable de l’approche systémique est la détribalisation des conflits au profit d’une conscience politique qui réconcilie et rassemble ceux que l’économie mondialisée broie. Touareg, Peulh, Arabes, Bamanan, Sonrhaï, Bellah, Sénoufos cesseraient de s’en prendre les uns aux autres et se battraient ensemble et autrement. Cette approche altermondialiste nous rend notre « dignité » dans un contexte où nous avons tendance à culpabiliser et à nous en remettre, poings et pieds liés, à une « communauté internationale » juge et partie. Elle plaide pour la convergence des luttes à l’intérieur des frontières entre les différentes composantes de la société éprouvées par la barbarie du système capitaliste qui ne veulent ni se résigner ni se soumettre. Elles doivent explorer ensemble des alternatives à la guerre. Les Etats libéraux ayant privilégié la guerre et investi dans les armes de destruction des vies humaines, du lien social et des écosystèmes, innovons à travers la bataille des idées et convoquons une conférence citoyenne au sommet pour l’autre développement du Mali, en vue de desserrer l’étau de la mondialisation capitaliste. Il s’agit d’instaurer le débat sur la relation entre politiques néolibérales et chaque aspect de la crise : chômage endémique des jeunes, rébellions, mutineries, coups d’Etat, violences faites aux femmes, radicalisme religieux. Un travail inédit et intense d’information et d’éducation citoyenne dans les langues nationales, permettra aux Maliens de parler enfin entre eux de leur pays et de leur avenir. Parce que tous les Hommes naissent libres et égaux en droits, nous revendiquons juste notre droit à :

un autre économie, de manière à disposer des richesses de notre pays, et à choisir librement des politiques qui nous mettent à l’abri du chômage, de la pauvreté, de l’errance et de la guerre ;
un système politique véritablement démocratique, parce que intelligible pour l’ensemble des Maliens, décliné et débattu dans les langues nationales, fondé sur des valeurs de culture et de société largement partagées ;
la liberté d’expression et de circulation.

9. RENDEZ-NOUS LES CLES DE NOTRE PAYS ! La France officielle qui déclare urbi et orbi que nous n’avons « pas d’Etat digne de ce nom », ni « d’armée digne de ce nom », considère certainement que nous n’avons pas non plus d’existence en tant que peuple pour aller jusqu’à se demander « à qui remettre les clés » et à exiger l’organisation de nos élections en juillet 2013. Elle s’accommode par ailleurs de l’annulation de la concertation nationale - qui devait nous permettre de prendre ensemble entre Maliens le pouls de notre pays. Elle s’accommode tout autant de l’état d’urgence instauré, puis prolongé une première fois, et une seconde fois de manière à « sécuriser » la transition. Je n’ai pas le sentiment que la « guerre contre le terrorisme » ait apporté la paix en Irak, en Afghanistan et en Libye, et que les casques bleus ont su garantir aux populations de la République Démocratique du Congo et en Haïti la sécurité que celles-ci étaient en droit d’attendre d’eux. Mais je suis persuadée qu’il y a en chaque Malienne et chaque Malien un(e) soldat(e), un(e) patriote qui doit pouvoir participer à la défense de ses intérêts et du Mali à partir d’une bonne connaissance de son état réel dans l’économie mondialisée. La réponse à l’insupportable question de Claude Lellouche est claire : le Mali est à rendre aux Maliens. Nous pouvons-en prendre le plus grand soin parce que, comme Bouna Boukary Dioura l’a rappelé, nous savons, nous les peuples du Sahel que les rochers finissent par fleurir à force d’amour et de persévérance. Rendez les clés du Mali au peuple malien ! Aminata D. Traoré, Bamako le 03 mai 2013 Note: Wolfgang Sachs et Gustavo Esteva : Des ruines du développement. Les Editions Ecosociété 1996.

Demba Moussa Dembélé : L’affaire Aminata Traoré : Une honte pour la France !

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:34:00 +0200

La France aurait interdit l’entrée sur son territoire à Madame Aminata Dramane Traoré du Mali ! Le prétexte en serait sa critique de l’intervention française dans la crise que vit son pays depuis plus d’un an. Mais une analyse des causes profondes de cette crise permettra de comprendre le bien-fondé des positions de Madame Aminata Traoré. Les origines de la crise malienne
En effet, la France et les pays occidentaux portent une lourde part de responsabilité dans la crise que vit le Mali. Ses causes immédiates sont l’agression impérialiste de l’OTAN, sous la houlette de la France, des Etats-Unis et de la Grande Bretagne, contre la Libye qui a abouti à l’assassinat du Président Kadhafi. Car les hordes du Mouvement de « Libération de l’Azawad » (MNLA) sont venues de Libye avec leurs armes lourdes et des équipements sophistiqués, avec la complicité et l’appui des puissances occidentales. Et ce sont ces forces qui ont déclenché les hostilités contre l’Armée malienne pour assurer « l’indépendance » d’une partie du Nord du Mali. Le MNLA, qui avait le plein soutien de la France de Sarkozy, continue d’en bénéficier sous Hollande, comme le montre la collaboration entre les éléments de ce mouvement avec les militaires français sur le terrain. En effet, le MNLA interdit l’entrée de Kidal à l’Armée malienne et refuse de désarmer. Les déclarations très vagues des ministres français des Affaires étrangères et de la Défense visent à conforter le MNLA dans son attitude de refus. Et certains de ses dirigeants étaient logés –peut-être le sont-ils encore ?- à Ouagadougou sous la protection de Blaise Compaoré, devenu une des pièces maîtresses des basses œuvres de la France en Afrique de l’Ouest, comme on l’a vu dans les crises ivoirienne et guinéenne. C’est le MNLA qui a ouvert la voie aux autres groupes, comme Ansar Dine et le MUJAO. La facilité avec laquelle les hordes du MNLA et ces groupes ont pu venir à bout de l’Armée malienne s’explique par la déliquescence de l’Etat malien, malmené et détruit comme la plupart des Etats de la sous-région par les cures d’austérité imposées par la Banque mondiale et le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) dans le cadre des plans d’ajustement structurel de triste mémoire. Soumaïla Cissé, ancien ministre des Finances du Mali sous la présidence de Alpha Oumar Konaré, disait dans une interview à un quotidien sénégalais que pendant des années le budget consacré aux domaines de souveraineté - Forces Armées, Affaires étrangères et Justice- ne dépassait guère 3% du budget national! Dans ces conditions, on comprend pourquoi l’Armée malienne –tout comme celles des autres pays de la sous-région – est dans un état de dénuement, voire de délabrement, total. Cet état de délabrement de l’Armée malienne est le reflet de l’état de décomposition avancée de l’Etat malien lui-même quand on sait que l’Armée est une des composantes essentielles de l’Etat. Et cette déliquescence de l’Etat malien est l’une des illustrations éclatantes de la faillite du modèle néocolonial et du paradigme néolibéral inauguré par les politiques désastreuses imposées par la Banque mondiale et le FMI il y a de cela plus de trois décennies. Intervention contre le « terrorisme » ou la tentation de la recolonisation ?
Comme on le voit donc, la responsabilité de la France et des pays occidentaux est entière dans ce qui arrive au Mali. Tout comme celle de qu’on appelle « la classe politique » malienne dont la plupart ont épousé les thèses néolibérales et se sont interdit de réfléchir par eux-mêmes sur le devenir de leur pays. Par ailleurs, la complicité de la France avec le MNLA ne peut que conforter les soupçons les critiques de celles et de ceux qui pensent que les vraies raisons de son intervention n’ont rien à voir avec la présentation qu’en fait la propagande officielle, à savoir une action visant à « sauver le Mali » des groupes « terroristes » M. Laurent Fabius, ministre français des Affaires étrangères, aurait même dit que « sans l’intervention de la France, il n’y aurait plus de Mali ». Une affirmation grotesque et mensongère qui en dit long sur l’attitude de la France à l’égard de ses anciennes « colonies ». En réalité, la propagande officielle sur cette intervention, qui aurait été faite à la « demande des autorités maliennes », a été mise à mal par l’hebdomadaire français, « Le Nouvel Observateur » en date du 7 février 2013. Selon cet hebdomadaire, cette intervention était programmée pratiquement dès l’installation de François Hollande à l’Elysée en mai 2012. L’avenir des intérêts français au Mali et dans la sous-région, avec notamment l’uranium du Niger exploité par AREVA, est l‘aiguillon principal de cette intervention. Donc, celle-ci est essentiellement motivée par la nécessité de protéger les intérêts stratégiques et économiques de la France! D’ailleurs, l’intervention est en train de prendre l’allure d’une véritable entreprise de recolonisation du Mali. En effet, François Hollande a dit qu’il serait « intraitable » avec les « autorités » maliennes pour l’organisation d’élections –une farce grotesque dans les conditions actuelles- début juillet pour doter le Mali d’institutions « légitimes » ! Mais « légitimes » aux yeux de qui : de la France ou du peuple malien? Ce risque de recolonisation est renforcé par l’annonce de l’ouverture d’une « base militaire permanente » au Mali au nom de la « lutte contre le terrorisme »! Ce que le Président Modibo Keïta avait refusé à de Gaulle Hollande va l’obtenir les « autorités » maliennes! La France s’est déshonorée
Les révélations du « Nouvel Observateur », la complicité des militaires français avec le MNLA et les déclarations de François Hollande et de ses principaux ministres ne font que confirmer les analyses de Madame Aminata Traoré et des autres patriotes maliens qui n’ont pas succombé à la propagande officielle française relayée par certains médias africains et les « dirigeants » de la CEDEAO. La « faute » de Madame Aminata Traoré est d’avoir exposé les véritables raisons de l’intervention française et les risques de recolonisation de son pays. Sans doute, beaucoup de gens ne manqueront pas de se demander ce que la France espère gagner en prenant une décision aussi stupide contre Madame Aminata Traoré. La France ne peut que ternir davantage son image auprès des intellectuels et citoyens africains. N’est-ce pas François Hollande qui voulait « corriger » le désastreux « discours de Dakar » de son prédécesseur, Nicolas Sarkozy, qui avait soulevé l’indignation générale en Afrique ? Avec cette décision honteuse et insensée de barrer l’entrée sur son territoire à Madame Aminata Traoré c’est raté. Car Aminata Traoré est une des figures de proue de l’intelligentsia africaine engagée et un des symboles puissants d’une Afrique debout, fière et digne. Avec cette décision, la France s’est déshonorée, en interdisant son territoire à une intellectuelle de cette envergure. La patrie de Jean-Paul Sartre, le philosophe qui a dominé son siècle et a été de tous les combats pour l’émancipation des peuples opprimés, a définitivement perdu son lustre et son rayonnement intellectuel. Oui, la France est vraiment tombée très bas, avec la montée inexorable de la xénophobie et du racisme. Une France où l’on ose célébrer « les bienfaits de la colonisation » ! Aimé Césaire, ils n’ont manifestement pas lu ton magistral et mémorable « Discours sur le Colonialisme » ! La réalité est que la France, empêtrée dans des problèmes économiques et sociaux insolubles, est tentée par le démon de la recolonisation. C’est pourquoi elle redoute la critique, l’opposition, en particulier de la part d’intellectuels africains, surtout quand son entreprise de recolonisation se présente sous le manteau de la « lutte contre le terrorisme » ! Le « tort » d’Aminata Traoré et de ceux qui partagent ses analyses, c’est d’avoir déconstruit ce discours « anti-terroriste » en dénonçant l’intervention française - et celles des autres pays occidentaux- au Mali et ailleurs en Afrique, comme faisant partie d’une stratégie globale visant à contrôler les ressources des pays africains pour tenter de sortir de la crise du capitalisme que d’aucuns assimilent à une « crise de civilisation ». Mais Hollande, Fabius, Valls et les autres doivent savoir qu’il y a des milliers d’Aminata Traoré en Afrique et dans la Diaspora. Des Africaines et Africains qui ont pu s’arracher à l’idéologie néocoloniale et qui se battent pour construire une « Afrique libre et digne », comme l’appelait de ses vœux Thomas Sankara! Demba Moussa Dembélé
Vice-président du Réseau international Frantz Fanon
Ligue internationale de la lutte des peuples
Dakar, Sénégal

“High time for things to change..." - African Perspectives on the Energy Transition

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:19:00 +0200

Five dialogue forums and one conference in 2012 showed that the promotion of renewable energies is linked to high resource consumption needed for the production of "green" technologies and in this way promotes the "Green Economy". In the second year of the project "Paradoxes of Sustainability" we proudly present now the recommendations for action for decision-makers in politics and the economy. These recommendations for a really fair energy transition are based on the expertise of the invited African activists, intellectuals and energy experts.

These recommendations are the first draft and further comments and feedback are welcome! Please send your comments to info@africavenir.org

Green economy won´t save the planet, but green democracy will.
(Patel, 2012)

In Germany the “energy transition” is on everyone's lips. With slogans such as "High time for things to change" actors in the political and economic arena are campaigning for “green” energy and more energy efficiency. (1)There is considered to be broad political and social consensus on the irreversible phasing out of nuclear energy by 2022. The federal government is aiming for a 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, compared to base year 1990.

In the framework of its project "Paradoxes of sustainability - how socially equitable are ‘green’ technologies really?" the Berlin-based organization AfricAvenir International e.V. sheds light on African perspectives on the energy transition in Germany and Europe, as well as the associated rapid expansion of renewable energies. In 2012 AfricAvenir invited the African intellectuals and activists Nnimmo Bassey (Friends of the Earth), Many Camara (ARACF - Association of ressortissants et des Amis de la Commune de Falea), Dr. El Mostafa Jamea, Tidiane Kassé (Pambazuka), Jean-Claude Katende (ASADHO - Association Africaine de Défense des Droits de l'Homme), Kulthoum Omari (Heinrich Böll Foundation South Africa), Silas Siakor (Sustainable Development Institute), Odile Tendeng (Gorée Institute), Prof. Judi W. Wakhungu (African Centre for Technology Studies) and Nozipho Mabebe Wright (Energia Botswana) to report on their experience with renewable energy in a series of dialogue forums, a conference and in published articles providing perspectives from various regional and scientific viewpoints of the continent. The participants discussed the consequences of the energy transition in the global north for the African continent. The following questions form the basis of this project:

What are the social, environmental and economic consequences of the extraction and trade of raw materials that are necessary for the production of renewable energies?
Will the energy transition unleash positive development potential for Africa? Or will the continent experience a new "resource curse" and continue to be dependent on imported expensive technologies?

The African voices are clear. They too are saying, "High time for things to change!". However, only taking into account the nuclear phase-out and the development of renewable energies in Germany is still far too short sighted.
This is because the federal government gives priority to opening up new markets for German companies in the field of renewable energy (2) and sees the countries of the Global South as willing suppliers of raw materials for energy production without uranium or fossil fuels which takes place primarily in the North. The experts invited by AfricAvenir highlight the impact that the extraction of African raw materials which are required for the production of "green" technologies has on the continent. The current concept of the energy transition is merely a switch from fossil to non-fossil energy production that is still dependent on the exploitation of some partially non-renewable resources. Any form of energy transition for the resource-supplying countries is out of the question. The unequal power structures on which Europe's energy transition to resource exploitation in the Global South is based will remain in place without the local populations being given a say.

In this context the Moroccan energy expert Dr. Mostafa El Jamea presents the example of Desertec, a major project to generate solar energy in North Africa. Due to the size of the project, it devours hectares of land, as well as the important but rare resource water. A potential negative impact on the ecosystem cannot be ruled out. The local communities however were not involved in the preliminary consultations or the decision-making process and it remains questionable whether the project will benefit them.

Up until now, the energy transition in its current form has predominantly taken the form of greenwashing of the existing growth-oriented economies under the guise of "Green Economy". Instead of presenting serious alternatives to the continuous increase of fuel consumption and to the focus on resource security for Germany, public discourse remains restricted to the improvement of energy efficiency. However, the successful implementation of a socially just energy transition calls for a paradigm shift in global energy, commodities and resource policy. The basis of this policy must be the recognition of autonomous definitions and paths of development on the part of the concerned populations. All stakeholders - the northern and southern governments, civil society, companies and development cooperation - need to do their bit.

AfricAvenir International demands, together with the experts involved in the project:

1. "It's high time that the conditions of resource extraction change in the commodity producing countries and that violent conflicts are no longer tolerated and fuelled due to economic interests!"
The utilisation of renewable energies requires certain raw materials. In order to declare these technologies "green", human rights, social and environmental standards in the extraction of raw materials such as copper, bauxite, zinc, indium, selenium, gallium, tellurium, lithium and rare earths must be consistently maintained. Here African civil societies together with European initiatives are called on to hold African and European governments and investors accountable, and to, for instance, renegotiate closed mining contracts so that local populations are taken into consideration.

2. "It's high time that local peoples themselves have the freedom to make decisions about the access to their resources and how these are used and processed!"
Adapted to local contexts, communities should be able to represent their interests in terms of “Green Democracy“, instead of being forced by the “Green Economy” to submit themselves to market interests dictated by the Global North. Certification of what is sustainable cannot be left to investors and consumers in the Global North alone. The German federal government should support countries of the Global South in putting into practice the principle of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) so that the sections of the population that are affected by energy- and raw material projects can develop mechanisms to safeguard their rights to free, timely and informed consent. The "Green Economy" is based on the valorization of nature and of habitats. (3) Based exclusively on a financial rationale, as is currently the case with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), this valorization can at best be one tool for the implementation of a global energy transition. The decision-making authority and the right of disposition of the valorization of resources needs to be solely in the hands of local communities and governments and must give them the right to exclude certain raw materials from exploitation, especially when they are connected to the basis for life, like water, land and food products.

3. "It's high time for permanent transparency in the renewable energy sector!"
The entire production chain, from raw material extraction to the generation of renewable energy, must be made transparent for consumers in the Global North and populations in commodity extraction regions. Civil society in Europe and Africa must claim its right to participate in the formation of (major) projects in the field of renewable energy and in the distribution of profits.

4. "It's high time that decentralized regenerative and autonomous energy supply is given priority over centrally organized solutions!”
The central message of AfricAvenir’s guests is the call for the development of decentralized energy supply with renewable energies. Herein lies the significant advantage of "green" technologies for the African context. Rural areas that have no access to the national electricity grid can thereby be supplied with energy. The democratic right of citizens in the South and the North to participate in decision making about their energy supply is centrally important. The long term goal for Africa and Europe should be energy sovereignty adapted to local needs and markets, as well as the promotion of regional development.

5. "It's high time that added value and production of green technologies takes place in Africa!"
As with other areas of production, it is imperative that Africa free itself from its dependence on imported technologies and set up its own production of green technologies. At this point Germany as an experienced producer of renewable energy can offer valuable support in capacity building, but it can also champion an alternative trade mandate (ATM) of the EU. (4) However, this should primarily benefit the development of independent African production and not primarily serve the backup markets for German companies. The right of the Global South to determine the conditions of investment and export in the energy and raw material sectors must be respected.

6. "It's high time that corporate responsibility and social entrepreneurship in Germany and worldwide is promoted and demanded by governments!"
Economic activities that take account of their responsibility for producers and consumers in the North and South must be strengthened. Only then will a decentralized, autonomous energy supply and transparent projects and investments have a chance.

7. "It's high time that the German government champions an EU-wide nuclear phase-out!"
The decision made in Germany to phase out nuclear energy is not enough. As a driving force in Europe, Germany should demand the phase-out of nuclear power in the entire EU and help put a stop to exports and business transactions that support nuclear power stations abroad. The risks that nuclear energy poses for uranium-producing countries and for producers and consumers are no longer acceptable.

These experiences gathered from exchange with African experts provide the main objectives of a transition from "Green Economy" to "Green Democracy" for politics, business and development cooperation.

Minimum standards for the exploitation of raw materials that form the basis of renewable energy production, or rather the specific technologies needed for this production should be applied in order to guarantee their social and ecological compatibility. Certification procedures can at best complement the implementation and control of existing international standards. By no means can they replace a broad change of views in society, towards a change of lifestyle, reducing our resource consumption and increasing democratic participation of civil society in raw material extraction countries. Conventional strategies for market protection should be reviewed for the benefit of a long-term, social, fair and ecologically just resource policy. The federal government of Germany has the possibility, within the EU and the G20 as well as the United Nations, the World Bank and the regional Banks for Development, to exert influence on the situation of the people in the Global South. The more coherent the German policy becomes in the field of foreign affairs, development, environment and energy, and the closer it orientates itself to the goals of human rights and environmental protection, the more positive this influence will become. (5)

The active promotion of structures based on decentralization and on self-initiative is essential. Only then can real participation by the Global South be realized, for example through targeted promotion of local mini-grid and off -grid initiatives or alternative projects for mining raw materials.

For joint preservation of the inalienable rights of all people (6) and the limited resources of our planet it is necessary to implement the vision of collaboration between North and South on equal terms, because:"It is time for citizens of the world to urgently reclaim their sovereignty and not watch helplessly while political-corporate powers ride roughshod over everyone and everything." (Nnimmo Bassey)

Endnotes

1) http://www.bmu.de/service/fotos-und-filme/fotogalerien/detailview/?no_cache=1&tx_cpsbmugallery_pi1[showUid]=49493&tx_cpsbmugallery_pi1[image]=1
2) Compare „Export initiative renewable energy“ of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology : http://www.exportinitiative.de/
3) Compare Nnimmo Bassey (2013): “The green economy idea that environmental services can be monetised and paid for, makes the planet one huge market and those that can pay for these services become the ‘true’ owners of nature, even as the majority of citizens are relegated to the role of mere customers.” The whole article “Between Eti Uwem and Green Capitalism (Green Democracy)” is available from: http://www.africavenir.org/news-archive/newsdetails/datum/2013/02/04/between-eti-uwem-and-green-capitalism-green-democracy.html
4) http://www.alternativetrademandate.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ATM-Vision-Paper-Deutsch.pdf
5) Compare: Anforderungen an eine Zukunftige Rohstoffstrategie – Vorläufige Stellungnahme zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen zur Rohstoffstrategie der Bundesregierung (2010), page. 2.
6) African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 21, (June 1981): (1) All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it.

Further References

Heinrich Böll Foundation in cooperation with Wuppertal Institut (2012). International Resource Politics - New challenges demanding new governance approaches for a green economy. Vol. 26, Publication Series on Ecology. Berlin.
Raj Patel & Martin Crook (2012). At Rio+20, the green economy won’t save the planet. But green democracy will. Commonwealth Advisory Bureau. London.
PowerShift e.V. (2011). Oben hui, unten pfui? Rohstoffe für die „grüne“ Wirtschaft: Bedarfe – Probleme – Handlungsoptionen für Wirtschaft, Politik & Zivilgesellschaft. Berlin.
Comhlámh, AITEC and WEED (2012). Alternatives on Resource Trade and Access to Information in Africa A response to EU policy on raw materials by Dr Claude Kabemba. Comhlámh.

April 2013 We thank the following persons for their comments and critical feedback on these recommendations: Clementine Burnley, Marie Müller (Bonn International Center for Conversion BICC), Heidi Feldt, Lili Fuhr (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung) and Peter Fuchs (PowerShift e.V.). The recommendations for action will be presented at the following events: Roundtable „Renewable energies - new prospects or risks of conflict?" mit Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor (Liberia)
Monday, 22. April 2013, 18h
Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), Pfarrer-Byns-Str.1, 53121 Bonn in Cooperation with German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)

Dialogue forum Who supplies the “Green Economy”? – How sustainable is the energetic turn for Africa?” with Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor (Liberia) & Peter Fuchs (Berlin)
Tuesday, 23. April 2013, 19h
Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte, Greifswalderstr. 4, 10405 Berlin

The project “Paradoxes of Sustainability” takes place with financial support from BMZ and Landesstelle für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (LEZ).

Many Camara: Le tournant énergétique dans les pays d’exploitation d’uranium - Exemple du Mali

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:11:00 +0100

Dans son article „Le tournant énergétique dans les pays d’exploitation d’uranium- Exemple du Mali“ Many Camara, sociologue et représentant de l´Association des Ressortissants et des Amis de la Commune de Faléa ( ARACF), analyse les possibilités et défis pour les régions d´exploitation d´uranium de sortir du nucléaire pour réaliser le tournant énergétique vers les énergies renouvelables. Le tournant énergétique dans les pays d’exploitation d’uranium - Exemple du Mali Le Mali est un vaste pays en situation de pauvreté énergétique mais disposant d’importantes potentialités sous-exploitées.
Comme l’indique son bilan du commerce extérieur négatif, il est très peu développé et extrêmement vulnérable sur le plan énergétique

Sa consommation énergétique provient pour 80 % de la biomasse (bois et charbon de bois), 17 % des produits pétroliers, les 3% restant de source électrique. La part des ménages représente 86 % (dont 77 % pour les ménages urbains), celle des transports 10 %, l’industrie en absorbe 3 % et l’agriculture 1 %. Seulement 15 % de la population (ménages, unités de production et services) ont accès à l'électricité principalement dans les zones urbaines

L'utilisation du bois de chauffage ou de charbon de bois pour cuisiner représente 99 % de l'énergie utilisée par les ménages. Cette demande est satisfaite au prix d’une exploitation insoutenable des ressources ligneuses, ce qui constitue une grave menace écologique pour les espaces naturels du pays. C’est également un risque sanitaire élevé dans la mesure où la combustion dans des espaces clos augmente les infections pulmonaires,une cause majeure de mortalité au Mali.

La couverture des besoins en hydrocarbures atteint plusieurs centaines de millions d’euros.

La situation énergétique du Mali est tributaire de facteurs contraignants dont les plus importants sont :
l’enclavement extrême du pays et l’importance des distances de transport et le renchérissement des produits et équipements énergétiques importés;
sa grande étendue territoriale (1.240.000 km²) associée avec une très faible densité de peuplement humain ;
la fragilité de son écosystème due à des conditions climatiques précaires et à l’exploitation irrationnelle des forêts ;
l’insuffisance notoire des structures et mécanismes de financement locaux;
la faiblesse des capacités des opérateurs privés du secteur ;
le très bas niveau du pouvoir d’achat des populations.

Cependant, le Mali dispose d’importantes potentialités énergétiques qui demeurent largement sous-exploitées :
les deux plus grands fleuves de l’Afrique de l’ouest (le fleuve Sénégal, long de 1800 km, a environ la moitié de son parcours au Mali et le fleuve Niger qui a 4200 km dont 1700 km dans le pays) et leurs affluents avec un important potentiel hydroélectrique (près de 1050 MW) dont les ¾ ne sont pas encore exploités ;
un énorme rayonnement solaire (6 à 7 kWh/m²/jour disponible pendant
4000h/an) dont le niveau d’exploitation est très insignifiant à cause du coût élevé de l’investissement initial ;
un important potentiel en biomasse, p.ede résidus agricoles et agro-industriels comme les tiges de cotonnier et les balles de riz disponibles annuellement, certaines plantes envahissantes tel que le typha australis également exploitables ;
un gisement éolien non négligeable (3 à 7 m/s de vitesse de vent), essentiellement concentré dans les zones sahéliennes et sahariennes du pays.

Une politique et des stratégies nationales incohérentes

Afin de résorber son déficit énergétique et faire du secteur énergie un puissant levier de développement autonome, viable et durable, l’Etat malien s’est fixé comme objectifs, entre autres :
de valoriser le potentiel en ressources énergétiques nationales (hydroélectricité, énergies renouvelables);
d’assurer l’accès de la plus grande partie de la population du pays à l’énergie en quantité et à moindre coût ;
de protéger et préserver les ressources existantes en combustibles ligneux (notamment le bois-énergie) par une exploitation soutenable au profit des populations rurales ;
de préserver l’environnement et la santé des populations.

Mais, paradoxalement, les programmes d’actions et l’essentiel des efforts d’investissements sont axés sur :
la diversification et l’intensification de l’exploitation minière afin d’accroître les recettes en devises, fournir des emplois aux populations et leur permettre d’améliorer leurs niveaux de revenus ;
la prospection pétrolière en vue de la mise en place des projets de production permettant de réduire la dépendance du pays vis-à-vis de l’extérieur tout en augmentant le niveau des finances publiques ;
la recherche et l’exploitation de l’uranium, le développement des applications pacifiques de l’énergie nucléaire dans le cadre de la coopération avec l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie Atomique (A.I.E.A.). Ainsi, des permis de prospection sont accordés à Oklo-Uranium Company pour l’Adrar des Iforas et à Great Quest dans la zone Samit, Région de Gao, au Nord du Mali et au consortium Rockgate Capital Corp-Delta Exploration Inc. pour la Commune rurale de Faléa, située à l’extrême sud-ouest du pays.

L’exploitation de l’uranium est considérée par les autorités maliennes comme la meilleure chance de développement pour le pays parce que les besoins d’approvisionnement en énergie des pays occidentaux hautement industrialisés et des pays émergents ne cessent de croître et le prix de cette ressource énergétique est également en constante augmentation.
Ces choix de priorités impliquent le développement d’industries polluantes, très coûteuses à terme, pour le pays et dangereuses pour l’environnement et la santé des populations. La desserte en électricité ne couvre pas les besoins des larges masses populaires urbaines et rurales.
L’attente des avantages escomptés est aussi largement illusoire. En effet, les conditions géopolitiques du marché mondial des matières premières ne permettent pas au Mali d’assurer un accroissement significatif et constant de ses ressources financières. Afin de réaliser des investissements dans d’autres secteurs stratégiques (éducation, santé, recherche, agriculture, etc.), il faudrait diversifier l’économie, créer massivement des emplois, améliorer les revenus et développer le marché intérieur. Les cadres législatifs et réglementaires, encadrés par les bailleurs de fonds étrangers, en particulier les institutions financières internationales, sont lénifiants pour les investisseurs internationaux (garantie d’une participation archi-majoritaire au capital, avantages fiscaux, facilités douanières, protection contre les risques…).
L’Etat malien, n’a aucune maîtrise sur ces filières et les échanges commerciaux internationaux. Il sera, inévitablement confiné dans un rôle d’exportateur dans des conditions très défavorables qui organisent en fait l’érosion de ses revenus et le pillage des ressources du pays.
Le cas du Niger, son voisin, où principalement la société française Areva exploite de l’uranium depuis plus de quarante ans est éloquent et instructif. Sur toute cette période, ce pays n’a reçu que seulement 12 % de la valeur de l'uranium produit sur son sol et il figure, depuis deux décennies, dans la catégorie des « pays pauvres très endettés » !
L’exploitation de l’uranium présente des inconvénients incommensurables aux conséquences irréversibles. Outre que les activités des entreprises uranifères déposent dans les zones d’extraction du minerai jaune 80% de la pollution produite par la filière nucléaire, elles exigent d’énormes quantités d’eau pour les forages et la production du yellow cake et entraînent l’assèchement des nappes fossiles, la pollution - et, la dégradation irrémédiable de l’environnement.
En somme, elles provoquent l’abandon des activités économiques basées sur ces ressources vitales. Par surcroît du fait de la toxicité chimique et de la radiotoxicité de ce minerai et de ses effets délétères sur les organes de reproduction, l’exploitation de l’uranium induit la propagation de graves pathologies causées par le radon et ses autres éléments de décomposition : les cancers bronchiques et pulmonaires, les tumeurs de la moelle osseuse, de l’estomac, du foie, de l’intestin, de la vésicule biliaire, des reins et de la peau; des leucémies et autres affections hématologiques, malformations de naissance, des troubles psychologiques..
Face à une telle situation, l’Etat malien qui ne dispose ni de ressources compétentes ni d’équipements, d’instruments juridiques et ni d’institutions appropriées, ne pourra pas préserver l’environnement et la santé de ses populations, leur offrir de nouveaux emplois et améliorer leurs conditions de vie. Les acteurs locaux manquent d’informations, de connaissances et d’expertise et l’absence d’institutions ou structures indépendantes de surveillance et de contrôle empêchent tout développement de la gouvernance démocratique dans la filière et le secteur mines-pétrole en général, favorisent l’absence de transparence dans les pratiques des entreprises minières et la violation flagrante par elles des droits humains des populations résidentes.
Même si les activités minières demeurent encore spéculativement rentables, le nucléaire n’est pas une filière d’avenir : L’énergie nucléaire répond à seulement 3% de la demande mondiale en électricité avec une tendance à la baisse. Les coûts de production et de gestion du nucléaire sont très élevés, en constante augmentation et tendent à devenir prohibitifs. Les agences de notation considèrent le nucléaire comme un secteur à risque très élevé. Les deux tiers des 31 pays nucléarisés du globe ont passé leur pic de génération d'électricité nucléaire et de grands pays industriels du secteur (l'Allemagne, la Belgique, la Suisse, le Taiwan) ont déjà programmé leur retrait progressif. Ceux qui, comme la France, intensifient davantage leur production nucléaire, sous prétexte que les nouvelles centrales sont une technologie de transition jusqu’à ce que les renouvelables soient rentables, retardent voire empêchent en fait leur indispensable « conversion » (leur progression dans le processus de transition énergétique) puisque celles-ci ne viennent pas en complément aux énergies renouvelables mais plutôt en concurrence. La tâche des acteurs citoyens de ces pays retardataires est d’éclairer et de sensibiliser les décideurs politiques et les investisseurs sur cette réalité.

Le Mali doit donc se libérer de son illusion d’optique énergétique et commencer à bâtir une économie moins dépendante du pétrole et du gaz, éviter aussi le nucléaire, car l’avenir est dans les technologies propres, les énergies renouvelables, la sauvegarde et l’autosuffisance.

Voies et stratégies alternatives à l’exploitation d’uranium L’État malien veut assurer à ses populations l’accès universel aux services énergétiques modernes pour les sortir de leur situation de pauvreté et renforcer leurs capacités en matière de contribution au développement local et national. Pour ce faire, sa politique énergétique devrait privilégier les technologies bon marché, qui consomment moins d'énergie et des biens matériels avec une durée de vie plus longue. Par conséquent, pour apporter une réponse appropriée et efficace à sa problématique spécifique, il lui est nécessaire d’adopter à la fois une approche intégrée et territoriale, une démarche transversale et de diversification, qui se basent sur les besoins réels et combinent plusieurs solutions.
Le problème de l'énergie doit tout d’abord être abordé en suivant simultanément ses deux principaux paramètres indissociables: la consommation et la production.
Concernant la consommation, il est nécessaire de mettre en œuvre une politique de développement en faveur de solutions durables et de la conservation de l'énergie. Dans ce cadre, la consommation d'énergie des ménages doit être minimisée. Les industries doivent appliquer un système circulaire de réutilisation des déchets et de maximisation de la production, similaire mais adapté à la symbiose industrielle de Kalunborg au Danemark où l'excédent de production d'énergie d'une industrie nourrit l'autre et la perte de la première sert de principale ressource pour la seconde. .
Il est aussi important de développer un système de transport public efficace combinant la navigation sur les cours d'eau, les chemins de fer, des véhicules « écologiques » pour réduire les émissions de carbone et la segmentation des écosystèmes, tout en en assurant la liberté de mouvement des habitants. La pire des inconséquences et la plus grande difficulté de développement du secteur de l’énergie provient de la volonté de distribuer de l’électricité à des populations qui ne peuvent pas la payer. Pour surmonter ce problème, il serait judicieux de s’orienter vers la conception et l’application d’une régulation spéciale et d’une tarification sociale du prix de l’électricité de source d’énergie durable (cadre réglementaire et fiscal stimulant consistant notamment en l’institution d’un système incitatif de prix d’achat garantis, assorti d’une clause d’obligation d’achat d’électricité verte par les grands producteurs et consommateurs, et de tarifs sociaux de l’électricité produite à partir des énergies renouvelables). Il faudra également susciter le développement des circuits économiques courts, susceptibles de créer de nombreux emplois avec un retour massif à l’artisanat, à la petite industrie et au commerce local, ce qui aura pour effet, entre autres, de faire croître les revenus et le pouvoir d’achat. Concernant la durabilité, la priorité est d’arrêter d’importer des solutions technologiques exogènes qui renouvellent les dépendances vis-à-vis des industries des pays développés ou émergents. Les innovations doivent être nécessairement pertinentes et appropriées, c'est-à-dire répondre aux besoins économiques, aux capacités techniques et financières, aux habitudes et comportements culturels des producteurs et des consommateurs africains.

Sur le plan stratégique, la décentralisation et la diversification sont primordiales. Par exemple, les petites centrales hydroélectriques ont moins d'impact environnemental. En décentralisant la production d'énergie, on favorise également l’utilisation des ressources disponibles localement et on peut apporter plus facilement des réponses appropriées aux besoins des communautés. La décentralisation offre les services énergétiques pour les autres secteurs (agriculture, eau, éducation, santé, etc.).

Bambou au lieu de l´uranium Le site de Faléa doté d’un énorme potentiel de bambou offre un lieu propice d’application de cette démarche. . On pourrait développer une filière à partir de cette ressource naturelle locale : agriculture – transformation – commercialisation – construction. Il s’agira d’approvisionner les marchés et de ramener la valeur ajoutée au niveau des acteurs villageois. Le projet s’appuiera sur la mise en place d’un centre de formation professionnelle de qualité aux métiers du bambou : agriculteurs et coupeurs de bambou, ouvriers de l’industrie (transformation en atelier), ouvriers de maîtrise d’art, architectes de constructions en bambou associé à des matériaux locaux. Un développement par village ou par groupe de villages pourraient être suivi de façon complémentaire
Chaque région du Mali a son potentiel d’énergie renouvelable spécifique qui devrait être exploité afin de répartir la pression sur l'environnement et réduire l'impact des activités humaines. Ainsi, la zone désertique du nord du pays dispose d’un énorme potentiel solaire et d'énergie éolienne. L'utilisation du four solaire et de panneaux éoliens pourrait réduire fortement l'impact de la déforestation.
Le Mali possède également l'un des plus grands cheptels bovins de l'Afrique qui représente un énorme potentiel de biogaz.
En outre, grâce à la diversification des sources d'énergie le Mali pourra sortir du piège des biocarburants qui contribuent à la surexploitation de la biomasse, facteur de risque écologique majeur.
Parmi, les conditions de réussite des options et stratégies préconisées ci-dessus, il faut souligner :
la lutte nécessaire pour arrêter ou empêcher la destruction du potentiel énergétique, des bases de vie et modes traditionnels de gouvernance (ressources naturelles, richesses culturelles, modes de gestion du patrimoine domanial et foncier commun) ;
l’amélioration de la gouvernance de l’énergie et du développement tant à l’échelle nationale qu’au niveau local pour la rendre démocratique, inclusive, juste et socialement équitable ;
la mise en place de mesures structurantes qui favorisent la diversification des économies, le développement des complémentarités et des synergies entre les différents acteurs (État, collectivités décentralisées, communautés locales, coopératives, groupements professionnels ou économiques, associations, etc.);
La prise en compte de la formation professionnelle de qualité des ressources humaines, de la recherche et de l’innovation un enjeu majeur;
La réorientation de l’aide au développement, un meilleur ciblage des besoins et des acteurs, et l’élargissement de son accès aux acteurs de base
Le projet « Paradoxes de la gestion durable - Les technologies "vertes" sont-elles réellement équitables socialement ? » s'effectue avec le soutien financier du Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) et la Landesstelle für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (LEZ).

Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor: The Real Price of Europe Going Green

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:20:00 +0100

In his paper “The Real Price of Europe Going Green” the Liberian social justice and community rights campaigner Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor exposes the severe consequences of the promotion of renewable energies in Europe for African countries where raw materials, like wood, are exploited for European “green” consumption. The Real Price of Europe Going Green    Introduction
As Europe, the US and the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) continue to promote development models that rely on economic growth, which is often driven by over-consumption, questions are now being raised about how much longer the human society can continue on this path. Understandably, these concerns are driving innovations for example in the energy sector. But, while politicians and big businesses promote renewable energy technologies as a breakthrough that should be harnessed, the social and environmental costs associated with the raw materials they feed on has cast doubts about their “sustainability”. The “green” credentials of some renewable energy technologies are under fire as evidence of environmental degradation and human rights abuses, associated with the raw materials that fuel them, continue to multiply.

There is evidence that with increasing tension and competition for natural resources, the poor and marginalized will be pushed further into poverty. To expect a more equal, just and peaceful world in this context would be an illusion as wealthy nations fight to keep their places at the top of the economic ladder. This paper, drawn on experiences from Liberia, highlights the environmental and human costs renewable energy supplies in Europe pose to the poor in southern countries.

Behind the Renewable Energy Myth
Crude palm oil and biomass are two raw materials some renewable energy technologies rely on. To produce these two commodities in large quantities, multinational corporations secure agricultural lands to establish large-scale plantations. Studies show that rising demand for these bio-fuels is driving land grabs, displacement and increasing poverty in Africa. The World Bank estimates that of the 56 million hectares of farmland leased in 2009 alone, more than 70% of the demand was for land in Africa.¹ That most of the land was leased in countries with weak governance, and where the extraction of natural resources are linked to poverty and human rights abuses, should be of concern. The Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor warns that in countries with weak governance “the plight of the poor is often rooted in political systems in which citizens are denied a voice; government institutions have no obligation to answer to the people, and special interests exploit resources without fear of scrutiny.”²

In the context of European countries including Sweden and Germany, the Liberian experience is particularly relevant. The biomass producer Buchanan Renewables entered into an agreement with the Government of Liberia to build and power an electricity plant using wood chips from unproductive rubber trees.³ The company’s claim that unproductive rubber trees would be the primary raw material needed was a major selling point of the agreement. But, more than four years after the signing of this agreement, only the billboards proudly claiming “Lighting Up Liberia” have materialized.

Instead of delivering the project, Buchanan Renewables entered into an agreement with the Swedish energy giant Vattenfall to supply wood chips to their plants in Europe. On June 16, 2010 Vattenfall announced that together with Swedfund they had acquired 30% share in Buchanan Renewables.⁴ The justification was standard; “using biomass is an important key to reducing Vattenfall’s emission of fossil carbon dioxide”⁵. The company went on to explain that the move would help them transition from burning coal to burning wood and that given limited supply of biomass in Europe the move was necessary to meet the increasing demands. Unbeknown to their customers who would proudly claim that their energy supply is from renewable sources, were the human rights abuses and environmental pollution linked to the “unproductive rubber trees” they would be paying for indirectly. Firestone Liberia, the largest supplier of rubber trees to Buchanan renewable, was one of several plantation companies named in a United Nations and Government of Liberia report for appalling human rights abuses on their plantations.⁶ This situation is however not unique to Firestone.

The Potential New Suppliers
Sime Darby Plantation Liberia (SDPL) and Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL) both acquired large quantities of lands in Liberia to grow oil palm and rubber. The Government of Liberia awarded 311,187 hectares of land to SDPL in 2009 and in 2010 awarded another 350,000 hectares to GVL. The crude palm oil both companies produce is a major ingredient for biofuel, which is also promoted as renewable energy. Both companies are members of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the international body that certifies crude palm oil as sustainable.⁷ As members of the scheme both companies claim that their crude palm oil is produced in an environmentally friendly and socially responsible manner.

But, the realities are far from this picture. First, all the land allocated to them were taken from the customary owners without due process. They were neither consulted nor did they give consent for their land to be allocated. Both companies have been at the centre of controversies since they started operations. At the start of its operations in Liberia SDPL destroyed farms and planted palm on farmlands that provide livelihoods and food for the local communities, leaving very few alternative livelihood options available to those not incorporated into the company workforce. As a result, in 2011 communities in Garwula, Grand Cape Mount County filed a complaint with the RSPO claiming that SDPL was violating their rights, including polluting their water sources and taking their land for which they had not consented. The company had also cleared forests used for various cultural practices to plant oil palm.⁸ In October 2012 a separate complaint was filed to the RSPO against GVL because the company had allegedly failed to follow RSPO procedures; including failure to secure consent from land owners before clearance.⁹

In addition to the issues raised in these complaints, the contracts negotiated with the government of Liberia have also come under criticism. The terms of both agreements allow the companies to take community lands and to displace or resettle communities without compensation or due process.¹⁰ In spite of these problematic terms of their agreements both companies have forged ahead with implementation of those contracts.

Conclusions
As communities suffered the social and environmental impacts of Firestone Liberia plantations their unproductive rubber trees sold well to Buchanan Renewables, who then resold them as wood chips to Vattenfall. The electricity or heating generated from their use then branded as renewable and sustainable energy was sold to European consumers. While politicians and big businesses promote renewable energy technologies as a breakthrough that should be harnessed, the social and environmental costs associated with the raw materials they need is often ignored. It is therefore understandable that environmentalists and human rights defenders question the “green” credentials of renewable energy technologies.
Additionally, the crude palm oil that SDPL and GVL will produce in the coming years will be branded as environmentally friendly and socially responsible commodities to European consumers. While it may be true that the technology used to turn the crude palm oil into biofuel relies on renewable raw material, the manner in which these raw materials are produced should raise some ethical questions for the European consumer. European consumers cannot feign lack of awareness on these issues; because various studies have alarmed at the trend in large scale land deals – especially in Africa. For example, the World Bank reported that approximately 56 million hectares of farmland, with more than 70% in Africa, was leased in 2009 alone. Most of the countries that leased land have weak governance and where the extraction of natural resources is strongly linked to poverty, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation. To therefore present energy produced from raw material accessed in this context as sustainable is misleading. Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor, Liberian, is a social justice and community rights campaigner. He works for the Sustainable Development Institute and focuses on community rights in the natural resource sector, especially on forestry, land and agriculture expansion. In 2002, was awarded the Whitley Awards for Environment and Human Rights (www.whitleyaward.org), in 2006 the Goldman Environmental Prize for outstanding environmental achievements in Africa (http://www.goldmanprize.org), and in 2012 the Award for Outstanding Environmental and Human Rights Activism (http://www.alexandersorosfoundation.org).   The German NGO PowerShift has worked extensively on wood exports from Liberia for the German company Vattenfall. Please find more information about their work and Vattenfall´s reaction under: http://power-shift.de/?p=151 In May 2012 Vattenfall stopped importing wood from Liberia because of economic reasons: http://corporate.vattenfall.de/de/pressemitteilungen.htm?newsid=4215F7B875C04E4CB02EC5288E8A6DB1&WT.ac=search_success References

The World Bank (2011) Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Equitable and Sustainable Benefits?
The Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor: Making the Law work for the Poor, Vol. 1, 2008, p.46
The Power Purchase Agreement Between the Liberia Electricity Corporation and Buchanan Renewables (Monrovia) Power Inc., Dated 16^_thJanuary 2009
Vattenfall Press Statement, June 16, 2010 [Online]. Available from: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100616005697/en/Vattenfall-Acquires-Share-Buchanan-Renewables-Fuel-Liberia [Accessed: January 30, 2013]
Ibid
Joint Government of Liberia and United Nations Mission in Liberia Rubber Plantations Task Force, Report, 2006
See the RSPO website online: http://www.rspo.org/en/who_is_rspo
Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor, Uncertain Futures, 2012 [Online] Available from: http://www.fern.org/publications/recommended-reading/uncertain-futures-impacts-sime-darby-communities-liberia
Complaint available from: http://www.rspo.org/en/status_of_complaint&cpid=24
Tom Lomax, Human rights-based analysis of the agricultural concession agreements between Sime Darby and Golden Veroleum and the Government of Liberia, 2012 [online]. Available from: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/12/liberiacontractanalysisfinaldec2012_0.pdf [Accessed: January 30, 2012]

Nozipho Mabebe Wright: Who has access to renewable energies in Africa?

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:56:00 +0100

In her paper "Who has access to renewable energies in Africa?" the Energia Africa Programme Coordinator Nozipho Mabebe Wright discusses the importance of renewable energies for the African continent. The potentials of renewable energies should first of all be used for decentralized energy supply according to Wright. Along with this Wright strengthens the importance of womens´ empowerment and gender mainstreaming in the field of renewable energies. "Who has access to renewable energies in Africa?" Introduction
The current consumption of fossil fuels is unsustainable, harmful to the environment and contributes to climate change. This has led to the energetic turn, which presents an opportunity for greening the African energy sector, which in turn will lead to green policies and economies. A Green Economy is an important tool for achieving sustainable development, enhancing social inclusion, improving human welfare and creating opportunities for employment and decent work for women and men. Workers are equipped with the necessary skills, education and capacity building, and necessary social and health protections (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/). Green jobs are direct employment created in different sectors of the economy and through related activities, which reduce the environmental impact of those sectors and activities, and ultimately brings it down to sustainable levels. This includes “decent” jobs that help to reduce consumption of energy and raw materials, de-carbonize the economy, protect and restore ecosystems and biodiversity and minimize the production of waste and pollution (www.ilo.org).
A large segment of the African continent’s population, especially in SSA and in the rural areas of the continent’s middle-income countries, lives in conditions of acute ‘energy poverty’. Biomass provides over 80% of total domestic primary energy supply across the sub-region – even in major petroleum exporting countries. Electricity contributes less than 3% of total final energy consumption. The continuing dominance of biomass – wood fuel, dry shrubs, agricultural residues, and sun-dried animal dung – is due to the limited access to electric power supply. Less than 10% of the SSA rural population has access to modern energy services. Just over 20% of the population overall is connected to electric power supply (AfDB, 2008). In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 7 million people use improved cookstoves. Although this seems like a large figure, 615 million people still rely on traditional biomass and only 132 million have access to modern energy (www.cleancookstoves.org).

Women´s access to “green” technologies in Africa
The ENERGIA international Network, a network on gender and sustainable energy present in 13 African countries has undertaken gender audits of energy policies and programmes since 2005. A gender and energy audit aims at identifying gender gaps in energy/poverty policies and making gender and energy issues visible to a wide audience. The following case studies (source: www.energia.org) from southern Africa are a result of the gender audits, and they are a clear indication that the continent still has a long way to go in creating access to ‘green’ or renewable energy technologies.

Botswana
The major primary sources of energy available in Botswana are petroleum, coal, fuelwood and solar. Petroleum and coal each contribute 42 and 40% respectively to the total energy supply (Energy Affairs Division, 2007). In Botswana, females are most involved in fuelwood collection in Botswana’s rural villages, spending over 3 hours a day on average. In 2005, the number of female professionals in the four main energy organisations in the country is insignificant (<5%). Also in the years preceding 2005, 80% of the stakeholders involved in energy policy formulation process were engineers and 20% were planners, with little involvement of gender experts. A few gender experts are now involved in energy policy formulation, however the first national energy policy remains elusive.
Lesotho
Biomass accounted for 67% of total energy consumption in 2008, petroleum sources 23%, coal for 5% and electricity for 6%. Only 14% of all households in Lesotho have access to electricity, with most of these in urban areas. Paraffin (kerosene) is also used for cooking, heating and lighting, depending on access and affordability. Women are the main users of household energy for cooking and heating, which accounts for the majority of the country’s energy consumption. Although electricity demand and use is increasing, its application in meeting the cooking needs of the poor is limited due to it being prohibitively expensive for the poor. Women from poor urban households cannot afford the modern energy services available in urban areas for their domestic and productive energy needs. Productive use of energy is not prioritised in the Energy Policy Framework. There is also lack of women’s representation in energy sector institutions and suppliers.

Zambia
The following projects presented an opportunity to create better access to renewables for women who are the main users of household energy in the past. But this has not been case.
Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP): The programme has been gender blind in its operations, not putting in place objectives that would enhance gender sensitivity which resulted in many of the projects related to it not adequately addressing the needs of the rural poor, and women in particular.
Rural Energy Master Plan (REMP): Extension of the grid has benefited rural schools, clinics and chiefs’ palaces. Women’s needs such as daily chores, income generation activities and other social responsibilities have not been met through these projects because it is expensive for women to connect to the grid in these areas.

How Africa can benefit from the change towards “green” technologies instead of being trapped in another neo-colonial setting depending on expensive technologies imported from Western countries
Africa must come to a realization that it holds the key to its own development. African countries, especially in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), need to make greater use of their huge largely untapped renewable energy potential – especially hydro-power, geothermal energy, solar and wind power, and more efficient utilisation of biomass. Increasing energy access is a priority for Africa. SSA has enormous untapped renewable energy resources. Of SSA’s 1,620 GW known exploitable hydro-power capacity, less than 5% has been developed, contributing 45-50% of electric power generation. Of the 7,000 MW geothermal potential in the Great Rift Valley in Eastern Africa, only 138 MW has been exploited in Kenya and Ethiopia (AfDB, 2008).

In the year 2008, SADC primary energy supply was estimated around 9552 PJ, with renewable share 39% (distributed as traditional biomass (36.66%), hydro (1.95%), and modern biomass (0.39%)). The rest of renewable energy sources namely, solar geothermal, wind and biofuels which were negligible. Electricity production in the year 2008 was dominated by coal (73%), hydro (17%), oil (5%), nuclear (4%) and natural gas (1%) (SADC, 2012).
In 2009-10, it was estimated that nearly 175 million people had no access to electricity in the ECOWAS region. Traditional Biomass (firewood and charcoal) represents the bulk of the final energy consumption, reaching up to 70 – 85% in some countries. Charcoal has remained the basic fuel used in these areas; charcoal is preferred to firewood because of its better combustion and lower transportation costs (ECOWAS, 2012). Currently, over 81% of the populations in the five East African Community countries live without access to modern energy services. In all the countries, biomass is the dominant cooking and heating fuel — accounting for up to 96% of energy consumption in some countries (www.eac.int).
The above energy access challenges and the existence of renewable energy resources present an opportunity for African countries to tap onto the current sustainable development programmes resources and partnerships to develop the continent’s renewable energy sector, and its people.

Ways that women and men already explore using the benefits of renewable energies in Africa
The following case studies show how both women and men in some African countries are exploiting the benefits of the renewable energy industry.

BPC Lesedi (Botswana): This company uses a franchisee system to distribute renewable energy technologies such as solar home systems, lanterns, improved cooked stoves (ICS) in the country. Three out of nine entrepreneurs are women franchisees. Services are extended to many households that are not covered by the grid.

Developing Energy Enterprises Programme (DEEP) (Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda): This project assists entrepreneurs with the identification of viable energy market opportunities, technology options, and service structures to generate revenue and sustain business. DEEP also helps entrepreneurs to develop business plans and access. Around 885 micro-entrepreneurs are being supported with business development coaching. 56% of entrepreneurs are male, 42% female and 2% groups. The main technologies covered are improved cook stoves, solar and briquettes (41%) (GVEP).

Solar Sister (Uganda): Uses a direct marketing system made up of Solar Sister Entrepreneurs (SSEs): primary marketers and sales agents of solar lanterns and other solar technologies in rural areas. Solar Sister has an explicit focus on women in every stage of the technology supply chain (except for production). A Solar Sister is an integral part of the supply chain, and sources, distributes and markets the solar products (GVEP).

TATEDO: SEECO (Sustainable Energy Enterprises Company (Tanzania). Between 2000 and 2009, SEECO sold 1,886,051 fuel-efficient cookstoves; (about 70% of buyers were female), 122,680 fuel-efficient baking ovens (about 70% of buyers were female) and installed 212 solar dryers for which an estimated 60% of recipients were female. While women’s engagement is primarily as end users, they also work in the SEECO factory and serve as individual technicians who manufacture the stoves and ovens, and as trainers on the use of the solar dryers and ovens and business skills (Kirrin, G. 2012).

How to create conditions to enable men and women in Africa to benefit from renewable energies
The following are suggestions of what should be done to enable both women and men to benefit equally from renewable energies in Africa.

Assess potential for green jobs: A country assessment of how many women and men are employed in the renewable energy sector and the skills that they possess should be undertaken. Established gender gaps would enable policy makers to design programmes that would contribute to upskilling women at the same rate as men.
Develop green policies for the informal sector: Green policies targeted at improving the informal sector should be developed. In many African countries the informal sector accounts for a large part of the GDP, is energy intensive, and is highly populated by women.
Create a level playing field: Business conditions within the informal sector should be improved and made gender sensitive to allow both women and men entrepreneurs to access start-up capital, collateral, appropriate training and support in business development. East African countries have good practices which are a result of donor organizations such as GVEP. Programmes are designed in a way that women are assisted to enter the renewable energy value chain, particularly in production and distribution where most income is made.
Address gender issues during policy development and implementation: National, sub regional and regional energy policies present an opportunity to reduce poverty and improve poor women and men’s lives only if they are gender sensitive. Many sub regional energy policies developed recently in Africa have not mainstreamed gender, a critical issue that must be brought to the attention of Africa’s policy makers in future partnerships. SADC and ECA could learn from the ECOWAS’ gender balanced renewable energy policy.
Develop pro poor public private partnerships: These would assist in creating access to affordable and reliant renewable energies for household and productive use for those at the bottom of the pyramid, i.e. those that cannot be supplied by the private sector.
Produce green technologies in Africa: It is time that the production of good quality renewable energy technologies is done in Africa. Renewable energy technologies such as solar lanterns should be manufactured in sub Saharan Africa as this will bring down costs and create opportunities for women and men to acquire new skills.

Conclusion
The ‘Energetic Turn’ presents an opportunity for women to acquire skills and clean energy technologies that will improve their livelihoods and quality of life. The strategies above should be developed and implemented to ensure that production of renewable energy fuels and technologies in African countries does not impact negatively on women, rather we should see more women benefitting from the green economy, being upskilled, e.g. equipped with artisanal skills to enable them to participate in the green technologies value chains. Effort should be made to create equitable access for women and men to opportunities created by ‘greening’ Africa’s economies. If this does not happen there is a risk that the ‘Energetic Turn’ will be seen as a neo colonialism project that perpetuates the gender stereotype where men continue to benefit more in developing economies than women.

References

ECOWAS 2012. ECOWAS Renewable energy policy. www.ecreee.org
GVEP. GVEP’S Experience with Working with Women Entrepreneurs in East Africa
International Labor Organization. Assessing Green Jobs Potential, ILO
Kirrin, G, et al 2012. Invincible Market - Energy and Agricultural Technologies for Women’s Economic Advancement . International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW).
Ministry of Energy and Water Development, Zambia and ENERGIA, 2011. Zambia Gender and Energy Mainstreaming Strategy 2011 -2013. Gender Audit
Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs, Botswana, 2007. Energy Affairs, 2007. Energy Statistical Bulletin, 2007.
Ministry of Natural Resources and ENERGIA, 2011. Gender Audit of Energy Policy and Programmes for the Kingdom of Lesotho. Policy Brief
Regional Strategy on Scaling-up Access to Modern Energy Services in the East African Community, 2009. www.eac.int
SADC and Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland, 2012. SADC Renewable Energy Strategy and Action Plan
www.afdb.org. African Development Bank, 2008. Clean Energy Investment Framework for Africa, Role of the African Development Bank Group, 2008.
www.cleancookstoves.org. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and Climate Change – A New Look at the Old Problem. The World Bank, 2011.
www.energia.org
www.ilo.org Working towards sustainable development: Opportunities for decent work and social inclusion in a green economy – Summary, 2012
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. The Future we Want, Rio +20 Outcome Document, 2012.

Dr. El Mostafa Jamea: Local Alternatives to Desertec Initiative in North Africa

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:19:00 +0100

The Moroccan energy expert Dr. El Mostafa Jamea questions in his paper “Local Alternatives to Desertec Initiative in North Africa" the benefits of the large-scale project Desertec for the local communities in Morocco. He emphasizes their concerns and enlightens their critics as well as possible alternatives in the sector of renewable energies in North Africa. LOCAL ALTERNATIVES TO DESERTEC INITIATIVE IN NORTH AFRICA RENEWABLE ENERGY IN NORTH AFRICA
North Africa is endowed with abundant renewable energy resources, which can supply the whole, current and future, electricity demand in the region. These resources can also be exploited in generating clean electricity and exporting it to the European Union (EU). The exploitation of renewable energies resources in North Africa should lead to job creation, income diversification and socio-economic development; it is an opportunity to create hopes and prosperity for the future generations and more stability in the region. The development of renewable energy in EU (mainly in Germany, Denmark and in Spain), has pushed the North African countries to start planning and developing renewable energy projects. Morocco and Egypt took the lead with wind energy projects. At the same time, the technological progress in wind energy and photovoltaic (PV) pushed the entire region to consider more ambitious plans in exploiting renewable energy resources. On the northern side of the Mediterranean, Desertec foundation developed the Desertec initiative which is a plan consisting on the exploitation of the abundant renewable energy resources in the desert of the Middle East and North Africa region. The long term objective of the Desertec initiative is to meet the whole electricity demand in the MENA region and to supply 15% of the electricity demand in Europe by 2050. The initiative is considering transporting the generated electricity using high voltage direct current (HVDC) in order to minimize the transmission losses. It is estimated that in order to achieve this ambitious plan, a total investment of more than 400 Billion Euros will be mobilized. The Desertec plan is so huge and will have considerable impacts on the environment and local communities in the region. The Key facts of Desertec initiative are: it is a large industrial project; it requires thousands of hectares; it requires huge amounts of water for its function; it will use thousands of tons of solid materials; it is an intensive capital investment; it is a multilateral partnership; it will produce clean energy; and, it will use HVDC power transmission lines. Another aspect of the Desertec initiative is its focus on concentrating solar power (CSP) technology. This technology is still not competitive in the market compared to other renewable energy technologies such as wind energy and PV, and creates fewer jobs compared to other renewable energy technologies.
In such big projects, it is opportune and worth to study the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts on local environment and communities. It is very important to assess objectively, precisely, carefully and concisely these impacts and to reflect on the elegant solutions in order to mitigate the negative ones and to think about maximizing benefits for the local communities. On the other hand, the planning of Desertec initiative involved few development actors from the South of the Mediterranean, most of them representing public institution and central authorities, and practically no representative of the local communities; whereas, local communities, via their representatives and leaders, are essential actors in the successful development and implementation of any project in the region. Dialoguing with local communities demonstrates that these communities are seeing with doubting eyes the project: The project will use land, which they are using; it will use fresh water, which is already not sufficient for their consumption and very scarce in the region; it will impact the surrounding fragile ecosystems, even it is stated that the North Africa desert is considered a true desert where practically the soil is inert. Local communities from the south of the Mediterranean are asking and arising the following questions and observations:

Why only large corporates and finance institutions are being involved in the Desertec Industrial Initiative?
Will DESERTEC be again another win-lose partnership?
Will local communities get only pollution and waste from this initiative?
Who finances what? And who owns what?
Will these projects be implemented more for political reasons than for socio-economic and environmental considerations?
The first CSP DII in Morocco project was awarded to an international consortium without the involvement of any local company! It is financed by the Moroccan tax payer?!
Local communities are asking to be part of the exploitation of the renewable energy; they do not want to supply only work for unqualified jobs! They want as well to have the opportunity to invest in renewable energy to sustain the development of their land and communities!
The local communities claim that their resources should be respected!
It is not clear how much jobs would be created locally?!
Social Acceptance: Local populations often do not accept the big infrastructural project. To which extent local communities and their leaders would be involved in the design of the projects?
Will Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt substitute dependency on energy with the dependency on foreign expertise, technology and knowledge?

ALTERNATIVES TO DEVELOP RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE NORTH AFRICA REGION
As stated above, renewable energy is an opportunity for North Africa to diversify its economy, create jobs, income and clean energy to be used as motor for other economic activities such as sustainable agriculture, sustainable tourism, low carbon industries and services… etc. It should be a motor to achieve economic shift and development responses with regard to the development claims raised during the Arab Spring. However, large scale CSP projects, as planned in the Desertec initiative will not maximize the socio-economic benefits for the local population. That’s why; it is in the interest of all to adopt alternatives and new approaches to develop renewable energy in North Africa: Alternative projects to Desertec in terms of projects size; Alternatives in terms of project locations; Alternatives in terms of technologies to be used (Desertec initiative and international development agencies should adopt a technology neutrality); Alternatives that will expand and boost the use of the solar energy applications; Alternatives that can be launched through the adoption of adequate legal and administrative frameworks; and the adoption of liberal policies in terms of electricity production and distribution.
Photovoltaic
PV industry has showed spectacular progress in terms of the technology performance and costs. It is a mature technology and cost competitive with the conventional energy. On the other hand, small and medium scale PV projects will boost job creation, economic development and can be a mean to build the necessary skills and expertise on renewable energy in North Africa. The advantages of the PV are:

PV projects will stimulate the creation of small and medium enterprises that are essential to create jobs and sustain local socio-economic development. Solar PV technology accounts for the highest number of job-years per Gwh over the lifetime of any renewable energy project;
PV applications in other economic activities such as in the agricultural sector, will lead to the extension of agricultural land use in North Africa. Hence supplying more raw materials for food processing industry, securing food supply, and creating jobs and income for local populations;
PV can be used as a mean to develop biomass and bioenergy in North Africa;
Adoption of feed in tariffs and Net metering mechanisms for PV will boost the development of this sector and reduce the expensive public subsidies for conventional energy; Local and small investors can create small-scale projects and this will lead to empowerment of local communities and more awareness about environment protection and climate change.
With decentralized PV projects, capital is saved on long high-voltage wires and less power is lost during transport;
Forecasted levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of PV in North Africa: With expected price digression of 56% to 66% by 2030 compared to 2010, PV LCOE in North Africa is expected to range from 5 to 12 €c/kWh by 2020 and 4 to 8 €c/KWh by 2030; and,
Emerging Concentrated Photovoltaic (CPV) technology is very promising and will definitely capitalize, in the near future, on all the advantages of PV, above mentioned, and reduce further the cost of kWh generated.

The investment in PV projects will secure energy supply, reduce transmissions losses, reduce the greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions, and improve the technological progress of North Africa. It will also create the conditions for European SMEs to invest and partner with local SMEs in investment on: components manufacturing, project planning, development, implementation, and Maintenance and operations.
Wind energy
The Atlantic coast of the North African region has huge wind energy resources. These resources can be exploited using the wind energy technology, which is already cost competitive, mature and very reliable and has low financial and socio-economic risks. The investment in such technology in North Africa will be more opportune in exploiting renewable energy and testing its export from North Africa to Europe. Since this technology will not need huge water quantities required for the daily operations of the CSP plants, and enable the multiple use of land, it will also maximize the benefits of any joint venture investments between European and North African countries. Wind energy provides a low cost energy choice and is a variable power source. It is the less expensive part of the energy mix compared to solar, and storage has not really been an issue so far. On the other hand, across the North African region, considerable wind resources exist and can be exploited in generating clean electricity for local consumption. Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia are the most endowed with abundant wind energy resources. These countries can boost the private investment by creating adequate legal and administrative framework for investment, production and electricity distribution.
Energy Efficiency
The most important source of renewable energy worldwide is the energy that we do not consume; we just waste. By saving energy and improving the efficiency of our energy use, we will be able to reduce the GHG emissions, save capital that we can invest in reliable renewable energy technologies. In the Euro-Mediterranean area, the potential in energy efficiency is enormous. There are many plans consisting in improving resources efficiency and energy efficiency across this area. Exchange of expertise and knowledge, as well as Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in this topic, is highly required to generalize benefits. In the meantime, North African countries should adopt strong measures to achieve higher energy efficiency. Approaches that will offer practical solutions to meet the energy needs without sacrificing socio-economic development priorities. Public authorities should as well develop energy efficiency as a mean to create jobs in engineering, consulting and technical firms.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
When planning and deciding to invest on renewable energy, North African countries, and behind them, the entire international development institutions and agencies should take into consideration the enormous socio-economic challenges, which these countries are facing or will face in the near future. The local populations are starving for more equitable and sustainable development, and for more fair distribution of economic development benefits among regions and society members. Any development of renewable energies and local economies should be accompanied with more transparency, democracy and respect of the basic human rights and freedom in the region.

Kwame Opoku: What Game was James Cuno Playing in Davos?

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:58:00 +0100

Cultural commentator Kwame Opoku is seeing red after reading Lee Rosenbaum’s comments on James Cuno’s participation in the World Eonomic Forum, Davos, as well as Cuno’s report of his own performance at the Swiss holiday resort of the rich and powerful. It is sad, he concludes, that at a time when those interested in culture should be working together to preserve our cultural heritage, museum directors from rich and powerful nation States should be conducting intellectual guerrilla warfare by serving the world, especially the rich and powerful, with discredited ideas that contributed to bringing us to the present situation in the museum world. “We discussed the fate of encyclopedic museums and the pressure put on them by nation-states calling for the repatriation of what they define as their cultural patrimony. While acknowledging that national governments have the right to restrict trade in their self-defined cultural heritage, we noted that in doing so they were denying their citizens—or subjects—access to cultural objects from different parts of the world, perpetuating dangerous stereotypes of foreign peoples and foreign cultures, and working against the promise of encyclopedic museums to promote the understanding of and respect for difference in the world“.

We are seeing more than red on reading these provocative and mendacious statements.

Over the last few months, we had gained the impression that Cuno was finally listening to the several voices in the world of culture that had sharply criticised the views he expressed in previous writings. We were personally relieved that we may no longer need to examine views and ideas that most educated people, outside certain arrogant circles in the West, would immediately recognize for what they are: half-concocted ideas and self-serving visions calculated to serve the interests of certain dominant classes that one thought had given up old-fashioned imperialism with the end of the colonial époque. Cuno reminds us with his Davos statement that we may have been mistaken.

Although relieved by the new moderate posture of Cuno, we were sceptical that he had undergone radical transformation. His public relations image seemed to be improving as far as those of us outside the Western world were concerned. We had written “…his style is changing since he became CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust. He no more attacks directly. His language is moderate and he even shakes hands with cultural personnel who come to collect their looted artefacts. His public relations image has undoubtedly improved.” (3)

What Cuno produced at Davos is vintage Cuno and the membership of the panel he is said to have led there was composed of persons who shared his ideas even if they do not all express themselves in the same provocative language.

The panel was composed of Julien Anfruns, director-general, International Council of Museums; Thomas Campbell, director, Metropolitan Museum; Neil MacGregor, director, British Museum; Hermann Parzinger, president, Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz; Mikhail Piotrovsky, general director, State Hermitage Museum. This panel which Lee Rosenbaum described as “an all-star cast” is made up of persons who are known for holding similar views as Cuno.

It is noticeable that not a single member came from Africa, Latin America or Asia in a panel discussing universal museums. The panel seems to be a mini-Bizot Group or a Super-Bizot Group, recalling the notorious Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums (DIVUM) that was issued in 2002. (4) The museums represented by the panel were all signatories to that infamous document except the British Museum which did not sign although it was the instigator and fervent promoter of the project. The Bloomsbury museum had sought support against the political pressure of Athens regarding the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. This time, Turkey must have been the subject of concern because of the increasing pressure it has brought on British and American museums to return looted/stolen Turkish cultural artefacts. (5)

King Antiochus I of Commagene shaking hands with Heracles. Turkey, now in British Museum.

The timing of Cuno’s statement should be noted. It comes at about the same time as the AAMD was preparing new rules of acquisition of antiquities which ostensibly should improve American practice in this matter. (6)
Shortly before this, an American art critic had written a reactionary article in the Los Angeles Times criticising American museums for readily returning cultural artefacts to their countries of origin. The article was condemned on all sides. (7)
The article was based on unsupported belief that American museums have given in readily to repatriation requests by foreign governments.
Cuno’s own J.Paul Getty Museum has recently announced its intention of examining the legality and legitimacy of 45,000 of its acquisitions. (8)

Cuno once again presented at Davos the so-called “universal museum” or “encyclopaedic museum” as a promise of good tidings for the world, as a solution to our problems when in fact this museum with gargantuan appetite, was the beneficiary of colonial robbery and violence in depriving the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America of their cultural artefacts.

It is against all historical evidence and knowledge to affirm, in connection with efforts of nation States to restrict the depletion of national cultural resources, that they “were denying their citizens—or subjects—access to cultural objects from different parts of the world, perpetuating dangerous stereotypes of foreign peoples and foreign cultures, and working against the promise of encyclopedic museums to promote the understanding of and respect for difference in the world.”

Did Cuno tell his audience that the majority of the so-called “encyclopaedic museums” were in the Western world?

Did Cuno tell his audience that many encyclopedic museums, including his own, J.Paul Getty Museum, The Metropolitan Museum, The Princeton University Museum, Cleveland Museum of Art, Museum pf Fine Arts, Boston, and other leading American museums have been obliged to return looted/stolen artefacts to Italy, Peru and Turkey?

Did Cuno inform his audience that the United Nations and UNESCO are in favour of the return of looted/stolen artefacts to their country of origin?

Did he inform his listeners that the recent resolution AS/67/80 of the United Nations on restitution passed unanimously, had been sponsored by 98 Member States including United States of America? (9)

Did Cuno inform the audience that the reputation of US museums is at its lowest ebb and that since the various recent scandals, there is a perception in the US public that the major museums are havens of iniquities?

What becomes clear from reading Cuno’s own report of his performance at Davos is that not much seems to have been learnt from the experience of the discredited Declaration on the Value and Importance of the Universal Museums issued in 2002 by the rich and powerful museums. It served only to awaken the world and especially Africa, Asia and Latin America to the insensitivity and selfishness of the rich museums. Members of the same group of museum directors tried to impress participants at Davos with the importance and value of their holding on to looted/stolen artefacts from others. What a pity they missed a great opportunity to speak for museums in general.

It is sad that at a time when those interested in culture should be working together to preserve our cultural heritage, museum directors from rich and powerful nation States should be conducting intellectual guerrilla warfare by serving the world, especially the rich and powerful, with discredited ideas that contributed to bringing us to the present situation in the museum world.

“The true and lasting damage to American institutions over this past decade has not been legal fees or lost antiquities. It has been the growing public perception that they are engaged in an illegal activity that, at its heart, is a deep betrayal of their public mission” (10)

Kwame Opoku, 3 February, 2013.

Notes
1. Antiquities Antics in Davos: Whatever Happened to “Kinder, Gentler” James Cuno? February 1, 2013 by CultureGrrl http://www.arts journal.com 2. James Cuno, “The Arts on the World Economic Stage—Notes from Davos”http://blogs.getty.edu/iris
See also http://www.weforum.org/videos/insights-objects-culture 3. K. Opoku, “Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums: Singular Failure of an Arrogant Imperialist Project.” http://www.modernghana.com 4. Tom Flynn, The Universal Museum A valid model for the 21st century? 2010. 5, K. Opoku, “Turkish Decision to stop Artefacts Loans to Museums Holding Contested Turkish Artefacts: An Example for Other States?” http://www.modernghana.com
Turkey to push for return of 'stolen' artefacts - HURRIYET DAILY ...

www.france24.com/en/20121224-turkey-hurriyet-return-sto.

Turkey Presses Harder for Return of Antiquities - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/europe/26iht-M26C-TURK.

Turkey's cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men | The Economist

www.economist.com/node/21555531

Turkey puts pressure on foreign museums involved in artefact ...

www.elginism.com/similar-cases/turkey-puts-pressure-on-...
Dan Bilefsky, 'Seeking Return of Art, Turkey Jolts Museums', New York Times September 30, 2012
Turkey Approaches Louvre for Art Restitution, Raising Larger ...

lajeunepolitique.com/2012/11/24/turkey-approaches-louvr...

http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/05/16/the-harvard-list-turkey-wants-dumbarton-oaks-to-return-the-sion-treasure/

6.Strengthened Guidelines on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art issued by AAMD (1/30/2013)

http://www.aamd.org/newsroom/documents/PressReleaseAAMDGuidelinesRev.2013.pdf 7. Hugh Eakin, “The Great Giveback”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-great-giveback.html?pagewanted=all

Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Telling it Like it Isn't

paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/01/telling-it-like-it-is..

CultureGrrl | Antiquities Antics: Hugh Eakin's Astonishing Anti ...

www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2013/01/antiquities-ant.

Reactions to Hugh Eakin's Anti-repatriation NYT Op-Ed | Illicit ...

illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2013/01/reaction..

8. Jason Felch, "Getty Museum review targets its antiquities collection”
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/ 9. The latest General Assembly resolution, A/RES/67/80, titled “Return or restitution of cultural property to the country of origin“, was adopted unanimously on 12 December, 2012. The resolution had been co-sponsored by 98 Member States including Canada, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Spain, and the United States of America. 10. Chasing Aphrodite Decoding Eakin: Behind ‘Extortion’ Claim, Fear the Floodgates Have Opened

Nnimmo Bassey: Between Eti Uwem and Green Capitalism (Green Democracy)

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:47:00 +0100

In the framework of "Paradoxes of Sustainability" the Nigerian environmental activist, Nnimmo Bassey, who is also a poet and the former head of Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) criticizes sharply the highly praised “Green Economy”. In his paper “Between Eti Uwem and Green Capitalism (Green Democracy)“ he exposes the “Green Economy” as a continuation of the capitalist system. Bassey demands participation in solidarity within all groups of populations to have access to all natural resources and to refuse monetarisation of nature and habitat.

Between Eti Uwem and Green Capitalism (Green Democracy)

By Nnimmo Bassey

Eti uwem is a concept in Ibibio, one of the several languages in Nigeria, which literally means good life or good living. Within it is the idea of living in harmony with nature and all peoples. It incorporates dignity, respect, rectitude, integrity, solidarity and contentment. Within this concept are the key principles of social justice, power relations and citizens’ and communal ownership and control of local resources. It objects to speculation, exploitation, expropriation and destructive activities and, very importantly, no monetary price can be placed on life and nature. A close concept is sumak Kawsay of the Kichwa people of Latin America, which is sometimes also captured as similar to buen vivir.^¹

While we are not certain that this concept can be fully equated to “green democracy,” we will use the term in an advised manner.

This paper proposes that what the world needs is living well in a citizens-driven participatory manner as opposed to working in the platform of so-called green economy, which in its application is a euphemism for green capitalism. We insist that communities and civil society groups have key roles to play in shaping the necessary transition from ecologically disruptive living to one where energy and other production and consumption modes are respectful of nature. The premise for the positions outlined is that massive environmental degradation has been advanced through the subversion of the democratic space, exclusion of citizens and the appropriation of these spaces for decisions and actions favourable mostly to corporate interests.

Market fundamentalism has been enthroned at the highest policy making levels as the unbending creed for progress and environmental protection. This has elevated the widely disputed platform of the green economy, sometimes interpreted by environmental justice advocates as the greed economy. Market environmentalism insists that the basis for nature can only be preserved when it is assigned monetary value. This position is sold as green economy and fits well into neoliberal constructs - presenting speculators with opportunities to reap profits from ecological destruction originating from, but not limited to, extractivism, land grabs, genetic manipulations and a number of techno-fixes that ensure the reign of monopolies.

It is as if the markets were invented by capitalism and the concept of the possibility of markets operating on the basis of solidarity is completely frowned upon and thus the creed demands competition, speculation, subjugation and exploitation. The obvious failures of markets (such as the carbon and financial markets) driven on these principles and the players behind or in front of the scenes are ignored while the stakes keep getting higher by the day.

Corporate schizophrenia and political myopia of public office holders provide the potent mix needed to solidify a greed economy where progress is measured by factors that are more fictional than real. In the book The Rights of Nature^², Maude Barlow writes in the chapter on “Nature: A Living Ecosystem From Which All Life Springs,” that, “many in power now use the term [green economy] to essentially protect the current economic system that promotes more growth, production and global trade.”

The implication is that the environment must be beaten to submission at the altar of markets. Except in fringe cases, the green economy as currently formulated can only operate outside the confines of participatory democracy. It is rigged in favour of corporate interests and lopsided power relations and this explains why a United Nations track that was originally conceived to ensure sustainable ecological balance is now fusing with another track whose work is inexorably leading to catastrophic climate change. We are here referring to the Earth Summits and the Climate Change negotiations.

A look at the multiple crises confronting us today shows a sick pattern of denial of the climate issues confronting us and that has ultimately resulted in the creation of a sort of mafia-like breed of power brokers who gang up to block any progress with regards to solving the climate crisis. From the financial crisis to the food crisis, climate, water and others - the rule appears to be that whatever meets the short term needs of those who cause the problem must take precedence over the needs of the planet.

This pattern has held thus far because there has been an enforced rupture between citizens and governments through the closure of spaces and linkages between the people through political participation spaces. A clear way to tip the scale is to recover the sovereignty of the people and to ensure that environmental defence is built on popular political participation. Without this, it is difficult to see how the interests of ecological destroyers will coincide with the interests of citizens who live and depend on the environment desired by external interests. Environmental pollution assures higher profits for corporations because they can operate in irresponsible ways and simply externalise the costs of their negative actions. In addition, polluters are cheered on by the tokenistic polluter-pays principles; payments that seek to foolishly put a discounted price on nature rather than to dissuade them from engaging in irresponsible behaviour.

Ecological living with respect to all beings or Green democracy would demand that polluters stop polluting and not simply pay for polluting because the environment does not only provide the support for human life but does so for every other living thing. If we extend the concept of ‘living thing’ to include things that change over time and can be adversely affected and even annihilated by external actions, it becomes hard to classify anything as non-living thereby raising the stakes.

The green economy idea that environmental services can be monetised and paid for, makes the planet one huge market and those that can pay for these services become the ‘true’ owners of nature, even as the majority of citizens are relegated to the role of mere customers. Water purification, pollinators and of course carbon absorption capacities of soils all become items of merchandise in very brazen displays of commodification of nature. Everything becomes a candidate for exploitation and humanity is made to believe that whatever they need can be manufactured and whatever is broken can be fixed.

This false notion can be credited for the rise and rise of the allure of techno-fixes or what can be termed technological fundamentalism. Under this train, extreme extraction and the new kid on the block called fracking, are gaining serious momentum in the USA; tar sand exploitation in Canada as well as the tentative steps being taken to break up polar glaciers in order to drill for oil in the Arctic region. The historic pollution of the Niger Delta and the Ecuadorian Amazon by oil companies are already record-breaking obnoxious realities.

Right relationship of resources and citizens would include the right to refuse access to their territories, as is the case with some indigenous peoples in the Amazon; and the right to refuse dangerous extractive activities in their territories, as in the case of Ogoniland in Nigeria. Undemocratic and sometimes certified exploitation often transfer ownership and control of resources from citizens and communities to private hands led by corporations. Production of resources and the labour exerted in such exercises often also exclude the local communities and people, reducing their input to that of mere bystanders in the entire process of ownership, decisions, production and use of outputs.

An economy driven by greed ultimately destroys the social fabric of peoples; replacing wholesome food with unwholesome varieties, eroding genetic resources, promoting bio-piracy and replacing healthy resources with toxic ones. It is this economy that permits poisoning of whole communities through dumping of wastes, as a viable economic objective. It is violence personified.

It is time for citizens of the world to urgently reclaim their sovereignty and not helplessly watch while political-corporate powers ride roughshod over everyone and everything. We cannot afford to carry on with a system where we find plastic delights in plastic dreams: “In the paradise promised to all and reserved for a few, things are more and more important and people less and less so. The end has been kidnapped by the means: things buy you, cars drive you, computers program you, and Television watches you.”^³

It is time to drastically realign production and consumption through clear policies promoting socio-economic justice as well as climate justice. It is time to reclaim our food systems through food sovereignty. It is time to halt the externalisation of environmental costs through reckless exploitation, displacement of peoples, and dumping of toxic wastes. We need a new mindset, a new logic based on an understanding that the planet is not about humankind only.

The actions to bring about the needed change must be hinged on an energy system that is not hooked on finite fossil resources. The fossil path has since fossilised and dangerous scrapping of the fossil barrels will only hasten cataclysmic environmental changes while temporarily pacifying the insatiable greed of the exploiters. This energy system has driven prodigious consumption, wastes, resource grabs and wars. The brunt has been borne by the oppressed of this world that are being pushed to wall and are increasingly finding less and less space into which to retreat. This is a potentially explosive situation that only a recovery of power by the exploited and injured peoples of this world will defuse. The force is already building through social and ecological spaces. Support should be channelled there. The clarion call is for a halt to the rape of Mother Earth.

1See for example Guiseppe De Marzo’s Buen Vivir– Para una democracia de la Tierra. 2010. Plural editors. La Paz

2 2011. The Rights of Nature – The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights if Mother Earth, Published by the Council of Canadians, Fundacion Pachamama and Global Exchange, San Francisco

3Eduardo Galeano. 2000. Upside Down – A Primer for the Looking-Glass World. Picador, New York. Translated by Mark Fried

Kwame Opoku: Declaration on the Importance and Value of the Universal Museum (DIVUM): Singular Failure of an Arrogant Imperialist Project

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:43:00 +0100

The Declaration on the Importance and Value of the Universal Museum (DIVUM) of 2002 in now 10 years old. The DIVUM, writes Kwame Opoku, is a very remarkable document that differs essentially from other declarations and documents that include in their title “Universal”, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whereas the latter aims at uplifting mankind from the miserable and abject conditions into which it has been plunged by unjust and oppressive systems and conditions, DIVUM was aimed at consolidating the results of oppressive systems and preventing the victims from attempting to reverse the results of imperialist adventures. In effect DIVUM was advancing the argument that there should be no attempt to seek to reverse the transfer of artefacts that had been acquired under colonial and other violent and oppressive condition. |+| read the full text in pdf

Article Pambazuka: Femmes du Mali : Disons «Non !» à la guerre par procuration

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 19:38:00 +0100

Femmes du Mali : Disons «Non !» à la guerre par procuration
Aminata Traoré et Nathalie M’dela-Mounier, Pambazuka, 4.12.2012, Numéro 263

Résume: De la situation dramatique du Mali, il ressort une réalité terrible qui se vérifie dans d’autres pays en conflit : l’instrumentalisation des violences faites aux femmes pour justifier l’ingérence et les guerres de convoitise des richesses de leurs pays. Les femmes africaines doivent le savoir et le faire savoir.

Femmes du Mali : Disons «Non !» à la guerre par procuration

” Le poisson se trompe s’il croit que le pêcheur est venu pour le nourrir.” Karamoko Bamba (Mouvement Nko)

“Nous ne voulons plus qu’on ignore que, sous nos foulards colorés, nous ne dissimulons pas seulement, d’un geste rapide, les serpents indomptés de nos noires ou blanches chevelures tressées, serrées, mais des idées.” L’Afrique mutilée.“

Autant l’amputation du Mali des deux tiers de son territoire et l’imposition de la charia aux populations des régions occupées sont humainement inacceptables, autant l’instrumentalisation de cette situation, dont le sort réservé aux femmes, est moralement indéfendable et politiquement intolérable.

Nous avons, de ce fait, nous femmes du Mali, un rôle historique à jouer, ici et maintenant, dans la défense de nos droits humains contre trois formes de fondamentalisme : le religieux à travers l’islam radical, l’économique à travers le tout marché, le politique à travers la démocratie formelle, corrompue et corruptrice.

Nous invitons toutes celles et tous ceux qui, dans notre pays, en Afrique et ailleurs, se sentent concernés par notre libération de ces fondamentalismes à joindre leurs voix aux nôtres pour dire “Non” à la guerre par procuration qui se profile à l’horizon. Les arguments suivants justifient ce refus.

LE DENI DE DEMOCRATIE

La demande de déploiement de troupes africaines au nord du Mali, transmise par la Communauté des Etats d’Afrique de l’Ouest (Cedeao) et l’Union Africaine (Ua) aux Nations Unies, repose sur un diagnostic délibérément biaisé et illégitime. Il n’est fondé sur aucune concertation nationale digne de ce nom, ni au sommet, ni à la base. Ce diagnostic exclut par ailleurs la lourde responsabilité morale et politique des nations, celles qui ont violé la résolution 1973 du Conseil de Sécurité en transformant la protection de la ville libyenne de Ben Ghazi en mandat de renverser le régime de Mouammar Kadhafi et de le tuer. La coalition des séparatistes du Mouvement national de libération de l’Azawad (Mnla), de Al Qaeda au Maghreb Islamique (Aqmi) et de ses alliés qui a vaincu une armée malienne démotivée et désorganisée doit également cette victoire militaire aux arsenaux issus du conflit libyen.

Le même Conseil de Sécurité va-t-il approuver, dans les jours à venir le plan d’intervention militaire que les chefs d’Etat africains ont approuvé en prétendant corriger ainsi les conséquences d’une guerre injuste par une guerre tout aussi injuste ? Marginalisée et humiliée dans la gestion de la crise “libyenne”, l’Union Africaine peut-elle, doit-elle se lancer dans cette aventure au Mali sans méditer les enseignements de la chute du régime de Mouammar Kadhafi ? Où est la cohérence dans la conduite des affaires du continent par les dirigeants africains, dont la plupart s’était opposé en vain à l’intervention de l’Otan en Libye, lorsqu’ils s’accordent sur la nécessité d’un déploiement de forces militaires au Mali, aux conséquences incalculables.

L’EXTREME VULNERABILITE DES FEMMES DANS LES ZONES EN CONFLIT

L’international Crisis Group prévient, à juste titre, que « dans le contexte actuel, une offensive de l’armée malienne appuyée par des forces de la Cedeao et/ou d’autres forces a toutes les chances de provoquer davantage de victimes civiles au Nord, d’aggraver l’insécurité et les conditions économiques et sociales dans l’ensemble du pays, de radicaliser les communautés ethniques, de favoriser l’expression violente de tous les groupes extrémistes et, enfin, d’entraîner l’ensemble de la région dans un conflit multiforme sans ligne de front dans le Sahara ». (« Le Mali : Éviter l’escalade » International Crisis Group – http://www.crisisgroup.org/fr- 18 juillet 2012).

Ces conséquences revêtent une gravité particulière pour les femmes. Leur vulnérabilité qui est sur toutes les lèvres, devrait être présente dans tous les esprits lors des prises de décisions, et dissuasive quand la guerre peut être évitée. Elle peut l’être. Elle doit l’être, au Mali.

Rappelons que les cas de viols que nous déplorons dans les zones occupées du Nord de notre pays risquent de se multiplier avec le déploiement de plusieurs milliers de soldats. A ce risque, il faut ajouter celui d’une prostitution plus ou moins déguisée qui se développe généralement dans les zones de grande précarité et par conséquent les risques de propagation du Vih/sida. Le plan d’intervention militaire sur lequel le Conseil de sécurité va se pencher prévoit-il des moyens de mettre réellement les femmes et les fillettes du Mali à l’abri de ce type de situation désastreuse ?

Rappelons également que sur l’ensemble du territoire les sanctions économiques imposées par la communauté internationale au peuple malien au nom du retour à un ordre constitutionnel discrédité affectent considérablement les groupes vulnérables. Les femmes du fait de la division sexuelle des tâches sont confrontées au niveau domestique à l’énorme difficulté d’approvisionnement des familles en eau, nourriture, énergie domestique, médicaments. Cette lutte quotidienne et interminable pour la survie est déjà en soi une guerre. Dans ces circonstances de précarité et de vulnérabilité des populations, et des femmes en particulier, l’option militaire en préparation est un remède qui à toutes les chances d’être pire que le mal alors qu’une alternative pacifique, émanant de la société malienne, civile, politique et militaire, sera constructive.

DES INCOHERENCES DE LA COMMUNAUTE INTERNATIONALE

Chacun des puissants représentants de la « communauté internationale » ainsi que la Cedeao et l’Union africaine ont prononcé des mots à propos de nos maudits maux de femmes en situation de conflit.

A tout seigneur tout honneur, le président français, François Hollande, qui joue le rôle de chef de file dans la défense de l’option militaire, a souligné la souffrance des femmes « premières victimes des violences des guerres » (Kinshasa – Quatorzième sommet de l’Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie). Et pourtant, il a déclaré le 26 septembre 2012, à New York, lors de la réunion spéciale sur le Sahel, en marge de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies : “Je sais qu’il peut y avoir une tentation de mener des négociations. Négocier avec des groupes terroristes ? Il ne peut en être question. Toute perte de temps, tout processus qui s’éterniserait ne pourrait faire que le jeu des terroristes”.

”Il faut savoir terminer une guerre”, semblent dire les présidents américains et français. « La guerre d’Afghanistan s’est prolongée au-delà de la mission initiale. Elle attise la rébellion autant qu’elle permet de la combattre. Il est temps de mettre fin en bon ordre à cette intervention et j’en prends ici l’engagement», déclara le candidat François Hollande, dans son discours d’investiture à l’élection présidentielle.

La secrétaire d’Etat américaine aux Affaires étrangères, Hillary Clinton, dont l’escale du 29 octobre 2012 à Alger, avait en partie pour objet de convaincre le président Abdelaziz Bouteflika de rejoindre le camp de la guerre, s’était adressée aux chefs d’Etat africains réunis à Addis-Abeba en ces termes : « En République démocratique du Congo, la poursuite des actes de violences contre les femmes et les filles et les activités des groupes armés dans la région orientale du pays, sont pour nous une source constante de préoccupation. L’Union africaine et les Nations Unies ne doivent épargner aucun effort en vue d’aider la Rdc à réagir à ces crises sécuritaires incessantes ».

L’initiative du secrétaire des Nations unies, Ban Ki Moon, intitulée « Unis pour mettre fin à la violence contre les femmes », lancée le 25 janvier 2008, accorde une attention particulière aux femmes de l’Afrique de l’Ouest. C’était avant les guerres en Côte d’Ivoire et en Libye qui ont largement compromis la réalisation des objectifs assignés à cette initiative. Nous comprenons sa réserve quant au déploiement militaire et espérons qu’il ne soutiendra pas le plan d’intervention des chefs d’États de la Cedeao. La guerre, rappelons-le, est une violence extrême contre les populations civiles, dont les femmes. Elle ne peut que nous éloigner des objectifs visés par cette initiative.

Pourquoi les puissants de ce monde qui se préoccupent tant du sort des femmes africaines ne nous disent pas la vérité sur les enjeux miniers, pétroliers et géostratégiques des guerres.

La présidente de la Commission de l’Ua, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, pour sa part, souligne qu’“il est crucial que les femmes contribuent à, et s’impliquent activement dans la recherche d’une solution au conflit. Leurs voix doivent être entendues dans les efforts visant à promouvoir et à consolider la démocratie dans leur pays. A cette fin, vous pouvez, sans aucun doute, compter sur le soutien de l’Union Africaine, ainsi que sur mon engagement personnel. » (Réunion du groupe de soutien et de suivi de la situation au Mali – 19 novembre 2012)

La nomination, pour la première fois, d’une femme à ce poste pourrait être un facteur véritable d’émancipation politique pour les femmes et donc de libération du continent, si Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma accepte d’élargir la base du débat sur les femmes africaines en y intégrant les enjeux globaux qui nous sont dissimulées.

NOTRE TRISTE STATUT D’OTAGES

Le Mali est un pays à la fois agressé, humilié et pris en otage par des acteurs politiques et institutionnels qui n’ont aucun compte à nous rendre, à commencer par la Cedeao. L’une des traductions de cette réalité est l’énorme pression exercée sur ce qui reste de l’État malien. Le président par intérim, Dioncounda Traoré, est le premier des otages maliens. S’il a cru devoir rappeler, le 19 octobre 2012, lors de la réunion du groupe de soutien et de suivi de la situation de notre pays, qu’il n’est pas un président pris en otage, c’est précisément parce qu’il l’est. Sinon il n’aurait pas répété à trois reprises, le 21 septembre 2012, la veille de l’anniversaire de l’indépendance de notre pays qu’il a privilégie le dialogue et la concertation, et demandé aux Nations Unies, trois jours plus tard, une intervention militaire internationale immédiate. « J’ai conscience d’être le président d’un pays en guerre mais le premier choix est le dialogue et la négociation. Le deuxième choix est le dialogue et la négociation et », insiste-t-il « le troisième choix demeure le dialogue et la négociation. Nous ferons la guerre si nous n’avons pas d’autre choix…», a-t-il déclaré dans son discours à la nation avant de changer d’avis.

Au-delà du président intérimaire, nous sommes tous des otages prisonniers d’un système économique et politique inégalitaire et injuste qui excelle dans l’art de briser les résistances à coup de chantage au financement. La suppression de l’aide extérieur se traduit cette année 2012 par un manque à gagner de 429 milliards de francs Cfa. La quasi totalité des investissements publics est suspendue. La fermeture de nombreuses entreprises a occasionné licenciements et chômage technique pour des dizaines de milliers de travailleurs alors que les prix des denrées alimentaires continuent de flamber. Les pertes les plus importantes sont enregistrées dans les secteurs du bâtiment et des travaux publics. Le tourisme, l’artisanat, l’hôtellerie et la restauration, qui subissaient depuis 2008 les conséquences de l’inscription du Mali sur la liste des pays à risques, sont gravement affectés alors qu’ils constituaient des sources de revenus substantiels pour les régions aujourd’hui occupées, notamment celle de Tombouctou.

Référence est faite au statut d’otage non point pour dédramatiser l’épreuve insupportable des otages européens et de leurs familles mais pour rappeler l’égale gravité de la situation de tous les êtres humains piégés dans des systèmes dont ils ne sont pas personnellement responsables. La question est toutefois de savoir comment agir de telle sorte que notre pays retrouve son intégrité territoriale et la paix, et que les six Français détenus par Aqmi retrouvent leurs familles sains et saufs, sans que ces libérations n’ouvrent la voie à une intervention militaire qui mettrait en péril la vie des centaines de milliers d’habitants du Nord Mali qui sont autant d’otages.

LA GUERRE PAR PROCURATION

Le choix de la guerre se nourrit d’une connaissance insuffisante des véritables enjeux. Jacques Attali donne à ceux qui veulent s’en saisir une clef de lecture qui prouve, s’il en était besoin, que l’intervention militaire envisagée est une guerre par procuration. Selon lui, la France doit agir «…parce que cette région (le Sahel) peut devenir une base arrière de formation de terroristes et de kamikazes qui viendront s’attaquer aux intérêts occidentaux un peu partout dans la région ; et même, par de multiples moyens de passage, en Europe. Ils ne sont encore que quelques centaines ; si rien n’est fait, ils seront bientôt plusieurs milliers, venus du Pakistan, d’Indonésie et d’Amérique Latine. Et les gisements d’uranium du Niger, essentiels à la France, ne sont pas loin. » (Blog Attali. 28 mai 2012.)

La distribution des rôles entre la France, la Cedeao, l’Union africaine, l’Europe et l’Onu est clarifiée. La Cedeao dont de nombreux Maliens et Africains ne comprenaient pas jusqu’ici le jeu trouble est en mission au Mali. Selon Jacques Attali, l’organisation sous régionale devait agir « pour redonner aux autorités civiles les moyens de décider, sans peur, de rétablir la sécurité, de restructurer l’appareil militaire et de faire redémarrer l’activité économique ; au Nord, pour mettre fin à cette sécession, il faudra une action militaire sur le terrain, avec un appui logistique à distance, des moyens d’observation, des drones et une capacité d’encadrement stratégique.

Qui peut faire tout cela ? Evidemment pas le gouvernement malien tout seul, qui n’a ni armes ni autorité. Pas non plus la Cedeao qui n’a pas les moyens militaires suffisants pour assurer l’ensemble de l’action nécessaire et qui ne peut même pas espérer en recevoir la demande du gouvernement malien, sous influence de forces incertaines. Pas non plus l’Union africaine, en tout cas pas seule. Alors qui ? L’Onu ? L’Otan ? La question va se poser très vite. Elle est, à présent, posée. Là encore, l’Europe devrait évidemment être unie et se mettre en situation de décider et d’agir. Elle ne l’est pas. Or, si les médiations actuelles échouent, il sera bientôt nécessaire de réfléchir à mettre en place une coalition du type de celle qui a fonctionné en Afghanistan. Avant qu’un équivalent du 11 septembre 2001 ne vienne l’imposer »(Le Blog de Jacques Attali : le 28 mai 2012)

Tout est donc clair. La guerre envisagée au Mali s’inscrirait dans le prolongement de celle de l’Afghanistan, d’où la France et les États Unis se retirent progressivement après onze années de combats et de lourdes pertes en hommes, en matériel et finance. Le Sahel étant la zone d’influence de la France, celle-ci prend la direction des affaires concernant le Mali et sous-traite la violence militaire à la Cedeao. Ce transfert fait politiquement correct pour ne pas être accusé de colonialisme et d’impérialisme, mais aussi pour réduire le coût de la guerre et ne pas enregistrer d’autres pertes en vies humaines. Les opinions publiques occidentales tolèrent de moins en moins que leurs ressortissants meurent dans la défense de « nos » causes. Ainsi, au même titre que les tirailleurs sénégalais, les troupes africaines sont appelées à prêter main forte à la France.

LA MONDIALISATION DES MAUX ET DES RESEAUX

Le radicalisme religieux n’a pas besoin, dans un tel contexte, du nord du Mali pour se répandre en Afrique de l’Ouest et dans le monde. L’économie mondialisée sur la base de l’injustice et des inégalités est une machine à broyer les économies locales, les sociétés et les cultures qui lui offrent le terreau nécessaire. De la mer rouge à l’Atlantique, de l’Afghanistan au Nigeria, de Toulouse, où Mohamed Merah a agi et a été abattu, à Tombouctou, les enjeux sont à la fois idéologiques, civilisationnels, identitaires, mais aussi économiques, politiques et géostratégiques. Les acteurs et les forces en présence sont à peu près les mêmes, avec des variantes locales à manipuler telle que la rébellion touareg au Mali.

Par ailleurs, Afghans, Pakistanais, Algériens et autres prêcheurs ne sont pas de nouveaux venus au Mali. Ils ont fait leur apparition dans les mosquées à partir de la décennie 90, au moment où les conséquences sociales et humaines dramatiques des Programmes d’ ajustement structurel (Pas) sur l’emploi, le revenu et le lien social commençaient à se faire sentir.

LA PERSPECTIVE « BADENYA » COMME ALTERNATIVE A LA GUERRE

Des femmes maliennes et africaines bien imprégnées des enjeux et des rouages mortifères de la mondialisation néolibérale n’en cautionnent pas les guerres. Aux valeurs guerrières et prédatrices de l’ordre économique dominant, nous opposons des valeurs pacifistes, qui nous réconcilient les uns avec les autres, ainsi qu’avec le reste du monde. Badenya (enfants de la mère) est l’une de ces valeurs que nous nous devons, femmes du Mali, de cultiver d’avantage et d’opposer à la valeur masculine fadenya (les enfants du père) qui dans sa version ultralibérale autorise la course effrénée et fratricide au profit, au point de brader des entreprises publiques rentables, de céder des terres agricoles aux dominants et d’accepter la partition du territoire national.

Profondément ancré dans la perspective badenya, notre refus de la guerre plonge ses racines dans une conception de la procréation selon laquelle mettre un enfant au monde est déjà une manière de monter au front (musokele). Et trop nombreuses sont celles qui parmi nous périssent en enfantant. Nous bataillons jour après jour contre la faim, la pauvreté, la maladie, pour que chaque enfant grandisse, travaille, s’assume et assume sa part de responsabilité.

Aussi, en chaque soldat, comme en chaque rebelle et en chaque nouveau converti au djihadisme qui vont s’affronter en cas de guerre, chacune de nous reconnaît un frère, un fils, un neveu, un cousin. Hier, ils étaient en quête d’un statut social à travers l’emploi, le revenu ou alors un visa. Ce fut souvent en vain… A présent, ils ont entre leurs mains tremblantes des armes de guerre.

La lucidité et la maturité politique devront être nos armes dans ce monde sans foi ni loi. Il n’y a aucune raison que le Mali s’engage sur un terrain où la France et les États Unis d’Amérique reculent, en dépit de la puissance de feu de l’Otan.

A l’économie de la guerre, nous femmes du Mali opposons l’économie de la vie en faisant de la transition en cours une occasion historique de relever le triple défi du savoir, de la citoyenneté et du dialogue. Les évolutions en cours sur le terrain, dont la volonté de négociation d’Ansar Dine et du Mnla, la modification constante des rapports de force ainsi que des stratégies et des interactions entre les différents groupes présents, doivent être examinées avec l’attention nécessaire de manière, non seulement à éviter une guerre potentiellement tragique mais aussi à écarter les écueils des accords passés.
Les concertations nationales envisagées depuis des mois doivent se tenir enfin, permettant à la société malienne dans son ensemble de se retrouver et de définir elle-même les bases et les conditions d’une solution concertée (et non imposée) au conflit présent. Nous, femmes du Mali, y contribuerons pleinement, comme demain nous contribuerons à la refondation de la démocratie dans notre pays selon des valeurs de société et de culture qui nous sont familières.

Il s’agit, en somme, de crédibiliser, de renforcer la capacité d’analyse, d’anticipation et de proposition de la société malienne, civile, politique et militaire.

Nous demandons à toutes celles et à tous ceux qui partagent notre approche d’interpeller immédiatement les principaux acteurs de la communauté internationale, par écrit ou sous toutes autres formes d’expression, en plaidant pour que le Conseil de Sécurité n’adopte pas une résolution autorisant le déploiement de milliers de soldats au Mali.

CE TEXTE VOUS A ETE PROPOSE PAR PAMBAZUKA NEWS  

* Ne vous faites pas seulement offrir Pambazuka ! Devenez un Ami de Pambazuka et faites un don MAINTENANT pour aider à maintenir Pambazuka LIBRE et INDEPENDANT !  http://www.pambazuka.org/fr/friends.php  

** Signataires : Aminata D. Traoré ; Sissoko Safi Sy ; Sanogo Sylvie Koné ; Imbo Mama SY ; Kadiatou Touré ; Traoré Sélikèné Sidibé (Vieux) ; Dicko Rokia Sacko ; Ténin Diakité ; Doumbia Fanta Diallo ; Koné Mamou Touré ; Traoré Sarata Sanogo ; Traoré Penda Diallo ; Diabaté Kadiatou Kouyaté ; Aminata Bocoum ; Oumou Kodio ; Assatou Karembé ; Awa Koïta ; Aminata Doumbia ; Fatoumata Coulibaly ; Badji Boiré ; Awa Touré ; Bintou Koné ; Fatoumata Mariko ; Mariam Koné ; Minata Diarra ; Oumou Keïta ; Kadiatou Diallo ; Kankou Koné ; Rokia Niaré ; Kadia Djiré ; Ada Nantouma ; Awa Coulibaly ; Soungoura Doumbia ; Fanta Kanté ; Safiatou Coulibaly ; Djaba Tangara ; Koné Mama Diarra ; Ismael Diabaté ; Karamoko Bamba ; Doumbi Fakoly; Coumba Souko ; Clariste Soh-Moube ; Nathalie M’dela-Mounier

*** Veuillez envoyer vos commentaires à editor@pambazuka.org ou commentez en ligne sur le site de Pambazuka News
Article original sur Pambazuka: http://www.pambazuka.org/fr/category/features/85674

Bruno Jaffré: "Drei Jahre Hoffnung" - zum 25. Todestag von Thomas Sankara

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:40:00 +0200

Als Präsident von Burkina Faso begann Thomas Sankara einen Idealstaat zu verwirklichen. Seine Ermordung vor 25 Jahren setzte den Utopien ein Ende. Von Bruno Jaffré. Dieser Artikel erscheint in einer leicht gekürzten Fassung in der September-Ausgabe des Südlink, dem Nord-Süd-Magazin von INKOTA. |+| Südlink Was wäre, wenn Thomas Sankara überlebt hätte? Wäre Westafrika heute ein Hort des Wohlstands und der Demokratie? Von 1984 bis 1987 trieb der junge Präsident eine Vielzahl grundlegender Reformen voran. Burkina Faso war auf dem besten Weg, postkoloniale Abhängigkeiten zu überwinden, wirtschaftlich zu gedeihen und seine eigene Identität zu finden – zum Missfallen Frankreichs und einiger Nachbarstaaten. Am 15. Oktober 1987 wurde Sankara in einem Putsch ermordet. Über das kurze Leben eines Visionärs.

Wir befinden uns zu Beginn der Achtziger Jahre in der ehemaligen französischen Kolonie Obervolta, dem heutigen Burkina Faso. Das Land durchlebt eine schwere Finanzkrise, die durch eine politische Krise noch verstärkt wird. Seit der Unabhängigkeit haben sich verschiedene Staatsformen abgewechselt, ohne das neokoloniale System in Frage zu stellen. Während die überwältigende Mehrheit der Bevölkerung in Armut lebt, werden die Angehörigen der städtischen Mittelschicht in Gewerkschaften aktiv oder treten geheimen marxistischen Organisationen bei. Thomas Sankara ist zu diesem Zeitpunkt Anfang 30 und gerade zum Informationsminister ernannt worden – ein charismatischer Mann mit politischen Visionen. Er gruppiert junge Offiziere um sich, die wie er nach einer radikalen Veränderung streben und Beziehungen zu jungen marxistischen Intellektuellen knüpfen. Gemeinsam organisieren sie die Machtübernahme vom 4. August 1983. Als Thomas Sankara mit nur 33 Jahren zum Präsidenten von Obervolta aufsteigt, erkennt ihn das Volk als unumstrittenen Herrscher an. Er hat sich lange auf seine Machtübernahme vorbereitet und dabei doch niemals sein wichtigstes Ziel aus den Augen verloren, das er in einer Rede vor der UN-Generalversammlung 1984 wie folgt schildert: „Wir lehnen den Zustand des bloßen Überlebens ab; wir wollen den Druck lockern, unsere Dörfer von ihrer mittelalterlichen Starre befreien, unsere Gesellschaft demokratisieren und unsere Geister öffnen, um kollektiv Verantwortung zu übernehmen – ja, um die Erfindung der Zukunft zu wagen. (...) Das ist unsere politische Agenda.“ Eine immense Aufgabe. Denn Obervolta ist eines der ärmsten Länder der Welt. Sankara sammelt fast 150 MitarbeiterIinnen um sich, die er minutiös auswählt: Neben einigen Ideologen entscheidet er sich für die besten und motiviertesten Führungskräfte des Landes.

Bruch mit der Vergangenheit
Die Revolution erfüllt für Sankara hauptsächlich einen Zweck: die Lebensbedingungen der Bevölkerung zu verbessern. In allen Bereichen strebt er einen Bruch mit der Vergangenheit an: Die Verwaltung soll umstrukturiert und die Reichtümer umverteilt werden; Korruption ist gnadenlos zu bekämpfen; die Frauen sollen durch konkrete und symbolische Aktionen bei ihrer Befreiung unterstützt werden und die Jugend soll mehr Verantwortung erhalten. Außerdem will Sankara das Chefwesen bekämpfen, in dem er den Grund für die Rückständigkeit der Dörfer und ihre Unterstützung der alten Parteien sieht – ein verzweifelter Versuch, die Bauern als aktive Unterstützer der Revolution zu gewinnen. Doch nicht genug: Sankara will die Armee umbauen und sie in den Dienst des Volkes stellen, indem er ihr produktive Aufgaben zuschreibt, denn er fürchtet ihr Gewaltpotenzial: „Ein Soldat ohne politische Bildung ist ein potenzieller Verbrecher.“ Schließlich will er das Land dezentralisieren, durch die neu gegründeten „Komitees zur Verteidigung der Revolution“ (CDR) eine direkte Demokratie einführen und den Haushalt sowie die Minister kontrollieren. Und so weiter und so fort. Durch unerbittliche Sparsamkeit versucht der Nationale Revolutionsrat (CNR) die mageren Ressourcen vernünftig einzusetzen und die Verwaltungskosten zu verringern – so bleibt Geld für Investitionen. In der Hauptstadt Ouagadougou kann auf diese Weise ein brachliegendes Industriegebiet rehabilitiert werden. Sankara wollte eine autarke Entwicklung fördern und das Land von äußerer Hilfe unabhängig machen. Er wusste: „Wer einem zu essen gibt, will einem auch seinen Willen aufzwingen.“ „Menschen von Burkina, lasst uns produzieren und konsumieren!“ Dieser Slogan gibt eine seiner wichtigsten Überzeugungen wieder. Beamte werden angehalten, den Faso Dan Fani zu tragen, die traditionelle Kleidung, in die Baumwollstreifen von Hand eingewebt werden. Diese Kleidervorschrift löst einen Boom aus: Sie lässt die Nachfrage nach Baumwolle steigen; viele Frauen beginnen, zu Hause zu weben und werden zunehmend wirtschaftlich unabhängig. Die Einfuhr von Obst und Gemüse wird verboten; dies zwingt die Händler, in die schwer zugänglichen Dörfer im Südwesten Burkina Fasos zu fahren anstatt die Asphaltstraße nach Côte d'Ivoire zu nehmen.

Lokal wirtschaften
Auch beim Thema Umweltschutz ist Sankara ein Vorreiter: Er macht deutlich, dass die Menschen für die Ausdehnung der Wüste in die Sahelzone hinein verantwortlich sind. Der Nationale Revolutionsrat setzt sich gegen übermäßigen Holzschlag ein, wirbt dafür, beim Kochen Gas statt Feuerholz zu verwenden und geht gegen Buschfeuer und streunende Tiere vor. Die Revolutionskomitees setzen die Regeln in die Tat um – wenn es sein muss, auch mit Zwang. Sankara schiebt allen Diplomaten und Staatsmännern unermüdlich seine Vorhaben unter. Von Frankreich, so sagt er ihnen, sei keine Hilfe zu erwarten, obwohl französische Unternehmen den meisten Nutzen aus Großprojekten in Obervolta zögen. Die Globalisierung, das internationale Finanzsystem, die Allgegenwart von IWF und Weltbank, die Frage des Schuldenerlasses für Länder der Dritten Welt: lauter Kernthemen unserer Zeit, mit denen Thomas Sankara schon in den Achtzigerjahren visionär umzugehen versteht. In einer Rede vor der Organisation für Afrikanische Einheit (OAU) 1987 bezeichnet er die Verschuldung als Mittel der „geschickt organisierten Rekolonialisierung Afrikas“: „Sie soll dafür sorgen, dass Afrikas Wachstum und seine Entwicklung Phasen und Normen gehorchen, die uns völlig fremd sind.“ Er ruft die Staats- und Regierungschefs der anderen afrikanischen Länder auf, ihre Schulden nicht zurückzuzahlen. Als ein Radiojournalist Sankara einmal fragt, was für ihn Demokratie sei, antwortet er: „Die Demokratie ist das Volk mit all seinen Möglichkeiten und seiner Stärke. (...) Wer sich nur unmittelbar vor dem Wahlakt um die Menschen kümmert, hat kein demokratisches System. Nur wenn die Leute jederzeit ihre Meinung sagen können und die Politiker sich tagtäglich ihr Vertrauen verdienen müssen, kann von wahrer Demokratie die Rede sein. Man kann keine Demokratie errichten, ohne die Macht (...) in die Hände des Volkes zu legen.“

Ein Dorn im Auge des Westens
Dieser neue Präsidententypus, dessen Patriotismus und Integrität, persönliches Engagement und Selbstlosigkeit heute von allen Seiten gelobt wird, war den westlichen Mächten damals ein Dorn im Auge. Sankaras Ruhm bedrohte die Macht der Präsidenten in der Region und ganz allgemein die französische Präsenz in Afrika. Der Hinterhalt ist unausweichlich. Die Nummer zwei der Regierung, Blaise Compaoré, heute Präsident von Burkina Faso, organisiert das Komplott mit Unterstützung von Frankreich, Côte d'Ivoire und Libyen. Der Rest ist Geschichte: Wie durch postkoloniale Netzwerke eine Allianz aus Politikern, Militärs und Geschäftsleuten aus Côte d'Ivoire, Frankreich, Libyen und Burkina Faso entsteht. Wie sie Charles Taylor unterstützen, der in Liberia und Sierra Leone schreckliche Bürgerkriege anzettelt. Wie sich Blaise Compaoré am Diamanten- und Waffenhandel beteiligt, um dem Embargo gegen Jonas Savimbis UNITA-Guerilla zu entgehen. Obwohl er die ivorische Rebellengruppe „Forces Nouvelle“ unterstützt hat, wird Compaoré heute nach wie vor als Mann des Friedens in der Region präsentiert, unterstützt von französischen und US-amerikanischen Interessen. Alles wurde getan, um die Erinnerung an Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso zu löschen. Doch es hilft nichts. Sankara lebt weiter, in Tonaufzeichnungen, Bildern, Schriften. Das Internet verstärkt dieses Phänomen noch. Umso mehr erscheint er auch den Umweltaktivisten und Antikapitalisten der westlichen Länder heute als Vorreiter – für Fragen des Umweltschutzes ebenso wie für seine Haltung zum internationalen Finanzsystem und zur Schuldenfrage. Übersetzung aus dem Französischen von Christina Felschen. Bruno Jaffré hat Thomas Sankaras Biografie geschrieben und setzt sich mit seinem |+| Blog und einer |+| Kampagne dafür ein, dass Sankara nicht vergessen wird. Er begegnete Sankara bei seiner ersten Reise nach Burkina Faso im Jahre 1983. Als Forschungsingenieur gründete Jaffré eine NGO für internationale Solidarität im Bereich der Telekommunikation (CSDPTT).

Anlässlich des 25. Todestages von Thomas Sankara organisiert AfricAvenir eine bildungspolitische Veranstaltungsreihe, sowie eine öffentlichkeitswirksame Poster-Kampagne.

Am Sonntag, 14.10.2012, um 15.00 Uhr präsentiert AfricAvenir die Deutschlandpremiere des neuen zweiteiligen Dokumentarfilms „Auf den Spuren von Thomas Sankara“ und „Geteiltes Erbe“ im Hackesche Höfe Kino, in Anwesenheit der Filmemacher/innen von Baraka.
Zum Weiterlesen:

www.thomassankara.net: Von Bruno Jaffré betriebene Website zu Thomas Sankara, die viele der hier zitierten Reden im Original wiedergibt, inklusive deutscher Übersetzungen.
Jaffré, Bruno: Les années Sankara de la révolution à la rectification. L'Harmattan, 1989.
Jaffré, Bruno: Thomas Sankara, la patrie ou la mort. L'Harmattan, 2007.
Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung in Kooperation mit AfricAvenir: Publikation zum 15.10.2012 (in französischer Sprache, ab 2013 auf Deutsch). Nähere Infos auf www.africavenir.org.

Interview with Haile Gerima: „Freedom is not some kind of 'UNESCO milk' that can be given to someone. It is something people fight for“

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:34:00 +0200

Interview with Haile Gerima, conducted by Nicolai Röschert and Isabelle Scheele (both AfricAvenir), on the occasion of the AfricAvenir screening of the film “Teza” on 3. May 2011 in Berlin. "Teza" will be screened by the Namibian branch of AfricAvenir on September 12, 2012. Click |+| here for more details. Haile Gerima is an independent filmmaker of distinction and world-wide fame who has served as a distinguished professor of film at Howard University in Washington D.C. since 1975. Born in Ethiopia, Gerima is perhaps best known as the writer, producer, and director of the acclaimed 1993 film “Sankofa”.

Following in the footsteps of his father, a dramatist and playwright, Gerima studied acting in Chicago before entering UCLA film school, where his exposure to Latin American films inspired him to mine his own cultural legacy. After completing his thesis film, “Bush Mama” (1975), Gerima received international acclaim with “Harvest: 3000 Years” (1976), an Ethiopian drama that won the Grand Prize at the Locarno film festival.

After the award-winning “Ashes & Embers” (1982) and the documentaries “Wilmington 10—U.S.A 10,000” (1978) and “After Winter: Sterling Brown” (1985), Gerima filmed his epic “Sankofa” (1993). This ambitious tale of a plantation slave revolt was ignored by U.S. distributors, but Gerima tapped into African American communities, and booked sold-out screenings in independent theaters around the country.

In 1996, Gerima founded the Sankofa Video and Bookstore in Washington, DC., a cultural and intellectual space that offers opportunities for self-expression, interaction, discussion and analysis through community events such as film screenings, book signings, scholar forums and artist showcases. Gerima continues to distribute and promote his own films, including his most recent festival success “Teza” (2008), which won the Jury and Best Screenplay awards at the Venice Film Festival and the Golden Stallion at the PanAfrican Film Festival FESPACO in 2009. He also lectures and conducts workshops in alternative screenwriting and directing both within the U.S. and internationally.

AfricAvenir: I feel that you have a hunger for showing African perspectives and problems. What is your link to African history, is it personal or rather political?

Haile Gerima: It is personal I would say. I was 21 when I left Ethiopia to go to the US. Revisiting one's own past can be therapeutic. Africa does not seem to have a right to memory. I want to remember my own history. If others can identify with it, then that surely is a good thing. I do not want to impose it on others. But I know bureaucratic and international power structures oppose the preservation of historical memory. If you as an individual try to keep this memory alive you automatically antagonize these power structures, the national African middle classes and the international, global middle class. A European is allowed to remember. For an African, remembering is taboo. We are denied continuity. It's like nothing has ever been different from how it is today. Leaders are denied role models from Africa's past. It's like Nkrumah or Lumumba never existed. All begins and ends with Europe, and now we are calling for Europe to recolonize us. Our heroes have been buried in oblivion. No one knows what they have achieved. You see, I am Ethiopian, and my people were the first black people to defeat a colonial power in 1896. Have you seen any movies on that? I made a documentary about it and it was only aired in Germany. My personal journey matters more to me, but people often identify with it so it becomes a collective journey.

AfricAvenir: What you are saying is that, for you, making films is like telling your story but at the same time a way to emancipate the audience?

Gerima: I make films for myself. Making films emancipates me in the first place. Each film helps me to be a better person. It's like an exorcism. If they happen to emancipate other people too, then all the better! I know it sounds crazy, making films is expensive. For me, fascism in art begins when you try to lower the level of your films to meet people's taste. Most European cinema, even German cinema is dying because instead of asserting its identity it tries to adjust to what people like. It's the same reasoning behind the thinking of capitalist box office producers. Most people just want to be entertained after a hard day of work, they do not want to think. So for me films are primarily something I do for myself: “Teza” has helped me more than it could ever help anyone else. If they are good for me, then why not make them. I am not being Louis the XIV, all I am saying is that if the films I make help me get rid of negative thoughts, then I am sure that I will come across like-minded people in cinemas.

AfricAvenir: People call you an independent filmmaker, what does this labeling mean to you, are you proud of that?

Gerima: Who would be proud to be a poor filmmaker? I am happy for money to come in but not for it to control what I do. So I make low-budget films because they enable me to keep control over what I do. Less money can mean more power. Making a low-budget film can take a very long time, sometimes 10 or even 12 years, which makes my filmmaking look quite “rusty” as a result, but I prefer my independence to the risk of losing my creation. Many filmmakers strike compromises with the industry for the sake of money, which they then mostly regret. But I do not regret any of my films: Every film I make is a piece of me.

AfricAvenir: What do you think marks the difference between your films and Hollywood-style films on Africa?

Gerima: I do not want to talk about differences, because claiming to be something different is always a dangerous thing to do. However, the films I make are not so much about a specific story but rather about the way I tell stories. I do not want to tell a story the Hollywood way, but the “Haile way”. This is the big challenge for African cinema: telling its stories its own way. African filmmakers should assert African identity without worrying about what Europeans or Americans will think about their films.

AfricAvenir: What about your target audience, is it rather an African or a global audience? Do these considerations influence your film-making?

Gerima: Saying art is for a specific audience is trying to restrict it. It is a dangerous baggage for art to carry. Art should be free of this cumbersome responsibility. I might say I make art for my people, but my people might not care about my art. What one should do is make a film and then find people who are interested in it. You first create a story, then the audience. That, for me, is democracy. If one makes a film for a specific audience, like the working class or women, the result, in my view, will be a fascist film. I do not control the minds of people. All I know is I tell a story and then find my friends. I ask them what they think about my films and take criticism from them.

AfricAvenir: You live in the United States, but you shot the movie in Ethopia. Is it a choice to live in the US or do you see yourself as an exile?

Gerima: I do not live in the US either, I am suspended in mid-air. It does not matter where I am physically. I wish I knew where my mind is now! I am not exiled by power, but by the awareness of what my rights are. What happens is you are somewhere not because you want to be there but because you are not a threat there. In America, no one cares who I am or what I do. In Ethiopia even my stupidity is a threat. America is not my home. I am still a guest who needs a visa to be there. I am not a citizen of the US nor do I want to be.

AfricAvenir: What are the possibilities for power structure change in Africa? What do you think is the potential of civil society movements? Are they receptive to the themes you discuss in your films and which you see as fundamental to understand African history?

Gerima: The danger of living long is you become more pessimistic. In Ethiopia we had the so called Ethiopian Spring, which was not broadcast in other countries. After the Emperor went down we had a military “junta”. What do you think will happen in Egypt? I am not crazy about people chanting, “facebooking” and “twittering” revolution. I am more aware of the “hidden hands”. The military will not allow a revolution to happen. Neither the US nor Israel would want a revolution to take place there. Egyptians now are becoming more aware of what happens in their country, of where the military come from and how they came to power. No one discusses the history of Egypt, even in Egypt itself. Was Sadat appointed by the CIA? And what about Mubarak? He too was a CIA-appointed leader. We are manipulated by the media. The minute imperialism calls your struggle revolution there is a problem for me. When the CNN refers to events in Egypt as a revolution people tend to view them with mistrust. Africans do not have the right to make a revolution unless sanctioned by the power that be, Europe, the US and increasingly China. Young people do not realize that the military are not to be trusted because they are an instrument of repression. The Ethiopian military were supposed to be the friends of the people and then they killed millions. In Africa we are not allowed to interpret our own history without the sanction of the imperial powers. Young Africans are not taught to understand history. Understanding circumstances should take precedence over revolutionary euphoria. I wish people in Ethiopia had stayed underground rather than rushing into a revolution which killed them. Understanding one's history allows one to draw lessons from the past and avoid making the same mistakes. I am a pessimist. My films make me more optimistic. But this optimism is still in the making. In the film “Teza”, the children of the dragon symbolize my hopes. It is important for me to know that things will not always be the same and there will be a generation that will have a broader perspective. Not a “CNN perspective”. Calling the revolution a “facebook revolution” or “twitter revolution” is offensive in the first place because it makes it sound like a US-financed revolution. What are people meant to do, twitter their way to power or what?

AfricAvenir: I would also like to talk about the distribution side. Our organisation AfricAvenir has a section in Windhoek, Namibia. Our colleagues there are mainly working on the distribution of and access to films that portray an African perspective. They seek to emphasize the role of film as a community-shaping factor through their screenings. Do you see initiatives like this one as having a long-term potential to become a platform for independent films?

Gerima: I think people need to do what they need to do to get their films out. My wife and I started our own distribution company. I did not want to put up with the terms defined by distribution companies. But what African film-makers need to understand is that they should become self-reliant: they cannot keep relying on funding from Europe or America. They need to be able to exist without that support, because once Western countries no longer find Africa interesting they will direct funds elsewhere. That is why they should make their films their main source of income for production and distribution. And that is why they should lobby their governments to put national policies in place which protect film-makers without having to compromise their work. The current tax system in Ethiopia is killing film-making and robbing film-makers. The government does not care about cinema. They don't even allow us to advertise our films on television. The proceeds of screenings should go to the producers, not the government. These are things I have been fighting for in Ethiopia and in America. My wife is editing her third documentary, I am editing documentaries we have been working on for twenty years. We are working. We are not waiting for some benevolent power to save us. You should always base your work on being self-sufficient, on earning enough to enable you to produce your next project independently. Say I wanted to co-produce something with a German filmmaker. I would always need to bring my own capital to the table. If we fell out, he would want to control the whole project and I would be finished. Cooperation with Europe is always temporary, and for as long as the cooperation lasts you need to ensure that your independence is safeguarded. The situation in France is particularly disastrous for African film-makers. Africans should not let their intellectual property be owned by any European. I don't want to mortgage my work. I get less, but I own more. We always raise funds for African filmmakers in the US. My wife and I, together with some friends were the first to take films to prisons in America. We formed a collective and screened films on streets. We used to call it “vigilant cinema”. Latin Americans have done this before. Even newly independent countries like South Africa and Namibia are doing it: The problem with them is they don't realise they are not the first to be doing it. They don't know about the Algerian experience, Cuban experience, the “cinema novo” in Brasil. They are very arrogant because they neglect previous film revolutions that led to the production of political and independent films elsewhere. Even in Europe there were all kinds of militant distribution companies, in Germany, in France. And they all collapsed. That's why it's important to learn from past experiences. Another important thing is to get people to realise the value of independent cinema. One way for them to realise it is to have them pay for the films they see, just like with mainstream Hollywood films. If they cannot pay, then they should get involved in the production as far as they can. In Washington we have many Black kids coming to learn how to produce a film.

AfricAvenir: What impact did the celebrations of 200 years since the end of slavery have on your work? How was this commemorated in the US, what were people's perceptions?

Gerima: We are now working on a sequel to “Sankofa” which will deal with the so-called “maroons”, Black people who succeeded in freeing themselves from slavery upon their arrival in the Americas and who in some cases created settlements called “maroonages” and fought a guerrilla war against plantations. Sometimes they joined forces with Native Americans. This is a major historical event which has been purged from school curricula. We are still looking for funds but have already filmed several interviews with historians. The point I am trying to make is that slavery was a taboo topic in the USA and could not be discussed, particularly from an African-American perspective. “Sankofa” was a unique film to the extent that it expressed Africans' point of view on slavery and openly dealt with resistance to slavery. Black kids in America are taught that Lincoln freed them, that nice white people freed them. So were Black people just waiting to be freed? The Black community of course always rejected this narrative, so when “Sankofa” came, its reception was magnified. It is in many respects an imperfect film, but if you go to a Black person and try to criticise it you will be in trouble! When you have an entire population hungry for truth and then a single film comes along which talks about precisely that truth, you will have a reaction which is in many ways out of proportion. Most of my films were praised beyond their original proposition simply because they were the only ones dealing with certain themes. “Teza”, for instance, is the only film that discusses recent events in Ethiopia. But if there were other twenty films dealing with the topic, mine would just be seen as normal. “Sankofa” was the only film to suggest there had been resistance by the enslaved Black community. There is not a single US University who does not have a class on that film. Yet when I had first set out to shoot the film, there was not a single financial institution in the US who would not reject my request for funding. All the support I got was from elsewhere, e.g. Germany, Channel 4 and two African countries. Now the film stands out in the US as the only film suggesting there was an African-American resistance. There was not a single film in the whole of Hollywood's history that would take a similar perspective. Commemorations of the end of slavery only have this one film to draw back to. And that I do not like. I am not growing as a filmmaker. For that you need debate and criticism. Films made by Hollywood on the topic were always about good die-hard white people helping poor Black victims begging to be freed. And that information is wrong. It kills both white and black kids to see things in that perspective. Freedom is not some kind of “UNESCO milk” that can be given to someone. It is something people fight for.

Knowledge and Power in Algeria: An Interview with Daho Djerbal on the Twentieth Anniversary of NAQD by Muriam Haleh Davis

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:39:00 +0200

It is still very possible to work on Algeria without ever passing through the Contrôle Passeport in Algiers. For a host of reasons—archival, bureaucratic, historical and, perhaps, psychological—Algeria remains on the margins of its own historiography. Arriving in September, I expected to get many questions from scholars who have worked here in the past, pertaining to the current conditions of research, the upcoming legislative elections, and the finally-completed metro (thirty years in the making). Instead, the one question I was most consistently asked by friends and colleagues was: Do you know Daho Djerbal?

Unlike the scholars who are hesitant to come (some of them also of Algerian origin), Daho very adamantly refuses to leave. In addition to teaching responsibilities, and his own work (his manuscript on the the Fédération de la Libéeration Nationale (FLN) in France is to be published in March of this year) [1], he also runs the journal Naqd (published in Arabic and French), which celebrated its twentieth anniversary this month. Perhaps “runs” is not the best verb to use in this case. He distributes, edits, solicits for, proofreads, and formats the journal as well. In an academic space that remains divided between a French-oriented intelligentsia and the state ideology of the FLN), Naqd remains a space of radical non-alignment with either.

Power is a strange thing in Algeria, and it is not expressed in ways that are immediately evident. For those who speak about the domination of an authoritarian regime, one finds pockets of resistance and the uneven penetration of state power. For economists who discuss the choice between free-market capitalism and state-led planning, in Algeria state control and unfettered markets operate in parallel. For activists who wax poetic about popular mobilization and the “Arab Street,” one finds a pervasive division of society, and a fractured social landscape that nevertheless has deep moments of quotidian, if not “political,” solidarity. Lastly, scholars who adopt the lens of Afro-pessimism are confronted with a strong assertion of pride in a revolutionary history, even if revolutions in general, as Gilles Deleuze recently noted, often end badly.

Thus if knowledge and power are intertwined, their relationship is often obscure in Algeria. The country is faced with the stagnancy of formal politics, deep social-economic frustration, economic and cultural domination by France, an American-led program for a “Greater Middle East,” and speculations regarding the political comeback of the Islamic Salvation Front (better known by the French acronym, FIS). For those who are committed to knowledge rather than power, the options are few: the French Cultural Center, which blares MTV (in English—imagine my horror at seeing the star of Saved by the Bell, Mario Lopez, on an Algerian flat-screen TV); the Glycines (a research Center and monastery, which is a particularly welcoming environment for scholars, even if its relationship with the Algerian state is tenuous); and a loose network of universities that are uneven in resources and quality. While certain facultés are beacons of the state’s petrol-modernity, others (such as the Fac at Bouzareah, where Daho teaches Algerian history) are in a state of complete degradation.

Algerian History at the Fac

The last time I went to la Fac (university) with Daho. There was a conference on pre-Islamic history that had been delayed because the electricity was not working. I awkwardly walked with him as he was inundated by warm greetings—and requests for academic references. The same grace on his part (and awkwardness on mine) was repeated as we entered the classroom, where again the lack of electricity had halted all plumbing, the results of which made an already uncomfortable classroom (wooden benches, broken windows, graffiti) even more striking. The students were overwhelmingly women, and I was the only one who was not wearing a headscarf. Daho presented a text by Emir Khaled, asking the students to think about the language of the prose. What was new in this letter that the Emir wrote to president Wilson in 1919? While the students excitedly proposed various responses, there were two phrases that stood out: one was a proclamation of the nationality of the people (jinsiyyat ash-sha’b), and the other expressed the desire to live as an independent nation (al-‘aish fi istiqlal). Daho then explained how these notions reflected a changing nationalist consciousness, telling his students that ways of thinking about politics and nationalism are themselves the reflection of certain historical processes.

He then went even farther. Taking out the kitab dahabi, or Livre d’or de la colonization (1937), a colonial “who’s who” of the 1930s, Daho showed pictures of Algerians who had supported the French during this period, emphasizing that many of these names are still to be found among the Algerian elite. History can be a dangerous thing, he warned them. For a generation of students that have been taught FLN discourse, this denaturalization of official Algerian nationalism was certainly a provocation. As Daho has remarked elsewhere, “[In Algeria] the dominant historical discourse is that of the state, not that of the historians.”

Gender and Education in Algeria

A few months after arriving in Algiers I started to notice a paradox; the city feels masculine, and navigating urban spaces (cafes, buses, parks) requires deference to certain forms of patriarchy. On the other hand, the female students I met often had loftier ambitions and higher aspirations than their male counterparts. They worked harder and learned languages with a ferocity that put many of my procrastinating tendencies to shame.

“There has been an important movement of the feminization of public and professional space, along with the feminization of the school and university,” Daho explained. “Today, there are thousands of women at the university, but they are not yet conscious of their rights as citizens. They realize that they have access to knowledge and perhaps a revenue that may be superior to that of their brothers or husbands but this has not yet taken the form of a demand for formal, legal rights.” Accordingly, he finds a certain gap (décalage) between the practice of every day life and a political consciousness. “The students leave their courses to return to their prisons, the student residences.” Very few go to conferences or libraries, lacking the confidence to circulate in public space.

For Daho, this is also a symptom of the fact that women are not protected by the state:

"Men consider these spaces to be communal (espace communautaire) rather than public (espace public), and though it is the role of the state to protect those who occupy public space, often the authorities and police are complicit with the acts of aggression against women. The claims made by women are not accepted, and they realize they face a coalition that is against them—tradition and the state apparatus function together in this regard."

The impact of these forces is clear for Daho: while women might occupy the public space, they do not yet envision themselves to be an individual (un individu singulier), but rather understand their subjectivity to be an element of the community (un élément de la force commune).

One day, I stayed after the lecture to talk to one of his students, Fatima. [2] She wanted to know, "Didn’t I miss my family being so far away? Had I met a “special” (male) friend in Algeria yet? How did I know ustaz Djerbal?" Fatima then invited me to see her dorm, and when I accepted, she led me out of the building holding my hand. I realize now it was a form of protection and concern, though for me it was another moment of trying to contain a very visible awkwardness. We took the student bus (packed) to her dorm, and once we arrived the structure resembled not a residence but a maximum-security jail. We had to be let in electronically, and there was no leaving after sunset. Moreover, the only readily available public transportation (that Fatima seemed to know of) took one to the university for classes in the morning.

As I entered the compound it soon became clear that I had misunderstood. My expectation of a brief visit to her dorm was actually an invitation to spend the night, something that I was not prepared to do. When I told Fatima this, she looked distraught. The thought that I would take a bus and taxi to get home was almost unthinkable for her. It struck me that I had a physical mobility that she did not, even though it was, technically, her terrain. Enclosed in a university system that did not trust her to escape the confines of her dormitory, I understood why she seemed so encouraged by Daho, who had not only invited us for a coffee a few hours prior, but who took her seriously as an individual who might find both the (real and symbolic) “mobility” that the system had tried to foreclose. All of a sudden her previous comments, that Daho treated students with “respect,” came into sharp focus. It was not merely that Daho was compassionate with his students. More importantly, he encouraged a subjectivity that was being suffocated elsewhere, and the word that Fatima used to describe this experience was both simple and profound: respect.

Redefining “Politics” in Algeria

There was a second paradox that I found immediately visible in Algeria. Despite the bankruptcy of formal politics (according to the Arab Barometer, ninety-four percent of Algerians have no political party, and eighty percent find the system corrupt, while only fifteen and a half percent are interested in politics), there are daily protests and riots that mobilize for specific, often very local, demands. Thus, I wondered: how could a population that staged 112,878 protests in 2010 be considered “apolitical”? [3]

Once again, Daho explained that for the last twenty years the link between “public space and official politics has disintegrated" (l’espace politique et la classe politique ont été désintégrés), and “negotiations between society and the state no longer follow the channels of official parties.” Instead, these negotiations happen in social and public spaces, and on the street:

"One occupies the street, sets up barricades, stops traffic. Sometimes these contests point to a social struggle, but sometimes they are for more general demands—such as the demand for housing. The young generation who are coming of age want housing, employment, a legitimate future. Since the unions, political parties, and parliament no longer play their role, protests and riots have become the most common mode of negotiation between various groups and the state (La manifestation, puis l’émeute deviennent la modalité la plus courante, la plus ordinaire de la négociation entre des groupes, des population, des quartiers et l’état.)"

Indeed, the political conversations that I often heard in Algeria were seldom about the upcoming legislative elections or party politics. Instead, friends told me about how “the system” methodically blocked those with talent from succeeding. They complained about unemployment, about professional humiliation, and about personal frustration. The expressions of these sentiments are everywhere and the results are sporadic, localized, and often violent. For Daho, this points to something new, in that these forms of political activism indicate a “politics without a party, without a program, and without a view of the kind of change that is being demanded. We are in a phase of political activism without political expression. The latter needs a program and an objective, which has not yet been formulated.”

Arabization and the Commodification of Language

Until I started going to the Fac, I had never head Daho give a lecture in Arabic. Yet it was immediately evident that teaching a class on Algerian history in Arabic presents some problems: What to do with the verb franchiser (literally to make French, to Frenchify), for example? Daho rendered it farnasa, in Arabic, the meaning of which was not immediately clear to the students. Similarly, there were French words for which the Arabic equivalent did not as clearly capture the epistemic violence of French colonialism—citoyenneté as jinsiya, for example. If jinsiya has a loose definition that can connote different kinds of distinctions among people (including sex and nationality), citoyenneté is captured by the history of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, and is therefore inseparable from the (very French) categories of distinction imposed on Algeria.

Education was officially Arabized in the early 1970s, when the Algerian state sought to eliminate the last vestiges of French colonialism. Yet not all domains are conducted in Arabic; while the social sciences and humanities are taught only in Arabic, French remains the language of the natural sciences, medicine, and technology. The question of language is not only a matter of state ideology and post-colonial identity politics, but has important ramification for employment, especially considering that a twenty-one percent of youths between sixteen and twenty-four years of age are unemployed.

According to Daho, what initially emerged was a double standard whereby the French language (in the domains of medicine, the natural sciences, and technology) “offered a superior status while Arabic offered a subaltern status.” But in the 1990s, this began to change: “Since the 1990s Arabic has become the dominant language.” This process was also linked to the oil economy, since Arabophones, who were not involved in the more productive sectors of the economy, lived principally off of the rents of petrol. “In the enterprises and in businesses, however, it is completely bilingual since with the generalization of the market economy there is money to be made, whether one is Arabophone or Francophone. The line of division is not only drawn at the level of language, but also with regards to the proximity to rent, whether that is the rents of the market or the state.” Clearly, then, the question of language—which is closely tied to the question of identity—has become a commodity, requiring a strategy of exchange based on available rents as well as political possibilities.

The Assassination of Qaddafi: Redefining Political Values

As has been widely discussed, Algeria found itself in an awkward position this past year. During the hunt for Qaddafi, Algeria offered refuge to Qaddafi’s daughter and was one of the last countries in North Africa to recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council (CNT from the French Conseil National de Transition). After the capture of Qaddafi, el-Watan, the major independent newspaper in Algeria, ran a story that featured the bloodied face of Qaddafi and was entitled “Free Libya” (Libye Libre). Daho’s response articulated the sentiments of a population that was scandalized both by the gruesomeness of the image as well as by the lack of political context. It soon started going “viral,” as it were. His critique of el-Watan’s coverage was twofold: First, as he explained, “one has trivialized (on a banalisé) the assassin as something ordinary, acceptable, lawful. And this is unacceptable.” Secondly, el-Watan offered no information as to the way in which Qaddafi was killed, instead running the title “Libye libre” under the photo of Qaddafi and thus “taking two things that are absolutely contradictory things and presenting them as if they were complimentary. In other words, one has liberated Libya from tyranny through an assassination. But one cannot liberate a country by an assassination, it’s impossible, it doesn’t matter who the person is. This foreshadows (préfigure) the alternative envisioned by those who opposed tyranny and dictatorship…the manner of dealing with this affair did not present us with a democratic alternative.” Daho emphasizes that he objected to this political vision, despite his dislike for Qaddafi: “If we want to change the world, we have to change it while advancing moral and political values that are more noble than those to which we have been subjected.”

From Bush to Obama: Foreign Intervention and National Sovereignty

The assassination of Qaddafi, along with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) invasion of Libya, sparked a heated debate on the left regarding the relationship between national sovereignty and international intervention. This topic that has re-emerged in the context of the Arab League and the United States in Syria. On the subject of foreign intervention and NATO, Daho is emphatic about two things. First, NATO’s involvement in Algeria dates back to the war of independence, when the organization provided support to the French. Second, the notion of national sovereignty is not applicable after the proclamation of the war on terrorism. In this second point—which encapsulates both the vision of a “Greater Middle East” as well as the “Project for Mediterranean Dialogue”—Daho maintains that Obama has merely continued the policies that began under Bush. The so-called war on terror has “generalized the spaces of exception,” Daho tells me, offering a brief gloss on Giorgio Agamben.

“I can understand this in the cases of those countries that have accepted an alliance with American power. But for a country that fought for its independence like Algeria, which struggled to be free of foreign presence and dependence, this is a scandal.”

Referencing the American military bases in the South of Algeria, Daho notes that this political strategy “only serves the national security interests of America.”

Provocations and the “Democratic Challenge”

In the twentieth anniversary edition of Naqd, “The Democratic Challenge” (Le Défi Démocratique), Daho writes:

"We should be careful in our optimism as we find ourselves faced with these enormous protests throughout the Arab World. While [they] are challenging the unbearable brutality and folly of the current powers…they also indicate a movement that is being used by imperial ambitions and finds itself being…appropriated by…the global system of power, which after a limited “modernization” remains secure by offering a mere softening in the relations of power. In short, “democratization” has emerged as an antidote to the alternative, which must be avoided at all costs—revolution".

The question remains: What does it mean to be “free” in 2012, both as a nation-state and as a citizen? When the radical freedoms of protected economies and third-worldism seem increasingly dangerous to neo-liberal sensibilities, the legacy of revolutions—both past and present—are increasingly uncertain. The last issue of Naqd asks us to also interrogate the notion of a “spring”—be it Arab or otherwise.

This is certainly a provocation that is consistent with Daho’s pedagogical and political strategy. I am again reminded of Daho’s students who learned to question the narrative of another revolution, which occurred almost fifty years ago—the Algerian war of Independence. The political and intellectual engagement upon which Naqd was founded remains as critical now as it was in 1962 or 1991 (the start of Algeria’s decade long civil war):

“Without wanting to leave the domain of social and political activism, we intended to question our theoretical assumptions, to critique our own ideas and practices, and to try to make sense of that which continuously weighed on us (Sans vouloir quitter le terrain de l’activisme social et politique, nous prétendions remettre en question nos presupposes théoriques, soumettre à la critique nos propres idées et notre proper pratique pour pretender donner du sens à ce qui ne cessait de nous accabler).”

[All translations are by the author.]

NOTES

[1] L'Organisation spéciale de la Fédération de France du FLN. Histoire de la lute armée du FLN en France (1956-1962), Editions Chihab, expected publication date March 2012.

[2] Name has been changed.

[3] Thanks to Kenza Ziati for bringing this statistic to my attention.

Kwame Opoku: Blood Antiquities in Respectable Havens: Looted Benin Artefacts donated to American Museum

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:58:00 +0200

In this article Kwame Opoku takes position on the donation by Robert Owen Lehman, great-grandson of founder of Lehman Brothers of 34 looted artefats to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The people of Benin have tried for years to have their precious works of art returned to no avail. Now the artifacts have a new ‘owner’ in America. “The year 1897 means much to me and my people; it was the year the British invaded our land and forcefully removed thousands of our bronze and ivory works from my great grandfather, Oba Ovonramwen’s Palace." His Royal Highness Oba Erediauwa, Oba of Benin.

The American media is full of reports that the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has recently received a large number of Benin artefacts as donation from a New York banker and collector, Robert Owen Lehman, great-grandson of founder of Lehman Brothers. (1). The gift consists of 34 excellent art works from West Africa of which 32 are from Benin-28 bronzes and 4 ivories. The other 2 are from Guinea and Sierra Leone. The Benin artefacts had been bought in the 1950’s and 1970s A quick look at the artefacts indicates that they are among the best of Benin artefacts and the press has praised the beauty, elegance, and sophistication of these works some of which can be seen here (2)

The sophistication of the artefacts clearly points to their notorious origin: the nefarious invasion of Benin in 1897 by the British in their criminal enterprise, the so-called Punitive Expedition that culminated in the looting of the palace of the Benin king, Oba Ovonramwen and the killing of innocent children, women and men before Benin City was burnt down by the invading army, as was their tradition whenever and wherever the British army was sent to punish recalcitrant colonial or semi colonial subjects.(3).

The Museum of Fine Arts itself refers to the 1897 invasion and looting as source of many of the artefacts. (4) However, through subtle means, attempts are made, often indirectly, to lessen the criminal nature of the source of these magnificent artefacts. The history of the invasion of Benin is not fully stated and is, in many ways, distorted. A press release issued by the museum states:

“The kingdom expanded and flourished from the late 14th through the late 19th century, when it came under British influence upon the conclusion of a treaty with Britain in 1892. Five years later, after Benin forces attacked and killed most members of a British delegation en route to Benin City, the British launched the Punitive Expedition of 1897, sending military forces to the capital and defeating its ruler, Oba Ovonramwen. It is estimated that the British removed more than 4,000 objects from the Benin palace during this military action.” (5)

The statement after Benin forces attacked and killed most members of a British delegation en route to Benin City, the British launched the Punitive Expedition of 1897, is surely incomplete, if not misleading. Readers might not appreciate that the so-called British delegation was in fact the British Pre-emptive Force, consisting of 120 African mercenaries, disguised as porters with guns in their luggage, led by British officers that intended to unseat the Oba of Benin by a surprise attack. This force was itself surprised by a Benin attack. (6)

Readers are, of course, not informed that the so-called British delegation went to Benin after the Oba had stated in a response to a request to pay him visit that he would not be able to receive them at the time chosen since he would be involved in traditional rituals during which time no foreigners are allowed to see the Oba. Since when do people visit royalty when they have been told explicitly that the date chosen is unacceptable? The Punitive Expedition of 1897 cannot simply be presented as British response to a Benin attack. The attack was a convenient pretext for British plans that had been made long before that unfortunate visit to depose Oba Ovonramwen who was resisting British hegemonic endeavours to control trade in Benin and surrounding States. (7)

Christraud Geary, senior curator of the African and Oceanic Art Department of the Museum of Fine Arts is credited with declaring that “We have looked at the legal situation here at the museum and we’ve come to the conclusion that the gift meets all of our standards.” The curator also added that there have been no official claims for the works of art (8). This attempt to create the impression that there are no legal problems in connection with the acquisition of blood antiquities which even the museum does not deny were acquired initially under circumstances of violence and brutal force, would not convince anyone. The phrase “our standards” would need to be clarified whether they refer to standards of the museum or standards prevailing in the USA. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Boston Museum of Fine Arts has had problems with Italy relating to its acquisition of looted artefacts from Italy and had to return some of them. (9) What is also remarkable about the reports on the donation of the Benin artefacts to the Boston museum is that there is little mention that the people of Benin, under the leadership of the present Oba, Erediauwa, great-grandson of Oba Ovonramwen from whose palace the Benin artefacts were looted in 1897, have been trying for ages to recover some of the artefacts. However in an article at Boston.com mention was made that: “Over the years, some archaeologists and African government officials have demanded the return of the objects “(10) Christraud Geary commented that there have been no official claims regarding the artefacts. These artefacts are records of Benin history and culture and are surely more needed in Benin than in Boston. Did anybody think about the needs of the Benin (Edo) people in this connection? Apparently, the needs of the world have been considered by the senior curator: “What entered my thinking was that here was a wonderful opportunity to move into the public domain objects which hadn’t been seen for decades and which spoke so wonderfully of the great African culture,” he said. “In the MFA, we can share them with people of all nations. We can present their history. It’s a complex history. And that’s our role. To move great cultural objects into the public domain.” (11)

Here again, those museums that are not very keen to consider the needs of specific African peoples who have been robbed of their cultural artefacts ,are solicitous of the needs of the world at large. The curator is anxious for the “world” to see objects that have not been seen for decades. But what about the Benin people who have been violently deprived of their cultural artefacts and records of the history for more than a hundred years. Does anybody think the people of Benin should also be enabled to see their own artefacts? The height of arrogance, paternalism and insensitivity is reached when a curator declares:
“In the MFA, we can share them with people of all nations. We can present their history. It’s a complex history. And that’s our role. To move great cultural objects into the public domain”. (12) The museum seems prepared to share the Benin artefacts with the peoples of all nations but not with the people of Benin. The museum is keen to present their history: “We can present their history. It’s a complex history” We can all agree that presenting history, especially, the history of other peoples, is a complex matter. But has anyone considered that it might be easier and better to let other peoples tell their own histories by returning to them the records of their history which have been violently looted so that they give us a complete picture? Or are other peoples, by some genetic disability, not in a position to reconstruct their history? Why must Western scholars be the only ones to tell the history of others? If curators at Western museums consider this as their role, they must rethink about their self-assigned role, especially if this directly or indirectly reinforces justifications of the injustices of an imperialist past that enabled certain countries to deprive other peoples of their material, spiritual and cultural resources. (13). Christraud Geary who considers the donation a major contribution; is reported to have declared: “It’s such a major, major gift and it’s so important for understanding African creativity and African culture.” But does she not think that these objects are also important for the people of Benin, Nigeria, in order for them to understand their own culture? The needs of the deprived owners appear to be less relevant to Western museum directors and officials who are more occupied with their “universal” museums. But their “universalism” is a Western universalism which does not extend to non-Western peoples. Benin people who want to see these artefacts in Boston will not be granted visa for the United States. Readers may no doubt recall that fairly recently there was criticism and a call for boycott when Sotheby’s announced they were going to auction Benin artefacts that were in possession of inheritors of one of the participants of the nefarious Punitive Expedition of 1897. The hue and cry against the proposed auction was such that the Galway family and Sotheby’s withdrew the artefacts from the proposed auction. (14) It is true that a donation to a museum of looted artefacts and an auction of looted artefact are different matters but here the fundamental objections to both situations relate to their common origin: the violent looting of 1897 by the British military force. This stain of initial violence and blood attaches to the wrongful detention of the Benin bronzes. It should be noticed that donations to museums are not always guided by pure altruism as they may appear. There are tax rebates for making such donations. The donor gains in addition an enormous amount of social prestige that can be used to maximize profits in other enterprises. During the protests against Sotheby’s, led by an NGO, the Nigeria Liberty Forum, the Nigerian Government declared its intention to request the return of all Nigerian artefacts illegally held abroad. A body was to be set up with a mandate to implement this specific objective. (15). One could expect to hear soon official Nigerian reaction on the donation of looted Benin artefacts. Most probably, the whereabouts of the artefacts looted in 1897 are now revealed for the first time to the Nigerian authorities and the people of Benin. Regarding the statement that there has been no claim to the donated Benin artefacts, we are surprised that this very weak argument is repeated by the museum curator. It is depressing to note that famous museums such as Louvre, British Museum, Metropolitan Museum, Chicago Institute of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, resort to desperate and miserable arguments which first year university students would not dare to present. (16) There is no rule in Municipal Law or International Law which prevents a holder of a looted or stolen object from returning it to the rightful owner even if he has not asked for it. Normally, most owners will quickly put in a claim once they are aware of the whereabouts of the object and the identity of the holder. But how can one state there has been no claims in this case? The museum itself indicates that the Benin artefacts have not been seen for decades. Indeed, many of the looted artefacts have not been seen by the rightful owners since 1897. How can they put in a claim for the artefacts when they do not know who is holding them? .Most probably, the whereabouts of the artefacts looted in 1897 are now revealed for the first time to the Nigerian authorities and the people of Benin.

This unworthy argument that the owners of looted Benin objects have not put in a claim is a remarkable tradition of Western museology. The British Museum has always maintained that there has been no request for the return of the Benin artefacts even though the Oba of Benin sent a petition to the British Parliament. printed in Parliamentary records. (17) Despite this record we still hear from some museum officials, as a variation of this argument, that there have been no formal requests. How much more formal can a request be than a petition to the British Parliament? The Nigerian Government has on several occasions requested the return of looted Nigerian artefacts. As recently as 2008, the Benin Royal Family sent a demand to museums for the return of the artefacts. (Annex ll). The museum directors have till today not even bothered to acknowledge receipt of the petition, hand carried by a member of the Royal Family to the Art. At the opening of the exhibition- Benin - Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria in Vienna, and subsequently in Berlin and Chicago, the request for the return of the artefacts was reiterated. (18) In 1968 the great Ekpo Eyo, then Director of Museums at the Nigerian Commission on Museums and Monuments, sent a request to various Western governments to return some Benin artefacts for the opening of a new National Museum in Benin City. Not a single government responded. (19) Several resolutions of the United Nations and UNESCO have urged holders of such artefacts to take the initiative to return these artefacts. The ICOM Code of Ethics for museums requires museums to enter into discussions with owners of foreign cultural artefacts they are holding. In view of all this, can anyone honestly and seriously state that there has been no demand for the return of the looted Benin artefacts? The patent immorality and illegality of the violent British 1897 invasion of Benin clearly calls for acts of atonement and reconciliation from the persons and the institutions concerned. It is not enough to condemn the illicit traffic in antiquities and at the same time accept artefacts that are obviously tainted with opprobrium, objects that were acquired as a result of shedding the blood of innocent persons and the destruction of their property. It is true that many Western States and their intellectuals have adopted the position that justice and morality have no place in the question of looted artefacts, especially if this concerns African people. If the Benin people had been Europeans, the attitude of Western museum directors and art collectors would have been different. The reaction towards Nazi-looted artefacts is very eloquent in this regard. Indeed some of those holding on to the blood antiquities from Benin would be the first to support recovery of Nazi-looted artefacts. The British Government and Parliament that remain deaf to the cries of the Benin people have recently passed legislation to enable recovery of Nazi looted artefacts (20). The movement to secure the recognition of the fundamental iniquity of robbing others of their cultural artefacts, especially where violence has been involved, is gaining ground. Recent restitutions give us some hope that even the West will finally accept that it is wrong to steal the cultural artefacts of other nations. One cannot envisage a peaceful world that accommodates such blatant violations of the human right of others to develop their culture with their own cultural products. Holders of looted cultural objects are clearly not responsible for the deeds of their predecessors or previous possessors. But are they not also expected to make a contribution to a better world? Or would they rather continue to contribute to historical injustices against African and other peoples? These historical violations of our human right to cultural development, has inter alia, led to the present imbalance in the distribution of classical African artefacts between the West and Africa, to the benefit of the former. Western museums should finally do something to dispel the views held in the rest of the world that they are looters dens, holding and protecting thousands of ill-gotten cultural artefacts of other peoples. These museums could make a useful contribution to inter-cultural understanding but so long as they labour under this less than favourable reputation, they cannot, at least in the non-Western world, make full use of their potentials.
Kwame Opoku. 12 July 2012.

NOTES

1. HuffPost, Museum of Fine Arts Boston Receives Monumental Boost ToAfrican Art Collection (PHOTOS) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arts/
http://www.nytimes.com/ ; www.artandcointv.com/.../museum-of-fine-arts ; http://online.wsj.com/home-page ; www.bostonglobe.com/arts/.../museum-fine-arts ; http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new ; http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/boston-museum-of-fine-art_n_1637819.html#s1165130
K. Opoku, When Will Britain Return Looted Golden Ghanaian Artefacts? A History of British Looting of More Than 100 Objects. http://www.modernghana.com
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. ,Robert Owen Lehman Collection PDF. List of the Objects in the Collection. Press Release: MFA receives gift of African art “It is estimated that the British removed more than 4,000 objects from the Benin palace during this military action. Numerous pieces were later sold in Great Britain to defray the costs of the campaign, and were acquired by private collectors and museums in Europe and the United States. Many works of art in the Lehman Collection are known to have left Benin in 1897, and the remainder likely left at the same time”. http://www.mfa.org/give/gifts-art/Lehman-Collection
http://www.mfa.org/sites/default/files/MFA_Benin %20press%20release.pdf
K. Opoku, “Compromise on the Restitution of Benin Bronzes: Comments on Article by Prof. John Picton on Restitution of Benin Artefacts”. http://www.modernghana.com
Ekpo Eyo, “Benin: The sack that was,” http://www.dawodu.net/eyo.htm, “The Dialectics of Definitions: “Massacre” and “Sack” in the History of the “Punitive Expedition”, African Arts, 1997, Vol. XXX, No. 3, pp. 34-35. Darshana Soni, “The British and the Benin Bronzes” http://www.arm.arc.co.uk
See also the excellent rap version of the history of the British invasion by Monday Midnite, 1897 (Notorious B I G’s is Dead Wrong REMIX) http://www.youtube.com
http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-29/arts/32454171_1_mfa-benin-oceanic-art
K. Opoku, New AAM Standards for the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art: A Minor “American Revolution”? http://www.modernghana.com
http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-29/arts/32454171_1_mfa-benin-oceanic-art, see Benin1897.com: Art and the Restitution Question, Featuring a colloquium and a Travelling Art Exhibition by Peju Layiwola http://benin1897.com/
http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-29/arts/32454171_1_mfa-benin-oceanic-art
Ibid
Neil Macgregor, Director, British Museum, has expressed the view that there is a need for a new history and has emphasized the unique qualifications of the British Museum to tell the history or stories of others. See K. Opoku, “When Will Everybody Finally Accept that the British Museum is a British Institution? Comments on a Lecture by Neil MacGregor”. http://www.modernghana.com
K. Opoku,”They Are Selling Queen-Mother Idia Mask and We Are All Quiet”. http://www.modernghana.com
K. Opoku, “Reflections on the Abortive Queen-Mother Idia Mask Auction: Tactical Withdrawal or Decision of Principle?” http://www.modernghana.com
K. Opoku, “Would Western Museums Return Looted Objects if Nigeria and Other African States Were Ruled by Angels? Restitution and Corruption.” http://www.modernghana.com
Akenzua, Edun (2000). "The Case of Benin". Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix 21, House of Commons, The United Kingdom Parliament, March 2000. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/371ap27.htm. See also, “The Benin Empire”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Empire
K. Opoku,” Opening of the Exhibition Benin-Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria, “http://www.elginism.com
The late Ekpo Eyo wrote: “By the end of the 1960s, the price of Benin works had soared so high that the Federal Government of Nigeria was in no mood to contemplate buying them. When, therefore a National Museum was planned for Benin City in 1968, we were faced with the problem of finding exhibits that would be shown to reflect the position that Benin holds in the world of art history. A few unimportant objects which were kept in the old local authority museum in Benin were transferred to the new museum and a few more objects were brought in from Lagos. Still the museum was “empty”. We tried using casts and photographs to fill gaps but the desired effect was unachievable. We therefore thought of making an appeal to the world for loans or return of some works so that Benin might also be to show its own works at least to its own people. We tabled a draft resolution at the General Assembly of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) which met in France in 1968, appealing for donations of one or two pieces from those museums which have large stocks of Benin works. The resolution was modified to make it read like a general appeal for restitution or return and then adopted.
When we returned to Nigeria, we circulated the adopted resolution to the embassies and high commissions of countries we know to have large Benin holdings but up till now we have received no reaction from any quarters and the Benin Museum stays “empty”.” Museum, Vol. XXL, no 1, 1979, Return and Restitution of cultural property, pp.18-21, at p.21, Nigeria.
The British Parliament has passed a law, Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 that enables owners of Nazi looted artworks now in public British museums and galleries not only to obtain compensation for the loss but to receive the looted object., The Act makes it very clear that it only applies to actions relating to Nazi seizures within a specific period. Article 3 of the Act defines Nazi era thus: “Nazi era” means the period—(a) Beginning with 1 January 1933, and (b) Ending with 31 December 1945. “. Evidently, the British Legislator wanted to ensure that Benin and other peoples, also victims of violent spoliations of their artworks, do not use the Act to bring actions to reclaim their looted objects. Readers may wish to consult a very useful note on the Holocaust Restitution Bill by Philip Ward. http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05090.pdf
The Art Newspaper wrote: “The government’s major concern about Mr Dismore’s Private Members’ Bill is that amendments may be put to extend its scope. In particular, it will inevitably be seized upon by parliamentarians who are campaigning for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens. Similar moves might be made by those calling for the return of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria, the Rosetta Stone to Egypt or the Lewis Chessmen to Scotland. The DCMS is therefore expected to press for a clear wording that would preclude deaccessioning being extended beyond the 1933-45 period.”
UK parliament closer to passing bill allowing museums to deaccession Nazi-looted art Legislation expected to be limited to 1933-1945 only. http://www.theartnewspaper.com

ANNEX I
LIST OF HOLDERS OF THE BENIN BRONZES

Almost every Western museum has some Benin objects. Here is a short list of where the Benin Bronzes are to be found and their numbers. Various catalogues of exhibitions on Benin art or African art also list the private collections of the Benin Bronzes. The museums refuse to inform the public about the number of Benin artefacts they have and do not display permanently the Benin artefacts in their possession since they do not have enough space. A museum such as Völkerkundemuseum, Vienna has closed since some 10 years the African section where the Benin artefacts closed due to repair works.

Berlin – Ethnologisches Museum 580.

Boston, - Museum of Fine Arts 28.

Chicago – Art Institute of Chicago 20, Field Museum 400
.
Cologne – Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum 73.

Glasgow _ Kelvingrove and St, Mungo’s Museum of Religious Life 22

Hamburg – Museum für Völkerkunde, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe 196.

Dresden – Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde 182.

Leipzig – Museum für Völkerkunde 87.

Leiden – Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde 98.

London – British Museum 900.

New York – Metropolitan Museum of Fine Art 163.

Oxford – Pitt-Rivers Museum/ Pitt-Rivers country residence, Rushmore in Farnham/Dorset 327.

Stuttgart – Linden Museum-Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde 80.

Vienna – Museum für Völkerkunde 167.

Amber Murrey: The revolution and the emancipation of women - A Reflection on Sankara’s Speech, 25 Years Later

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:28:00 +0200

Firs published by Pambazuka.org: The life and work of Thomas Sankara can be taken as a reminder of both the power and potential for human agency to enact transformation.

I would like to situate my ideas within the geo-political context of the popular uprisings that continue to take place around the world as people organise against neoliberal policies of advanced capitalism and their resultant gross inequalities in wealth, health and education. Accompanying the intensifying neoliberal crises - manifested through the financial crisis, food security crisis, and struggles over land reform and landed property - is an ever expanding militarisation. The US military now has more bases and more personnel stations in more countries than ever in its history. The US Africa Command is one component of the US military’s current phase of expansion, including millions of dollars of military equipment, arms and training in African nations.

This is our contemporary moment as we approach the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Thomas Sankara.

The revolutionary transformation of the West African country Upper Volta to Burkina Faso (what is known as the August revolution of 1983) occurred during a previous neoliberal crisis, that of the 1980s African debt crisis. Sankara vehemently and publicly denounced odious debt and rallied African political leaders to do the same.

Sankara’s politics and political leadership challenged the idea that the global capitalist system cannot be undone. During four years as the president of Burkina Faso, he worked with the people to construct an emancipatory politics informed by human, social, ecological and planetary wellbeing. The people-centred revolution was a pivotal point for a shift towards new societies on the continent. We have much to learn from the Burkinabé revolution.

What distinguishes Sankara from many other revolutionary leaders was his confidence in the revolutionary capabilities of ordinary human beings. He did not see himself as a messiah or prophet, as he famously said before the United Nations General Assembly in October of 1984. It is worth quoting from Sankara at length, when before the delegation of 159 nations, he said:

‘I make no claim to lay out any doctrines here. I am neither a messiah nor a prophet. I possess no truths. My only aspiration is…to speak on behalf of my people…to speak on behalf of the “great disinherited people of the world”, those who belong to the world so ironically christened the Third World. And to state, though I may not succeed in making them understood, the reasons for our revolt’.

Furthermore, Sankara placed women’s resistance agency at the centre of the revolution. He saw women’s struggles for equal rights as a focal point of a more egalitarian politics on the continent.

Meaningful social transformation cannot endure without the active support and participation of women. While it is true that women have been deeply involved in each of the great social revolutions of human history, their support and participation has historically often gone relatively unacknowledged by movement leaders. This was the case when Russian women united to march in St. Petersburg in February of 1917, demanding bread. Similarly, French women marched to Versailles in 1789, again to demand bread. Despite significant contributions to revolutionary movements, women remained second-class citizens. Oftentimes women’s political organisations were chastised by formalised male-led revolutionary groups.

Women mobilised for freedom against colonial and neocolonial oppressions In revolutionary and social struggles across the African continent. Again, many male leaders either omitted or failed to recognise the vital nature of the work carried out by women to mobilise and maintain social movements.

Sankara was somewhat unique as a revolutionary leader - and particularly as a president - in attributing the success of the revolution to the obtainment of gender equality. Sankara said, ‘The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph’.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The West African country of Upper Volta, a former French colony with more than seven million inhabitants, was among the poorest countries in the world at the time of the popular uprising on 4 August 1983. At 280 deaths for every 1,000 births, it had the world’s highest infant mortality rate. School attendance hovered around 12 per cent and was even lower for girls. Thomas Sankara, a Burkinabé with military training, had witnessed the student and worker-led uprisings in Madagascar. He was influenced by what he witnessed there as a young man and returned to Upper Volta with an anti-imperialist worldview, founding in a strong notion and respect for the power of the grassroots. This put him at odds with the ruling party of Upper Volta and he was imprisoned in 1983. The people demonstrated in mass to protest his arrest and on 4 August 1983, Blaise Compaoré and some 250 soldiers freed Sankara. Sankara took over as president and formed the National Council of Revolution (NCR). He was 33 years old at the time. One year later the people of Upper Volta embraced a new national name, that of Burkina Faso - meaning the land of upright men.

During four years as the president, peasants, urban and rural workers, women, youth, the elderly and all ranks of Burkinabé society mobilised to create a more egalitarian and human-centred society. Sankara focused especially on the political education of the masses. A literacy campaign was organised and school attendance doubled in two years. He nationalised all land and oil wealth as a means of ending oppressive class relations based on landed property. An anti-corruption campaign was implemented. A massive reforestation project was undertaken as millions of tree saplings were planted to halt desertification. They sunk wells, built houses, and immunised 2.5 million children, including children from bordering countries.

Then on 15 October 1987, Captain Blaise Compaoré led a military coup against Sankara. It is widely accepted that the coup was in the interests of the landed and upper classes, whose domination was threatened by the revolution. Sankara and 12 of his aides were assassinated.

Blaise Compaoré remains the president of Burkina Faso today and has been implicated in conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, and in arms trafficking and the trafficking of diamonds. There has been no independent investigation into Thomas Sankara’s assassination, despite repeated requests by the judiciary committee of the International Campaign for Justice for Thomas Sankara, a legal group working in the name of the Sankara family. The UN Committee for Human Rights closed Sankara’s record in April of 2008, without conducting an investigation into the crimes.

SANKARA AND GENDER

To a rally of several thousand women in Ouagadougou commemorating International Women’s Day on 8 March 1987, Thomas Sankara took a distinctive position as a revolutionary leader and addressed in great detail women’s oppression. He outlined the historical origins of women’s oppression and the ways in which acts of oppression continued to be perpetuated during his lifetime.

He said:

‘Imbued with the invigorating sap of freedom, the men of Burkina, the humiliated and outlawed of yesterday, received the stamp of what is most precious in the world: honor and dignity. From this moment on, happiness became accessible. Every day we advance toward it, heady with the first fruits of our struggles, themselves proof of the great strides we have already taken. But the selfish happiness is an illusion. There is something crucial missing: women. They have been excluded from the joyful procession…The revolution’s promises are already a reality for men. But for women, they are still merely a rumor. And yet the authenticity and the future of our revolution depend on women. Nothing definitive or lasting can be accomplished in our country as long as a crucial part of ourselves is kept in this condition of subjugation - a condition imposed…by various systems of exploitation.

Posing the question of women in Burkinabe society today means posing the abolition of the system of slavery to which they have been subjected for millennia. The first step is to try to understand how this system functions, to grasp its real nature in all its subtlety, in order then to work out a line of action that can lead to women’s total emancipation.

We must understand how the struggle of Burkinabe women today is part of the worldwide struggle of all women and, beyond that, part of the struggle for the full rehabilitation of our continent. The condition of women is therefore at the heart of the question of humanity itself, here, there, and everywhere.’

His words display a profound understanding of, and active solidarity with, women’s struggles, of which he posits as a struggle belonging to all of humanity.

He locates the roots of African women’s oppression in the historical processes of European colonialism and the unequal social relations of capitalism and capital exploitation. Most importantly, he stressed the importance of women’s equal mobilisation. He urges Burkinabé women into revolutionary action, not as passive victims but as respected, equal partners in the revolution and wellbeing of the nation. He acknowledges the central space of African women in African society and demanded that other Burkinabé men do the same.

In an interview with the Cameroonian anticolonial historian Mongo Beti, he said, ‘We are fighting for the equality of men and women - not a mechanical, mathematical equality but making women the equal of men before the law and especially in relation to wage labor. The emancipation of women requires their education and their gaining economic power. In this way, labor on an equal footing with men on all levels, having the same responsibilities and the same rights and obligations…’.

This means that while the revolutionary government included a large number of women, Sankara did not believe that an increase in female representation was an automatic indicator of gender equality. He truly believed in grassroots organising and that change had to originate with the energy and actions of the people themselves.

He urged his sisters to be more compassionate with each other, less judging and more understanding. He questioned the need to pressure women into marriage, saying that there is nothing more natural about the married state than the single. He criticised the oppressive gendered nature of the capitalist system, where women (particularly women with children to support) make an ideal labour force because the need to support their families renders them malleable and controllable to exploitative labour practices. He characterised the system as a ‘cycle of violence’ and emphasised that ‘inequality can be done away with only by establishing a new society, where men and women enjoy equal rights’.

HIs focus on labour rights and the gendered means of production was symbolised through the day of solidarity that he established with Burkinabé housewives. On this day, men were to adopt the roles of their wives, going to the marketplace, working in the family agricultural plot and taking responsibility for the household work.

This speech provides a powerful heritage of political leadership and stands as a source of political ideas and inspiration for liberation movements on the continent. Sankara offers a possibility for continued male political engagement and solidarity with women’s oppression.

MILITARISM

Radical feminist theorists Barbara Sutton and Julie Novkov (2008) explain militarization as ‘how societies become dependent on and imbued by the logic of military institutions, in ways that permeate language, popular culture, economic priorities, educational systems, government policies, and national values and identities’. US-backed militarisation of Africa takes a couple of different forms. First, it means an increase in troops on the ground. US Special Ops and US military personnel have been deployed in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Mauritania, South Sudan, and (potentially) Nigeria.

Second, US military personnel conduct training sequences with African militaries. Training is underway in Algeria, Burundi, Djibouti, Chad, Namibia, Somalia, South Africa and many others. This is often presented as a ‘counterterrorism’ effort to stifle the spread of Al Qaeda across North Africa but it is a political tool. Bolstering local military capabilities in un-democratic nations is one means to ensure the control and suppression of local populations, who are often labeled as ‘terrorists’ to justify brutal crackdowns on social and political protests.

Third, the US military funds social science research into African society, culture and politics. This takes various forms, one of which is the use of SCRATs (or Sociocultural Advisory Teams) for the purposes of preparing US military personnel for deployment and missions. This can be understood through the same framework of contemporary counterinsurgency-style warfare in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq), where winning the ‘hearts and minds’ requires in-depth knowledge of local peoples and cultures (what the military refers to as ‘human terrain’). British and French counterrevolutionary theorists during the anti-colonial period of the 1950s and 1960s also promoted the need for in-depth knowledge of local revolutionary culture and social organisation as a means of anticipating and controlling anti-colonial social unrest.

Although the US government claims that the US Africa Command is an extension of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, an historical analysis of US intervention on the continent indicates otherwise. At every instance of African agency the US was willing and ready to intervene on the side of the colonisers.

In our contemporary moment, neoliberal promises and free-market policies have failed to return on their promises of increased wealth and progress. But more than this, they have caused increased social inequalities that is accompanied by a dangerous militarism. Scholars (see Sutton and Novkov 2008, for example) have explored the ways that increased poverty and the narrowing job markets caused by neoliberal policies pushes people into the military as a means of economic survival. This is true in the so-called Global North as it is in the so-called Global South.

The process of militarism is accompanied by gender-specific inequalities and disadvantages. Horace Campbell in his article, ‘Remilitarisation of African Societies: Analysis of the planning behind proposed US Africa Command’, (2008) explains, ‘Sexual terrorism…finds its echo in Africa where insecurities generated by warfare, ethnic hatred, rape, sexual terrorism and religious fundamentalism increase violence and lead to unnecessary military mobilization’.

The voices of African women activists and intellectuals are particularly necessary as the interconnections between militarism, masculinity and violence become clearer. Patricia McFadden writes, ‘By imbuing the notion of rampancy with political weight in terms of its use as a gendered and supremacist practice within militarism…[it] facilitates both class consolidation and accumulation, as well as gendered exclusion of women and working communities in Africa’. Women have been combating their exclusion through both organized and non-organized action.

A strong military structure paves the way for the resource plunder and large scale dispossessions that are seen in neoliberal states in the so-called Global South. In this system, the state ensures profit for class elites (both international and domestic) by guaranteeing the super-exploitation of labour and the dispossession of millions of people of their lands and livelihoods for resource extraction at serious costs to local ecology, health and wellbeing. This guarantee can only be made through an increased militarism that stifles political mobilisation.

But Thomas Sankara and the August Revolution of 1983 tells us another story. They provide a different way of thinking about social organisation. Sankara understood that capitalism is dependent upon the unequal deployment of and distribution of power, particularly state power. But, as he showed us, the state is not unalterable. The state is a complex system of human relationships that are maintained through violent power/coercion and persuasion. And what Sankara did was work to bring the state apparatus down to the level of the people, so to speak. He encouraged people to engage with the state and to change the unequal power relations embedded in the state structure. He did this - as demonstrated earlier through the example of gender empowerment - by exposing the ways that power is generated, controlled and dispensed and then identifying alternative forms of social relations. This is what the August Revolution of 1983 sought to perform in Burkina Faso.

The life and work of Thomas Sankara can be taken as a reminder of both the power and potential for human agency to enact transformation and as a reminder of our obligation to engagement of and for human wellbeing. As the social mobilisations taking place across the world are demonstrating right now, this engagement for human wellbeing means refusing to submit to neoliberal policies that see humans in terms of labour and profit.

CONCLUSION

I’ve been told that the first time that my daughter’s paternal grandfather cried was at the news of Thomas Sankara’s assassination. It was certainly the first time that my daughter’s father saw his father cry. He recalls, even at the age of seven, his sense of confusion and sadness over Sankara’s death.

The image of my daughter’s grandfather entering his home and collapsing onto the sofa, holding his face in his hands and crying emerges in my head each time I think of Sankara. This image of a middle aged Cameroonian man, Jacque Ndewa, thousands of miles away, who had never travelled to Burkina Faso, crying quietly on his sofa. This is the resonance that Sankara had, across the African continent and among disenfranchised and dispossessed people everywhere.

In honour of his memory, I praise and celebrate his fearlessness, his resilience and his political leadership for human emancipation.

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* This text is from a presentation by the author at a Revival of Pan-Africanism Forum event entitled 'Celebrating the Life of Thomas Sankara' and held at Jesus College, University of Oxford on 8 June.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

Kwame Opoku: Do They Know Queen-Mother Idia of Benin?

Thu, 31 May 2012 16:19:00 +0200

A recent visit to the British Museum confirmed what we have observed in previous years: many Western visitors to the museum have no specific interest in any particular Benin object, even if they visit the Sainsbury Gallery and look at the Benin Bronzes. They are mostly unaware of the looted Queen-Mother-Idia (“Iyoba”) ivory mask.

Have the hundred years of illegal retention of this mask had any effect on the knowledge and interest of the average Western visitor to the museum? It seems hardly any European visitor is even aware that the mask represents an important personality in Benin history. Most Western visitors are certainly unaware of her important and decisive role and influence in stabilizing the Kingdom of Benin. during the civil war at the end of the 15th Century, a crucial period in Benin history. Contrary to the propaganda of the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums, Benin culture has not become part of European heritage and culture even though Benin artefacts have been illegally detained in Western museums for more than hundred years. (See also, Tom Flynn THE UNIVERSAL MUSEUM). The display of the ivory mask with many other looted Benin artefacts does not draw any particular attention to the Queen-Mother.

Museum visitors are thus not in a position to understand why her image has become a symbol for Nigeria, Africa and the African Diaspora. They would thus not be able to assess the arrogance and insult by the British Museum and the British Government in refusing to lend to Nigeria the Queen-Mother Idia mask even for a continental cultural festival, Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture FESTAC in Lagos, Nigeria in 1977.

Once we move from the Sainsbury Gallery to the Egyptian gallery and approach the Rosetta Stone, it becomes immediately evident that many visitors to the British Museum are aware of the importance of this artefact from Egypt which the British have also refused to return to Egypt despite multiple requests.
Rosetta Stone, Egypt, now in British Museum, London, United Kingdom

At any time during a visit to the museum, we see the Rosetta Stone surrounded by a crowd of visitors, busy taking photographs. Somebody has informed them about the importance of this stone in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics.

But do they also know that the Rosetta Stone is part of Egyptian culture and not British culture? Are the visitors aware that there is no longer a need for scholars to decipher the language of the Rosetta Stone and that it would now be most appropriate to return it to its homeland, as the Egyptians have requested, so that it can be placed in a new museum of Egyptian culture?

Queen-Mother Idia clearly plays no role in the culture, imagination and thinking of Westerners. So why keep her captive in London when she would be a subject of veneration and reverence in her homeland Benin, Nigeria? Why do the British Museum and the British Government still insist on keeping in Britain cultural artefacts of others, against the will of the owners? So far, we have not come across any reasonable justification for such an attitude. Perhaps some have not yet recognized that the world has changed since the colonialist and imperialist epoch: “The time has come when the British Museum should recognise the change in relative status between Britain and the rest of the world. We are no longer the imperial masters and increasingly need to build constructive working relationships as between equals.” Peter Groome (“It's time to gracefully relinquish the Rosetta Stone”, http://www.independent.co.uk ).Constructive and harmonious relations in matters of culture do not seem to matter to the British Museum otherwise we would not still be talking about the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, Rosetta Stone and the Benin Bronzes. (See also Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, Rosetta Stone Benin Bronzes) The British Museum seems more interested in telling the histories (or stories as some prefer) of other nations rather than let the others tell their own histories, with the restitution of some of the millions of materials that the museum keeps, some with doubtful acquisition histories.

Oba Ovonramwen, during whose reign the British looted the Benin Bronzes with guards on board ship on his way to exile in Calabar in 1897. The gown he is wearing hides his shackles. Photograph by the Ibani Ijo photographer J A Green. From the Howie photo album in the archives of the Merseyside Maritime Museum

Kwame Opoku, 26 May, 2012.

Pr Issa N’Diaye: Mali - une ‘démocratie’ contre le peuple !

Sat, 05 May 2012 00:25:00 +0200

La chute brutale de ATT a mis à nu les fondements pourris de la démocratie malienne tant chantée à l’extérieur. Les populations maliennes l’avaient compris il y a belle lurette. En témoignent les taux de participation qui dégringolaient d’élection en élection. De 1991 à nos jours, à peine 20% des Maliens participent régulièrement aux élections. Depuis deux décennies, nous avons l’un des taux de participation aux élections les plus bas en Afrique. Peut-on honnêtement dans ces conditions qualifier de légitime une ‘démocratie’ autant boudée par son propre peuple? Le coup d’Etat du 22 mars 2012 a soulevé un concert de condamnations plus ou moins sincères. Certains l’ont condamné, parce qu’ils n’étaient pas objectivement informés des réalités maliennes, victimes naïfs de la propagande orchestrée par le régime et ses soutiens extérieurs. Parmi eux des démocrates sincères qui, par conviction, n’ont jamais adhéré aux coups d’Etat militaires intervenus depuis la vague des indépendances africaines, coups d’Etat la plupart du temps inspirés et soutenus par les pays occidentaux et parmi eux surtout la France dans ses anciennes possessions coloniales. Depuis rien n’a fondamentalement changé sinon les méthodes devenues plus subtiles pour transformer des dictatures militaires en régimes ‘démocratiques’ par la magie du bulletin de vote lors d’élections visiblement tronquées mais validées avec le concours d’observateurs internationaux offrant complaisamment un certificat d’authenticité à un processus électoral auquel n’adhèrent point les populations directement concernées. Lors des dernières élections au Mali, l’ancien Président de la cour constitutionnelle a eu à dire qu’il n’y avait jamais eu autant de fraudes et d’irrégularités! Pourtant les résultats électoraux obtinrent le label démocratique. Cependant les Maliennes et les Maliens n’ont jamais eu autant de mépris pour leurs dirigeants et leur classe politique. Aujourd’hui les langues commencent à se délier révélant toute la puanteur d’un système basé sur le mensonge et le pillage des ressources publiques par une minorité de brigands en uniforme et en col blanc. Quoi de plus normal qu’on s’époumone alors contre le coup d’Etat. Suffit-il de condamner un coup d’Etat pour être un démocrate alors que sa pratique quotidienne du pouvoir et de la gestion des affaires publiques est un déni de démocratie ? Est-on réellement démocrate quand on est aux côtés des dictateurs ‘démocratiquement’ élus contre leur propre peuple ? Est-on réellement démocrate quand, deux décennies durant, la pratique ‘démocratique’ du pouvoir a plongé les populations maliennes dans les affres de la misère, de l’injustice et de l’impunité. Est-ce démocratique que de l’étranger on vienne restaurer un ordre constitutionnel dont ne veut plus visiblement un peuple ? Est-il démocratique d’imposer la démocratie à coups d’intervention militaire et de menaces en tous genres ? De quelle démocratie s’agit-il ? Démocratie de la misère pour le plus grand nombre, démocratie des millionnaires et milliardaires pour une élite qui a tout volé et accaparé ?
Que dire aussi des régimes ‘démocratiques’ africains surtout dans l’espace francophone? Bien de putschistes d’hier sont devenus aujourd’hui des ‘démocrates’ légitimés par des coups d’Etat électoraux. Les dirigeants occidentaux s’en sont-ils offusqués ? Ils les reçoivent à leur table, trinquent avec eux en toute amitié. Ils continuent à coopérer, à soutenir des régimes dont les mains sont rougies du sang de leur peuple. Et curieusement l’on constate surtout dans l’espace francophone en Afrique que partout où gouvernent des régimes militaires déguisés en démocratie, point n’est besoin de bases militaires françaises. Ils font proprement le boulot qui leur est demandé. Par contre là où des civils sont au pouvoir, les baïonnettes françaises assurent leurs arrières. Si l’Afrique est malade des ses dictatures militaires ‘démocratisées’ et de sa classe politique apatride et rapace, elle l’est aussi et principalement de l’interventionnisme des occidentaux qui désignent en fait nos dirigeants à travers des processus électoraux arrangés à l’avance. C’est à juste raison que les peuples ont choisi jusqu’ici de leur tourner le dos. Mais cela suffit-il désormais ? Faut-il baisser les bras et s’en remettre à des coups d’Etat ‘sauveurs’ comme celui du 22 mars au Mali? La guerre au nord Mali n’est point une surprise. Elle est la conséquence d’enjeux géopolitiques et géostratégiques autour du pétrole, du gaz, de l’uranium, de l’eau, du fer, du manganèse, du cuivre, du charbon, du thorium et autres métaux précieux, des trafics d’armes et de drogue et autres motifs inavoués et inavouables qui renflouent les caisses d’une Europe menacée par la faillite de l’euro et un monde balloté par la crise financière. Le MNLA, les djihadistes et autres acteurs, les régimes militaro-civils ‘démocratiquement élus’ ne sont que les bras armés des visées de certaines multinationales occidentales et de pétromonarchies du golfe arabique. Tous sont en réalité manipulés dans une guerre imposée à nos populations multiethniques qui ont vécu en intelligence des siècles durant. En témoigne le vieux projet français d’OCRS (Organisation Commune des Régions Sahariennes : une superficie environ 15 fois plus grande que la France) datant de la colonisation et toujours d’actualité dans certains milieux nostalgiques occidentaux. C’est la colonisation européenne qui a divisé et jeté les unes contre les autres des populations que nos empires avaient su brasser pour construire des nations cosmopolites.
La rapidité de la victoire des rebelles touaregs ne saurait être simplement justifiée par la supériorité de leur armement fourni en partie par la France et le Qatar et livré via la Mauritanie, l’assistance tactique offerte par certains pays, l’audace et la bravoure de leurs troupes. Elle s’explique aussi et largement, par le travail de sape interne accompli au plus haut sommet de l’Etat par ATT et ses complices militaires et civils, traitres à leur propre patrie. Aujourd’hui bien de sombres histoires remontent jusque sur la place publique. Les jours prochains lèveront bien de voiles et sur bien de choses, sur les fortunes colossales et subites de bien de politiciens. Le peuple en sortira encore plus meurtri par tant de trahisons et de bassesses de la part de ses dirigeants aussi bien militaires que civils. Face à cette guerre imposée, partout se lèvent des volontaires désireux de participer à la lutte de résistance patriotique pour recouvrer la dignité perdue et rétablir l’unité nationale et l’intégrité territoriale du pays. Ils ne veulent point d’intervention extérieure ni de forces d’interposition de la CEDEAO. Ils savent que derrière la rébellion et la CEDEAO, se cache la France et d’autres puissances. Pour eux, ceux qui prônent la négociation, rien que la négociation, sont les partisans de la partition de fait du pays. La chute de Gao et de Tombouctou a créé un état de choc violent dans la conscience des populations. Elle a remis au goût du jour le vieux projet colonial français de l’OCRS. La brutalité et l’arrogance de la bande Sarkozy-Juppé et Compagnie, leur accompagnement tout aussi brutal et arrogant par la CEDEAO ont réveillé le nationalisme malien. Les Maliens savent aujourd’hui que la France de Sarkozy n’est point leur amie. Cependant ils ne font point l’amalgame entre le peuple français et ses dirigeants actuels. De nombreux français, des hommes politiques français de gauche, de nombreuses associations françaises témoignent quotidiennement leur solidarité avec le peuple malien. Que dire aussi des pays africains, notamment ceux de la CEDEAO et surtout des voisins immédiats du Mali ? Les Maliens comprennent difficilement l’attitude de l’Algérie. Gao et Tombouctou ont servi longtemps de base arrière à la lutte d’indépendance du peuple algérien. Son président actuel en sait personnellement quelque chose. Même si les voltes-faces et les trahisons multiples de ATT ont effarouché bon nombre de pays voisins, cela ne peut en aucun cas justifier l’indifférence voire la complicité algérienne de fait avec la rébellion touarègue. L’enlèvement de ses diplomates à Gao pourrait être l’occasion d’un réexamen de sa position. Face aux convoitises internationales, le salut du Mali passe par la construction d’un axe stratégique avec l’Algérie. Elle est et restera une alliée incontournable malgré les méfiances et déchirures actuelles. L’attitude de la Mauritanie n’a guère surpris non plus. Elle abrite l’une des représentations officielles de la rébellion. Tout le monde sait ce que doit l’actuel président mauritanien à la France de Sarkozy. La Mauritanie est devenue un des bras armés de la France dans la région. Ses expéditions guerrières successives en territoire malien avec parfois des massacres de populations civiles innocentes présentées à tort comme étant des terroristes, ont indigné de nombreux Maliens révoltés par l’indifférence et la complicité de ATT et de ses généraux. De nombreux soldats du retour du front racontent abondamment les nombreux coups de poignard dans le dos portés par ATT et sa clique d’officiers supérieurs, leurs trahisons et forfaitures. Jamais un peuple n’a été autant trahi par ses dirigeants. Quant à la Côte d’Ivoire de Alassane Ouattara, elle a soulevé une immense déception dans l’inconscient collectif des Maliens. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont laissé leur vie et leurs biens dans les affrontements mortels entre Ouattara et Gbagbo. Dans leur immense majorité, ils ont pris fait et cause pour Ouattara. Ils ont spontanément et volontairement porté assistance à leurs frères ivoiriens en difficulté. Ils ne comprennent et n’acceptent aucunement tant d’ingratitude de la part d’un homme qu’ils ont porté dans leur cœur. Comment comprendre son acharnement contre tout un peuple qu’on a voulu punir pour un seul individu, pour ATT, pour un homme qui a trahi son pays ? Les sanctions décidées par le CEDEAO ont brisé leur foi dans la solidarité africaine. Le panafricanisme qui avait jusque là façonné leur vision de l’unité africaine a volé en éclat. La Côte d’Ivoire est fortement perçue comme l’instrument docile de la France. En ce qui concerne le Burkina, la méfiance reste de mise. Pour bon nombre des Maliens, il a toujours abrité des bases arrières de la rébellion touarègue. Dieu seul sait les sombres arrières pensées de son président Blaise Compraoré et ses desseins funestes pour le Mali. Peut-on être médiateur si l’on n’a pas de complicité avec les uns ou avec les autres ? L’opportunisme burkinabé est souvent considéré comme de la duplicité. Sa collusion avec la politique française en Afrique ne fait guère de doute. Si la non application immédiate des sanctions de la CEDEAO par le Sénégal a soulevé une certaine sympathie vis-à-vis de son nouveau président, les Maliens n’ont point compris pourquoi et comment un ministre français ait pu participer à un sommet de chefs d’Etat africains poussés à prendre des décisions fondamentalement injustes et dirigés contre des victimes innocentes. Comment a-t-on pu se préoccuper du seul sort d’ATT et de ses complices et faire peu de cas de celui de tout un peuple ? Pourtant la mauvaise gestion, la corruption, les détournements massifs des deniers publics, l’impunité, l’arrogance des auteurs de ces forfaits sont connus de tous. La démocratie est-elle impunité ? Pourquoi protéger des voleurs et leur permettre d’échapper ainsi à la justice de leur pays? Les populations veulent que rendent compte et soient punis ceux qui les ont pillées au nom de la démocratie. Aujourd’hui le divorce entre le Mali et ses voisins est largement consommé. Le seul réconfort est venu de la retenue du Niger et des manifestations de soutien des populations. La prise de position ferme du Niger quant à la nécessité d’une offensive militaire pour créer un rapport de force favorable sur le terrain susceptible d’obliger les rebelles à une négociation sans illusion, a été comme un baume sur les plaies béantes d’un peuple meurtri par la trahison de ses dirigeants et de la plupart de ses voisins immédiats. Cependant les marches de soutien, les nombreux témoignages de soutien populaire à Bouaké, Ouagadougou, Niamey et Conakry et ailleurs ont été fortement appréciés. Une vérité a surgi dans la conscience collective des Maliens, celle d’une CEDEAO des dirigeants africains au service des intérêts français et étrangers contre leurs propres peuples. La seconde déchirure profonde qui est apparue dans la conscience collective des populations maliennes est le rejet violent de sa classe politique au pouvoir depuis bientôt deux décennies pour certains. Sa promptitude à dénoncer le coup d’Etat et son concert de dénonciations réclamant à cors et à cris le rétablissement rapide de l’ordre constitutionnel ancien qui consacrait sa domination, son appel musclé pour une intervention armée étrangère les ont révoltées. La guerre dans le nord du Mali, les populations brutalement jetées sur les routes de l’exil, les massacres, les viols et destructions de biens, le désarroi de tout un peuple ne faisaient point partie des préoccupations des politiciens. Seul leur importaient leur avenir personnel, inquiets qu’ils sont de l’interruption brutale de leur festin par le coup d’Etat du 22 mars. Ils continuaient à réclamer coûte que coûte des élections alors qu’ils savaient pertinemment que le pays était déjà entré en guerre et que la préparation matérielle des élections était largement insuffisante et à dessein. Chacun d’eux était convaincu de l’emporter en raison des milliards volés au peuple avec lesquels ils comptaient acheter le vote de ceux qui étaient disposés à vendre leurs voix, les machines à tricher qu’ils avaient inventées et le concours des féticheurs et charlatans en tous genres qui avaient prédit leur victoire inévitable. Le pouvoir et sa jouissance absolue étaient à portée de main. Ils n’avaient jamais compris qu’il était déjà à terre et dans la rue. Il fut soulevé par les semelles des soldats de Kati révoltés et écœurés, qui dans leur marche improvisée sur le palais de Koulouba, n’eurent même pas à se baisser pour le ramasser devant la fuite honteuse du Général ATT qui clamait partout connaître la guerre et qui dût fuir à travers rocailles et broussailles de la colline de Koulouba et se mettre honteusement sous protection étrangère. Sa fuite nocturne à bord de l’avion présidentiel sénégalais fut saluée par une pluie d’injures, de crachats et de quolibets de la part de soldats écœurés par tant de félonie. Triste fin empreinte de lâcheté de la part d’un traitre usé et miné par ses propres roublardises. L’histoire le traitera sans complaisance aucune.
Mais comment analyser et comprendre le désastre actuel au delà des évènements actuels ? La faille essentielle de l’accord réalisé entre la junte militaire et la CEDEAO est qu’elle se contente uniquement de réaliser un compromis entre les militaires et la classe politique spoliée de la jouissance du pouvoir par le coup d’Etat. Ledit accord ne se préoccupe nullement du sort du peuple malien
Le peuple est largement absent de l’accord cadre avec la CEDEAO qui ne tient nullement compte de l’aspiration profonde des Maliennes et des Maliens au changement. Le coup d’Etat a soulevé d’immenses espérances dans leur tête, l’espoir de la fin de leur calvaire, la fin d’une démocratie maffieuse pour laquelle ils n’ont que mépris. La coupure est désormais nette entre le camp des restaurateurs de l’ordre ancien et celui des patriotes favorables au changement. Malgré la campagne massive en faveur des premiers des medias occidentaux notamment RFI et France 24 qui refusent de couvrir les manifestations populaires saluant le coup d’Etat, ils restent largement isolés, pointés du doigt dans leur complicité active et totale avec ATT. La ligne de démarcation n’est plus entre anti putschiste et putschiste mais désormais entre apatride et patriote, entre ennemis et amis du peuple. La population malienne dans sa grande majorité est dans le camp du changement. Elle est fatiguée de cette classe politique qui l’a pressurisée et qui s’est copieusement enrichie battant tous les records de la corruption en Afrique.
La démocratie malienne est porteuse d’un péché originel, celui du contexte dans lequel elle est née. La chute de la dictature de Moussa Traoré n’a nullement entrainé celle du système d’Etat en place. Les nouveaux dirigeants se sont coulés dans une machine d’Etat fondamentalement antidémocratique qui a fini par les happer. En outre, ils n’ont pas su faire émerger une nouvelle race de fonctionnaires et d’agents de l’Etat susceptibles d’en faire une machine au service de l’intérêt général. Le clientélisme politique et le népotisme ont favorisé l’émergence d’une caste de bureaucrates opportunistes, dociles et incompétents qui finirent par décrédibiliser et détruire l’Etat pour le mettre exclusivement au service d’intérêts individuels et privés. De Alpha Oumar Konaré à ATT la machine s’emballa jusqu’à l’explosion. La déroute brutale de l’armée malienne n’en est que l’un des signes distinctifs. On ne saurait résoudre les problèmes actuels sans analyser et trouver une réponse courageuse à la question de la nécessaire restructuration de l’Etat et de son assainissement, la refondation de la démocratie malienne, des questions qui ne sont nullement inscrites à l’ordre du jour de la CEDEAO et de ses tuteurs internationaux ni dans l’agenda de la classe politique malienne qui n’en veut pas visiblement et pour cause ! La démocratie malienne est malade de la culture de parti unique dont elle a héritée de l’UDPM, ancien parti unique de Moussa Traoré. Le multipartisme intégral consacré par l’ère ‘démocratique’ a, en réalité, donné naissance à une multitude de ‘partis uniques’, sans vie démocratique interne, sans débat interne, sans alternance en son sein. Les partis sont devenus la propriété de leurs dirigeants qui sont restés les mêmes, la caisse de résonance de leurs ambitions individuelles. Aucun véritable projet de société, aucun programme de gouvernement, aucune identité idéologique sinon une ruée vers la majorité présidentielle en vue de profiter des avantages du pouvoir. Dire non et accepter d’aller à l’opposition, à quelques rares exceptions près, n’est guère envisageable pour ces ‘pouvoiristes’ d’un genre nouveau, pressés qu’ils sont, d’aller s’asseoir à la table du festin du pouvoir. La démocratie fut un véritable festival de brigands à un point tel que le peuple devint nostalgique de la dictature. Vouloir retourner à de telles institutions autant vomies par le peuple, est-ce de la démocratie ? En l’espace d’un mois, le peuple malien a reçu plusieurs gifles retentissantes qu’il n’oubliera pas de si tôt. Elles furent vécues comme une grande humiliation de la part d’un peuple si fier de par son histoire. La déroute de son armée et surtout la façon ridicule dont elle s’est transformée en débandade, porta un rude coup à sa fierté et à sa dignité. Les replis dits tactiques successifs, l’abandon des positions sans combat avec armes et minutions, ont durablement brisé la confiance en l’armée nationale. Les déclarations quant à la supériorité de l’armement ennemi ne sauraient justifier le manque de combativité des militaires. La pléthore d’officiers, de généraux, de colonels et chefs de bataillons, leur train de vie, leur affairisme connue de tous, en disaient long sur leur capacité à conduire les troupes au combat. L’effondrement de l’armée fit comprendre à tous celui de l’Etat lui-même. La seconde humiliation fut celle des sanctions de la CEDEAO, l’arrogance avec laquelle elle fut annoncée par les présidents béninois et ivoiriens. Les Maliens étaient prêts à en relever les défis. Ils furent blessés de nouveau dans leur dignité par la reculade tout aussi brutale du CNRDRE, un autre repli tactique sans doute ! Le forcing des envoyés burkinabé et ivoirien, les accords signés par les militaires sous leur dictée aggravèrent le désarroi des populations.
La troisième humiliation fut celle de la convocation des forces vives à Ouagadougou par le médiateur de la CEDEAO. Certains participants, ulcérés par les attitudes condescendantes de la médiation burkinabé, n’hésitèrent pas à dire que le sort du Mali ne saurait être décidé à Ouagadougou mais à Bamako. Drôle de médiation où l’on sentait la prise de position de la CEDEAO en faveur des tenants de l’ordre ancien dont les positions ont été pourtant battues en brèche par l’écrasante majorité des participants. La déclaration de Ouagadougou passa sous silence bien de passes d’armes comme le rejet véhément de la prolongation du mandat du président intérimaire et de l’assemblée et du projet burkinabé de création d’un organe de supervision et de suivi de l’accord cadre qui fut perçue comme une véritable mise sous tutelle du Mali. Face à cette résistance, la médiation déploya la ruse voire la duplicité. En témoignent les non-dits de Ouagadougou qui éclairent largement les décisions du dernier sommet extraordinaire d’Abidjan. Le choix du Premier ministre de Transition et la formation en catimini du gouvernement sans consultation aucune des forces vives nationales furent ressentis comme une quatrième humiliation. On poussa l’arrogance jusqu’à désigner le conseiller personnel du médiateur comme seul ministre d’Etat chargé des affaires étrangères. De nombreux anciens cadres du régime défunt de Moussa Traoré reprirent du service. Parmi les nouveaux promus, certains trainent des casseroles. Les plus honnêtes ignorent les réalités du pays qu’ils ont quitté il y a souvent plus de 20 ans pour aller servir des institutions internationales. Quelle est la capacité d’analyse, de lecture et d’interprétation des réalités du terrain d’un gouvernement aussi étranger à son propre peuple ? Que peut-il réellement faire face à un tel désastre ? Le moins qu’on puisse dire est que l’actuel Premier Ministre a raté son entrée dans l’histoire récente du Mali en allant s’empêtrer dans les eaux boueuses et croupissantes du passé ? Pourrait-il en émerger ? Il est permis d’en douter. La dernière humiliation infligée au peuple malien vint suite au dernier sommet extraordinaire de la CEDEAO qui décida unilatéralement de prolonger le mandat du président intérimaire en violation de la constitution du pays et de fixer la durée de la transition sans concertation aucune avec les principaux intéressés avec en prime la menace d’une intervention armée pour les soumettre à l’ordre promulgué à Abidjan. La coupe est désormais pleine. L’ébullition est à l’extrême. Jamais les Maliens n’ont connu autant d’humiliations en un laps de temps aussi court. En témoignent les larmes d’amertume d’un vieux malien acteur des années héroïques de la conquête de l’indépendance et de l’exercice de la souveraineté nationale qui maudissait le sort pour lui avoir infligé d’assister à un moment aussi triste et douloureux de l’histoire du Mali. Mais derrière les cendres du Mali actuel en train de sombrer, émergent les lueurs d’un Mali nouveau qui pointe à l’horizon. Rien ne sera plus comme auparavant. La peur s’est évanouie. Les Maliens ne veulent plus laisser leur sort entre les mains d’une bande d’aventuriers aussi bien civils que militaires. Ils ne veulent pas non plus se soumettre au diktat de la CEDEAO agissant sous la dictée des puissances extérieures. La dynamique populaire en gestation sera comme un rouleau compresseur qui balayera l’ordre ancien. La cécité de la classe politique malienne, des dirigeants de la CEDEAO et de leurs parrains occidentaux n’y fera rien. Un nouveau printemps africain est désormais inscrit dans les pages de l’histoire nouvelle du Mali. Sa gestation sera certes difficile et douloureuse. Mais à force de vouloir l’endiguer, de la contenir, elle deviendra plus chargée de pression, plus violente, plus radicale. Les politiciens maliens, la CEDEAO et les occidentaux se trompent lourdement en voulant restaurer l’ordre ancien. Il est inacceptable aujourd’hui pour le peuple malien qui veut désormais prendre en main son propre destin. Leurs tentatives de restauration de l’ordre ancien ne fermeront jamais la page des coups d’Etat ‘populaires’ en Afrique. L’idéal serait que les peuples se libèrent d’eux-mêmes par la révolution populaire comme celle de 1991 au Mali, trahie et récupérée par la démocratie des milliardaires. Aujourd’hui ce n’est pas le bulletin de vote qui va régler la question de la démocratie véritable en Afrique mais les luttes populaires de plus en plus fortes, de plus en plus violentes. Plus on tentera de les endiguer, de biaiser, plus elles seront plus déterminées. Les peuples africains n’ont plus d’autres solutions que de dynamiter les horizons bouchés que leur imposent leurs dirigeants corrompus avec la bénédiction des occidentaux.
Malcolm X a été confronté au dilemme du choix entre le bulletin de vote et la balle de fusil. Il a fini par comprendre que le bulletin de vote ne l’amenait nulle part. Une balle de fusil mit fin à ses illusions. Mao a lui choisi le raccourci historique du « pouvoir au bout du fusil ». Les faits semblent lui donner amplement raison. Il nous faut rejeter la démocratie imposée par les menaces, les embargos et les bombes des puissances occidentales comme en Lybie, en Côte d’Ivoire ou ailleurs en Afrique et partout dans le monde. Ce n’est pas avec des discours et des bulletins de vote que les peuples s’affranchiront réellement mais par leur mobilisation massive, leur engagement pour leur propre salut sans aucune ingérence extérieure. Il leur appartient d’inventer leur voie pour ériger le monde nouveau qui pointe désormais à l’horizon. Aucune main ne saurait désormais leur cacher le soleil de la véritable démocratie, celle qui est en train de naître de leur colère, de leurs frustrations, des impasses de la ‘démocratie des milliardaires’, une démocratie dirigée contre le peuple. Les Maliens ont compris que les politiciens actuels de tous ordres, partisans de la restauration de l’ordre ancien, leur ont volé leur démocratie si laborieusement conquise en mars 1991. Ils l’ont vidée de sa substance et en ont fait un gadget, une sucette, leur sucette. Si le coup d’Etat du 22 Mars les a visiblement dérangés dans leur projet de festin ‘démocratique’, il n’a pour l’instant réglé aucun problème de fond sauf celui d’inscrire à l’ordre du jour leur surgissement sur la scène de l’histoire que la CEDEAO des Chefs d’Etat veut empêcher coûte que coûte. Le peuple malien aspire à saisir la chance historique qui lui a été offerte par ce coup d’Etat pour réaliser son destin en toute indépendance et en toute liberté. Il est condamné à l’assumer pour réinventer son avenir.

Pr Issa N’DIAYE, Bamako 29-04-12

Kwame Opoku: Damage to Nok Scupture in Private Western Collection. Will Other African Artefacts End in this Way?

Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:00 +0200

It has been reported in the New York Daily News that the widow of the French artist Arman, is suing in Manhattan Supreme Court for damage to a Nok sculpture caused during a photo shooting session for an art magazine. The sculpture fell and broke into pieces as shown above. Apparently, assistants of the magazine had moved the sculpture from its usual secure position. Mrs Arman has claimed that the sculpture was worth some $300,000. What will the average Nigerian think of this sum?

A question that will surely be raised is whether the precious object was insured against damage and for how much. If it was not insured, this may well reflect on the value attached to it by the owner.

It would be interesting to see whether the issue of the legality of the possession/control of the Nok artefact would be raised in the course of this case. Many of the Nok sculptures in the West are presumed to be of doubtful provenance, a large number having been looted from Nigeria.

Mrs Arman is reported to have stated “I lived with it for over 25 years,”
If the Nok sculpture was acquired in1986/87, the question arises as to the applicability of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import.Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Both the United States of America (02/09/1983) and Nigeria (24/01/1972) are parties to this convention. Did the acquisition of the Nok sculpture violate the UNESCO Convention?

Nok artefacts have been placed since 1997 on the ICOM Red List for Africa
It is since then prohibited, and therefore illegal, to export or import Nok artefacts from Nigeria. These objects are part of the historical records of Nigeria and should under no circumstances leave Nigeria.

It would also be instructive to see if the Nigerian Government/the National Commission on Museums and Monuments will intervene in this case to make representations on behalf of the Nigerian peoples and Government. After all, the Nok sculpture may have been exported in violation of a Nigerian law. There has been a ban on export of antiquities from Nigeria without permission from the authorities as far back as the 1953 Antiquities Ordinance. The relevant laws, ordinances, and decrees issued in 1969, 1974 and 1979 have been consolidated in the National Commission for Museums and Monuments Act, Chapter 242, Laws of Nigeria, 1990. Section 25 (1) of the Act provides that “no antiquity shall be exported from Nigeria without a permit issued in that behalf by the Commission.” In this connection, it would be useful to have a list of the number of authorizations Nigeria has given for exportation of antiquities, including Nok sculptures, outside the country.

If the possessor or controller of the broken Nok sculpture is unable to establish the legality of its acquisition, various issues arise. For example, can one compensate a holder of an illegal object for damage inflicted on the object by another person?

What is really the value of a cultural and historical object that means more to Nigerian history and culture than to US American history and culture? Will the court be guided by the market price of an object that is not, in its country of origin, regarded as saleable object but evidence of the history of the people?

The lawyer of the claimant is reported to have stated that the accident was “a loss of world heritage. It’s a terrible, terrible thing.” Hopefully, all concerned would realize that the removal of the Nok sculpture from its original location in Nigeria was equally a terrible thing. The great Ekpo Eyo declared that

“It is indeed unfortunate that so much Nok material has been looted over time to supply the international market. Properly excavated, such pieces might have shed valuable light on the Nok culture.”

These words should be borne in mind by all those who deal with Nok sculptures and other African antiquities removed from their original locations under dubious conditions.

The broken Nok sculpture raises the fundamental question whether artefacts of a particular people or country should at all be allowed to be kept in private homes in the West. The irreparable loss caused by damage, as in this case, should finally awaken those in the West who have always supported such practices. Artefacts that are important to a particular country or people should be kept by that country or people and not by others in foreign countries that need the objects for their personal prestige and aesthetic contemplation.

Symbols of African culture and achievement do not belong to Western homes. How would Westerners feel if precious evidence of their culture and their history were to be kept in African locations after being looted or stolen from Europe? It is evident from Ekpo Eyo’s, magnificent book, Masterpieces of Nigerian Art, that the majority of Nigeria’s finest artworks are in Western
countries. And yet some persons do not see anything wrong with this perverse situation.

Will a judge be able to order the return of the Nok sculpture to its country of origin? Properly informed and advised, a judge may well come to the conclusion that, in view of the atrocious history of plunder of African artefacts, the return of sculpture, even a broken one, may be a contribution to the fight against the illicit traffic; it may also strengthen attempts to restore to Africans their human right to independent cultural development and free practice of their religion, free from the constant threat of looting for the West.

The fate of the broken Nok has given lie to the argument that African sculptures are better protected in the West. An African sculpture that is some 2,630 years old has thus been destroyed in a Manhattan home in the United States of America. (Photos from New York Daily News) Kwame Opoku, 1 May 2012.

An Open Letter from African women to the Minister of Culture: The Venus Hottentot Cake, by blackfeminist.org

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:10:00 +0200

April 21, 2012. We the undersigned women of African /African descent and our supporters, which include anti-racist activists, scholars community leaders and Faith leaders wish to address the Swedish Venus Hottentot Cake Incident. First, we commend our Swedish friends and colleagues, and those from the African-Swedish Diaspora for their substantial contribution to anti-racist mobilization and education through their various Policy Institutes and Research Programs, which have worked diligently to promote the interests of African Diaspora communities in Europe and Internationally.

The Issue At Hand

“Contemporary forms of oppression do not routinely force people to submit. Instead, they manufacture consent for domination so that we lose our ability to question and thus collude in our own subordination.”

-Patricia Hill-Collins, Black Feminist Scholar.

On Sunday, April 15th, at the Moderna Museet the Swedish Artists Organisation celebrated World Art Day, as well as celebrating its own 75th birthday. Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth, the culture Minister, was Invited to speak and a number of artists were invited to create birthday cakes for the celebration. The Minister was informed that the cake would be about the limits of provocative art, and about female genital mutilation. The event was launched with Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth cutting the first piece of cake from a dark, ruby red velvet filling with black icing, which we understand was created by the Afro-Swedish artist Makode Aj Linde, whose head forms that of the black woman, and is seen with a blackened face screaming with pain each time a guest cuts a slice from the cake. Rather disturbingly for many African women, the minister is pictured laughing as she cuts off the genital area (clitoris) from the metaphorical cake, as the artist Makode screams distastefully. The gaze of the predominantly white Swedish crowd is on Lijeroth who is positioned at the crotch end, as they look on at their visibly ebullient culture minister with seemingly nervous laughter as she becomes a part of the performance – a re-enactment of FGM on a cake made in the image of a disembodied African woman.

The pictures of the event that followed in the media and video footage can only be described in the mildest of terms, as a very negative racialised spectacle, that has infuriated many people. As representatives of African women on the ground, we have the experiential privilege to convey to the Swedish Embassy’s Ministry of Culture the fury that we have seen, particularly from African women who are dismayed at the fact that this project which was supposed to bring awareness of the very painful and complex issue of genital cutting has ironically, had the complete opposite effect.The fact that the artist is black does not in any way diminish the gravity of this racially demeaning project. The black artist who created this may be accused of being a dim witted misogynist on the one hand or on the other, some sort of gnostic proponent of postmodern praxis, in relation to black identity and difference – that we just don’t get – but we do not believe, based on what we have seen and heard from the artists own explanations, that this so-called ‘provocative performance art’ stands up to the intellectual rigor required of literary and cultural critique.The work is definitely not empowering or transformative for women who are victims of FGM in any shape or form, and the racial overtones of this project re-inscribe the exploitation and dehumanisation of black African women, which clearly cannot be denied. The fact of Makode Linde’s blackness does not legitimize anything done here, and the message about the seriousness of FGM is completely subsumed by the hideous medium through which it has been conveyed. One does not need to be subjected to the epistemic violence underpinning the grotesque reconstruction of FGM, in the form of a black woman having her clitoris cut off to the sound of a laughing crowd with a fixed gaze, drinks in hand, to raise awareness of this very serious issue. Perhaps some reflection is required on what this might be saying about the people who were participating, and who saw nothing wrong in what will surely go down as a deeply disturbing episode and blight in Sweden’s history.

As the representatives of African women it is with grave concern that we express our extreme and utter dismay that the minister for culture, Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth – someone who holds a position of great authority and power – would take part in what basically amounted to a humiliating and dehumanising racialised public spectacle of African women. We believe the naive re-enactment of this oppression and symbolic violence in the name of “raising awareness” shows a profound disconnection between the minister for culture and the women who have to deal with FGM. Unfortunately, this serves to reinforce the huge chasm that exists between the cultural sensibilities of African women and western women [albeit not always exclusively between these two categories, when the dynamics of difference is taken into further consideration]. We do not in any shape or form subscribe to this sham, that is so widely described to as “women’s empowerment.” In this sense we the undersigned believe that this project is no different from the” Hottentot Venus” Sara Baartman and other African women who were exhibited as freak show attractions in Europe in the 19th Century.Sara Baartman was tricked into going to Europe, where she and other African women were paraded naked in museums and public squares and gawked at by all and sundry, for their “huge buttocks and peculiar genitalia”. The objectification of African women’s bodies by the west is rife in the pornography industry and there at least one can argue that the women who participate do so willingly. However, when this happens in the context of a serious issue such as FGM and it is done in the name of “art”, we believe that there is a need for a strong unequivocal response to challenge such derogatory and racist representations promulgated by so-called “provocative art”.

As such We/African Women/African-Americans and many women of the African Diaspora the world over view this as an assault on our foremothers, sisters and our selves who have worked tirelesslly in different historical and cultural contexts to rid society of the sexist/racist vernacular and stereotypes of black women as sluts, jezebel, hottentot, mammy, mule, sapphire; to build our own sense of selves and redefine what women who look like us represent.

In this sense we completely reject the grotesque caricature of the black African woman constructed by the artist Mokode Linde to re-enact FGM, which displayed no discernible cultural sensitivity towards those African girls/women and girls/women generally who are subjected to that experience. We in no way except this as a valid representation of the experiences of African women, but rather, we view it as a racialised slur and an attempt at erasure of all that we have struggled for historically in order to genuinely empower African women the world over. We can learn from successful movements like the Civil Rights movement, from Women’s Suffrage, the Black Nationalist and Black Feminist movements that we can make change without resorting to the sort of connivance outlined here between white female power and the black male power that legitimized this gross act of cultural insensitivity and public humiliation towards African women in the form of what is now infamously known as the Venus Hottentot Cake.

The Artist and Ethics

Internalized racism has been one of the primary means by which we are constantly forced to perpetuate and collude in our own oppression and the oppression of others of our race. In the case of the “Venus Hottentot Cake”, equally devastating is that the artist Makode Aj Linde is Afro-Swedish. His own head adorned with long locks forms that of the naked Black woman in the cake, lying motionless on a table in a room surrounded by a laughing crowd. Not one Black woman, not one Black person in the room, except the artist and his cake. Makode Aj Linde is seen with a blackened face screaming with pain each time a Swedish guest cuts a slice from the cake. We are horrified as we try to make sense of this artist’s actions and we are perplexed by his explanation of the art as an awareness raising piece on the “practice of female genital mutilation” in certain African communities, or a practice that many African women’s rights defenders have come to rename female genital cutting (FGC).

The moment that cake was presented; the moment that cake was eaten; the moment that cake caused joy and excitement, re-opening the marvel that white Europeans felt at exploiting African women’s bodies—specifically, the sexualized celebration, the entrapment, the cutting of the genitalia of the Sara Baartman-like black body, the ethics of the artist comes into serious question, even if not the art itself, for the sake of “art”, for the sake of non-censorship. Racism was propped up in its ugliest form, facilitated by a Black artist and perpetuated on the representation of the body of a Black female.

No one, including the artist seems to have consulted Black African women at the forefront of the movement to end the practice of female genital cutting, often with little resources and in direct and dangerous conflict with their own communities. We echo Shailja Patel in stating: “What makes the cake episode so deeply offensive is the appropriation, by both artist and his audience, of African women’s bodies and experiences, while completely excluding real African women from the discourse. It is a pornography of violence.”

We disagree with the artist, that the various statements, comments, letters, and responses flooding the blogosphere represent “a shallow analysis of the work”, of his art. As he expresses that it is “sad if people feel offended”, we too are saddened by his lack of analysis and his acquiesce to racist and misogynist systems that not only serve to undermine the humanity of Black women, but also of Black men.

Ethics are defined as “a system of moral principles” which constantly factor into the choices we make, whether as artists or responsible governmental and/or institutional representatives. However, these decisions can become confused, making this system of principles seriously muddled and producing a blurry set of ethical guidelines, especially when competing priorities are at work—money and recognition vs. dignity and humanity. It is our personal opinion that this cake represents both ethical and moral violations not only in its presentation within the context of art, but within the department of cultural affairs sponsorship of it, regardless of country.

To the artist, by colluding in this or any level of oppression, and by providing the tool for the racialized, sexualized enjoyment of the visual body of a Black woman, by participating in the enticement of others to cut out and eat her cake vagina, which in the case of Sarah Baartman was first felt up, groped at, raped, looked at as a sexual enigma—is indeed an outrage.

Controversies and arguments abound as ethical decisions, or the lack thereof, play a role in institutional practice, in governmental practice—then you add the artist, as in this case, and you have a dangerous situation and a perpetuation on a global scale, another assault on Black women’s bodies. With the advent of technology today, our world is global. Technology allows us to see beyond our backyards. The world is watching as we still see layers of the objectification of black and indigenous peoples throughout the world, where institutions of cultural education reach their market by presenting dangerous ideologies of culture that objectify and exploit and dehumanize ethnic groups, such as Dr Kananazawa for his “Black Women Are Less Attractive” research. We are also fortunate, in the sense that we can use this same technology to respond and resist.

The fact that anthropologists, scientist, and other social scientist, educators and now this artist and the Swedish institution is being challenged around the world in outrage signals that, even through art, people want to be educated without harm, without violation, and without limitation.

What We Ask

We would welcome a meeting with the minister of culture, Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth to discuss the implications of the event in its global reach for African women and the moral outrage it has caused. We would welcome the opportunity to engage in critical conversation with the artist Mokode Linde about the strategies he intends to employ for remaining accountable to black African communities in Sweden and further afield, he has indicated he will continue to represent in his art. We would welcome a conversation about the work ahead in relation to reconciliation for those who have been affected and/or offended by the insensitive nature of the Venus Hottentot Cake event, particularly those who have experience of FGM. Finally, we the undersigned would welcome a sincere public apology that would demonstrate the issues we have outlined in this letter have undergone serious consideration by the minister of culture, followed up by a robust review and impllementation of anti-racist policies that impact the lives of African Swedes and those from African Diaspora communities in Europe and Internationally.It behooves each artist, or researcher, or activist, or educator, to be aware of their position and their privilege and power when communicating or producing what can then interpreted as some form of “reality” by those the product reaches. Conversely, it is the ethical job of the institution, in this case the department of cultural affairs in Sweden to use their monies to fund programming that educates without racism and exploitation. In addition, we believe it is also imperative that they work to redact and develop programs of reeducation to counter information promulgated throughout years and centuries, via exhibitions, world fairs, zoos, parks, and more, that have framed Black women continuously, as “lesser,” “inhumane,” “sexual creatures.” When the department of cultural affairs ate and laughed at the caricature body of Sara Baartman, the head of the department showed herself incompetent and incapable of morally and ethically making choices and incapable of running the department of cultural affairs in Sweden.

SIGNED

Dr Claudette Carr Director, Jethro Institute for Good Governance, BlackWomens Blueprint Barbara Mhangami, Samantha Asumadu

Please email sama2179@hotmail.com or tweet @honestlyAbroad or @Jigginstitute if you want to add your name to this letter.

Thank you

"Mit kolonialen Grüßen... Berichte und Erzählungen von Auslandsaufenthalten rassismuskritisch betrachtet", neue Broschüre von Glokal e.V.

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200

Wenn wir auf Reisen oder sogar für eine längere Zeit in den globalen Süden gehen, erleben wir ungemein viel und möchten gerne unseren Freund_innen und Verwandten zuhause berichten und sie an unseren Erlebnissen, Erfahrungen und Eindrücken teilhaben lassen. Ganz egal, ob wir als Backpacker_innen unterwegs sind, dort einen Job, einen Freiwilligendienst oder ein Praktikum absolvieren – wir fotografieren und erzählen in E-Mails, Social Media, (Rund-)Briefen, Postkarten oder einem eigenen Blog, was uns bewegt, überrascht, glücklich macht oder irritiert. Zurück in Deutschland geht das Erzählen und das Zeigen von Fotos meist erst richtig los.

Diese Broschüre bietet einen Einstieg für Menschen, die sich Gedanken darüber machen wollen, inwiefern ihre Wahrnehmungen und Berichte über den globalen Süden in koloniale und rassistische Strukturen verwickelt sind. Sie führt in zentrale Themen wie Herrschaftsverhältnisse im globalen Kontext, Kolonialismus und Rassismus sowie in die Wirkungsmacht von Bildern und Sprache ein. Darüber hinaus werden einige der üblicherweise in Berichten auftauchenden Erzählmuster aufgegriffen und analysiert. Leitfragen und Anregungen ermöglichen es den Leser_innen, eigene Vorstellungen, Sprechweisen und Bilder selbstkritisch unter die Lupe zu nehmen und alternative Handlungsoptionen zu entwickeln.

Die Broschüre ist zum Herunterladen verfügbar unter |+| glokal.org (pdf)

Gedruckte Exemplare können bestellt werden bei broschuere[at]glokal[punkt]org. Schutzgebühr: 2,00 € / Stück, ab 50 Stück 1,50 € / Stück, zzgl. Versandkosten.

Über die Entstehung der Broschüre
Als glokal e.V. arbeiten wir seit einigen Jahren in der (entwicklungs-)politischen Bildungsarbeit, auch in der Vor- und Nachbereitung sowie Begleitung von jungen Menschen, die einen Freiwilligendienst, eine Jugendbegegnung oder einen Schüler_innenaustausch in Ländern des globalen Südens machen. Durch unsere Arbeit ist uns immer wieder aufgefallen, dass viele der Berichte, Blogs und Bilder nicht mit den Inhalten der pädagogischen Begleitung und den Zielen der Organisationen und Förderprogramme übereinstimmen, sondern diesen sogar widersprechen. Während z.B. auf Begleitseminaren die Themen Vorurteile und Rassismus den Trainer_innen oftmals ein Anliegen sind, werden Menschen und Länder des globalen Südens in den Berichten überwiegend stereotyp und rassistisch dargestellt – sei es bewusst oder unbewusst. All dies ist natürlich Teil dessen, wie der globale Süden generell im und durch den globalen Norden, z.B. in Schulbüchern oder in den Medien, repräsentiert wird. Unsere eigenen Erfahrungen als Reisende, Berichte von Freund_innen und Bekannten und das Wissen darüber, dass Teilnehmende von Freiwilligendiensten im globalen Süden oft einen Großteil ihrer Freizeit damit verbringen, mit Freund_innen und Familie zu kommunizieren und vom Erlebten zu berichten, hat uns dazu bewogen, uns diesem Themenbereich zu widmen.

Die Herausgebenden
glokal e.V. bietet Workshops, Multiplikator_innen-Ausbildungen, Beratung, Prozessbegleitung und Konzepterstellung zu folgenden Schwerpunkten an:

postkoloniale Perspektiven auf „Entwicklungszusammenarbeit“
Anti-Bias/Anti-Diskriminierung
Rassismuskritik und Kritisches Weißsein
Geschlechterverhältnisse
Inter- und Transkulturelles Lernen
machtkritische Analyse von Methoden des Globalen und interkulturellen Lernens
Organisationsberatung aus rassismuskritischer und postkolonialer Perspektive
Klimagerechtigkeit und Umweltthemen
Kritische Perspektiven auf Globalisierungsprozesse und den Welthandel

Nähere Informationen zu glokal e.V. finden Sie unter: www.glokal.org

On Film and cinema in Libya – Interview with Libyan film critic and festival director Ramadan Salim, by Hans-Christian Mahnke

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:14:00 +0200

Ramadan Salim was born 1953 in Azizia, Libya. He is writer, journalist, and film critic, who began writing in 1979 about Libyan literature and never stopped since. His work focuses on Arabic culture in general, and on Magreb literature and cinema in particular. His works include the novels “Journey and Discover” (1997), “Critical Dimension” (2000), and the non-fiction books on cinema named “The individual man in the circle of adventure” (1981) and “Cinema. The horizon and the reality” (1982). He is the chief editor of the monthly arts magazine “Rainbow”, a journalist at the daily newspaper “February” and a blogger, a film critic and reviewer for various Libyan newspapers and magazines. Ramadan Salim is also the director of forthcoming International Mediterranean Film Festival for Documentary and Short Films (under the auspices of the Libyan Ministry of Culture), 31 May 2012.

Interview conducted by Hans-Christian Mahnke, AfricAvenir, on February 23 & 24, 2012, Luxor, Egypt.

Hans-Christian Mahnke: Dear Ramadan, could you speak a bit about the film industry in Libya, its film production and also about the infrastructure of showing films? I know that Libya has produced six feature films, around 40 short films and 200 documentaries.

Ramadan Salim: You know, Libya is a poor country. Before 1965, we really had nothing. Petrol was discovered in Libya around 1963. Before that, Libya was poor. And Italy, as foreign power, made some short films and documentaries about Libya. After Italy had left the country in 1952 (?), the kingdom of Libya made some short films about the big ancient city Lebtis Magna. This was done for touristic purposes. The first Libyan feature film was made 1972, the black and white film “The Destiny is very hard” also known as “When Fate Hardens” (‘Indama Yaqsu al-Zaman) by the Libyan filmmaker Abdella Zarok, who also used Libyan actors.
The second feature then was “The Road” (al-Tariq) in 1974 by Mohamed Shaaban. Around that time, in 1973, we established an organization of cinema, the General Organisation for Cinema, which then made documentary films, about 20 to 25 short films and also was involved in the making of the feature films.
We also then produced the film called “The Green Light” (al-Daw’ al-Akhdar), a co-production directed by Abedalla Mushbahi in 1977, including Egyptian, Tunisian, Moroccan, and Lebanese actors. One can say, an Arabic film.
We then in 1983 also made the war epic ‘Battle of Tagrift” (Ma’rakat Taqraft) by Mushafa Kashem and Mohamed Ayad Driza on the battle between the Italian and Libyan armies. Then there was a film called “The Bomb Shell” also known as “The Splinter” (al-Shaziya), directed by Mohamed Ferjani which won prizes outside Libya, amongst them 2nd prize in North Korea around 1985. The last film “Symphony of Rain” (Ma’azufatu al-matar) was made in 1993/4, again by Abdella Zarok. In 2010, our film organization seized to exist. We stopped producing films.

HCM: Dear Ramadan, can you tell us a bit about the possibility to access Libyan films? How is it possible for a Libyan to watch a Libyan film?

RM: It is not easy to watch a Libyan film for a Libyan. Libyan films are only available at the Organization of Cinema and Theatre in Tripoli, which falls under the Ministry of Culture. But it does not have a library character. The organization has a theatre place where one can watch the original films. But one cannot rent them out. They are not on DVD or so. Only one or two are on VHS. So basically, Libyans don’t have access to Libyan films. We are now thinking to print these films on DVDs. But now it might be better, once a film is made, to make it available on the internet and promote it there. In the end, all people will be able to see it there.

HCM: Libya boasts a few theaters or art galleries. For many years there have been no public theatres, and only a few cinemas showing foreign films. Dear Ramadan, can you inform us about the Libyan cinema halls and its history? Are there cinemas in the country?

RS: Around the 1940s up to the mid 1960s, we had many cinemas, but then they stopped working. I think we had around 14 cinemas alone in Tripoli. Bengasi had around 10 cinemas. We showed films from Italy, Egypt, and also foremost from India and Hollywood. After 1975 the government took control of all the cinemas. So the cinemas could not buy any films from outside. Everything changed into government hands. Day by day the cinemas stopped existing. They were finished. Now we will start from the beginning again.

HCM: Speaking about beginnings, you are the director of the International Mediterranean Film Festival for Documentary and Short Films, which will start in May 2012. What do you hope will this festival achieve? How do you see the future and its challenges?

RS: Of course there are many challenges. But we can start. We have many directors, camera men, technical crew. We also have an Academy of Artists.

The academy teaches students how to photograph, teaches directors, editors, and it also provides classes in film history. The academy has many students, every year around 100 to 150. Most of them end up working for TV stations. Technically they don’t apply any differences when working for cinema or TV. We currently have eight TV channels, so it is natural that the graduates end up there. We have to start to rebuild our cinemas. Currently we have around five or six cinema buildings, which we need to renovate and manage. I think it will take about one year to get them running again.

HCM: Are these plans already on the way?

RS: You know, these are all old cinemas with 400 to 500 seats. We are building a new cinema now, a small one, with around 100 to 200 seats.
It will be run by the Libyan Cinema Club. The club will show a film every week, and we will host film seminars. We will also produce some films, based on competitions, for Libyan filmmakers. It will take some time, but not long, I hope. Maybe in one two years we can start. It depends on the money available. Now Libya has to focus on something more important. We need to rebuild our country. One or two years at least, maybe one or two feature films per year, ten short films and documentaries. As I said, it all depends on the money.

HCM: You were saying the International Mediterranean Film Festival is funded by the Libyan Ministry of Culture. Do you think the approach of the new government has changed in regards to cinema?

RS: Before, all our cinemas and films were set in a political context. One person decided. That one person was Muammar Gaddafi. This man decided which films can be produced. E.g. “Battle of Tagrift”, Gaddafi wrote the idea, and he financed the film. He then ordered the Ministry of Culture to produce the film. I believe in short films and documentary filmmaking we had more freedom, but in feature films all was decided by Gaddafi. He was the first to see the end product and then he in unison decided if it can be released.

There was a film called “Leyla” also known as “Searching for Layla al-’Amiriya” (al-Bahth ‘An Layla al-’Amiriya) about a Libyan women named Leyla, which was separated from other women. The film was made 25 years ago, and we are still waiting to see the film. Gaddafi disliked it and until now, we haven't seen it.

The director of that film is an Iraqi, Kasem Hwel, who now lives in Holland. This film “Leyla” is a good example. Only the filmmaker has a copy of the negative. The film was never released in Libya, it was stored in the archives, and we must assume it is lost. This all, because the cinema industry depended on one man. And even now the film is too sensitive. The film and its production is linked to the old regime so that even now it is a delicate issue. The film is linked to the System Gaddafi. What do I mean by that? Gaddafi established a company called “Rays”, which produced five films, one of them is “Earth of fear”. He produced five or six Egyptian films, and his motivation was only to shine with the Egyptian actresses and actors on the red carpet. These actors would visit him, and Gaddafi would, by dealing with these stars, get some of their glamour for himself. These artists were never Libyans, always Egyptians. His son, Al-Saadi Gaddafi, who lives now in Niger, was a producer at a Hollywood company. He produced more than ten Hollywood films. The investments he made there was money of the Libyan people. And that was the system Gaddafi. All the people, all the money, girls and women, belonged to Mohammed Gaddafi. If one refused to accept this system was either thrown into jail or murdered. So now, if it takes a year or two to abolish this system, we will make the best of it and start anew. We will make films!

Editorial: Germany’s genocide in Namibia – Unbearable silence, or How not to deal with your colonial past

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:52:00 +0100

On 22 March 2012, the German parliament will debate a |+| motion to acknowledge its brutal 1904-08 genocide of the Nama and Herero peoples. Germany’s refusal thus far, and its less than even ‘diplomatic’ treatment in 2011 of the Namibian delegation at the first-ever return of the mortal remains of genocide victims, demands a reassessment of suppressed colonial histories and racism.

This special issue is a cooperation between Pambazuka News and AfricAvenir International. It has been edited by Eric Van Grasdorff, Nicolai Röschert and Firoze Manji. The silence on Germany’s colonial past has become unbearable – both in Germany and in the affected countries. The current government of the Federal Republic of Germany seems not to be ashamed to emphasise that Germany supposedly carries a ‘relatively light colonial baggage’ because it lost its colonies after World War I. However short the country’s colonialist period might have been, it played a central role in the colonisation of the African continent. It was in Berlin that – on the invitation of the Kaiser and his Chancellor Bismarck – Africa was distributed among European countries in 1884–85. Well-functioning communities were brutally crushed in the clear aim to better control, dispossess and exploit the African peoples and their raw materials for the economic development of the imperial powers.

Germany, which has done commendable remembrance work about the Holocaust, seems to have forgotten or deliberately buried its violent colonial past. A past that hides the first genocide of the 20th century, planned and executed by the Second Reich or Kaiserreich. A past that laid not only the foundation for racist theories and pseudoscientific medical experiments on humans – in this case Africans supposed inferiority was to be proven – but also produced, with its concentration camps in Africa, the blueprint for the later Nazi death camps. The way in which Germany tries to silence this past seems to prove Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab right when he assumes that the reason for this genocide not being discussed and treated like the Holocaust is mainly due to the fact that it was aimed against black people: ‘Germany apologised for crimes against Israel, Russia or Poland, because they are dealing with whites. We are black and if there is therefore a problem in apologising, that is racist.’

So we have good reasons from both perspectives – the African and the European – to get to know much more about this traumatic past, its continuity from slavery through colonialism to the Holocaust and Apartheid, and the way Germany and the other former colonial powers are dealing with it today.

Between 1904 and 1908 imperial Germany waged an atrocious and inhumane war of extermination against the Herero, Nama, Damara and San peoples in its former colony ‘German South West Africa’, now the Republic of Namibia. According to the criteria of the UN genocide convention of 1948, the atrocities and massacres committed by German troops must be qualified as genocide.

Only with Namibia’s independence in 1990 did it become possible for the descendants of the genocide victims and a free Namibian government to articulate with openness and self-determination their view on this history and to begin a process of dealing with this past. This includes the demand for ‘restorative justice’, which is fundamental for the further development of Namibia. It is morally important for the national process of reconciliation between the different peoples within Namibia and the descendants of German and other white settlers. On a more material side, this subject is closely linked with the still unresolved question of land reform in Namibia and a situation that condemns the descendants of the victims of the German genocide to a life in bitter poverty. This is largely due to the fact that their land and cattle were stolen and given to white settlers mainly during the German colonial era. Apart from these economic disadvantages the uprooted people have to deal with a colonial mindset that is still preventing many from taking matters into their own hands in order to invent their future and that of their country.

Until today, the German Federal Government – which is the legal successor of imperial Germany – refuses to recognise and apologise for this genocide. There is some confusion on whether or not the words of apology expressed in 2004 by former Federal Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul in Okakarara can be regarded as an official apology. At the centennial commemoration of the beginning of the 1904 genocide she stated: ‘The atrocities committed at that time would today be termed genocide – and nowadays a General von Trotha would be prosecuted and convicted. We Germans accept our historical and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time. And so, in the words of the Lord's Prayer that we share, I ask you to forgive us our trespasses. Without a conscious process of remembering, without sorrow, there can be no reconciliation – remembrance is the key to reconciliation.’ Today it is more than clear and confirmed: the German Federal Government regards these words as a personal statement by the minister and does not adhere to them. An official apology is still lacking.

During 2011, it became known that the Berlin Charité Hospital was willing to restitute to the Republic of Namibia and its people 20 of the many thousands of mortal remains of victims of this genocide that are still locked in German archives and collections. For more than 100 years now, these human remains have been silently stored in the collections and archives of pathological institutes, universities and other German institutions, hidden like unwelcome witnesses of a denied past.

The great majority of these remains were looted and smuggled from the many German concentration camps in ‘German South West Africa’ for use in ‘scientific’ experiments aiming to ‘prove’ the racial inferiority of black people. ‘By using shards of glass,’ says the original subtitle of a contemporary photograph and prominent postcard motif, the skulls had to be ‘freed of flesh and made ready’ by the wives of those murdered before being sent off.

Being the first remains to be repatriated after more than 100 years, the delegation that came from Namibia to receive them was high-ranking. It included important representatives of the committees of the descendants of the victims, the Nama Technical Committee (NTC), the Ovaherero-Ovambanderu Council for the Dialogue on 1904 Genocide OCD-1904 and Ovaherero Genocide Committee (OGC), and it was headed by the Namibian Minister of Youth, National Services, Sports and Culture, Kazenambo Kazenambo.

Against all diplomatic rules and completely insensitive to the historic and emotional momentum of the event, the German government not only omitted to officially welcome the delegation, but also rejected participation in a podium discussion on 28 September 2011 and caused a scandal when Minister of State Cornelia Pieper – refusing like her predecessors to acknowledge the genocide and apologise for it in the name of the German nation and state – left the venue without even the decency to listen to the speeches of the Namibian delegation.

The months that followed this event were characterised by a steady decline in Namibian-German relations. The German ambassador to Namibia began to pour oil on the fire by making several derogatory public comments on the delegation’s supposedly ‘hidden agenda’ in Berlin. Two of the victims’ committees reacted sharply to this allegation and the issue was brought to |+| discussion in the German parliament (Bundestag). Shortly after this a tête-à-tête between the German ambassador and the President of the Republic of Namibia, Hifikepunye Pohamba, ended on a ‘sour note’, the ambassador being shown the door for his insensitive and arrogant behaviour. Relations between the two countries had reached a temporary low point.

In the meantime Namibia went through some months of vivid public debate on how to deal with all the questions raised by the return of the skulls: the history, the reparation claims, the genocide, the need for unity among the Herero and Nama committees, the question of land distribution and land reform, and recently a debate on ‘tribal’ vs. national identity. This included reactionary comments in readers’ letters and articles published in the German-language Namibian newspaper Allgemeine Zeitung. The ‘culture of denial’ deliberately nurtured in these forums is discussed in an article by Melber and Kössler in this special issue.

Recently a |+| motion was introduced in the German Bundestag, entitled: ‘Acknowledging the German colonial crimes in former German South West Africa as genocide and working towards restorative justice’. It comprises core issues and would mark a major step forward, if adopted. But the power relations in German politics will most probably prevent it from getting a majority when discussed and voted on 22 March 2012 – one day after Namibian Independence Day. Nonetheless, it has now become an important part of the debate and it would already be a strong symbolic move forward if all three current opposition parties – the Social Democrats, the Green and the Left Parties – would decide to vote in favour of it.

The aim of this special issue is to make a contribution to this debate by asking some renowned experts, activists, intellectuals, historians and journalists from both Africa and Europe to comment on the recent Berlin happenings as well as to share with a wider audience some important historical and political background information on the subject. Not all those we asked have had the time to contribute an article at this stage and we would also like to open this debate to an international audience especially on the African continent and in the African diaspora. Hence, we see this special issue as the start of a debate, not only about what happened in Namibia, but about German and European colonialism in general. Further articles and contributions on the mentioned topics are welcome. Eric Van Grasdorff, Nicolai Röschert, Firoze Manji Picture: Hanging of "War Prisoners". Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.

Reinhart Kössler/Henning Melber: The genocide in Namibia (1904-08) and its consequences: Toward a culture of memory for a memory culture today – a German perspective

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:51:00 +0100

The repatriation of human remains more than a century after they were taken to Germany from Namibia has evoked painful memories of colonial wars in which primary African resistance was crushed, and genocide perpetrated (1904–08) in what was then the colony of German South West Africa. This contribution situates the current issues and practices of memory politics between Namibia and Germany within their historical context. German colonialism and African resistance
From January 1904 the German colony of South West Africa (since 1990 the sovereign state of Namibia) seethed with the repercussions of the greatest resistance movement against colonial rule the country had yet witnessed. The colonial administration had been gradually implanted after the Berlin conference in 1884 which had sealed the partition of Africa among the European powers. A new brand of German radical nationalism began to echo the proverbial quest by the young Emperor William II for a ‘place in the sun’, calling for Germany’s establishment as a world power on a par with Britain, with a powerful fleet and an array of overseas colonies. But Germany managed to grab only a few colonies in Africa and Oceania after 1884, which turned out to be dismal and costly commercial failures. Yet in nationalist circles, colonies appeared indispensable to prove the country’s status as a world power. Amongst the colonies acquired, Namibia was the only territory considered suitable for extensive sett¬lement by Europeans. Settler ideology envisaged the creation of a ‘New Germany’. Under such circumstances, any challenge to colonial rule was tantamount to disparaging national honour and grandeur. At the same time, the quest for settlement translated into a sustained drive to expropriate Africans from their lands and from their livestock.

After the formal establishment of colonial rule in 1884, it took years to assert full or proper control. Only in 1895 did the Khowesin (part of the Khoikhoi or Nama, referred to as ‘Hottentots’ in discriminating colonial jargon), under the leadership of Hendrik Witbooi, succumb to the colonial troops. The charismatic chief had clairvoyantly, but in vain, tried to unite the leaders of the different local communities threatened by colonialism. The decade that followed was marked by Governor Leutwein’s strategy to advance the settlement project and, in his own words, to ‘gradually get the natives accustomed to the new dispensation. Of their former independence, nothing but memories will be left.’ Leutwein pursued this by a policy of divide and rule and almost constant warfare, pitting different African groups against each other. Since he had at his disposal only a very limited armed contingent, Leutwein relied on treaties with the indigenous chiefs to supply auxiliaries when the need arose to quell uprisings against the fledgling colonial power.

The Herero–German war that began in early 1904 was the most formidable challenge to colonial control once the formal subjugation of the country had been completed. The Ovaherero had largely been able to keep colonial encroachment at bay but the combined effects of the huge losses of their herds through the rinderpest, a locust invasion, a malaria epidemic and, above all, the consequences of the fraudulent practices of traders which led to the sequestration of cattle and alienation of land, plunged the Herero communities into crisis. Progressively, alienated land was appropriated by settler farmers. Complaints were rife about the Ovaherero, women in particular, being mistreated by the colonists. Further encroachment loomed with the proposed railway, which was to cut through the Herero heartland to reach the copper mines of Tsumeb at its far north-eastern fringe. On either side of the railway, a strip of European settlement was envisaged, thus to speed up further land alienation and European settlement.

At the very beginning of the war, Paramount Chief Samuel Maharero (ironically promoted to such an invented new position by the colonial administration in return for earlier collaboration) gave strict orders to his followers not to attack women, children, missionaries, non-German Europeans or members of other indigenous groups. In January 1904 fighting spread rapidly (catching the authorities and settlers by total surprise), but Ovaherero fighters observed their leader’s instructions. While male farmers were frequently killed when their farms were attacked, as a rule, women, children and missionaries were escorted to the German forts. This did not prevent the spread of propaganda about horrendous atrocities committed by the Ovaherero. In their campaign, the Ovaherero initially succeeded in securing control of most of central Namibia, with only the German forts resisting the onslaught.

The colonial power started to pour in reinforcements, along with a new commander-in-chief, General Lothar von Trotha. He had earned his credentials as a member of the international expeditionary force that ravaged North China in retaliation for the Ihetuan (‘Boxer’) uprising in 1901 and, prior to that, by breaking African resistance, in particular that of the Wahehe, in then German East Africa, now Tanzania. From the beginning, von Trotha was quite outspoken about his mission. He considered the confrontation as a ‘war of races’. He claimed superior knowledge that ‘African tribes ... will only succumb to violent force. It has been and remains my policy to exercise this violence with gross terrorism and even with cruelty. I annihilate the African tribes by floods of money and floods of blood. It is only by such sowings that something new will arise which will be there to stay’ – meaning of course, German settlement of the country, thus devoid of competitors. This strategy was, despite the opposition of Leutwein, approved and endorsed by the army headquarters (General Staff) in Berlin. Under von Trotha’s command it was implemented faithfully.

Based on a mindset guided by a ‘total war mentality’ and extermination strategy, von Trotha was looking for a decisive battle. The military actions marking a turning point took place at Ohamakari (Waterberg) on 11 August 1904. The Ovaherero had assembled there as a people, men, women and children, with their herds of cattle. After the military encounters, the majority of Ovaherero broke through the German encirclement in an easterly direction, going into the waterless Omaheke – a vast dry land with no surface water, bordering on Bechuanaland (today Botswana). To this day, historians are not agreed whether this was actually a military victory for the German colonial army. In any case, to secure a final and decisive victory, units of German soldiers followed the fleeing Herero in hot pursuit, cutting off access to waterholes and poisoning those they came across. More than seven weeks later, on 2 October, von Trotha proclaimed his infamous extermination proclamation and publically called on his troops to ensure that the Herero would perish in the semi-desert: ‘Within the German borders,’ the proclamation stated (meaning the borders of German South West Africa), ‘every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.’

The proclamation also stressed that neither women nor children would be spared; they would be denied refuge. While colonial apologists are eager to point out that an ‘internal’ order by von Trotha instructed the soldiers to shoot above the heads of women and children to force them to flee, they ignore that this command served the purpose, namely to chase them back into the waterless Omaheke to die of thirst and exhaustion. Their fickle indicator, intended to water down the extermination order and thus the intent to destroy, makes the actions an even more gruesome way of ‘exterminating the brutes’ (a phrase coined by Emperor William II in his speech when dispatching the soldiers to North China to mercilessly suppress the insurrection in 1901).

By today’s standards and in accordance with the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, von Trotha’s proclamation was a purposeful order for genocide, as part of an overall strategy to secure the country for European, in particular German, settlement. The numbers of those who died a horrible death as a consequence of that order may never be fully ascertained. It is generally accepted that the various Herero groups might have numbered up to 100,000, of whom, according to some estimates, as few as 20,000 survived the ordeal. The concept of genocide, however, is not predicated on such number crunching. According to the UN convention of 1948, genocide is not defined by numerical dimensions but as ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’. That this was the imminent aim and character of the warfare conducted by the German colonial troops is borne out amply by the pronouncements of von Trotha and his superiors.

When the extermination order was eventually rescinded by the emperor, the genocide had already been perpetrated. Moreover, the official military account of the ‘Great General Staff’ in its concluding paragraphs summarised it as a major achievement of the war that the Herero nation was annihilated and had ceased to exist. It celebrated the prowess of the German troops. The late change of policy may be seen as the fruit of representations by missionaries who witnessed the carnage but also of heated public debate in Germany. Thus, August Bebel, founder and parliamentary leader of the Social Democratic Party, worked strenuously to oppose budget appropriations for the colonial war and castigated von Trotha’s strategy as that of ‘a vile butcher’. Bebel reminded his audience of the emperor’s infamous farewell speech (as already quoted above) to the expeditionary corps sent to China when he called on the troops to act in ways to make a name for themselves in the same way the Huns did in Europe 1,500 years earlier. Bebel surmised that there might have been a similar order given in private, ‘otherwise it would be wholly inconceivable for me that a general could issue such an order which contravenes all principles of martial law, civilisation, culture and Christianity’. The Catholic Centrist Party also questioned colonial policy at the time. On the government’s side, there were considerations of expediency: the genocidal strategy was cutting the ground from beneath the settlers’ feet by killing off potential labour power as well as the better part of the cattle herds of the Ovaherero which the settlers meant to appropriate for themselves. Paul Rohrbach, the commissioner for settlement affairs in German South West Africa, bemoaned after the war that the workforce, urgently required as the most important asset for building the colonial economy, had short-sightedly been destroyed.

Nama resistance and further genocidal consequences
On 4 October 1904, things took a new turn with the start of the Nama-German war in southern Namibia. This was probably occasioned by witnessing the fate meted out to the Herero. The various Nama groups avoided a large-scale battle and managed to hold out much longer than the Ovaherero. General von Trotha responded by transferring his strategy of genocidal suppression to this region as well. His proclamation to the Nama explicitly cited the Herero experience. Larger Nama groups capitulated after Hendrik Witbooi, by now an octogenarian, died in action more than a year after the commencement of the uprising, but some carried on until 1908.

Those who gave themselves up to the Germans met a similar fate to the surviving Herero. Contrary to earlier promises, they were made prisoners. Men, women, children and elderly people, indiscriminately, were detained in concentration camps. They shared this fate with the surviving Ovaherero. These concentration camps were located largely in the relatively cold and moist climate of the two port towns of Swakopmund and Lüderitz. Unaccustomed to these conditions, underfed, ill-clothed and badly accommodated, thousands of prisoners died from sheer neglect, or from their exertions as forced labour. Even after the war had officially been terminated, groups of Nama were transported to other German colonies in Africa, Togo and Cameroon. Of these groups of deportees, many also died before they were repatriated shortly before the beginning of World War I. It is estimated that of more than 20,000 Nama who lived in southern Namibia before the uprising, less than 10,000 survived these various forms of savage repression.

One of the more appalling features of this mass destruction of human lives is the kind of open publicity the perpetrators may be said almost to have revelled in. Picture postcards were produced displaying in particular the concentration camps. The term concentration camp emerged shortly before the turn of the century during the Spanish-American war on Cuba and got wider currency in the course of the Anglo-Boer war in South Africa, when British strategy employed such guarded camps to defeat settlers of Dutch origin. While the term did not carry quite the same meaning it acquired through the Nazi Holocaust some 40 years later, the element of destruction both in South Africa and Namibia was quite obvious and undeniable. The postcards from the German colony show an appalling disregard for human suffering, which could be conveyed, as it were, as a greeting to one’s loved ones at home. The same is true of colour pictures showing scenes of prisoners being hanged, or of forced labour scenes representing ‘native life’ as though this was a quasi normal feature in the lives of the so-called natives – as if it were natural for Africans to be subjected to inhuman treatment and the regular application of brute force.

The recent repatriation of human skulls has focused attention on the ways in which the German public of the early 20th century was informed, including about the transportation of human remains from the colony to the metropole. One image, reproduced on postcards and in book illustrations, shows soldiers packing a crate with human skulls with the caption that these had been cleaned of their flesh by Ovaherero women using shards of glass. Participants in the Namibian delegation who went to Berlin in September 2011 to receive the skulls also recalled stories they had heard from their parents and grandparents who had gone through these ordeals. In Germany, these skulls became the material upon which academic careers were built. Such racial science became a mainstay of Nazi ideology and discriminatory practices.

In other respects as well, this first genocide of the 20th century may arguably be considered to be one of the most publicised by the perpetrators themselves. There were popular novels, books of reminiscences and literature filled with colonial propaganda, all of which extolled the exploits of the German troops. In line with sentiments that recent research has traced amongst German soldiers involved in the mass murders during World War II, this literature conveys praise for the hardship valiantly endured whilst killing not only opponent fighters, but old people, women and children. The experience of the colonial genocide in Namibia, therefore not surprisingly, eventually fed into Nazi ideology and propaganda. The most popular novel on the ‘civilising mission’ of exterminating the Herero, originally published in 1906, was ‘Peter Moors Fahrt nach Südwest’ by Gustav Frenssen. It attained a print run of over 400,000 copies and was reprinted for the last time in Germany by the German army headquarters for distribution in the trenches on the ‘Eastern Front’ in 1944, when it was referred to as Schützengrabenliteratur (Trench literature). In Namibia, stalwarts put out a new edition very recently.

The nationalist and colonial hysteria came to a head when incumbent Chancellor von Bülow used this atmosphere to engineer a grand political realignment (‘Bülow-Block’) and to organise an election campaign in 1907, still known in history as ‘Hottentot Elections’. By this means, Bülow managed to break the former majority of the Social Democrats and the Centre, and a centre-right majority was returned which ensured the passing of the budgets needed to further pursue the quest for world power.

Officially the military authorities declared the war terminated in March 1907, a timely move in the run-up to the elections mentioned above. But Ovaherero prisoners of war were released only at the end of May 1908, while Nama prisoners were never set free during German rule. In fact, deportation of Nama communities to Cameroon took place even after the formal end of the war. Moreover, the colonial administration pursued a grand design to further uproot the populations of central and southern Namibia, shifting Herero to the south, while transporting Nama to the centre, the northern portion of the whitesettlement zone.

Those survivors who were released found themselves in dramatically changed circumstances. Above all, they were expropriated of their land and their livestock. This meant the clearing of their land for settlement by white farmers and the appropriation of their herds in so far as they still existed. Moreover, Africans were legally barred from owning land and large livestock. In this way, Africans were systematically prevented from reconstructing a basis for an independent life for themselves, and Ovaherero in particular were prevented from resuming the symbolic rebuilding of their communities, whichlargely hinged on cattle herds. In terms of the UN genocide convention, measures to break up and destroy the communal life of the target group or, as in this case, to systematically prevent its reconstruction, also amount to an act of genocide. Furthermore, Africans were forbidden to settle in large groups, even when employed on a settler farm, and above all, they were subjected to a strict obligation to enter into waged labour which was subjected to comprehensive administrative control. To ensure the smooth and comprehensive working of this system and to foreclose any new attempt at rebellion, all Africans over seven years of age were subjected to a labour obligation, registered and required to carry a token, the so-called pass mark (Passmarke) around their necks. This token has turned into a much sought after collector’s item, a dubious modern kind of ‘memory culture’. In its time, the token served as the means by which any white person could check to make sure that the African was entitled to be in any particular place and otherwise could be turned over to the police. To this was added a system of strict racial segregation. The systematic discrimination was linked to harnessing the labour power of dispossessed Africans in the interests of the new colonial economy, centred on white settlements. The Native Ordinances, strictly regulated and ruthlessly enforced after 1905, in many ways presaged what four decades later would be called Apartheid.

The need for, and the forms of, dealing with the past
Why is it so important to commemorate genocidal atrocities such as those committed in Namibia early in the 20th century today? There are a number of reasons, which may be understood if grouped with two interrelated trajectories. The first of these trajectories is that, despite the ongoing tendency towards denialism, the Namibian genocide is an integral part of the development of political society and culture in Germany. The second trajectory concerns the overall dynamic and logic of genocide as it unfolded during the entire course of the 20th century. The distinction between these two trajectories also relates to the hotly debated issue of the exceptionality of the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany against European Jewry as well as against groups such as the Sinti and the Roma. This also leads to the further issue, whether the wars and mass crimes emanating from the German state during the first half of the 20th century are rooted in some specifically German path of historic development, fundamentally different from the West.

In brief, it may be said that the Namibian genocide contributed towards establishing a specific routine among the German military and also amongst civilians and the way they looked at war and specific acts of war. This meant, in particular, seeing the enemy not as another human being but as a member of an alien, inferior race, that is best annihilated, like ‘vermin’, in the language of the Nazis. Or, in more recent terminology, like ‘cockroaches’ or ‘rats’. Dehumanising whole groups or categories of humans in this way is widely considered an important precondition for actors to perpetrate mass killings, be it in direct personal confrontation with the victims or in the seemingly abstract settings of saturation bombing and even more in today’s cyber wars where soldiers no longer have to face or see those they are killing. In very different ways, all those situations are structured to shield the perpetrators from fully confronting the implications of their murderous acts.

In a colonial situation as it prevailed in Namibia in the early 20th century, the negation of the full human worth of the persons of the colonised is predicated in the structurally racist set-up of colonialism. This is even more the case when the aim of colonial rule is not simply control and exploitation of the country, its resources and inhabitants, but rather, settlement by members of the colonising society. The inherent racism of settler colonialism has worked to lower the threshold of mass killings in appalling ways in many cases and is to be found particularly in the Americas, Australia and southern Africa. In the Namibian case, this links up with the more specifically German trajectory, when we observe continuities of this in accounts and novels read by a mass readership, of military practice as well as in the activities of specific persons, and in military doctrines and routines that link strategic ideas of decisive battles to the concept of final solution and extinction of the enemy.

Such concepts of brute force had an incubation period in the German colonies. While use is made here of the example of German South West Africa, the extermination strategy used in German East Africa in response to the Maji Maji rebellion, triggered in 1905, where the policy of scorched earth was applied, should not be forgotten. Famine was used as a deliberately created weapon, as a result of which an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 people were starved to death. In 1905 one of the leaders of German troops in the colony, Captain Wangenheim, wrote: ‘Only hunger and want can bring about a final submission. Military actions alone will remain more or less a drop in the ocean.’ Such a mindset was fertiliser, if not the seed, for the reactionary ideology of selection based on the claim of the superiority of the Aryan race emerging during the Weimar Republic among those who constituted the Nazi regime, and which culminated in the Holocaust perpetrated in the 1940s.

It has to suffice here merely to mention these problems. Another dimension concerns active remembrance. Here again, it is appropriate to refer to the German case where a specific form of public repentance and remembrance may be said, at least in retrospect, even to have been incorporated into the founding myth of the second German republic. Even though anti-Semitism unfortunately even today is not a thing of the past, also in Germany, and despite the initial post-war tendency of denialism, the insistence by a younger generation since the 1960s has born fruit: the Holocaust is the object of regular remembrance on the part of officialdom as well as civil society, bordering on a cult of mea culpa, denying any critical engagement with radical Zionism and the Israeli policy of occupation and Apartheid, which is all too easily accused of and stigmatised as anti-Semitism.

It should be noted, however, that such late but eager remembrance and repentance, along with the – always and necessarily completely inadequate – material redress associated with it, has been halting and highly selective. Former forced labourers from Eastern Europe have been indemnified, on a rather paltry scale, more than 50 years after the end of World War II, and this could only be achieved by a combination of persistent civil society action in Germany and the German corporations fear of incurring law suits in the United States. Other victim groups managed to secure some kind of compensation even later.

In the case of the Namibian genocide, consecutive German governments, regardless of their political hue, have consistently evaded a formal, official apology. This has been declined on the grounds that this might constitute an argument for the descendants of the survivors to sue for damages. In ignominious ways, state visits to independent Namibia have contrasted a cordial relationship with German-speaking Namibians (among them many who continue to consider themselves as ‘South Westers’) but dealing short shrift when called upon to respond to the consequences of colonial genocide. It must be said that the former minister of economic cooperation and development, social democrat Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, stands out strongly by actually offering an apology in her speech at the central commemoration of the centennial of the battle at Ohamakari on 14 August 2004. However, subsequent experience has shown that this was a somewhat personal rather than an official act – even though today German officials sometimes claim that Wieczorek-Zeul has apologised and that thereby the chapter could be conveniently considered as closed. The contrary is borne out generally, by the so far unsuccessful quest of Namibian victim groups to reach a dialogue with German officials, and of course more specifically by the way the German government (mis)treated the Namibian delegation who had come to Berlin for the repatriation of the skulls in September 2011.

There are powerful symbolic ways for the admission of (historical) guilt, devoid of any glamour and pompous ceremonial rituals. They can be public and dignified at the same time, and have a lasting wider impact. The bent knees and bowed head of the then German Chancellor Willy Brandt in front of the Warsaw War Memorial certainly was such an act. There are other ways of making less public gestures of reconciliation, followed by practical policies.

One central demand, which the German government’s behaviour in the genocide question has demonstrated by default, is first and foremost to listen to the victim groups, instead of decreeing what must be done. The exact modalities of remembrance and redress may be subject to debate but there is a responsibility and obligation to stand up, also through scholarly endeavour, against the clamorous calls for doing away with the past by a final stroke, thus repressing and, in the words of Theodor Adorno, ‘defraud[ing] those murdered even of that only gift with which we, powerless, are able to provide them: remembrance’.

Reinhart Kössler is a social scientist, working at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute in Freiburg and teaching political science at the University of Freiburg. Besides his academic pursuits, he has been involved for a long time in a wide range of civil society initiatives in Germany, mainly centering on Third World issues and with a long-standing focus on southern Africa.

Henning Melber came to Namibia as a son of German immigrants in 1967 and joined Swapo in 1974. He was director of the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek from 1992 to 2000, and research director at the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala, Sweden (2000-2006), where he is executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation since then. He is a Research Associate with the Department of Political Sciences/University of Pretoria. Picture: Hendrik Witbooi was born into a prominent Nama family in 1830. He was educated at a Lutheran Mission and was fluent in a number of European languages, as well as his own Nama. He left many written documents and letters, which testify of his famous military skills. 1887 began Witboois changeful struggle with the German colonial power. After a first defeat in 1894 followed by a so-called "Treaty of Protection", the Witboois initially were forced to fight alongside the Germans in the Waterberg Battle in 1904 against the Herero. Horrified by the extreme brutality of the German troups under General von Trotha, Hendrik Witbooi decided to fight against the Germans and initiated what came to be known as Nama War. After a year long guerilla war, Hendrik Witbooi was wounded and died on 29 October 1905. Four months later, his son Isaak surrendered to the Germans and the Nama like the Herero were detained in concentration camps. Today, Henrik Witbooi is celebrated as a symbol of the anti-colonial struggle in Namibia, his portrait features on all denominations of the Namibian banknotes. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Peter H. Katjavivi: The significance of the repatriation of Namibian human skulls

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:48:00 +0100

Former Namibian Ambassador to Germany, Prof. Peter H. Katjavivi, who was instrumental in getting the repatriation process with Charité started, calls upon both Namibians and Germans to confront the past honestly as part of the process of recovering human dignity and thereby healing of the wounds of the past. This process, he writes, is in the interest of both nations. In October 2011, the skulls of Namibian ancestors were returned to their country of origin. The Namibian delegation that participated in the repatriation of the human skulls from Germany successfully accomplished the mission. However, not all the skulls were ready for repatriation and therefore arrangements are underway to ensure that those skulls still held at the Freiburg University can be brought home.

Bishop Dr Z. Kameeta of the Lutheran Church of Namibia succinctly summed up the mood within the Namibian delegation when he said the following in St Matthew Church in Berlin on the 24 September 2011: ‘I do not know whether we comprehend the enormity of this solemn and divine occasion and the privilege and honour accorded to our generation. In His mercy and wisdom, God has chosen this generation to come here to Germany and to take back the remains of our ancestors who were brutally killed by the German colonial forces and in an undignified manner removed from Namibia to Germany.’

When the information about a number of human skulls at various German institutions was disclosed to me in 2008, shortly after I returned from being Namibia’s ambassador in Berlin, I spoke out publicly about the need to have these human remains returned to Namibia. The revelation came in a German television documentary and there has been a great deal of discussion in the media since then, as well as exchanges of communications between the Namibian and German governments. This led to the confirmation by the German institutions, including the Medical History Museum at the Charité teaching hospital in Berlin and Freiburg University, that they did indeed have a number of Namibian skulls. Their admission resulted in the German government agreeing to assist in the repatriation process.

For young Germans, who know little about the colonial war fought by the German forces in Namibia, this news was surprising. For young Namibians, this news created a point of further discourse about Namibia–German relations. This has raised demands that the events of the past be more fully addressed.

Markus Frenzel, a German television reporter of ARD, brought further information to light stating that: ‘it is believed that a total of at least 300 Herero skulls were taken to Germany in the early 20th century’. [1] However, it is likely that we are talking about skulls not only of Hereros but also of Namas, Damaras and San.

The question many people are still asking is what led to the initial displacement of these skulls. David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen had this to say about the politics of the skulls in their book, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s forgotten genocide and the colonial roots of Nazism’: ‘In recent years, the skulls and even the preserved heads of the prisoners from the concentration camps have been found in the medical collections of a number of German universities. Freiburg University is said to have twelve Namibian skulls from Namibia in its anthropological collection, while the medical history museum of Berlin’s Charité hospital is believed to hold forty-seven Namibian skulls. It is suspected that among the human remains at the Charité hospital are seventeen decapitated heads of Nama prisoners, prepared and dispatched from Shark Island in 1906 by the camp Physician, Dr Bofinger. These “specimens” were later studied by Christian Fetzer, a Berlin medical student who endeavored to identify anatomical similarities between the Nama and the Anthropoid ape. Fetzer’s theories were influenced greatly by the work of Eugen Fischer.’ [2]

It is no accident that the Namibian past comes back to confront its present. The past reminds us about the ugly colonial legacy of Namibia. The cruel aspect of the German colonial history in our country is undeniable. Therefore, the German authorities should not be surprised if several questions are being asked concerning the purpose of the removal, transportation and experimentation on the skulls that were undertaken in Germany. One of the most disturbing aspects of the story is the clear indication that Namibian skulls were taken not only for perverted scientific experimentation but also as trophies. [3]

Those who were responsible for such experiments, at the time, may have been part of a larger network that operated on a larger scale, and had far-reaching implications beyond the immediate suffering of our people in Africa. It is for this reason that I believe that Olusoga and Erichsen do indeed have a valid point when they state that: ‘No unstoppable historical force carried Germany from Waterberg to Nuremberg. But the Herero and Nama Genocides along with the Nazi vision of race war and settlement in Eastern Europe, can be seen as aspects of a larger phenomenon – the emergence from Europe of a terrible strain of racial colonialism that viewed human history through the prism of a distorted form of social Darwinism and regarded the earth as a racial battlefield on which the “weak” were destined to be vanquished.’ [4]

What is the way forward or what lessons can be learned from these events?
First, particularly for Namibians, is that we should confront the past honestly as part of the process of recovering our dignity and thereby contributing towards the healing of the wounds of the past. To quote the words of the Southern Sudanese leader John Garang in his 1994 address to the 7th Pan African Congress in Kampala, Uganda: ‘The dead are not dead, and the living are not living.’ [5] Therefore, the repatriation of the skulls gives voice to the dead to tell their own story to the world about how absurd and inhumane German colonialism was towards black communities in Namibia. As the political scientist Dr Tapera Chirawu has pointed out: ‘[Garang’s] statement ... underlines the fact that the present is what it is because of past policies, and that today’s policies shape the future ... There could not be a better attestation of the link between those who have come and gone, those who are alive today, and those still to be born.’ [6]

Second is that, with a now independent Namibia, we can finally repatriate the human remains and accord them the appropriate welcome as fallen pioneers of the long and bitter Namibian resistance to foreign occupation. With the achievement of independence in Namibia, we declared that we would make every effort to regain our rights, freedoms and our past. The recovery and repatriation of the skulls is an essential component of regaining our past, and consequentially our dignity.

From this process we can rebuild a society that has been shaped by its history, but that is determined to avoid a repetition of the events of the past. Avoiding such repetition is predicated upon asking questions and provoking debate in both Namibia and Germany about the bloody conflict that took place during the colonial period in this country.

We are confident that the two countries will face these challenges and be prepared to address issues associated with the repatriation of the skulls in a mature and sensitive manner. This will be in the interest of all concerned.

The late South African leader O.R. Tambo has written: ‘Blood and death suffuses the history of Southern Africa, but our lodestar is a noble hope.’ [7] And the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda reminds us that: ‘History teaches with her light that man can change that which exists.’ [8]

Peter H. Katjavivi is author of ‘A History of Resistance in Namibia’ (James Currey, 1988) and, among other posts, has served as National Assembly Member, Vice Chancellor of the University of Namibia, Chairperson of the National Monuments Council, Namibia’s Ambassador to Germany, and Head of the National Planning Commission. He is SWAPO Chief Whip in the Namibian Parliament.

NOTES

Markus Frenzel, ARD TV broadcast, 21 July 2008. Cited in New Era, 24 July 2008.
D. Olusoga and C. W. Erichsen, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s forgotten genocide and the colonial roots of Nazism’, London, Faber and Faber, 2010, p. 358.
A. Zimmerman, ‘Adventures in the skin trade: German anthropology and colonial corporeality’, in H.G. Penny and M. Bunzl (eds), ‘Worldly provincialism: German anthropology in the Age of Empire’, Ann Arbour, University of Michigan Press, pp. 156 and 177. Cited in Jeremy Sarkin, ‘Germany’s Genocide of the Herero: Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers’, Cape Town, UCT Press, 2011, p. 22.
Olusoga and Erichsen, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust’, p. 361.
Cited in T.O. Chirawu, ‘Understanding Policy Domains, their Salient Forces and Organisational Challenges’, Windhoek, UNAM Press (forthcoming).
Chirawu, ‘Understanding Policy Domains’.
O.R. Tambo, ‘Olof Palme and the Liberation of Southern Africa’, in Kofi Buenor Hadjor (ed.), ‘New Perspectives in North-South Dialogue: Essays in honour of Olof Palme’, London, Third World Communications and I. B. Taurus, 1988, p. 270.
Cited in Tambo, ‘Olof Palme and the Liberation of Southern Africa’, p. 271.

Picture: Some of the official delegation members during the restitution ceremony at the Berlin Charité in September 2011. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.

Kwame Opoku: Return of stolen skulls by Germany to Namibia: Closure of a horrible chapter?

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:39:00 +0100

Refuting in detail the arguments proffered by Germany on the questions of apology and compensation for the genocide of the Herero and the Nama, Dr Kwame Opoku notes that the Namibia-Germany case is being keenly observed by other African peoples and states with unresolved issues relating to the colonial era. ‘I, the great general of the German troops, send this letter to the Herero people. The Herero are no longer German subjects. They have murdered and stolen, they have cut off the ears and other parts of the bodies of wounded soldiers, and now out of cowardice they no longer wish to fight. I say to the people: anyone who hands over one of the chiefs to one of our stations as prisoner shall receive 1,000 marks and whoever delivers Samuel Maharero will receive 5,000 marks. The Herero people must however leave the land. If the people refuse to do so, I shall force them with the Great Rohr [cannon]. Any Herero found within the German borders, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I no longer receive women or children. I will drive them back to their people or order them to be shot. These are my words to the Herero people.
The great General of the mighty German Kaiser.’
Vernichtungsbefehl (Extermination Order) by the German commander, General Lothar von Trotha.[1]

In connection with the recent return to Namibia of 20 skulls of Namibians that were taken to Germany during the German colonial rule in South West Africa, now Namibia, Nahas Angula, Prime Minister of Namibia is reported to have declared at the airport: ‘The Namibian nation accepts these mortal remains as a symbolic closure of a tragic chapter.’ [2]

With all due respect, the return of the 20 skulls surely cannot be a symbolic closure of a tragic chapter in the history of Germany and Namibia. At best, the handing over could be regarded as a symbolic beginning of a process that may close this incredible chapter of cruelty and criminality organised by a European state against African peoples. German rule in South West Africa (1884-1915) was marked by singular brutality, disregard of the human rights of Namibians, confiscation of land and cattle, coupled with exploitation of the human and material resources of the vast colony. The massacres of the Herero and the Nama were the first genocides of the 20th century, a period that was to be distinguished by many other atrocities including Nazi genocides. [3]

As far as I know, the Germans have not accepted their full responsibility and do not appear willing to make the necessary compensation for the loss and pains suffered by the Herero and Nama and to make a formal apology at the highest state level as they have done several times for the victims of Nazi atrocities. How can we speak of the ‘closure of a tragic chapter’ when the Germans have not declared their willingness to compensate the victims of the atrocious massacres and the expropriation of land and seizure of cattle? They do not seem to be willing to compensate Namibians to the same extent as they compensated the victims of Nazi atrocities.

The arguments advanced in support of Germany not rendering apology and not paying compensation have been, to say the least, perverse:

That for Germany to pay compensation to one ethnic group, the Herero, would upset the policy of national reconciliation pursued by Namibia. During the commemoration ceremony in January 2004, the German ambassador to Namibia restated his government’s position: ‘It would not be justified to compensate one specific ethnic group for their suffering during the colonial times, as this could reinforce ethnic tensions and thus undermine the policy of national reconciliation which we fully support.’ [4]
That the crime of genocide was only established in 1948 by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UN genocide convention) and thus the killing of colonial peoples in 1904–08 was not a crime in international law when the Germans launched their war of extermination against the Herero.
That German development aid to Namibia already covers or includes the compensation sought by the Herero.

These arguments are really unworthy of Germany. However, in this as in the question of the return of looted art objects from Africa, it seems any absurd argument appears acceptable to Western governments instead of returning the objects or paying compensation where relevant. Who would have thought that in our time the Germans would be responding to the descendants of the victims of the German war of extermination with such arguments? The above arguments are surprising in view of the background to Namibia–German relations.

It is an extraordinary argument for Germany to advance Namibian policy on national unity as grounds for not paying compensation to Namibians whom they have deprived of their land, cattle and forced to work without pay in the colonial days. Since when has Namibian national unity been a concern of Germany that always supported apartheid South Africa in its cruel, racist and segregationist rule in Namibia? Namibia’s policy regarding national reconciliation is clearly not the business of Germany. Namibia did not interfere with Germany’s policy of re-unification between East and West Germany. To use the present Namibian policy of reconciliation as grounds for not paying compensation to Namibians deprived of their land and cattle during the colonial rule is an argument that can only be advanced by colonialists and former colonialists. Is this a further attempt to create dissension among the various peoples of Namibia by creating the impression that one ethnic group is seeking compensation for colonial suffering at the expense of others who also suffered under colonial rule? Why does the German government not try to answer the claims of the Herero and Nama and then deal with other demands as they come? If other groups also have claims, and I have no doubt that the cruel colonialist rule brought sufferings to all Namibians, these claims should also be specifically presented but dealt with separately. Seeking refuge in a possible upset for Namibian policies of national reconciliation is a cheap trick that will not abolish or reduce the responsibility of Germany to compensate for genocide, expropriation of land, confiscation of cattle, forced labour, internment in concentration or labour camps, forced prostitution for the pleasure of German soldiers and other unmentionable cruelties.

Can anybody seriously argue that before the adoption of the UN genocide convention in 1948 it was legal to kill colonial peoples and go free? What about the duty of ‘preservation of the native tribes’ contained in Article 6 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference of 1885 by which the colonialist and imperialist powers divided Africa among themselves and established guidelines for the colonisation of Africa? Rachel Anderson who has pursued this issue in detail concluded that: ‘International legal prohibitions against some forms of genocide, such as wars of annihilation, developed long before their codification in the U.N. Genocide Convention and were embedded in both treaty and customary law by the late nineteenth century. An analysis of international law during the early twentieth century shows that the war of annihilation waged by the German colonial administration against the Herero nation violated several treaties to which Germany was a signatory, as well as customary law of the period. Most scholars do not dispute that Germany waged a war of annihilation against the Hereros. There is ample evidence that the Hereros endured slavery, forced labor, concentration camps, medical experimentation, destruction of tribal culture and social organizations, and systematic abuse of women and children.’ [5]

Germany cannot be serious in arguing that before the adoption of the convention on genocide in 1948 it was legal to kill Africans who had done nothing more than defending their land and livestock from an aggressor that had travelled thousands of miles from Europe with evil intentions. Behind this argument of defenders of colonial genocide is the usual European line of defence: we must judge past periods not by today’s standards but those of the relevant past period. Fortunately, as regards the brutal German killings of the Herero in 1904–08, the laws in 1904 and present laws all prohibit such activities. Jeremy Sarkin has stated in his excellent book, ‘Colonial Genocide and Reparations in the 21st Century’ that: ‘While specific codified instruments were in their infancy in international law in the nineteenth century, international agreements existed even in international criminal law, instruments such as the 2878 Lima Treaty to Establish Uniform Rules for Private International Law and the 1889 Montevideo Treaty on International Penal Law. Already at that time various branches of international law, especially international humanitarian law (1864 Geneva Convention), provided protection for individuals and groups. Additionally, international protection for individuals and groups at the time was found not only in international humanitarian law but also other international legal regulations such as those governing slavery and piracy.’ [6]

To confuse German development assistance with the specific demands of the Herero for compensation for land and cattle expropriated during the colonial era must surprise all reasonable persons. These are obviously two different issues that cannot and should not be mixed. Besides, if the compensation were included in development assistance, then that portion should be clearly stated and indicated. In any case, it is legally not acceptable that those seeking compensation for forced labour, concentration camps, false medical experimentation, systematic abuse of women and confiscation of land could be answered by reference to assistance to their state.

Would Germany have advanced such an argument in the case of the victims of Nazi aggression and atrocities? Development assistance should not be allowed to obscure or confuse historical facts of genocide and expropriation of land and cattle. If development aid included compensation for the Herero and Nama, the Germans would have to explain the basis for such compensation. Is it legal or moral? If it is moral, what moral would this be? And does that moral forbid making a clear and straightforward compensation to those whose cattle and land they confiscated?

Jeremy Sarkin has argued that the much vaunted claim that Namibia receives the highest level of aid from Germany may be untrue: ‘In addition, Germany’s claim that Namibia receives the highest levels of aid seems to be false. Between 1985 and 2001 Namibia was in absolute terms only twenty-third on the list of African receivers of aid from Germany. The amount given has been about $20 million per year, while Egypt as the highest recipient received more than $220 million per year. If only the post-independence years are considered, Namibia’s position as a receiver of aid from Germany improves to twentieth position.’ [7]

At the handing over ceremony of the 20 skulls to a Namibian delegation on 28 September 2011, at the Medical Museum of the Charité Hospital, Berlin, the German state-secretary in the office of foreign affairs who was present, left the hall immediately after her speech and before the Namibians spoke. Cornelia Pieper was booed by other Germans at the ceremony. There was no formal apology for the massacre of the Herero, the Nama and the Damara from the German government which had declined two days earlier to take part in discussions on the issue organised by Africavenir and other German NGOs. [8]

It appears evident that the German government is not willing to recognise the historical German governmental responsibility for the massacre of the Herero and the Nama. They are acting as if the question of the return of human remains is a matter between the Charité Hospital and the Herero. One does not need much reflection to realise that this is a responsibility that lies squarely with the German government and not with the hospitals and the museums that are keeping the skulls and bones. The NGOs expressed an apology for the genocide committed against the Herero and the Nama by German colonial troops; they also established a book of condolence in memory of the victims of the German genocide in Namibia 1904–08, which they handed over to the Namibian delegation. [9] It was left to the NGOs to save the honour of Germany. Incidentally, no German minister or official was at the airport to welcome the Namibian delegation. It was met by representatives of the NGOs.

To close this shameful and tragic chapter in the history of their lawless and cruel rule in Namibia, Germans would have to do a little more than return a few skulls. They have to disclose fully the number of human skulls they sent to Berlin and other German hospitals and universities; only they could do this. They are known for keeping accurate records even under the most testing conditions.Taking into account the number of Herero that the Germans massacred – some 60,000 – and the keen interest of German ethnologists, such as Luschan and the evil medical professor Dr Eugen Fischer, in obtaining human skulls, there must be thousands of such remains in German natural history and ethnological museums and universities. [10]

According to Zimmermann: ‘Today, the physical anthropology of the Berlin Anthropological Society can be found in the attic and cellar of the Berlin Museum of Natural History. The collection consists of over six thousand skulls as well as dried skin, hair, plaster casts of faces, heads, hands, and feet, postcranial skeletons, and perhaps even parts that have remained packed in boxes since the Second World War. The cooperation between the Berlin anthropologists and the German colonial state transformed administrators and soldiers into anthropological collectors and colonial raids and massacres into scientific expeditions.’ [11]

There are still some 12,000 human remains in the University of Frankfurt, Dresden Völkerkunde Museum, in the Charité, Berlin, 7,000 (minus the 20 recently returned to Namibia), and an unknown number in the Arbeitstelle fur Geschichte der Medizin, University of Marburg. Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Cologne, Dresden, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Hamburg, Heidelberg, Leipzig, Nuremberg, Rostock and other German cities all have such skeletons in their museums and other institutions. We do not know how many of these human remains came from Namibia but, taking into account the history of German activities in this area, we can assume that many came from Namibia. We also do not know how many Namibian human remains have been transferred by Germany to other European countries, such as Austria, by way of exchange or through sale. There is therefore a need for Germany to return more human remains to Namibia and to give a full account of the many human remains that were taken from Namibia.

The handing over of the Namibian human remains by the Germans was, by all accounts, a complete diplomatic disaster. Not only did the German representative at the handing over leave before the Namibians spoke but also the German government refused to receive the delegation in an appropriate manner. The Namibians left Germany feeling that the Germans still regard them as inferior; they must have been reminded of the period when the Germans treated Namibians as ‘Untermenschen’, sub-humans. Servas van der Bosch reported in the Inter Press Service News Agency as follows: ‘The handover in Berlin was marked by the walkout of a German minister of state Cornelia Pieper, whose speech was disrupted by protests. So far, Germany has failed to apologise for the massacre, and it refuses to pay reparations. The Namibian delegation was angered by her departure.

"We are here to receive the skulls of our ancestors," Hengari Erenfried told IPS, while hoping to catch a glimpse of the precious remains. "These are our grandparents that were brutally killed by the Germans. The Germans definitely have to pay."

"We want them to acknowledge that they killed our people," said Katjivikua. "That they desecrated their bodies and cut off their heads. Among those skulls is a four-year old child. That is so painful. The Germans must pay. Why can they pay other tribes that they killed like the Jews? Because they are white?"’ [12]

Cornelia Pieper’s speech was clearly a regression from the position taken on 14 August 2004 by the German minister for economic cooperation at the commemoration of the battle of Ohamakari, near Waterberg. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul expressed regrets and remorse in fairly general terms. Earlier in 1998 the German State President Herzog had refused to make any formal apology during a visit to Namibia, even though he expressed his regrets at the ‘massacre’ of the Herero. Wieczorek-Zeul recognised the political, moral and ethical responsibility of the Germans for the war of extermination instituted by Lothar von Trotha against the Herero and Nama but stopped short of accepting legal responsibility for the consequences of that war even though she stated that the German war against the Herero would be regarded today as genocide and General von Trotha would be tried before an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. When asked to apologise, she said her whole statement was in that direction. However, the word ‘apology’ was not used in her delivered statement. The Germans are willing to say ‘sorry’ but are not willing to make a formal apology or to engage in any discussions on compensation. [13]

Wieczorek-Zeul asked the Namibians to forgive the Germans for their fault in the sense of the Christian prayer, ‘Our Father’. She added that without remembrance, without deep sorrow, there can be no reconciliation. Reconciliation requires remembrance. This statement by Wieczorek-Zeul was far ahead of what any senior German official had said up to 2004 and went beyond the declaration of the German parliament on 16 June 2004, ‘In commemoration of the victims of the Colonial War in the former German South West Africa’. In this declaration, ‘the German Bundestag acknowledges a special political and moral responsibility towards Namibia’ and ‘extends its deeply felt regrets and its sorrow to the suppressed African peoples. In doing that we wish to make a contribution to restore the dignity and honour of tens of thousands of victims.’ Reference was also made to the 500 million euros that Germany had allocated to Namibia since independence in 1990. [14]

Cornelia Pieper, representing Germany, failed to seize a historic occasion to improve relations between the two countries. The German government is not willing to assume its full responsibility – moral, historic and legal – for the genocide of the Herero and the Nama. True that the unfortunate state-secretary had said in her speech that ‘The Federal Government recognizes the grave historical legacy and the resulting moral and historical responsibility of Germany towards Namibia’ [15], but there was nothing else in Pieper’s speech that indicated that the Germans were ready to recognise their responsibility, especially their legal responsibility and duty to make the necessary compensation to the victims of the German genocide and to compensate for the land and cattle they confiscated. Germans seem to have forgotten the slogan that there shall be no expropriation without compensation. The reference to ‘historical legacy and the resulting moral and historical responsibility’ sounds good but when closely examined turns out not to be much of a concession on the part of Germany.

The historical legacy and historical responsibility are well established by Germany’s own records. The moral responsibility flows from the records regarding the perpetrators and those who employed or instructed them to commit the atrocities. Not even Germany would deny this. The one responsibility the German government left out is the legal responsibility. But does the legal responsibility exist independently, outside the historical, i.e. factual situation, and the moral responsibility for genocide and expropriation? Do legal rules, apart from the texts, exist without any context or moral framework? Do the rules operate in a vacuum, outside a specific societal context? How can the Germans recognise their heavy historical legacy and the resulting moral and historical responsibility and still refuse to apologise to the Herero and Nama for their atrocities or to compensate for the land and cattle they confiscated? By all moral standards, if not by all laws, a person who causes damage is required generally, at least, to make compensation. It is our submission that once you accept the factual, i.e. historical responsibility, and the moral responsibility for a heinous and serious crime such as genocide, the legal liability is inescapable. What consequences that liability entails would normally have to be determined by a third instance, preferably a tribunal. That the perpetrators of genocide and other unspeakable crimes against Namibians were not tried can only be attributed to the complicity of other nations that have themselves been involved in similar atrocities in the colonial era. They clearly have no interest in the re-examination of their policies during their imperialistic rule; where there has been divergence of interests between the conquered perpetrators and the victorious states, such as after World War II, we get appropriate tribunals such as the Nuremberg Tribunal. But even then, the tribunals are careful not to examine earlier periods that may reveal that the conquered state had only done what other states may have practised in the past.

The disrespect shown to the Namibian delegation that went to Germany to represent the victims of the genocide and their descendants seems incredible. Germans, like many Europeans, seem to find it difficult to apologise to Africans and to compensate them for property they have confiscated. Africans have been treated over centuries with contempt by Europeans but there have not been as many protests and reactions as one would expect. This may have misled some Europeans, especially former colonial masters, to believe that their disdainful and arrogant behaviour is natural and correct. Supposing the Namibian delegation refused to participate in any further meeting concerning the skulls and left Berlin in protest over the disrespectful behaviour of the German government towards both the dead and living Namibians, and left without the skulls, what would have happened?

One could suggest that, in future, the Germans themselves should bring the skulls back to Namibia. After all, they took the human remains to Germany and, if they have now accepted that this was wrong, they should be able to return them to where they took them. Namibians should not go to Berlin or Freiburg to collect skulls and be treated like miserable beggars.

By their disrespect towards the Namibian delegation, the German authorities have once again failed to seize a great opportunity to act in a way that would contribute to harmonious relations between the German-speaking Namibians and other Namibians. German-speaking people in Namibia were the beneficiaries of the seizure of land and cattle as well as of the cheap labour of Namibians under colonial rule. The failure is particularly unfortunate as the land question has not been settled in Namibia where, as in Zimbabwe, the expropriation of land was one of the main causes of African discontent and the consequent liberation struggle. Let no one say there is no connection between the expropriation of land and seizure of cattle under German colonial rule and the present situation of the land question in Namibia. The German Bundestag has itself referred on occasion to the need for land reform in Namibia. Some may say there is need for something more than reform. In countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, where the historical colonial oppression and discrimination involved confiscation of African lands for the benefit of European settlers and that has resulted in the present situation where a small number of European descendants are holding the greater part of the land to the disadvantage of the vast majority, there is surely need for radical changes.

The former colonial masters of Namibia should not be allowed to easily escape their responsibilities by describing this handing over of the human remains as a closure, even symbolic, of the tragic history between Germany and Namibia.
More needs to be done and, above all, the German government must, at the highest level, apologise for the atrocities and assume its full liability to compensate the victims and their successors. There cannot be a full and complete reconciliation without a formal apology by the offender. The nature of the crimes committed against the Herero – forced labour, confiscation of land and cattle, forced prostitution of Herero women to satisfy the sexual needs of German soldiers, internment in concentration camps and damaging medical experimentation – require a formal apology from the highest representatives of the German state and consequent compensation. Is this asking for too much in view of the heinous crimes? If we are unable to apologise for past atrocities, what right do we have to criticise or attack present dictators?

But why are Germans reluctant to do for the Herero what has been repeatedly done for victims of Nazi atrocities? Is there a racist philosophy at work here? Has the inherent racism of colonialism left its traces? Have the racist theories of the Nazis taken root in Germany as regards Africans, despite all appearances and assertions to the contrary?

The hesitations and unwillingness of the German government to apply to the Herero and Nama the same standards as have been applied to the victims of Nazi atrocities – profuse apologies and substantial monetary compensation – seem to confirm the analysis made by Aimée Césaire in his ‘Discours sur le colonialisme’. [16] What Europeans, including Germans, criticise in Nazism is not that it had committed crimes against humanity, that it is ‘the crowning barbarism’ that sums up all the other barbarisms. Before Europeans became victims of Nazism, they were its accomplices; they tolerated it before it was afflicted on them, and they shut their eyes to it and legitimised it as it was then applied only to non-Europeans. Césaire’s view, which is shared by many Africans, has also been confirmed by Theo-Ben Gurirab, then the Namibian minister of foreign affairs, who, according to Henning Melber, declared that ‘Germany apologised for crimes against Israel, Russia or Poland, because they are dealing with whites. We are black and if there is therefore a problem in apologising, that is racist’. [17]

Continuities between German colonialist practices and Nazi practices have been underlined by many authors. Whether German colonialism was a step towards National Socialism or not is not my main concern here. I am only arguing for the need for compensation and equal treatment. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that most of the basic characteristics of the atrocious and evil practices of the Nazi system were already practised in the German colony of South West Africa: concentration camps, pass system and racial oppression, eugenicist ideas and practices of racial selection, territorial expansion and confiscation of property without compensation. [18]

Jürgen Zimmerer has underlined, in an article significantly entitled ‘War, Concentration Camps and Genocide in South-West Africa: The First German Genocide’, the similarities between the German atrocities in South West Africa and those of the Nazis: ‘The genocide in German South West Africa is also significant as a prelude to the Holocaust. One need only consider notions such as concentration camps and genocide to relate these events to the mass crimes committed during the Third Reich. Although one must be aware of making precipitate comparisons, it cannot be denied that there are actual structural similarities between the genocide committed on the Herero and Nama and the Holocaust which reward further reflection. As less than 40 years elapse between the first and the second genocides carried out by Germans, the lack of a link would be more surprising than its existence.’ [19]

Namibia was the preferred land for the Germans for practising and testing pseudo-sciences on the population. One recalls the evil Dr Eugen Fischer, sent by German universities to Namibia, where his pseudo-scientific theories of racial purity were practised on Namibians, involving sterilisation, injection of small pox, typhus tuberculosis. Fischer and others thought by measuring the skulls and other parts of the Herero and other Africans they could establish scientifically the inferiority of Africans. Fischer studied the so-called ‘Rehoboth bastards’, the offspring of German or Boer men who had sexual relations with African women in Rehoboth. On Fischer’s recommendation that mixed marriage should not continue, mixed marriages were prohibited in all German colonies. The wicked doctor continued his racist activities after World War I with the ‘Rhineland bastards’, with the sterilisation of the offspring of German women and African soldiers from the French colonies who had occupied western areas of Germany after World War I. [20] Fischer carried on his activities during Nazi rule in Germany but was never tried for his crimes and died in 1967.

The continuities between German colonialist ideology and Nazi ideology are plain. Some might think that the government of a state that practised genocide in Namibia, that introduced Nazi ideology and practice, and that later on supported the racist apartheid system until the very end, might not find it easy to apply to the Herero and Nama the same standards as it applied to European victims of Nazism.

Peter H. Katjavivi has quite correctly stated that: ‘The recovery and repatriation of the skulls is an essential component of regaining our past, and consequentially our dignity.’ [21] That Africans also have a dignity to protect may be difficult for those whose wealth and power have been predicated on African subservience and labour. Whilst they say they accord dignity to all peoples and hence are willing to apologise for their mistakes, they do not seem to want to extend this respect to Africans.

The Namibian authorities must bear in mind that whatever position they take will affect other African peoples that have claims for compensation in similar situations. The exterminations in German South West Africa had already been practised in many other African territories occupied by Europeans. We should also remember that the genocides of the Herero and the Nama were conceived by chief architect General von Trotha as part of a race war that would eventually lead to the elimination of other Africans. [22]
On looking through the voluminous material on German atrocities in South West Africa and the refusal to apologise, I start wondering whether the German authorities have read any of them in detail or whether they are aware and conscious of the extent of the atrocities committed in their former colonies. Have they read passages such as this one from David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen on what a South African white had seen in Lüderitz and stated in an interview with South African newspaper, The Cape Argus:

‘On one occasion I saw a woman carrying a child of under a year old slung at her back, and with a heavy sack of grain on her head. The sand was very steep and the sun was baking. She fell down forward on her face, and the heavy sack fell partly across her and partly on the baby. The corporal sjambocked her certainly more than four minutes and sjambocked the baby as well. Are you ready to swear that you saw a white man sjambocking a baby as well as the mother? I am ready to make an affidavit if it is required. I saw with my own eyes. The woman, when the sjambocking had gone on for over five minutes, struggled slowly on her feet, and went on with her load. She did not utter a sound the whole time, but the baby cried very hard.’ [23]

Can one read such passages without a feeling of revulsion and a determination that such acts as beating babies, raping women and killing men, women and children must oblige the perpetrators or their successors to make apology and reparation?

The history of German South West Africa is not high on the agenda of Germans. Most Germans would have heard nothing or little about the atrocities committed in their name. The German schools would certainly, until recently, not have imparted the full history of the settlers in their former colonies. Most Germans would have heard an official version of the history of colonisation that paints a rather favourable picture of Europeans bringing civilisation to savage Africans. The reign of terror that went with colonisation is not a topic European governments like to discuss. [24] When Germans think about their past and the need for coming to terms with their less than glorious past (Vergangenheitsbewältigung), they think mostly of the Nazi period, about which a lot more information has been given in the last decades. The imperial and imperialistic colonial period of their military adventures in Africa seems to have receded into the very remote past. They are more concerned with their European partners, the French, Polish, British etc., whom they respect and wish to get on with. Africans, for whom they have no such respect, do not count. No doubt there are exceptions, as the NGOs demonstrated during the recent hand-over of the Namibian skulls in Berlin. Moreover, many German authors have in recent decades examined German colonial history in excellent books and articles, but German authorities do not seem to have been impressed or influenced by such activities. [25]

Many Westerners, including Germans, do not seem to understand that there is a necessity for reconciliation between former colonial countries and former colonial powers and that this need is not helped by their constant insensitive behaviour towards Africans and the general racism that is seen to prevail in many quarters in the Western world. Africans should not make matters easier for colonialists and imperialists when they do not show any disposition to contrition and in many cases, as demonstrated here, categorically refuse to say ‘we apologise’. They have taken us for a ride for too long.

It should be remembered that whatever happens in Namibian-German relations will be keenly observed by other African peoples and states. The handling of questions of apology and compensation for the genocide of the Herero and the Nama concerns many Africans: they are keen to know when Germany will fully apologise and pay compensation for the illegal expropriation of land and the confiscation of cattle because German South West Africa has come to symbolise the worst aspects of colonialism and in particular, German colonialism. Moreover, as Jeremy Sarkin has rightly pointed out, the Herero case is not the only one in colonial history: ‘Clearly, the Herero case could have consequences for many societies around the world affected by similar histories. The case has great significance for the Herero but also for Namibian and African history. Other cases are already under consideration and some are currently being filed. One such case relates to the massacres in German East Africa (now Tanzania) between 1905 and 1907 in what was known as the Maji-Maji rebellion. It is believed that about 250,000 Ngoni, Matumbi, Waluguru, Makua, Yao, and Makonde people were killed.’ [26]

Instead of being a symbolic closure of a terrible chapter in the history of Namibia and Germany, the handover of the skulls appears to many as a symptomatic opening that reveals the worst aspects of this history and the unwillingness of some to assist the victims and their descendants to finally come to terms with the tragic past.

But this problem will not simply go away, no matter how long it takes to find the right solution, since the effects of the evil deeds of the past are still too visible in the inequalities that persist and reveal their historic origins in many aspects of Namibian society.

Those in the government of Namibia and elsewhere who may not be enthusiastic about the claims for compensation and a formal and proper apology must reconsider their position, bearing in mind that the main characteristics of German colonial rule, namely the massacres of people, expropriation of land and cattle, concentration camps, forced labour and similar atrocities, were the main causes of the revolt of the peoples. So long as the land question has not been satisfactorily settled, many may consider that ‘a luta continua’.

Kwame Opoku is a commentator on cultural affairs and has written extensively on restitution of cultural artefacts. Picture: Two of the restituted human skulls displayed during the memorial service in Berlin in September 2011. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

NOTES

1. German text of Extermination Order:‚Aufruf an das Volk der Herero Abschrift zu O.K. 17290 Osombo-Windembe, den 2. Oktober 1904
Kommando der Schutztruppe.
J.Nr. 3737
"Ich, der große General der deutschen Soldaten, sende diesen Brief an das Volk der Herero. Die Hereros sind nicht mehr deutsche Untertanen. Sie haben gemordet und gestohlen, haben verwundeten Soldaten Ohren und Nasen und andere Körperteile abgeschnitten, und wollen jetzt aus Feigheit nicht mehr kämpfen. Ich sage dem Volk: Jeder der einen der Kapitäne an eine meiner Stationen als Gefangenen abliefert, erhält 1000 Mark, wer Samuel Maharero bringt, erhält 5000 Mark. Das Volk der Herero muß jedoch das Land verlassen.
Wenn das Volk dies nicht tut, so werde ich es mit dem Groot Rohr dazu zwingen. Innerhalb der Deutschen Grenze wird jeder Herero mit und ohne Gewehr, mit oder ohne Vieh erschossen, ich nehme keine Weiber und Kinder mehr auf, treibe sie zu ihrem Volke zurück oder lasse auf sie schießen. Dies sind meine Worte an das Volk der Hereros.
Der große General des mächtigen deutschen Kaisers’
Lothar von Trotha, http://news.bbc.co.uk; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
Völkermord an den Nama und Herero in Deutsch-Südwestafrika ab 1904
Dokumentation gegen das Vergessen. http://www.mahali.de/1904/genozid/vernichtungsbefehl.php
See Jan-Bart Gewald, ‘Herero Heroes’, James Currey, Oxford, and Ohio University Press, 1999; also, |+| The Great General of the Kaiser.
Horst Drechsler, ‘Let us die fighting’, Zed Press, London, 1966, p156.
http://www.news24.com It is to be noted that in contrast to the Prime Minister, the President of Namibia, Hifikepunye Pohamba, did not refer to a ‘symbolic closure’. Statement by His Excellency Dr Hifikepunye Pohamba, President of the Republic of Namibia, on the occasion of receiving Human Remains (Mortal Remains) of Namibian Origin Repatriated from Germany, http://www.op.gov.na/.
3. The UN’s 1985 ‘Whitaker Report on Genocide’ described the German war against the Herero as genocide, paragraphs 14 to 24, pp. 5-10, http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/UNdocs/whitaker/section5.htm#n12.
Kwame Opoku, ‘Namibian Bones in European Museums: How long are the Dead to Remain Unburied? Genocide with Impunity’, http://www.afrikanet.info;
‘Why do European Museums have so much trouble with African Bones?’ http://www.museum-security.org.
See also the annex below.
BBC Documentary by David Olusoga, Namibia: Genocide of the Second Reich http://video.google.com.
Speech by Dr Wolfgang Massing, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, to commemorate 1904 at Okahandja, 2004, http://www.windhuk.diplo.de/Vertretung/Commemorative_2004__2005/Seite__Speech__2004-01-11.html. Henning Melber, ‘Genocide and the history of violent expansionism,’ Pambazuka, 2005-03-17, Issue http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/27325.
Rachel J. Anderson, ‘Redressing Colonial Genocide under International Law: The Hereros' Cause of Action Against Germany’, 93 California Law Review 1155 (2005). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm.
Praeger Security International, Westport, Connecticut-London, 2009, p.1. Seealso pp. 72-80.
Ibid. p. 61. Sarkin provides a listing of African receivers of German assistance in footnote 237 on p. 217 of his book: 1) Egypt, 2) Zambia, 3) Tanzania, 4) Ethiopia, 5) Kenya, 6) Mozambique, 7) Cameroon, 8) Ghana, 9) Congo, 10) Morocco, 11) Mali, 12) Burkina Faso, 13) Zimbabwe, 14) Sudan, 15) Malawi, 16) South Africa, 17) Rwanda, 18) Benin, 19) Ivory Coast, 20) Uganda, 21) Senegal, 22) Niger, 23) Namibia, 24) Madagascar, 25) Guinea, 26) Togo, 27) Chad, 28) Somalia, 29) Burundi, 30) Mauritania. See also Esther Schüring, ‘History Obliges: The real motivations behind the German aid flows in the case of Namibia’.
Africavenir, http://www.africavenir.org.
Book of condolence in the memory of victims of German genocide in Namibia, 1904-1908, http://namibia.menschen-gedenken.de/Main.aspx.
Luschan’s interest in human remains and race theories. F. von Luschan (1897), ‘Beiträge zur Völkerkunde der Deutschen Schutzgebiete’, Berlin: Deutsche Buchgemeinschaft; F. von Luschan F (1927), ‚Völker, Rassen, Sprachen: Anthropologische Betrachtungen’, Berlin: Deutsche Buchgemeinschaft.
Andrew Zimmermann, ‘Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany’, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p.167. See also http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/ermordet-praepariert-und-erforscht/4665882.html.‚Schädel im Schrank’, http://www.zeit.de/2011/42/Schaedelsammlungen.For detailed bibliography of German colonial collection of skulls, see: Aussereuropäische anthropologische Schädelsammlungen in Freiburg und Deutschland, http://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/anthropologische-schaedelsammlungen.htm.The long history of fascination with skulls up to present day is well demonstrated in an exhibition in the Reiss-Engelheim Museum, Mannheim, entitled ‚Schädelkult - Kopf und Schädel in der Kulturgeschichte des Menschen’. The exhibition catalogue published by the museum in 2011 gives an idea of how widespread is the availability of skulls in Germany. Some 32 institutions lent their skulls for the exhibition. These institutions are located in Bad Buchau, Bad Säckingen, Berlin, Bonn, Frankfurt am Main, Freiburg i.Brisgau, Giessen, Hamburg, Hannover, Heidelberg, Kassel, Konstanz, Koblenz, Kõln, Kranenburg, Landshut, Mettmann, Müllenbach (bei Bayern), München, Regensburg, Speyer, Stuttgart, Tübingen, Neu-Ulm, and Weimar. Some of the skulls in the exhibition are listed as coming from Benin Republic, Nigeria, Angola and Madagascar. It would be interesting to know whether some of the collections have also skulls from Namibia.
Servaas van den Bosch,’German Extermination Marginalised Ethnic Groups’, http://ipsnews.net.
Rede von Bundesministerin Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul bei den Gedenkenfeierlichkeiten der Herero- Austande am 14. August 2004 in Okakarara. http://www.windhuk.diplo.de.‚Wieczorek-Zeul begeistert Namibia’ http://www.isdonline.de. See also, Larissa Förster, ‚Jenseits des juristischen Diskurses: Die Entschuldigung von Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul in Namibia’, http://www.issa-bonn.org/publikationen.
Erklärung des Deutschen Bundestags vom 16.06.2004. ‚In commemoration of the victims of the Colonial War in the former German-South West Africa’, http://www.windhuk.diplo.de. See also, ‚Verantwortung’ JA – ‚Wiedergutmachung’ NEIN Der Deutsche Bundestag lehnt Antrag auf Entschädigung für Völkermord an Herero und Nama ab. Dokumentation, http://www.ag-friedensforschung.de.
‚Die Bundesregierung bekennt sich zu diesem schweren historischen Erbe und der daraus resultierenden moralischen und historischen Verantwortung Deutschlands gegenüber Namibia’, ‚Ansprache von Staatsministerin Pieper anläßlich der Feierstunde zur Übergabe von Schädeln namibischen Ursprungs in der Charité’ http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de; see also, ‚Pieper sorgt bei Schädelübergabe an Namibia für Eklat’, http://www.tagesspiegel.de.
‘Discours sur le colonialisme’, Editions Présence Africaine, 1955, Paris, p.13;English text, ‘Discourse on Colonialism’, translation by Joan Pinkham, Monthly Review Press, 2000, New York. p. 36; German version translated by Heribert Becker, ‘Aimée Césaire, Rede über den Kolonialismus und andere Texte’, Karin Kramer Verlag Berlin, pp. 80-81.
Henning Melber, ‘We never spoke about reparations’, in Jürgen Zimmerer and Joachim Zeller (eds.), ‘Genocide in German South-West Africa’, p. 270. First published in 2003 by Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin. First English Edition published in 2008 by The Merlin Press.
See, Pascal Grosse, ‘What does German Colonialism Have to do with
National Socialism?’ in Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz and Lora Wildenthal (eds.),
‘Germany’s Colonial Pasts’, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2005, pp. 115-134. See also the pages of freiburg-postcolonial.de, http://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/einleitung.htm.
Jürgen Zimmerer and Joachim Zeller, op. cit. p. 59.
The career and activities of Dr Eugen Fischer in German South West Africa and in Nazi Germany are discussed in Kathrin Roller, ‚Der Rassenbiologe Eugen Fischer’, in Ulrich van der Heyden and Joachim Zeller (eds.), ‚Kolonial Metropole Berlin’, Berlin Edition, 2002. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer. Interesting iinformation and insights about the pseudo sciences that required the measuring heads and other parts of the body as well as making casts of Namibians can be found in Anette Hofmann (ed.), ‘What We See, Reconsidering an Anthropometrical Collection from Southern Africa: Images, Voice, and Versioning’, Basler Afrika Bibiographien, 2009.
Peter H. Katjavivi, ‘The Significance of the Repatriation of Namibian Human Skulls’, http://www.africavenir.org.
David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust - Germany’s forgotten genocide’, Faber and Faber, 2011, p.151.
David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichsen, Ibid. p. 211.
See Richard Gott on the British example, ‘Let’s end the myth of Britain’s imperial past’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/book end-myths-britains-imperial-past.
Zeit Online wrote in connection with the handing over of Namibian skulls on 30 September 2011, under the title‘Kolonialgeschichte: Schädel im Schrank. Das düstere koloniale Erbe der deutschen Rasseforschung muss endlich aufgeklärt werden’: ‚Sollte das wirklich das letzte Wort bleiben? Der Eklat in der Charité stieß jedenfalls auf eine für viele überraschende öffentliche Resonanz. Das Signal war unüberhörbar. Und es würde schon verwundern, könnte die Bundesregierung ihre Ignoranz gegenüber diesem Kapitel der deutschen Geschichte weiterhin so gedankenlos kultivieren.’ [url=http://www.zeit.de/2011/42/Schaedelsammlungen.
Many good books and articles have been written on German colonial rule in Africa by German scholars and others: Horst Drechsler, ‚Südwestafrika unter deutscher Kolonialherrschaft.
Der Kampf der Herero und Nama gegen den deutschen Imperialismus (1884-1915)’, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1985; Horst Gründer, ‚Geschichte der deutschen Kolonien’, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000; Helmut Bley, ‚Kolonialherrschaft und Sozialstruktur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika (1894-1914)’, Hamburg, Leibniz Verlag, 1968; Helmut Strizek, ‚Kolonien Geschenkte:Ruanda und Burundi unter deutscher Herrschaft’, Berlin, Ch.Links Verlag, 2006;
Ulrich van der Heyden and Joachim Zeller (eds), ‚Macht und Anteil an der Weltherrshaft’, Unrast Verlag, Münster, 2005. The bibliography on German rule in South West Africa is formidable. The accounts of German atrocities often require a strong stomach to read all the atrocious and heinous crimes against humanity that were perpetrated.
For a list on this topic by Prevent Genocide International, see: ‘German Southwest Africa 1904-1908: Genocide of Hereros’, http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/swafrika/resources/. Detailed information on the atrocities committed by Germany in South West Africa can be found in the infamous ‘Blue Book’, republished by J. Silvester and J-B. Gewald, ‘Words Cannot be Found. German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1018 Blue Book’, 2003, Leiden: Brill. There are images of hangings of Herero and the whips used by the Germans on Africans that may disturb some readers but the book is worth reading. Equally instructive is the history of the actions of the British and South African authorities to suppress this book. ‘The Report on the Natives of South West Africa and their Treatment by Germany’ (1918) had been prepared by the Administrator’s Office in Windhoek and published as a British Blue Book by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London. It served as a powerful instrument to establish that Germany was not worthy to administer the territory because of its inhuman treatment of the Africans under its control. Once the territory was transferred to the British, to be administered on its behalf by South Africa, it became clear to Britain and South Africa that some of the criticisms against Germany could be turned against them and in the interest of cooperation with Germany, measures were taken in 1826 to suppress the report. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office ceased selling the report, copies were removed from all libraries and all available copies bought and destroyed. In response to the British Blue Book, the Germans issued in 1919 their White Book, ‘The Treatment of Native and other Populations in the Colonial Possessions of Germany and England’, which depicted atrocities committed by Britain in its colonies. See, Silvester and Gewald, p. xix.See also, ‘Blue Book they didn't want us to read’, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200201/ai_n21324291/.‘The Blue Book They Didn't Want Us to Read: How Britain, Germany and South Africa Destroyed a Damning Book on German Atrocities in Namibia’, New African, January 2002, p. 38, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002449379. See also, New York Times, September 1918, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E12F63F5D147A93C1A81782D85F4C8185F9/.
Sarkin, op. cit. p. 156.
Olusoga and Erichsen, op. cit. p. 67.

ANNEX

Extract from S. Lindqvist, ‘Exterminate all the brutes’, The New Press, New York, 1992, pp. 150-152.

‘In Southwest Africa in 1904, the Germans demonstrated that they had mastered an art that Americans, British, and other Europeans had exercised all through the nineteenth century - the art of hastening the extermination of a people of “inferior culture.”

Following the North American example, the Herero people were banished to reserves and their grazing lands handed over to German immigrants and colonization companies. When the Hereros resisted, General Adolf Lebrecht von Trotha gave orders in October 1904 for the Herero people to be exterminated. Every Herero found within German borders, with or without weapons, was to be shot. But most of them died without violence. The Germans simply drove them out into the desert and sealed off the border.

“The month-long sealing of desert areas, carried out with iron severity, completed the work of annihilation,” the General Staff writes in the official account of the war. “The death rattles of the dying and their insane screams of fury… resounded in the sublime silence of infinity.” The General Staff’s account further reports that “the sentence had been carried out” and “the Hereros had ceased to be independent people.”

This was a result the General Staff was proud of. The army earned, they stated, the gratitude of the whole fatherland.

When the rainy season came, German patrols found skeletons lying around dry hollows, twenty-four to fifty feet deep, dug by the Hereros in vain attempts to find water. Almost the entire people - about eighty thousand human beings - died in the deserts. Only a few thousand were left, sentenced to hard labor in German concentration camps.

Thus the words “concentration camps,” invented in 1896 by the Spaniards in Cuba, anglicized by the Americans, and used again by the British during the Boer War, made their entrance into German language and politics.

The cause of the rebellion was “the Hereros’s warlike and freedom-loving nature” the General Staff stated. The Hereros were not particularly warlike. Their leader, Samuel Maherero, over two decades had signed one treaty after another with the Germans and ceded large areas of land to avoid war. But just as the Americans did not feel themselves bound by their treaties with the Indians, equally, the Germans did not think that as a higher race they had any need to abide by treaties they made with the natives.

As in North America, the German plans for immigration at the turn of the century presupposed that the natives were to be relieved of all land of any value. The rebellion was therefore welcomed as an opportunity to “solve the Herero problem.”

The arguments the English, French, and Americans had long used to defend genocide were now also put into German. “Existences, be they people or individuals who do not produce anything of value, cannot make any claim to the right to exist,” wrote Paul Rohrbach in his best-seller German Thought in the World (1912). It was as head of German immigration in Southwest Africa that he had learned his colonial philosophy. No false philanthropy or racial theory can convince sensible people that the preservation of a tribe of South Africa’s kaffirs … is more important to the future of mankind than the spread of the great European nations and the white race in general. Not until the native learns to produce anything of value in the service of the higher race, i e. in the service of its and his own progress, does he gain any moral right to exist.’

Casper W. Erichsen: Skullduggery and necrophilia in colonial Namibia

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:31:00 +0100

Names, dates, statistics, records, photographs – Namibia-based historian, Casper W. Erichsen, explains some of the factual evidence of the multiple atrocities that were part of the genocide in Namibia. At the end of the 19th century the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics and the advent of social-Darwinism resulted in an upsurge of race theories in disciplines such as ethnology and medical anthropology. One of many methods applied to such theories was a scrupulous measurement of the skull and its features. The method, which was called phrenology, deduced various human characteristics, such as intelligence and level of evolution, from the size and shape of a skull. Importantly, the science, which counted among its early proponents the German poet Goethe, demanded a supply of human skulls from different parts of the world. Europe’s most intimate contact with the world around it was the expanding colonial realms of Africa and Asia. Here, in beat with the enslavement or conquests of the colonised masses, millions of human bodies were ‘produced’. European scientists vied for and often gained access to the profusion of human dead.

In the 18th century, the few scientists and explorers visiting Namibia, including Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, were not prolific collectors of human remains. Most probably the uncolonised nature of the territory and its people made it difficult to obtain such specimens. The trafficking of body parts only really started during the anti-colonial wars of 1903-08, inasmuch as Namibia remained relatively uncolonised well into the second decade of nominal German rule. As we will see, the demand grew steadily during the war years eventually turning Namibia into a prolific hunting ground for human remains.

The traditional starting date for the anti-colonial wars is 12 January 1904. The circumstances surrounding the event are not fully understood, but sometime in the morning the Herero nation launched a fierce attack on the local German garrison headed by the young Lieutenant Ralph Zürn. From the letters of Herero Paramount Chief Samuel Maharero we know that Zürn was roundly blamed for the conflict, which Maharero described simply as ‘Zürn’s War’. Even in the settler community Zürn was thought to have some culpability in the chaos that surrounded the first weeks of the war. Zürn was therefore a central character in the outbreak of the war but he was also central to traffic in body parts.

There is some evidence to suggest that grave robbery was one of the contributing reasons for the Herero uprising. According to the trader Ludwig Conradt, who was based in Okahandja at the time, German troops had been seen excavating Herero graves shortly before the war began, resulting in a Herero outcry and eventually armed strife. We do not know exactly what role Zürn, as commanding officer, played in the desecration of Herero graves; we do know that some six months after the outbreak of war Zürn, who had since been dismissed by the German army, arrived in Berlin carrying a Herero skull in his luggage. Before long, Zürn donated his trophy to the notorious ethnologist Felix von Luschan, who held one of Germany’s largest collections of human skulls.

Soldiers and officers from the Schutztruppe, like Zürn, were often responsible for the collecting and distribution of body parts to scientists and collectors abroad. Initially soldiers kept and collected these not for the sake of science but as trophies. Much as big game hunters were collecting and stuffing heads from their safaris, it was not uncommon for troops to keep such trophies from the battle field. One photograph from the Herero war depicts such a scenario. It shows a German officer seated in front of a wall filled with hunting trophies, among them a human skull. Notably this also applies today where we see Western soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan photographed with body parts and even carrying such as souvenirs of their kills.

The relationship between soldiers and scientists in Namibia was cemented by Zürn himself, who managed to procure a crate full of skulls from the colony. The skulls were again procured for the ethnologist Felix von Luschan. When making his request to the colonial authorities, Zürn suggested that the many concentration camps that had sprung up across the colony might be the best sources of specimens. In January 1905 the German government had ordered the establishment of a number of concentration camps to house the thousands of surrendering Herero. This new policy replaced the previous military decree by von Trotha known as the extermination order, although in many ways the camps were just as deadly. Overall between 20,000 and 30,000 people ended up in the camps, the vast majority of whom would die of malnutrition or from forced labour on the railways and other infrastructure projects.

In a way Zürn had helped create a market for the Namibian skulls. There are no records of how many skulls were eventually shipped across to Germany from the Namibian camps, so it is impossible to estimate the frequency of the traffic. Judging from a series of photos taken in the Swakopmund camp, the collection was of some scale. The photos show a group of soldiers loading crates of skulls. The soldiers strike various poses, smoking their pipes and smiling at the camera. In one of the photos a row of drying skulls on a metal sheet have each been meticulously turned, presumably to get a more sinister effect of empty eye sockets staring straight at the camera.

According to a caption on one of these photos, female prisoners in the camp were forced to scrape severed heads clean of flesh with shards of glass. These women were surely traumatised having to removing brains, skin and eyes on the heads of people who might easily have been friends or family members. After the cleaning process the skulls were sold off to German universities and schools where scientists could again abuse the deceased to demonstrate their racial theories. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these photos is the fact that they were mass-produced and sold as postcards.

There is no easy way to explain how German men, many in their late teens, could bring themselves to perform these acts. The label of science surely provided some form of alibi and temperance of the conscience. One of the tenets of racial science was that Africans were a different kind of human than Europeans, one without the same feelings and intellect. Baron von Nettelbladt, the German consul to the Cape Colony, applied scientific theory in a South African newspaper article about the treatment of Africans in Namibia, writing: ‘Ethnographical opinion points out that the two races possess so many physiological and instinctive differences, that zoographically we would classify them in different species – as much, for instance, as horses and donkey, which we admittedly treat very differently.’ A German soldier, witnessing an execution in the early phases of the war, expressed a similar belief: ‘I have come to the conclusion that the concepts of life and death do not mean the same to these people as they do to us.’ The interplay between racial science and the violent conquest of colonial space was a palpable fact.

As the war progressed, so did the usage of body parts. Whereas skulls were easily transported across the oceans, cadavers and body parts were not; unless meticulously preserved they would invariably rot, rendering them useless. Among the German ranks were a large number of medical officers, who personified the symbiosis between colonial science and war. For them, the many bodies in the camps offered ample opportunity for research. By mid 1905, fresh bodies from the concentration camps were being cut open and studied in great detail by the medical corps. A year later research on cadavers was endemic. According to German medical statistics a total of 778 autopsies were conducted in the camps during 1906. These studies were empirical and quantitative to the point of the ridiculous. Weighing brains to compare intelligence or analysing the muscular system to place races on different steps of the evolutionary ladder were the modus operandi.

One of the most feared camps in Namibia was found in the coastal town of Lüderitz. It bore the sinister name Shark Island; among local German soldiers the island camp was known simply as ‘Death Island’ because very few of those banished there survived the ordeal. In total around 4,000 Herero and 2,000 Nama ended up in the Lüderitz district, many of them imprisoned on Shark Island where the local military physician, known only as Dr Bofinger, ran a series of experiments on living and dead prisoners. Bofinger, who was searching for a cure to scurvy, injected living prisoners with various substances and conducted autopsies on the six to seven prisoners that died every night.

It was Doctor Bofinger who provided the body parts for a medical article that appeared in the Journal for Morphology and Anthropology. The specimens consisted of ‘17 Hottentot heads’, all from Shark Island prisoners, and included that of a one-year old girl. Bofinger’s method was meticulous. After cracking open the skulls, he carefully removed and weighed the brains. He then pickled and tinned the heads before sending them to Berlin. The heads came from people Bofinger had worked among for the past many months; they were probably people he knew. In Berlin, Drs Bartels and Fetzer received the heads. The two scientists scrutinised the heads in meticulous detail, trying to find proof of the insulting thesis that the Nama person was more closely related to monkeys than to Europeans. The bizarre rationale even included facial traits such as a double chin, ‘never observed in the Nama’, or curious observations like ‘poorly developed cheeks’.

Once the war was over, and the threat posed by Herero and Nama power/resistance was gone, some scientists made the trip to the colony to conduct research in situ. One such scientist was Eugen Fischer, a celebrated German geneticist whose early work on Papuan skulls won him international acclaim and had, incidentally, inspired Fetzer’s study. In 1908, Fischer set out to study the effects of racial mixing, which he focused mainly on the Baster community in Rehoboth. During his research, Fischer had made a couple of aborted attempts to exhume bodies from the Rehoboth cemetery. It was on his way back to Germany, via Swakopmund, that he found what he was looking for. By chance, Fischer learned that there were a handful of Topnaar graves in the desert, only about an hour’s ride from Swakopmund. In Fischer’s own words: ‘I searched eagerly to find traces of the graves. Two Cape Boys [1] served as my carriage driver and digger; I wanted to avoid using native Nama or Herero, since they would probably have found it too painful that – for scientific reasons that they would not have understood – we disturbed the peace of their buried compatriots … Suddenly we stood before the melancholic image of the burial ground. A number of flat rocks … were placed deep in the sand, in uneven rows, so that only about 20 centimetres reached out of the sand. The pale, gray, deep-hanging sky … set the appropriately eerie mood for us shivering men. The dead were only about half a metre deep in the sand, lying in a supine position with their feet towards the water … With closed eyelids there was a serene peace about the hollow Nama faces.’

Fischer’s ‘encounter with the dead’ resulted in the theft of a few select skeletons that he brought back with him to Germany. No-one knows what became of the Topnaar but Fischer rose to become one of Germany’s foremost race scientists as his ideas on the perceived dangers of racial mixing gained broad acceptance internationally. During the Third Reich, Fischer played an important role in the formation and implementation of Nazi policies on racial hygiene.

It is perhaps worth noting that the symbiosis between colonial endeavours and race science was taken seriously at the very highest levels of government where even the most absurd requests were entertained. In 1911, the German Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg was called upon to help procure of a number of brains for a certain Doctor Rawitz from Berlin. ‘My request is to have the opportunity to subject two or perhaps three brains from [the inferior] type of humans for scientific study... If possible to include Bushmen, Nama and Austral Negro brains among these, it would be of immense valuable, since these represent the three lowest forms among the human races.’ The chancellor referred the matter to the then head of the colonial department and former governor in Namibia, Friedrich von Lindequist, who set the wheels in motion.

During this period, the colonial authorities began a new campaign of violence. This time it was aimed at the San communities living in the north-eastern parts of the colony. With settlers pushing ever further north and east, it came to an inevitable conflict. In October 1911 the colonial governor, Theodor Seitz, issued a general decree that San could legally be shot on sight provided there was ‘the slightest attempt at resisting arrest’ or if they ‘try to prevent arrest by fleeing when ordered to stop’. Similar to General von Trotha’s infamous extermination order, it was a general decree with ample room for interpretation. In reality, the military or deputised farmers tasked with ‘searching the land and disrupting settlements’ could kill at will.

For scientists like Eugen Fischer, the military campaign presented yet another opportunity for the acquisition of body parts. In 1914, Fischer wired a telegram to the colonial authorities in Windhoek requesting a consignment of Bushman penises and ears be sent to him at the University of Freiburg. Fischer contacted Governor Seitz directly to acquire his specimens, providing meticulous instructions about the desired body parts and how to remove them. ‘I merely place the request before the Imperial Government that a doctor removes the said parts from the bodies of those who have been executed or have died in prison, and that they are then sent to the collection of the anthropological collection of the [Freiburg] Duchy.’

Reflecting on the last decade of German rule in Namibia, it is evident that military and civilian authorities worked in tandem with a large army of scientists engaged in a self-perpetuating circle of theories and study that more often than not had very little basis in fact. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement, that allowed scientists to ‘prove’ the supposed physical and mental inferiority of the colonised thus providing a ready-made alibi, if not excuse, for the continuing conquest and subjugation of communities, societies and nations. The colonial authorities in turn did their part to make sure the scientists were provided with enough research material to feed the necrophilia.

Now that Namibia welcomes home its lost sons and daughters, it is perhaps time we start doing right by them. Let us not fall for the temptation to, once again, use them for our own gain, political or financial. Let us put their bones to rest and reflect, as a nation, on what their stories tell us about ourselves and the nation we live in. Let us also remember the many whose bones were not found. Let us try to explore their history and finally give some voice to their side of the story.

Casper W. Erichsen is a Namibian-based historian whose scholarship explores the roots and consequences of the Namibian genocides 1903-08. He is co-author, with David Olusoga, of ‘The Kaiser's Holocaust’ (Faber and Faber, 2010). Picture: German soldiers, posing for a popular postcard, loading human skulls and bones of massacred Hereros into a casket for shipping to German universities for "scientific" purposes. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

This article was first published in the August 2011 edition of Insight Namibia magazine.

NOTE
1. Derogatory term for a coloured labourer from Cape Town.

Horst Kleinschmidt: The absence of reconciliation

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:28:00 +0100

Namibian-born Horst Kleinschmidt provides challenging observations and personal family history linked to the colonial era. Urging both Germany and German-speaking Namibians to confront their past honestly, he offers examples of apologies made in similar circumstances, and guidelines for reconciliation and redress. I want to write about a history that hurts, whom it hurts and why it hurts. It is about pain, inflicted by a deep wound. And I want to reflect on reconciliation, equality and peace. I write as a born Namibian, of want-to-be white stock, not just any white stock, but of part-German stock. There is much unfinished business to resolve in Namibia (and South Africa) if nationhood in either country is to be achieved. However inadequately I succeed in expressing it, this is my burden and the burden of this essay.

Namibia attained independence (from South Africa) nearly 22 years ago. Today it has a democratic constitution, holds elections, has a functioning judiciary and has a small civil society. But Namibia, like South Africa, is a young democracy and unsurprisingly both countries face many challenges. To eventually move toward a more mature and full democracy, civil society needs to constantly guard that the gains made are not reversed.

If it were possible I would want to reach those of German descent in Namibia but, alas, few are likely to hear of or read these lines. I am not the first one of German descent who seeks for a community to make peace with its past and therefore become a real part of the whole of Namibian society. An impressive list of courageous women and men go before me and I want to add weight to their endeavour started long ago. If my plea reaches a new audience, however small, I will be pleased.

Recent events are the impulse for my thoughts. It is the return by the Charité hospital in Berlin, of the skulls of 20 Herero and Nama fighters who rose against German colonial occupation over 100 years ago. The purpose of taking the skulls to Germany was to serve studies in racial theories and ultimately the odious claim of German superiority. The belated handover of the skulls has shown once more how very far we are from reconciliation and healing.

Hurt or pain is felt through loss and suffering. It is felt additionally when those in whose name it was inflicted say nothing, or worse, argue that no wrong was committed.

The open wound German Speakers in Namibia cannot ignore or remain silent about
I will not repeat the horrific events here but will urge everyone to read one of three books, which I highly recommend: (1) ‘Germany's Genocide of the Herero - Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers’, by Jeremy Sarkin published in 2011 by UCT Press and James Currey; (2) ‚Genozid und Gedenken - Namibisch-deutsche Geschichte und Gegenwart’, edited by Henning Melber and published by Brandes and Apsel in 2005; and (3) ‘The Kaiser's Holocaust - Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism’, by David Olusoga and Casper Erichsen, published by Faber and Faber in 2011. This is not an extensive list. There are several other books, mainly in German, including some on the role of the church and missionaries.

German speakers of Namibia, we are part of and the result of that history, and imperial Germany acted in our collective name.

What hurts the Herero and Nama people? Not individual selected and isolated colonial acts, but the sum of the colonial and pre-colonial periods, as Festus Muundjua, the Ovaherero and Ovambanderu historian, laid out in an article he wrote for the German-language Namibian newspaper Allgemeine Zeitung on 12 August 2004, one century after the war. He recalls the Berlin Conference of 1884, where Europe's colonialists and German aspirant colonialists met to carve up Africa for themselves. Some countries were invited as observers, including Tsarist Russia and the USA, but not a single African received an invitation. Muundjua speaks for all of Africa when he says ‘one cannot begin the discussion on reconciliation by talking about the first shots that were fired on 12 January 1904’. Dr Werner Wienecke, a retired Namibian pastor, supports this view. In the Allgemeine Zeitung of 15 January 2004 he wrote: ‘When Governor Leutwein, in a letter in February 1904 asks Samuel Maharero why the war started, he answered him, with total justification: This war has been going on for a long time and was triggered by the traders and Lieutenant Zuern. There have already been many violent disputes and murders, and every act of violence, in which someone suffers injury or is killed, it is "ovita", which means war.’

Germany, as a latecomer in the scramble for Africa, could exercise little choice over what to occupy as most chunks of Africa had already been occupied, but they did not want to be left without. They had to act fast if their empire was to be able to stand up to the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese empires. Playing catch-up meant moving with furious haste to build their version of a colony – something the other powers achieved and mediated over long periods of time. With the characteristic contempt that all European powers showed for those whose land they wanted, and with a solid serving of chicanery, Germany moved into action after the Berlin conference to hoist its flag in different parts of Africa. The usual euphemisms adorned the 'purchases' of land: 'protectorate' and 'friendship treaty', terminology not unique to Germany.

Germany had not only the problem to 'catch up’, in Namibia they encountered a development, unique or rare because of circumstances that had begun to shape this country when they arrived. Both the Herero and the Nama had themselves already set out on the journey toward modern political power. The Herero had, around the middle of the 19th century, become strong traders. Their trade in ivory, ostrich feathers and cattle with the Cape Colony had provided access to commodities including horses, guns, ox-wagons, European clothing and other accoutrements that brought with it significant social change and adaptation. Both Herero and Nama readily added the Christian faith and resulting access to education to the sum of what contributed to reform and the making of new elites.

These dynamics led both Herero and Nama leaders to embrace modern concepts of statehood; the Herero defining borders for the lands they considered theirs and the Oorlam Nama emulating governance they had seen and experienced in the Cape. Germany thus entered a land in 1885 rather different from that which other colonial powers had entered decades and centuries earlier elsewhere on the African continent. With some hesitation I venture to suggest that this reality in the late 19th century posed, together with the desire to catch up, two formidable problems for Germany, and explains partly why the Germans, during their brief rule in Namibia, acted with such violence. But as scholars have pointed out, these were by no means the only reasons for the violence and excesses.

The proclamation by Chief Kamaharero of September 1884, written in Otjiherero and German, asserted a Herero state with boundaries in central Namibia covering the water-rich areas where subsequently Germany saw the richest pickings for the farmers they had in mind. His declaration predates the German intentions to occupy and replace local rule in the lands on which Kamaharero's people had always practiced their animal husbandry. And aspirations of statehood and hegemony over parts of Namibia (partly in contest with Kamaharero) also existed in Windhoek with Jonker Afrikaner, who was later replaced in this pursuit by Hendrik Witbooi.

The German–Herero/Nama war started in 1904 and effectively lasted until 1908. On 12 January 1904 the Herero attack on the Germans started with an instruction by their leaders to save German children and women, to save the missionaries and the whites of other countries, including boer farmers. The deaths of Germans numbered 116 civilians and 13 Schutztruppe soldiers. It is true that amongst the civilians were some women and children. Comparable to wars of this kind in modern times, German revenge demanded that the casualties of their enemy had to be a multiple many times that of their own losses. The driving of Herero warriors with their women and children into the Kalahari, the Omaheke, and into Botswana (then the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland), denying them access to and poisoning watering holes, resulted in dramatically reducing the Herero population estimated at 80,000 at the time. Further losses took place in the concentration camps.

After the Omaheke slaughter, those Herero who remained were rounded up to serve as slave labour, mostly for the building of rail links to the interior of the country. To achieve this, ‘concentration camps’ were erected in Windhoek, Karibib, Swakopmund and, the most notorious of them all, on Shark Island in front of Luderitz Bay harbour. Although the need for labour existed, the treatment of the inmates was such that large percentages died of exposure, hunger, beatings and hangings (hangings took place on Sunday afternoons). Women and children were not spared. So bad was the treatment that the conservative missionary Heinrich Vedder wrote about the Swakopmund Camp: ‘The provision of food leaves much to be desired: rice without any additives which is not enough ... to sustain those weakened from life in the veld who [previously] were accustomed to the hot sun of the interior [and now] exposed to the cold here and the demand on all their strength [for the labour they supplied]. Like cattle hundreds were driven to their deaths and like cattle they were buried.’

The Nama were equally decimated (some were deported to other German colonies after the war). It is estimated that half their population, some 10,000 people, perished whilst guerrilla groups continued to pin down the German troops in the south. In countless skirmishes the Nama inflicted loss of men and prestige on the Schutztruppe. This was only reversed after Germany increased the Schutztruppe massively. The Nama were finally defeated in 1908.

The victors behaved dishonourably
One member of the Schutztruppe, Oberleutnant Erich von Schauroth, makes interesting observations in letters to his father, which were published recently in a book called ‘Liebes Vaeterchen’ (‘Dear little Papa’). In one place he says of the Nama guerrilla fighters: ‘These are honourable opponents. They come to us with a white flag to declare war in writing; that is “honourable”.’ Elsewhere he again describes them as honourable when he observes that in the skirmishes they won against the Germans, they would come back afterwards to bury the German dead, making sure that the highest ranking officers got 'the best graves'. But crucially, he writes: ‘We will eventually defeat them when we have enough men in the country, but when they are defeated they deserve to be treated with honour.’ As is known, no such honour was observed when they were eventually defeated; instead they were massacred.

The on-going attempts by people like the German-speaking farmer Heiner Schneider-Waterberg might be justified if they served historic truthfulness and aimed toward reconciliation between the former adversaries. This requires something other than belligerent challenges coming from the side of the victors.

Personal observations
I was born in Swakopmund.

The monument commemorating the sacrifices of a marine contingent among the Schutztruppe in the war against the Herero and Nama stands in the middle of Swakopmund, in front of the official summer residence of the Namibian head of state and, with its adjacent handicraft market, is the most frequented tourist location. It was erected in German times.

The memorial stone for those killed in the Swakopmund concentration camp was only erected in 2007, and it is located well out of sight, on the margins of the town.

The contrast cannot be starker.

As a child, during our annual holiday to Swakopmund, we sometimes passed the mounds and occasional crosses on the banks of the Swakop River, an unkempt and wind-swept graveyard, located somewhere beyond the white Christian and small Jewish cemeteries. I remember being told that this was where the 'blacks' were buried who perished when the Spanish influenza hit Swakopmund in 1919: 'They died like flies, but they are not like us, they don't look after their dead in the way we do.' When I recently asked our mother about a concentration camp in Swakopmund, she said with genuine astonishment, 'That is something I have never heard about, that is a terrible thing (if it was so).'

Our family connection to the Schutztruppe is real. Going through old photographs I see one of my grand-aunt on my father’s side, depicting her with the man she married. He is in Schutztruppen uniform. Ironically, Aunt Mathilde was initially forbidden – by the German magistrate in Karibib in 1911 – to get married to a German, because of our black grandmother. On my mother’s side a grand-uncle, Onkel Richard, had come to Namibia to serve in the Schutztruppe. The photo shows domestic bliss with the sister of my grandmother sitting on his lap. I never heard any dark tales about the war, but can I be sure there were not any? My grandfather served in the Rheinische Mission and my other grandfather worked for Telefunken. Were they silent witnesses?

During my visits to Swakopmund I meet and talk to many old folk at the retirement home where my mother stays. I try to find out about their history and what brought their families to Namibia. One old man in his day ran a car repair shop in Gibeon (the place of the Witboois until around 1908). He is typical for many when he told me: ‘Well, my father farmed in the area.’ And when did they come from Germany? ‘Tja’, he said, ‘as Schutztrupper’, and after the war he stayed to ‘take up farming’. And then he added, ‘Yes, we are the remnants of the good old South-Westers’, with no sense of the other people in the land, and then with a sigh, ‘Those were the good old days.’

In another conversation, an old biddie of some means is convinced that her family are the rightful owners of a well-to-do farm in Okahandja: ‘We have the original contract signed by Maharero in which he sold this farm to us.’ The circumstances in which land was eventually the only buying power left to pay traders is met with a shrug: ‘That is his fault, he should have been more careful.’ And then the notion of justification: ‘He should not have succumbed to drink (Der haette halt nicht dem Suff verfallen sollen).’ Equally, no knowledge of history, just the well-worn arguments of justification.

All of this points to the need for education and the search for an honest history that is not based on the victors’ triumphalism. It demands that young German speakers in Namibia examine the history and make a break with the image portrayed by a proportion of their elders.

The sum of the colonial wounds is a trauma for Herero and Nama children and their grandchildren who live today. Nobody should deny this or belittle the feelings it evokes. The Afrikaners remember the concentration camps the British erected in the Anglo-Boer war (1899-1902) and the Jewish people will not and cannot forget the Holocaust. For the same reason the Herero and the Nama will not and cannot forget, especially when there is still no collective acknowledgement, apology or restitution. Peter Katjavivi, former Namibia ambassador to Germany, said at the time, ‘The repatriation of the skulls is an essential component of regaining our past and our dignity.’

It is said that there are possibly another 300 skulls at different German universities. Another return of skulls is scheduled for the first half of 2012.

To say, ‘I am sorry’
There are instructive precedents where an apology was offered.

(1) The Netherlands apology in December 2011
The Dutch government has apologised formally for a massacre in the village of Rawagede, Indonesia, 64 years ago. The massacre took place on 9 December 1947 when Indonesia fought for its independence. Dutch troops killed men and boys as young as 13 as their families and neighbours were forced to look on. Dutch officials claimed 150 people were killed, but locals say the death toll was 431. The apology follows a ruling at a civil court in The Hague, that the Dutch state was responsible for the executions. The court rejected the Dutch government’s argument that no claim could be lodged because the Dutch statute of limitations of five years had passed. Now a Dutch government representative said, ‘In this context and on behalf of the Dutch government, I apologise for the tragedy that took place in Rawagede.’ He issued the apology in English and then in Indonesian. ‘I come here not only as a representative of the Dutch government, I come here as a representative of the Dutch parliament and the Dutch people. In addition to the apology, the Dutch government is compensating the widows and families of those killed with a payment of 20,000 euros [each],’ he said. The Dutch lawyer for the widows welcomed the apology but added that no amount of money could compensate for the loss the women and families had suffered.

(2) Australian apology in February 2008
The Australian government made a formal apology for the past wrongs by successive governments to the indigenous Aboriginal population. The then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised in parliament to all Aborigines for laws and policies that ‘inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss’. He singled out the ‘stolen generations’ of thousands of children forcibly removed from their families. A motion acknowledging all of this was unanimously adopted by the Australian parliament. The ‘stolen generations’ refers to the Aboriginal children who were taken from their parents in a policy of assimilation into white colonist society which lasted from the 19th century to the late 1960s. ‘For the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.’ Former Prime Minister John Howard had refused for over a decade to apologise.

(3) German apology on 7 December 1970
When he travelled to Warsaw, on a state visit meant to improve relations with Poland and the USSR, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt attended a commemoration of the Jewish victims of the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943. Although it had been decades since the historic uprising and the end of the Holocaust, Brandt spontaneously dropped to his knees before the monument as an act of apology and repentance. He described his thought: ‘An unusual burden accompanied me on my way to Warsaw. Nowhere else had a people suffered as in Poland. The machine-like annihilation of Polish Jewry represented a heightening of bloodthirstiness that no one had [ever] considered possible.’ And later he said: ‘[I] had to do something to express the particularity of the commemoration at the ghetto monument. On the abyss of German history and carrying the burden of the millions who were murdered, I did what people do when words fail them.’

The image of Willy Brandt kneeling in front of the Warsaw memorial has become symbolic of accepting the past and of understanding it as an obligation toward reconciliation and as an obligation for a common future.

In August 2004 Social-Democrat member of the German parliament, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, then minister for economic development and cooperation, offered an apology to the Herero people. This was undoubtedly important but the German parliament did not endorse her apology. German civil society, with newfound momentum and together with the media, is currently pushing for an apology from the German parliament.

The Germans in Germany need to deal with the apology that has been denied for 108 years. But their’s is not my concern. My concern is for dialogue, willingness to debate and ultimately acceptance by a truly representative group of Namibian German speakers, to offer in word and in deed, an apology that is capable of building bridges. This is different from asking for a response from a government but undoubtedly there is a special responsibility that lies with the German-speaking community in Namibia.

The words 'I am sorry' seem, no are, the most difficult words to utter. President de Klerk was reported as saying, at the time of the South African transition to democracy, that he, as a trained lawyer, knew the implications of apologising unconditionally. He said apologising led to paying reparations, the limit of which could not be estimated. He therefore never offered an outright apology.

The German speakers of Namibia, and similarly the white community of South Africa, are yet to come to terms with what was done in the past in their name.

Two injunctions that urge action
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 defines genocide as ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. This goes to the heart of collective punishment, of being punished for being a member of a racial or other kind of group. In pursuit of reconciliation the present day standard of what constitutes genocide must be applied, even though such definition and such resolution did not exist at the time the acts were perpetrated.

The other injunction is from a person who stands out for me as someone who stretched out his hand toward the prospect of reconciliation in Namibia. He is Raimar von Hase, a German-speaking farmer who spoke, he said, on behalf of the German community (how big a part of that community?) at Ohamakari (the place at the Waterberg where the German–Herero war started) when a memorial meeting was held on the centenary of the genocide in August 2004. Excerpts of his paper (translated by myself from the report in the Allgemeine Zeitung of 17 August 2004) are pertinent:

‘I am thankful and deeply moved that I have the opportunity ... to speak to you, not as a historian and not as a politician, but as a German-speaking Namibian and farmer and – more importantly – as a Namibian compatriot.

I, as a German-speaking Namibian – together with other Germans, who live and work in this country – see and share the pain of our compatriots today. We mourn with you the forebears, who were killed in their own country by a foreign military superior power. The survivors were robbed of their land, their cattle and with that not only the basis of their existence, but their cultural identity ... We bow our heads in respect for all who lost their lives 100 years ago.

Our pain is also directed at our German forebears. We know that they caused an immense injustice to thousands of Namibians and that tens of thousands died in this country because of the actions of the German Schutztruppe. To know this and to accept this is also pain and grief for us.

We also mourn all the civilians who lost their lives in this war as well as the countless German men, who lost their lives in a foreign land, because they had to obey military commands. And we feel gratitude towards the missionaries and civil servants who had the courage to resist the pressure of the Colonial Government, and who did much to soften the suffering of the people in concentration camps and prisons...

On the 11 January [2004] … Bishop Kameeta said during the … memorial service, which was held jointly with his German colleague Bishop Keding: “Indeed it is a divine miracle that we can now look back together at the terrible things that happened a century ago and that we are holding hands as sisters and brothers to face the future.”

This has become possible because our Namibian compatriots, for the past 100 years, never gave up the gesture toward reconciliation.
They, the children of the victims of 1904, have not shown any feelings of revenge toward German speakers.
They confronted us with respect.
They extended us the hand of reconciliation.
They remained ready to speak to us.
For that we are deeply thankful and I want to express those thanks here today.
The message of this historic day is clear: We must confront what happened in 1904. We all have to do this, so that the message of 1904, for us, and for our children, reminds us that conflict and division must never again be solved with weapons and violence...
This day is an unavoidable sign that the problems that exist in this country, because of its history until today, be resolved in mutual respect in freedom in a peaceful democracy.
I therefore appeal to all my German compatriots: Let us seek dialogue, to hear from our Namibian fellow citizens how we can assist to heal the wounds of the past.
... our willingness to reconcile, needs to be evident and effective both through our words and our deeds.’

Reconciliation
Ignorance or sullen silence will not help heal the wound that hurts one part of the Namibian people.

Reconciliation is necessary if a united and reconciled Namibian nation is to come about. This requires coming to terms with our history. It requires honesty and willingness to acknowledge. Whether directly or indirectly Namibian German speakers are part of the history of the land they profess to love above all others. Why is there such a lack of willingness to reconcile in tangible ways? Is it arrogance? Does it mask a continued belief in superiority? Or might it be that we as individuals or families or churches do not know to whom to say 'I am sorry', and precisely for what it is that we apologise?

The Germans of Namibia are a small minority, even amongst the white population. No more than 1.1 per cent of all Namibian households have German as a home language (3,654 households), which is much less than Afrikaans (39,481 or 11.4 per cent) or English (6,522 or 1.9 per cent), (2001 population survey). Yet the German community stick out. They have their own schools, they have their own newspaper and radio station and they are very prominent in the business and farming sectors. They have without a doubt done much that developed Namibia, but humility and contrition, it would appear, is not their strength. Or am I wrong?

The following would be my outline for a reconciliation rulebook:

It is a great gift for anyone to be able to say ‘I am sorry’ and to apologise.
The even greater gift is to say: My advantage derives from land, material and social benefit; I will find ways to pay back or return – something.
A reconciled or equal playing field is not one where some live in their current affluence imagining that the 'others' should eventually reach their standard of living.
Reconciliation is, in the final analysis, about economic equality.
The ‘haves’ must face their huge advantage. Equal ultimately means that those who ‘have’ give up some of their possessions in order for others to get a little more.
Those who apologise cannot, should not, expect or demand forgiveness; it is not theirs to ask this.
The debate between former adversaries should be preceded by ‘internal’ discussion and a search for answers and solutions.
Symbolic acts are as important as deeds; both have to be performed.
If white people wish to live in Africa they need to become African. This does not mean denying those things that are true values in their tradition, culture and religion. But such values cannot be a veil to practice racism, harbour superiority attitudes or to remain 'separate'.
Reconciliation is every individual's task, especially when a collective apology is outstanding. Don't make it the task of your government, your church or your organisation. They have responsibility too, but it starts with individuals and families who have the courage to think about what their role is or might be.

There are courageous German-speaking individuals in Namibia who have been outstanding for their role to correct and revise the traditionally held view of their community. They include freedom fighters in the liberation struggle, historians, clergy and those who refused to carry guns when conscripted by the apartheid army. And there are those who have helped build the postcolonial state. But they stand as individuals without speaking for a sizeable sector of the German-speaking community. The return of the skulls to Namibia opened the wound of history once more and serves to remind us that there is unfinished business. It calls on good women and men to stand up to speak and act as Raimar von Hase called for in 2004.

Germany must do the right thing, but we who have roots in Namibia need to do the right thing here. I would gladly participate in a dialogue that takes this discussion forward.

My involvement in Namibia's history comes far too late in my life. My knowledge and interpretation may not be accurate in places, but that is not the point. Deep in my heart I know that silence is not an option.

I state my sorrow for a history that cannot be changed, but I would much rather do this collectively, with others, to the Herero and Nama people of Namibia.

Horst Kleinschmidt was born in Namibia and grew up in South Africa. Active in the anti-apartheid Christian Institute, in 1975 he was detained under the Terrorism Act, held in solitary confinement for 73 days and went into exile in 1976. He returned in 1990 and is writing about his family’s 200-year history at the Cape. Picture of the Kleinschmidt family around 1910. Left to right: Mathilde (born Kleinschmidt) with her father, F.W Ewaldt in Uniform and his Prussian skiped helmet (Pickelhelm) in front of them. On his right, Gerhard Kleinschmidt, my grandfather and on his right, Helene (also born Kleinschmidt). The other persons are 3 siblings. At first, Mathilde was not allowed to marry Ewaldt because she had a Black grandmother. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari: The return of the Herero and Nama skulls: Coming to terms with a difficult history

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:24:00 +0100

In his analysis of the failure over more than two decades to deal with the genocide, Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari looks at the changing attitudes of Namibia’s SWAPO-led government and the role of the Namibian media as well as Germany’s evasive political posturing. One of the most salient and challenging features of the relationship between Namibia and Germany has less to do with formal government-government relations and more to do with how successive German governments have dealt, or not dealt, with the contested colonial past in the former South West Africa at the beginning of the past century. The choices Germany has made with regard to its past in Namibia can be described, at best, as nothing short of failure to come to terms with its violent past.

However the options available to Germany on this question should not be looked at in isolation. They are shaped by the texture of the bilateral relationship with the Namibian government. Germany’s choices, pointing more toward vacillation and denial, are largely the consequence of the relative indifference and adhockery on the part of the Namibian government in regard to the genocide of the Ovaherero people during 1904–08, including large-scale atrocities against the Namas. For the SWAPO-led government in Namibia, the Ovaherero genocide competes with the type of narratives that should be promoted as part of the official chapter of heroic resistance during colonial times.

Notwithstanding the international frame of reference accepting the atrocities committed against the Hereros as genocide, official acceptance of such on the part of the German government and the Namibian government has, for several reasons, not been forthcoming. The fact that both the affected groups are minorities has not been helpful either in terms of pushing the issue up the political agenda.

Whereas both the Namibian and German governments appeared to have opted for a wait and see attitude for more than two decades, hoping that the sense of grievance and demands for reparations and apologies would dissipate quietly, this has not happened. Instead, the demands by the Hereros and Namas have, over the years, taken on various forms, including civil court cases against German companies in American courts in 2001, public marches, and other activities commemorating and instantiating the memory of the genocide and mass killings by Germany.

If the centenary commemorations of the genocide in 2004 were marked by a public, but not official, apology by Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, former German minister of cooperation (thus short of full recognition of the genocide), the demands for justice, which originate in a profound sense of grievance, continued to dominate debates among the Ovaherero people. These demands for justice, pursued consistently by the affected communities and sympathisers within Namibia and across the world, reached a zenith last year when, after a protracted process, a delegation of Hereros and Namas travelled to Germany in order to collect and return 20 skulls of colonial victims from the Berlin Medical Historical Museum. What was supposed to be a solemn event at the Charité Hospital, marked by due regard for the families and descendants, turned into controversy, with members of the Namibian delegation accusing the German government of failure to accord the delegation the necessary protocol and respect that should guide such a solemn occasion in memory of those who had lost their lives. The indifferent treatment ranged from the German government sending Cornelia Pieper, only minister of state at the federal foreign office, to mark the official ceremony. Worse, Pieper disrespectfully left the hall before the leader of the Namibian delegation the Minister of Sport, Youth and Culture Kazenambo Kazenambo could deliver his speech.

On the part of the German government, political posturing, in which attempts by affected communities to come to terms with the past are relegated as a non-issue, is deliberate. To relegate such events to deputy ministers allows the German government to avoid international media publicity about another dark chapter of its murky past in its former colony. However, the motion by the party (Die Linke) during the first week of March 2012 demanding federal recognition of the genocide provides a flashpoint whose consequences, in terms of how the issue clarifies (or not) in Germany and in Namibia, remain uncertain.

Be that as it may, the return of the skulls to Namibian soil ought to have been the beginning of a process of healing relations between communities in Namibia, particularly between the small German-speaking community and those who suffered at the hands of colonial Germany. In this regard, three preliminary observations have to be made with regard to the return of the skulls.

First, to a certain degree, by according the return of the skulls a state ceremony addressed by Head of State Hifikepunye Pohamba, the Namibian government, through this gesture, sent an important signal that it was potentially opening a new front in its engagement with Germany on the demands by the affected communities.

Second, it was also a signal that the government was including this part of Namibian history in the official narrative of what has been otherwise a very selective historiography, reserved mainly for the liberation history of the ruling party, SWAPO. Even if it is not the role of governments to write history, a new chapter in normalising this part of Namibian history (alongside other historical chapters) is emerging.

Third, and perhaps more importantly, it was also an indication from the Namibian government to the affected communities that its approach would be more caring and more fraternal toward their grievances with Germany. To this end, it deserves mention that a minor shift has occurred, with the rhetoric on the part of senior government officials having become more circumspect and calling for more restraint and sensitivity with regard to the question of the genocide and how Germany deals with the affected communities. The change in approach on the part of government, in all likelihood facilitated by the return of the skulls, should serve as a catalyst in obliging the German government to deal with its blood-drenched past in Namibia with due consideration to the sensitivities of the affected communities.

If the return of the skulls was supposed to be an occasion to foster a more united people in the form of a unifying history, the opposite has been truer. Contrary to reports in international media, including in Germany (Der Spiegel) and the United Kingdom (Reuters and The Guardian), reporting in the Namibian media had been scant and pedestrian, without searing analyses, focusing largely on the controversies around the return of the skulls, and less on the historical, political and moral significance of the event. Bar a few exceptions, media concerns in Namibia focused largely on mundane issues, such as cost and the size of the delegation that went to Germany. In doing so, the local media avoided any serious grounding of the issue in terms of its moral, historical and political significance for Namibia and the affected communities.

In light of this, the national debate following the return of the skulls to Namibia did not translate into a period of collective reflection and coming collectively to terms with Germany’s violent chapter in Namibia. It did not allow Namibians to measure the gravity of the crimes Germany committed against the Hereros and Namas. Instead, what has emerged is the hardening of relations between various communities with, among others, commentary and letters of denial of the genocide in the Allgemeine Zeitung, the local German-language newspaper. The absence of sensitivity to these issues, and the pedestrian approach of both the German and Namibian governments, suggests that the grievances of the Hereros and Namas will remain a festering wound, whose consequences are difficult to contemplate.

Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD-fellow in political science and researcher at the Center for Political Research at the University of Paris, Panthéon-Sorbonne, and currently a guest lecturer in European Studies at Rouen Business School, France. Picture: The Namibian delegation who went to collect the skulls in Germany were welcomed by thousands of people at the Hosea Kutako International Airport outside Windhoek. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Adetoun Küppers-Adebisi/Michael Küppers-Adebisi: Diaspora ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ – New pan-African images out of Germany

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:17:00 +0100

In the critical reading of their exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’, Adetoun Küppers-Adebisi and Michael Küppers-Adebisi deconstruct German colonial genocide in Africa and contemporary, neo-colonial racism against people of African descent in Germany. The acknowledgement of contemporary visual knowledge management strategies from a Black German and African Diaspora perspective shows how black and white disparities can be overcome by art techniques of discursive intervention that re-empower African communities and the images that exist about them.

Picture: Collage of 5 Black & White Mixed Media Photographs 86 X 161 cm © AFROTAK TV cyberNomads 2011

Prolog
The exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ in the Afrika Museum Germany located in the so-called ‘African Quarter’ in Berlin-Wedding premiers digitally produced documentary masterpieces of survival created by the Black German and the African Diaspora in Germany. The name African Quarter itself is a relict of the colonial practices up to date neglected by a German mainstream psyche not coming to terms with its past. Many street names in Berlin and Germany still praise white German male heroes who participated in the historic raping of Africa under colonial German rule. Contemporary racism structurally perpetuates discrimination against people of African descent in the city’s architectural practice and discourse (Mohrenstrasse – Negro Street). The documentary photographs reviewed in this article infuse their discursive potential of visual intervention with street-art strategies. The German practice of denial of racism against people of African descent is countered by a history-conscious new realism that renders visual documentary media for anti-racist, gender-mainstreamed and post-colonial cultural paradigm change. In 2002 Okwui Enwezor became the first African to be appointed curator for an internationally acclaimed art forum in Germany: Documenta. In the year 2010 the House of the Cultures of the World, a major German culture institution put on the Berlin Documentary Forum to interrogate the role of documentary strategies in contemporary art. Enwezor, again involved as curator, this time focused on the specific workings of cultural reality-construction based on signs, images and symbols. One of the questions asked was on how art can step beyond the borders of self-referential artistic systems into the realm of social reality.

Mixed-Media strategies of documentary photography
Mixed Media 86 X 161 cm Black & White. Members of the Namibian delegation on the steps of the Berlin clinic Charité during memorial ceremony for victims of German genocide © AFROTAK TV cyberNomads 2011 The exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ visually re-negotiates the historic event of September 2011 when Germany finally returned what had been stolen over 100 years ago. The human remains of the victims of the German genocide in Namibia were handed over to the victims’ descendants. Skulls reduced to exotic, medical artifacts and held captive by racist scientists and their medical studies to prove the moral and ethical inferiority of the victims. And as they failed to do so these skulls have been stored away in the cellar archives of the Charité. The documentary photographs in the exhibition are primarily empowered by a contemporary and globalised dialogue and inspired by the higher mobility of non-Eurocentric perspectives on representation. The mainstream postulate of a discursive break in the way female and male people of African descent have been treated in the Kaiserreich, Republic of Weimar, Nazi-Germany, post-Nazi East and West Germany, as well as in contemporary post-re-unification Germany, is effectively bridged from the Afro-German, Afropean and African perspectives.

The major archives and written discourses of Africa in Timbuktu and Alexandria have been mainly destroyed. But new multimedia-based diaspora-knowledge-databanks are growing as part of the new lingua franca visual movement in Africa, in Afro-Europe and the African diasporas of the Americas. Global access to African images and narrations spread connected with music, dance and video of post-modern global culture. The Jewish diaspora in Germany already has integrated the Nazi attack on their people into visual and cultural discourses, and even into state-financed memorials for the Shoah victims. In December 1970 the German Chancellor Willy Brandt knelt down in front of the Polish memorial in the Jewish ghetto of Warsaw. Now the history behind the German colonial involvement enters into the mainstream as well. Commander-in-chief von Trotha ordered the first German genocide in Namibia and killed approximately 60,000 children, women and men. The exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ documents the 2011 handing over of heads of the victims.

Namibia is still waiting for that same official excuse from the German government. The exhibition tells the story of how female and male Namibians come to claim the humanity of their ancestors as well as their own. The Namibians travel continents to pay tribute to their anti-colonial resistance fighters. They come to re-integrate the stolen heads and return the souls to their home country to at last bring peace to the spirit of their people. They wear the traditional dresses of their foremothers and the military outfits of their forefathers, people that Germany claimed as subjects. Their descendants parade in front of the Charité clinic in Berlin with strength and an almost surreal pride. The leaders of the Herero and Nama people kneel down on the front steps of the Charité in respect to their ancestors, including a minister and 60 representatives. The photographs correct stereotypes of Africans representation in the visual German mainstream. The documentary strategy goes beyond pure re-production or even re-construction of reality. The images of the Namibian delegation flavor a sense of post-real as they arrive to replace the absence of historical perspectives in the white German Africa-imagination. Real in these photographs has been double-charged by textual comments digitally integrated into the images. These inscriptions direct the attention of the viewer to the visual construction of cultural reality-discourses. Signifier, signified and cultural subtexts are re-defined as part of a cultural discursive history. They are viral like graffiti tags on urban walls. In cloud-computing the speed of information depends on combined capacities. Meaning of visual communication gathers speed as part of an overall national knowledge management system through recourse to the specific cultural and historic backgrounds. In this exhibition it connects to racism and genocide.

In 2004 the UNESCO honoured the May Ayim Award – the 1st Black German International Literature Award as German Project for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition. In 2011 finally the exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ exposes the killing of a people for standing up against Germany exploiting African resources. There were German concentration camps in Africa way before the Nazis installed them in Europe. Up to date white Germany has not incorporated these stories into its canons of knowledge. Germany pays development-aid instead. Reconnecting the roots of contemporary racism to a colonial history the exhibition addresses clinical aphasia in the German culture.

Silence of death
Mixed Media 86 X 161 cm Black & White. Members of the Namibian Delegation in a Church in Berlin attending a Memorial Service for the victims © AFROTAK TV cyberNomads 2011 No. These heads have seldom squinted against the sun. More than one century long they did not. Twenty of them have now been released into freedom by the Charité in Berlin. Twenty out of approximately 6,000 throughout Germany, as has been estimated by some experts. Those finally released have not even been given proper coffins. The documentary photographs of the exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ confront the visitors with metaphors of neutrally grey and square cardboard boxes of about 20 times 20 centimetres representing nameless pain. They have been marked with signs and numbers. An eerie silent atmosphere rules in the images of caged heads who have been victimized by white German scientists. Incorporating the social sciences’ input of cultural criticism the exhibition strategically approaches German knowledge archives of denial with a visual guerilla attack. The images are inspired by the more than 25 year struggle of Afro-German organizations like Initiative of Black People in Germany (ISD) and the African Women´s Organization (ADEFRA) teaming up with African diaspora communities fighting contemporary racism in Germany. These images are meant to assist the general German psyche. To undergo a sustainable healing process as the post-colonial tradition meets its neo-colonial after-images inflicting psychological as well as physical hurt of victims in Germany and on the African continent. The strategy of ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ incorporates scientific knowledge accumulation as extension of political lobbying. The first stage in understanding the exhibition’s impact is to suspend judgment on the singular photograph until overall impact of the project’s content is accessed. Then the formally signified successfully emancipates into being the signifier.

Visually un-penetrable spaces protect the heads from nosy glances. But the boxes also hide the real horror. There are eleven card box cartons on one side and seven on the other. They represent eleven Herero and seven Nama victims. Pars Pro Toto. The silence is pregnant with the afterglow of one hundred years imprisonment in German archives. The boxes are indexed with alpha-numerical codes instead of names. The focus in the photographs is a little off. One of the heads of each group is presented in a 60 times 20 centimetres transparent Plexiglas box. The photographs make the hollow eyes of the skulls in boxes seem to look into the eyes of the on-lookers. There is no memorial in Germany for the victims of the genocide.

An arrival in the presence and cultural paradign changes
Mixed Media 86 X 161 cm Black & White. Members of Namibian Delegation in anatomical theatre of the Berlin Charité clinic at handing over ceremony of heads of victims of genocide © AFROTAK TV cyberNomads 2011

The exhibition documents the complexities of the encounter of the African victims with the white German public initiated by the combined forces of activists from the white civil society together with the German African diaspora. The images presented in the exhibition have been taken within one week in 2011. ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ starts with the press conference organized by a committee composed of African diaspora, Afro-Germans and white German activists. It covers the public discussion panel organised in cooperation with and at the House of the Cultures of the World and ends with the handing over of the Namibian human remains at the anatomical theatre of the Charité.

There were but a few visual moments available to the public eye before, revealing the specific German way of dealing with Africa and they came from a mediated white perspective or from a perspective of the diaspora not being part of the German experience. Examples are the black and white photographs of around 1908 of white German military personnel from a white German perspective. Surviving Namibian women had been forced to first boil the bodies of their murdered people and then to scrape the flesh of the bones as preparation for the shipment to Germany. The white German males are smoking cigarettes and smile straight into the camera while packing Namibians skulls from piles into coffin-like wooden boxes.

Images of concentration camps taken around 1945 by US-American liberation forces show Afro-German and African diaspora victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Modern semiotic theories look for meaning not in the individual signs, but in their context and the framework of potential meanings that can be applied. Both in colonial- and in Nazi-Germany exotic subtexts were constructed through exhibiting Africans as objects in the Völkerschauen (people shows). In ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ the change in perspective is two fold. It becomes visible as a democratic act of self-emancipation in the unity of the Africans in Germany who mirror themselves in the fate of their Namibian brothers and sisters. Illustrating the mainstream media coverage, images of images are also part of the exhibition. A Berlin daily paper subtitled the photograph of an Afro-German woman present at the event with ‘A Namibian Woman’. White media here is not differentiating between the members of the Namibian delegation and the Berlin residents of Namibian, Eritrean, Cameroonian, Nigerian, South African, Jamaican, African American, and Afro German or of Afro-European descent. Identity here is constructed through colour. They are black so they must be Namibian and non-German.

The present exhibition deconstructs the propagandistic nature of the representation of Africans. Where contemporary German zoos and commercial productions still take recourse to folkloristic and racist tradition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ will disappoint this hunger for exotic sensations. The documentary photographs do not focus on the spectacular. They focus on the normality of bodiless African heads amongst white and black audience and activists, Charité representatives and administrators and also local, national and international media as professional image producers.

Only a few white people-of-colour can be found in these documentary photographs. In the alliance against discrimination and xenophobia, the discourse on racism in Germany has been high-jacked by white people-of-colour. The images by contextualising the Namibian genocide also discredit the attempt to strip racism of the historic dimension and to level its victims into one line with so called anti-Muslim discrimination cases against white people-of-colour based on religion (religious racism) or so called racism against the old (Altersrassismus).

The curators have chosen small black and white mixed-media formats of 86 times 161 centimetres to present powerful compositions and symbolism to make their points. It is exactly the curious explosive silence and disciplined self-denial that highlights the images’ truly immodest importance. The images are concerned with a historic perspective and refer all the way back to the starting point of modernity when white people initiated a racist image-system based on cultural dis-representation to ethically justify their economic exploitation of the non-white other. Science, medicine and art were the media used to re-negotiate the economic hierarchies. So modernity is visually dismantled as rhetorical cover-up operation to hide a cultural ‘desert storm’ and propaganda attack on people of African descent.

Documentary photography in times of social media
Mixed media 86 X 161 cm Black & White. Members of Black German and African Diaspora in anatomical theatre of the Berlin Charité clinic at handing over ceremony of heads of victims of genocide © AFROTAK TV cyberNomads 2011

The heightened speed of information distribution on the internet, through digital media productions and social media networks has attributed them with a life and dynamics of their own. It has also led to new possibilities of artworks in the times of their digital reproduction. The images of the exhibition show a black German woman being framed by white male press charging her with over-dimensional cameras from the left. The Afro-German with Nigerian roots is part of a group of the African Diaspora Germany. Just like her they are holding up signs that read Entschuldigung Sofort (Apologise Immediately) and Reparationen (Reparations). The scene reminds of a hero from pop-culture being stalked by the press. This kind of photograph stands at the abyss of what generally is accepted as documentary image. Documentary images are not meant to manipulate the recipient. Truth has to be self-evident. The black woman holds up a camera that is directed at the state secretary. She is not only object but also an independent image-producer of her own.

The photographs of the exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ have been inspired by the musical strategy of sampling and remixing. The digital retouch of the artist as basquaian DJ changes established historical and linear flows. The integration of text into the architecture of contemporary documentary works reloads the matrix of meaning and challenges mono-cultural reality construction by defining specific contexts. The inclusion of the social and philosophical dynamics of the production process takes documentary photography beyond the traditional limits of Eurocentric definitions of semiotics and its neo-colonial domination on global discourse and local meaning.

This can also be observed in the photographs of the German state secretary for the ministry of foreign affairs. Mrs Cornelia Pieper in her speech referred to the event as of ‘high symbolic value’. With insensitivity regarding the context of her own vocabulary she said it was the reminder of a ‘dark and painful chapter’ full of ‘bloody suppression, savagery, forced labour’ and ‘atrocities’. She consented that its ‘inhuman racism’ would be reflected in discursive categories degrading the victims as ‘research material’. But instead of asking for forgiveness she only invited to reconciliation and the one word she did not say was: genocide! Some initiatives and individuals booed at Pieper for not speaking out an official apology. Pieper let this historic opportunity go by unused, in line with the policy of the German government. The photographs show her leaving through the backdoor and causing a diplomatic éclat because of not listening to Minister Kazenambo and to the representatives of the Herero and the Nama people. Instead a digital in-script is part of some photographs reading: Zeugen des deutschen Völkermordes (Witnesses of German Genocide). Again the context is re-defined from local perspective.

Already in 2010 another strategy contextualising the German cultural landscape with a global perspective was practised in the major Berlin art-exhibition ‘Who knows tomorrow’ co-curated by Chika Okeke-Agulu. The exhibition focused on post-colonial perspectives by international artists in the 125th year anniversary of the Berlin Africa Conference. These works, nonetheless, were read as quotations from a global and thus abstract perspective. The sculptures by Pascale Marthine Tayou of oversized African people looking over and into the city from the plateau at the Neue Nationalgalerie (New National Gallery) temporarily changed the architecture of Berlin. In ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ the documentary images are also part of a globalised discourse but they are culturally charged by an insider diaspora perspective and their mnemonic performance reminds of a Trojan virus within digital architectures and designed to change the host.

Epilog
The exhibition deals with the coming to terms with the effect of 60,000 black Namibians having been murdered by white Germans. The perspective of the photographs also includes the larger picture. There have been communities of Africans from the German colonies and their black German descendants in Berlin and other parts of Germany since around 1900. There has been racist propaganda against the descendants of the French black Rhineland troops. They are part of German society ever since and they have been victims of the Nazis. Despite their West German citizenship about 3,000 descendants of the African-American troops have been taken away from their German mothers and given away for adoption in the USA. Others have been sterilised. About 400 children from Mozambique growing up in East Germany were ‘sent back’ to an African culture they did not know as part of the collateral damage of German so called re-unification. Apartheid has not only happened in South Africa. A civil rights movement for the rights of black people is not necessary in the USA only. Passport laws are still enacted even in today’s Germany.

Thus the exhibition is important in negotiating the genocide within its historical frame. Especially in a time that witnesses the neo-Nazi terror and its victims among the white people-of-colour German-Turkish and Greek families who suffered as they have been attacked after German re-unification. The first victim of post-re-unification racist terror in 1990 against black Germans and the African diaspora was Amadeu Antonio Kiowa. He came from Angola and was one of the East German so-called contract workers. Sexism, racism, xenophobia, structural disadvantages in the workforce and housing, racial profiling and physical violence against migrants and asylum seekers are to stay the ‘unknown’ part of German society as long as a re-processing of the historic dimension does not account for the perspective of victims like Oury Jalloh who in 2005 burnt alive in a German prison cell.

The second reason why the exhibition is an important contribution is because it combines the threads of documentary photography with knowledge management strategies show-casing how the borders in-between art and social reality can be re-arranged in favour of new insights and truths. It is this knowledge that the photographs of ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ communicate to a broader public. By the way, more than 40,000 people have been waiting at the airport in Namibia for the return of the delegation to receive the human remains of their ancestors with tears of joy and pain. An estimate of 70 per cent of the country supposedly is in the hands of white Namibians, mainly the descendants of white Germans from colonial times.

In the beginning this text referred to Okwui Enwezor who by now has been named director to the major Munich museum Haus der Kunst (House of the Arts). He also has again expanded the frame of new possible perspectives with an exhibition on the art of the Nazis.

The Berlin exhibition ‘Faces of the African Renaisance’ showed until the end of February 2012, the ending of Black History Month in Germany. Multimedia parts of the exhibition can still be accessed online via: AFROTAK.com.

Adetoun Küppers-Adebisi - the Lagos born publisher and editor is a German economical and production engineer and founder and director of the Black German Media, Culture and Education Archive called AFROTAK TV cyberNomads. She presently is preparing her trans-disciplinary PHD on Gender Studies and Neo-Colonial Waste Management Discourses in-between Germany and Nigeria. Michael Küppers-Adebisi is an Afro-German author, publisher, filmmaker Multi-Media-Artist and Social Media Activist. The cultural manager is co-founder of the Afro-German Media Platform AFROTAK TV cyberNomads and presently holds a fellowship of the North Rhine Westphalia State Theatre writing an interactive play on postcolonial Germany with the working title The Reichstag/ Kafka in the Mix. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Reinhart Kössler/Henning Melber: German–Namibian denialism: How (not) to come to terms with the past

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:16:00 +0100

Largely unnoticed by most Namibians, the local German-language daily Allgemeine Zeitung provides a forum for colonial apologetics. Reinhart Kössler and Henning Melber examine recent comments and readers’ letters in this newspaper, exposing the reactionary attitudes and privileging strategies that maintain the minority language as a barrier to national reconciliation. The last few months have once again highlighted the fact that, in Namibia at least, the crimes and sufferings sustained under colonialism are by no means a thing of the past, even though the genocide by the Schutztruppe was perpetrated more than a century ago. This genocide and an appropriate apology and restitution are high on the public agenda, though controversial and reflecting many complexities.

However, one strand of such controversies goes largely unnoticed by probably the overwhelming majority of Namibians. This concerns the opinions expressed on the pages of the local daily Allgemeine Zeitung (AZ), and in particular, in the copious Letters to the Editor. Each event that excites public interest and awareness about the German colonial past triggers of a virtual avalanche of contributions. At times bordering on hate speech, these are apparently printed indiscriminately, apart from occasional editorial cuts. Only after the AZ documented the intervention by Bishop Kameeta early in March, did they act in a slightly more restrictive way.

These letters are complemented by op-eds, and the combination is evidence of a clear tendency to deny the genocide. What happened during the German colonial period is downplayed as just a ‘normal’ colonial war. The infamous extermination order by General von Trotha is declared a kind of ‘tokenism’ with no relevant impact. The Herero are often accused of being the culprits, for attacking German settlers and committing atrocities, thereby triggering retaliation, which in turn led to the German ‘defence’ of its ‘civilising mission’. Sometimes this is even styled as a genocide by retaliation, as it were. Neither German colonialism as conquest of another country and its peoples nor the practices applied are fundamentally questioned. Rather, in this view, the German settlers and the colonial administration brought progress and development to the country.

Based on this dominant understanding, every dissenting voice is ridiculed and leads to another avalanche of self-righteous letters. Many don’t shy away from insult and discriminating language. They declare everyone who dares a different opinion as ignorant and ideologically manipulated. In this perspective, any hint that the German government might change its attitude and offer a genuine apology – don’t dare mention reparations or other forms of compensation! – is considered as bordering on blasphemy and a sign of weakness in those brainwashed or opportunists, who capitulate under pressure from the ‘Zeitgeist’ or from the long-defunct East German propaganda.

All this happens in a local Namibian space that is screened off from public awareness by a language barrier as well as by social distance. In this, the sedimented experience of more than a century of colonial rule coalesces with the present-day social structure in post-colonial Namibia. In one of the most unequal societies of the world, the tiny German-speaking section remains on average and proportionally by far the wealthiest Namibian population group, as the figures in the official Household Income and Expenditure Reviews undertaken since independence document. From this derive both privilege and considerable power as well as voice; it takes something for such a minority to maintain its own daily newspaper, many informal as well as institutionalised clubs and associations cultivating the German language and the ‘South Wester’German cultural identity, to run the oldest (now private) school in the country, to maintain a variety of exchanges with German counterparts in sports and culture, to regularly hold German Karneval in several towns and to contribute through donations by a support group to the continued running of a German-language radio service at the NBC, as well as to keep alive a Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft both in Windhoek and in Swakopmund, including publishing activities of a largely colonial-apologetic nature. Given the language barrier, these activities and media serve mainly internal communication and self-assurance as a group with its own firm identity.

To judge from the letters to the editor in the AZ and other evidence, however, this includes a worldwide network of German-speaking people, often with connections through family ties or regular tourist visits to the country. These connections help to cultivate a re-assuring self-understanding as the last outpost of pioneering German pride in the historical achievements. Many of the letter writers are based in Germany and other parts of the world. More importantly, these debates resonate with right-wing blogs in Germany, even though they go unnoticed by large parts of the general public in both countries. Still, this forms part of the interchange that goes on between those countries and includes the presence of German nationalist outfits such as the association of former Schutztruppe in Namibia on occasions such as the rededication of the Rider Statue in 2011 and its recent centennial.

The focus of the self-centered denialism resulting from such a perspective – abstracting from the historical processes and their effects leading to the settler-dominated society of which segments remain alive even 22 years into independence – becomes particularly clear when we look at some of the contents that were debated in the AZ during the last few months. They were sparked off by the restitution of human skulls by Germany to Namibia in late September 2011, and on the centenary of the Rider Memorial in Windhoek in January 2012, as well as by the criticism raised during the visit of Präses Schneider, chairman of the Protestant church in Germany and finally, by an intervention by Bishop Kameeta of the ELCRN who in a letter to the AZ expressed his concerns about the strict denial of any historical injustice and the dismissive language used.

Space does not permit more than a cursory impressionistic picture. However, there are recurrent tropes that are familiar from German right-wing efforts to stave off any serious dealing with the Holocaust in post-war West Germany. Thus, those who address the genocide are named ‘soilers of our own nest’ (Nestbeschmutzer), as if the problem does not consist in the ‘nest’ being ‘soiled’ in the first place.[1] Präses Schneider was taken to task for his sermon where he appealed to German speakers to face up to historical reality and take a truly reconciliatory stance. To cope with the provocation, letter writers claimed he was ill prepared and therefore could not see their plight. Bishop Kameeta’s appeal provoked similar dismissive and patronising responses, accusing him of blindness towards the true facts and of being the real obstacle to reconciliation.

Even though they verbally keep a distance from the right wingers, the AZ journalists actively participating in this discourse use much the same language to be found in the letters. A casual and top-down way of talking suggests a kind of inappropriate arrogance corresponding with the overall tenor of the letters. Thus, editor Stefan Fischer bemoans the ‘downfall on his knees’ by German envoy Lindner (who visited Namibia early this year to ease the diplomatic tensions emerging after the first repatriation of skulls) as ‘superfluous’, and demands ‘clear words to the Herero’, in a tone not so different from colonial times, but of course, now in the interests of living ‘together’ in independent Namibia! Deputy editor Eberhard Hofmann bemoans ‘clichés’ in Präses Schneider’s sermon and lectures him that in 1904 the rising had come before the genocide. The reasons for the rising are studiously left out, and the whole is presented as an adequate explanation about cause and effect – as if the Herero were only bearing the final consequences of their misbehaviour.

It is remarkable that at least some letter writers take on the mantle both of experts on Namibia who have to teach ignorant outsiders and, at the same time, of champions of the German national interest as they see it. Claims such as ‘right or wrong, my country’ – as voiced in one letter – are a far cry from a German political reality that has long made remembrance of Auschwitz a matter of core national concern (which is dismissed as a misplaced culture of guilt by several letter writers). Such views resonate well with a German right that has shown its murderous potential only recently in particularly gruesome fashion with serial murders of ‘Turkish’ shopowners. Interestingly enough, Claus Nordbruch, the author of a book refuting the genocide as an anti-German ideological construct, and in several of these letters quoted as the ultimate and authoritative scholarly source, has been linked to the neo-Nazi scene in which the murder plots against immigrants were born. Significantly, the AZ verbally distances itself from Nordbruch, but apparently Hofmann didn’t see a problem when he praised the same Nordbruch for his jokes in a carnival session. This marks the decisive difference: they still feel ‘Germans’ belong to one fold, regardless of their adherence to Nazism. However, Nazism is not an opinion. It is a crime, and those who condone it make themselves accomplices.

If we see a necessity to take a serious stand against this penchant to mingle with even the far German right that is apparent in at least some contributions in AZ, we also see a need not to be distracted from solidarity with those who up to this day find themselves in a grossly underprivileged position and struggling with trauma as a result of genocide and colonialism. We are aware that not all German speakers in Namibia identify with this denialist discourse. It is high time for them to raise their voices.

Reinhart Kössler is a social scientist, working at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute in Freiburg and teaching political science at the University of Freiburg. Besides his academic pursuits, he is involved in a wide range of civil society initiatives in Germany, mainly centering on Third World issues and with a long-standing focus on southern Africa. Henning Melber came to Namibia in 1967 and joined Swapo in 1974. He was director of the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek (1992–2000), and research director at the Nordic Africa Institute in Sweden (2000–06) where he is the executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation since 2006. He is a Research Associate with the Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria. Picture Credit: Henning Melber
Board in a German-speaking shop in Swakopmund featuring a spectrum of stickers including "nostalgic" references to the German colonialist period. A slightly shorter version of this text is published by the Namibian journal Insight Namibia. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

‘We have come back home…’ - Statement by Chief Alfons Kaihepovazandu Maharero

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:45:00 +0100

Statement by Chief Alfons Kaihepovazandu Maharero, Chairman of the Ovaherero/ Ovambanderu Council for the Dialogue on the 1904 Genocide (OCD-1904), on the Occasion of the ‘Requiem of the Martyrs’ at Heroes Acre, on October 05, 2011. Director of Proceedings; Your Excellency Hifikepunye Pohamba, President of the Republic of Namibia; Your Excellency Dr Sam Nujoma, Father of the Nation; Right Hon. Nahas Angula Prime Minister in the Government of the Republic of Namibia; Hon. Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab, Speaker of the National Assembly; Your Honour Chief Justice Peter Shivute; Honourable members of Parliaments; Your Excellency members of the Diplomatic Corps; Hon. Kazenambo Kazenambo, Minister of Youth, National Service, Sport and Culture, and Leader of the Namibian Delegation to Germany; The Right Reverend Zephania Kameeta, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches in the Republic of Namibia; Fellow Chiefs and other Traditional Leaders; Distinguished Guest and Esteemed Dignitaries; Representatives of the Media; Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have come back home with tears in our eyes, bringing back home the skulls of our ancestors which were identified and certified as belonging to Ovaherero, OvaMbanderu and Namas persons from the genocide. The Namibians’ remains have finally come back home after more than 100 years in a foreign country. Where ever their spirits are in the firmament, they must be rejoicing today that they have finally come back home.

Today they can hear their mother tongue of the mother African soil at last after having heard the strange language of the Germans, as the German scientists dissected, turned around their heads in laboratories, emptied their brains and dyed them with all kinds of colorations to prove their racist and fascist ideology that the black man’s intellectual capacity is inferior to that of a caucasian.

They were treated with total contempt and were shown no respect. They were treated like chimpanzees in laboratories whereas they were humans.

The culmination of the period of German colonial rule over Namibia was the horrific catastrophe that befell the various indigenous African communities of central and southern Namibia. The skulls before us today are a living embodiment and reminder of the most gruesome manner in which our forefathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, perished while incarcerated in concentration camps (at Windhoek, Swakopmund, Shark Island etc). Testimonies from oral tradition and written documentations indicate that their corpses were decapitated, boiled in pots, scraped of flesh and hair with pieces of broken glass by the women prisoners of war, and packed in boxes for shipment to Germany, apparently for purposes of scientific research.

However we have finally managed to bring them home so that Namibia can accord them the fitting respect and honour they deserve so that their souls can rest in eternal peace where they will be reunited with their mothers and fathers.

The return of these skulls serves as strong evidence that Namibia has a case to demand restorative justice for the genocide committed by Germany during its colonial rule in the then German South West Africa. Therefore we see the return of these skulls as a first step in a comprehensive process of restorative justice. For instance, we would want our children to be told what was the rationale of this supposed research undertaking, how it was conducted, what findings were attained etc.

Furthermore while recognising and appreciating the existing bilateral development cooperation between our government and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, we can no longer accept the notion that such development assistance is a response to our demand for restorative justice.

Director of Ceremonies, the OCD–1904 is committed to work with and through the government of the Republic of Namibia in our quest for salvaging hope and consolation for the victims of the enduring legacies from our colonial past. To us, the ultimate aim of any process of genuine reconciliation should culminate in the full compensation of the blood of our forefathers, not on terms dictated by the German government, but mutually deduced from an open process of dialogue involving those communities that bore the brunt of German colonial brutalities.

Allow me at this juncture to reiterate our dismay and disappointment for the inhospitable treatment accorded to our delegation since our arrival in Germany. Such humiliating reception by a state which claims to have a historical responsibility over Namibia leaves much to be desired.

We express our gratitude to the Namibian government for fully funding as well as preparing the logistics that enabled us as the traditional leaders to witness the historic repatriation of the Namibian skulls of the victims of the German war of extermination.

Finally, we appeal to all Namibians, from all walks of life, to unite and fight for the just demand for reparation.

I Thank You! Picture: Samuel Maharero (1856 – 14 March 1923) was a King of the Herero people in the former German colony "German South-West Africa" (today Namibia) who led his people into the anti-colonial war against the German colonialists which led to the German genocide. Maharero survived by fleeing to the British Bechuanaland (today Botswana) where he died in 1923. On August 23, 1923, his body was returned to Okahandja and was ceremoniously buried. Today he is considered a great hero in Namibia and is celebrated on Herero Day on 26 August. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Saunders Jumah: German denial of Herero genocide

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:44:00 +0100

The Germans’ inhuman treatment of the Namibian delegation is only the most recent in a long history of injustice and disrespect towards African peoples. It is more than time, writes Saunders Jumah, for Africans to stand together, demand fair and equal treatment according to international law, and refuse exploitation by anyone.

Namibia has just repatriated the heads (skulls) of their great grandparents who were hacked and beheaded genocide-style by the German colonial settlers.

The history of truth is being re-written. Africa gets so angry when we see the very killers trying to play super masters instead of bowing down and apologising to Namibians and Africans for their ancestors’ bad behaviour and colonial mentality.

Our organisation is very annoyed and angry seeing the behaviour that white people from the colonial states show against Africa and Africans. The inhuman treatment that Germans gave on the handing over of the skulls to the Namibian delegation reminds us of the way these same white people are doing things in our continent.

White people are happy and eager to try our African brothers and sisters at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the past mistakes that took place between Africans against Africans. The international media make headlines and sell a lot because of African stories, but when it is the Germans facing justice and truth against Africans of Namibia, the media is deaf and mute; the international community is quiet as if the skulls are not of human beings violently butchered.

If it is Charles Taylor facing justice, all media of the world will be there; when it is the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the whole universe is awoken.

This has been the case with apartheid South Africa where black peoples’ voices of passion for the freedom of their country fell on deaf ears at the UN and other international arenas. When Africa was crying for freedom, no one cared.

According to current reports, the very same white people have been in a conspiracy trying to undermine the cause of freedom for the African people.

The fall of Kwame Nkrumah, death of Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara and so many nationalist Africans – they were deposed, killed or detained under the influence of the white people in order to stifle Africa’s total liberation.

What the German government did recently in Berlin, by not according a better reception to the delegation who went to collect the skulls of the Namibian people who lost over 85 percent of the population, has opened the wounds of the African people; where every time white people want to look superior and behave like they created Africa.

This is the same with the American, British and French governments who took slaves from Africa and are failing to come into the open to apologise and pay compensation to Africa and Africans.

Evidence is still coming that proves that the British and Americans enjoyed slavery as the tool for their economic growth and industrialisation.

This pulls back our belief and trust of white people; we see them as enemies of our African future.

White people continue to try to control Africa by manipulating African leaders. The speech of the ambassador of Germany on our own soil when the skulls were accorded a state funeral was very appalling and disgraceful.

Namibia and Germany with or without the genocide were supposed to be involved in bilateral relations in development, but to deny that there can ever be special reparations and compensation of the Herero and Nama victims is a joke of present day neo-colonialism and no African citizen will buy that story.

Does Germany have no embassy in Israel? Doesn’t Germany have bilateral relations with Israel? Why did the Germans pay the Jews? Is it because Herero and Nama people are black Africans?

This is why we are writing to all Africans to realise that whatever we do with white people in Africa is in the interest of the white people, not us Africans.

History itself explains why Namibians were beheaded and their heads taken to Germany. It was an insult to the race of Africans as a whole.

This issue alone, of testing the brains and other features of the skulls, demands compensation of billions of euros; though money cannot buy back their lives, it will heal and justify the cause of justice among all the people of the world in disregard of race or colour.

The behaviour of the Germans keeps digging up the buried history of the scramble for Africa, of slavery, partition, colonisation and other ills these white people harshly perpetrated on African people across the continent.

Their evil deeds killed so many Africans and paralysed the whole continent in sectors of human civilisation. They committed terrible and horrible atrocities on African people that included hacking, cutting into parts, beheading, hanging and raping of our grandmothers.

That resulted in modern-day Africa having over a third of the population with a biological connection to the bloodline of those shameless occupiers. Yet no African could touch a white woman.

The late former president of Botswana Seretse Khama was barred from taking over his paramount chieftainship because of his love for a white woman from the UK. He was prohibited and sent into exile because he had committed the grievous crime of marrying a member of the ‘superior race’. He nearly faced imprisonment under the rule of the white occupiers.

Indian people consider it taboo and an abomination for an Indian woman to be married to a black African; not even just falling in love. But male Indians and white people have impregnated so many African women across the continent without being questioned or imprisoned. This is evil that Africans cannot tolerate today.

It is this occupation that brought draconian rules in Africa, some of which are still in practice today in so many countries. Governments that wanted to adopt African ways of doing things – our own Ubuntu – were overthrown. Kwame Nkrumah and Muammar Gaddafi are notable examples, as is Patrice Lumumba.

Under the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe was forced to sign for independence that did not show any significance in terms of granting total freedom to the African people of Zimbabwe. Mugabe wrote: ‘I felt cheated after signing the draft document and lamented that we could achieve more freedom in the bush than what we achieved on the table of negotiation.’

Zimbabwe was robbed of its true freedom by the document which favoured and supported the interests of the occupiers – this made sure that land, which was the main reason for fighting in the liberation struggle, would remain in the hands of the colonial settlers. This is one reason Africa must fight for restorative justice and compensation without beating about the bush in the language of diplomacy.

This has been the white man’s policy and agenda in handing over power to the owners of the African continent. This is meant to enable the departing settlers to keep holding onto the land and other resources. As for Namibia, even livestock and wildlife are in the hands of these very people who proudly castigated and mistreated the descendants of the owners of the skulls returned from Germany; that government refuses to apologise and take responsibility for their atrocities in this country. Germans in Namibia have pushed the citizens to the corner, while they own and keep large arable land with kudu, buck, cattle and zebra close to cities and towns.

The biggest economy of Africa (South Africa) is another victim of a big shame because the very people who pushed the ruling African National Congress (ANC) into exile and placed most of its members under solitary confinement in inhuman prisons are calling the shots in a free South Africa today, while the citizens are living in the bondage of shameful poverty.

They have manipulated the system of economy and orchestrated xenophobia against Africans who helped the very apartheid government to develop; they calculated a move to make any black government look like a failure, and that is sparking riots, strikes and protests every now and then. This is a move to make these agents prove to their masters in the UK, USA and France that the country was better off under apartheid.

All this is happening while arable land remains in the hands of the white people (a clause that is constituted in the agreement for independence signed beforehand) while black Africans have nowhere to call home – living in shacks and in shelters without proper sanitation.

Today the people who fought for the country are being denied friends to visit them because South Africa will jeopardise good relationships with her trading partners; therefore the Dalai Lama cannot enter South Africa to visit his long-time friend Desmond Tutu. How long are we as Africans going to keep singing the foreign song of praise when our own people who played a role of freeing our states are being sidelined? What is wrong with Africa? I don’t understand.

In Kenya the Mau Mau was another victim at the hands of the British. Their cause has been denied for a very long time. The issue of the Mau Mau is not any different from the Herero and Nama. If in Kenya the former freedom fighters have succeeded in taking the British to court, what can stop the Herero and Nama from suing the Germans who have evidence in their backyard? Africa must support and encourage Namibia to take this case further for justice and restoration – not just because the Germans are refusing to take responsibility and are unwilling to bury the past with an apology, but because anything that had gone wrong in the past must be verified and corrected in the modern world of today; and those who did wrong have to be held accountable and be made to pay the reparations and compensation for their actions in order to stop such actions from taking place again in future.

Because of this, Namibia has a case with the Germans to correct the wrongs. Reconciliation cannot heal the wounds without proof. We cannot sit back and promote reconciliation when the other side does not want the same to happen. It is inhuman to keep quiet when injustices were perpetrated on African people just because white people started castrating our voices of Ubuntu from as early as 1500 BC.

In this 21st century, we would like to define the concepts of independence and reconciliation as follows:

Independence means freedom from bondage, freedom from control of others and freedom to do what one chooses with what is rightfully yours.

Reconciliation means the application of justice and truth, giving back what was lawfully or unlawfully taken without the consent of the owner, either by grabbing, stealing or force; it also means revealing truthfully how something that does not belong to you was taken, and openly apologising with all your heart and leaving it in the hands of the victim to declare whether you are forgiven or not.

But what is being preached in Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa is not reconciliation. It is called perseverance; meaning that those who felt pain must live with pain and say nothing, while those who perpetrated agony on others can continue to live as such, proud of their bad actions. This is the time to review and bring real reconciliation that will be felt by Namibians from all walks of life.

The land that belonged to us must be returned to the owners. South Africa and other states must follow suit. Until the time when we are able to see white people call themselves Africans and act as true Africans, we will not trust their intentions.

We cannot sit side by side and talk freely without grudges in our hearts when we know that these people did what they did to us and seeing those skulls lingering in the museum when we know that in Germany we were not treated with respect. ‘(Kako)(Tats eta//hein xa//kawa !ho-he tite)’ – we will extend a hand of genuine rapprochement and reconciliation with them the day we will hear apologies and have reparation paid into our hands.

Africans have observed double standards in world bodies such as the UN which are controlled by the West. We have had some hope in China, supporting our governments in their engagements with the East. But the attitude of China in trying to dictate what type of friends Africa must choose is very worrying. We do not see why the Dalai Lama can be stopped from visiting an individual in South Africa. Are we not running away from the West because of the same attitude of the dictators and going to the East to be treated in the same manner?

The youth of today have so many questions for our leaders and we are getting impatient because poverty is killing our citizens. Recently, Namibia adopted tax hikes for foreign investors for the benefit of citizens but, within 72 hours, the government reversed the decision leaving the citizens to pay the higher tax hikes. Something is very wrong in Africa.

We refuse the freedom of sweet talk when our bellies are empty. People want to eat food, have good houses, work and earn good salaries, send their kids to good schools and live better lives. Ever since independence African people have been promised a good life and plenty of food but they have consumed nothing at all – the promises are still being made. Black people are not free yet, and the struggle and fight for freedom has to be re-started. This article was first published in New Era newspaper. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

Hans-Christian Mahnke: African Cinema, what it is, what challenges it encounters and possible ways forward

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:57:00 +0100

African cinema, Namibia based film activist Hans-Christian Mahnke writes, is an expression of a cultural identity, African cinema is the search for an own specific style and a way to overcome alien influences. In addition, African cinema plays a social and economic role, it has an impact for the domestic sphere of society (in terms of education, culture and economic development/investment). And, African cinema possesses a high artistic film-specific originality, which can bring a fresh jive into world cinema.

“Modern societies have become information dependent and information driven. One of the challenges we face in this context is to avoid being overwhelmed by the powerful cultural imperialism that seeks to penetrate our societies through films, television, the Internet and other mass media. As part of our response to this challenge, we have to cultivate our value systems through the production and sharing of literature, films, the products of creative art ... that portray us correctly and differently from the dominant cultures conveyed by today’s mass media.” President Thabo Mbeki on “The African Renaissance: Africans defining themselves”, speech given at the University of Havana, Cuba, 27 March 2001

African Cinema - Seeing Africa and the World through African Eyes
African cinema is an expression of a cultural identity, African cinema is the search for an own specific style and a way to overcome alien influences. In addition, African cinema plays a social and economic role, it has an impact for the domestic sphere of society (in terms of education, culture and economic development/investment). And, African cinema possesses a high artistic film-specific originality, which can bring a fresh jive into world cinema. The most important concern to African filmmakers is to examine their reality with their own eyes and to describe it authentically. Showing Africans holy, flawed, sane, crazy, confused, loving, daring, worried, competent, a mess … – just as they are.

And in spite of often poor financial and structural problems of most African countries in the postcolonial era, a socially critical – but nevertheless aesthetic and charming – film genre with highly realistic standards has developed. One just has to go to various international and of course specifically African film festivals like in Ouagadougou, Durban, Cape Town, Edinburgh, Cannes, Toronto and Berlin, to see for oneself. But this is more or less, where the buck stops. Although we live in a global village and in an e-information driven period, a world wide web of information and downloads just a click away, dominated by social mass media enabling social uprisings and the toppling of governments, one still finds oneself struggling to get access to African films, be it at video shops, cinemas, and online sales agencies like Amazon etc. And only the future will tell, if the highly but prematurely praised Video-On-Demand platforms, which without doubts bear potential, can bring the long anticipated “breakthrough” for African cinema.

African Cinema – The struggle continues
For African cinema, the developments in the last ten to twenty years brought a mix of promises, anticipations, successes, and continued hurdles and disappointments with the same set of issues and challenges that have always confronted filmmakers throughout the continent. For decades African filmmakers have struggled to present viewers their own perspectives, be it due to lack of funding, be it due to lack of distribution possibilities, and or be it due to the lack of audiences in the absence of cinemas on the continent.

Due to a continous overflow of cheap products originating from the international markets and an effect, which can be described as a cultural alienation, the inherent development of cinema and television in Africa gains increasingly more socio-cultural importance. This development is not a luxury, like it would seem in several African states due to their dramatic socio-economic situation. It is an urgent necessity, even an imperative. Only by promoting Africa’s own capacity in film and television productions, one can combat the growing cultural estrangement and social disorientation of greater parts of the population. Beyond the limited perspectives of European and American mass media productions, which reduce Africa to its misery or something exotic, these African films present a different insight into the diversity of the continent and its current social and political conflicts.

Films by Sembène and Co., which are rightly considered to be an essential component of current world cinema, have until now only played a marginal role in the global media landscape. Although recently African films have consistently found their way to cinema screens and won some international awards, this has only occurred on a sporadic and unsystematic basis. Of course, we saw some exceptions to this general trend, be it “U-Carmen”, “Tsotsi”, “Skin”, “Life, Above All”, or “Viva Riva!”, but their achievements remain exceptions. And yes, there are countries, like South Africa or Nigeria, where the challenges seem to be tackled successfully - although in different ways, different settings and with different results – the overall situation on the continent remains pretty much the same as in the 1970ies and 1980ies.

Basing on the ideas and motivation of filmmakers like Ousmane Sembène, Zola Maseko, Jean-Pierre Bekolo, Tsitsi Dangarembga, Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda and Jihan El-Tahri, and judging from the intentions outlined in declarations like the Tshwane Declaration (2006), the AU Dakar Declaration and the AU Dakar Plan of Action on the Promotion of ACP cultures and cultural industries (2003), African cinema is not yet there, where it should and could be. African films can very seldom attain more than an exotically interesting status and are only accessible for a limited public. Despite the fact that they win prizes at festivals all over the world, these films are rarely programmed for regular screenings, be it on TV or in local cinemas. And although film festivals all over the world have positively responded to the success of African cinema by exhibiting African films, these films are not entirely accessible by Africans in African countries. Despite the existence of African film festivals and the recent phenomenon of Video-On-Demand platforms, the marginalization of the African spectators continues. There are no proper distribution channels on the African continent in place. The few cinemas which exist on the continent, hardly show African films. The videoshops mostly rent out non-African films and the African consumers don’t really seem to bother. They still frequent these videoshops and bring the revenue for the shop owner, although no African films are available.
And local initiatives, who do want to change the situation, are faced by the lack of financial resources, similar to the situation of filmmakers. Screening initiatives hardly can afford even the lowest screening fees, since distributors sit in Paris, Brussels or in comfortable offices at MNet, who don’t understand or don’t want to understand the context of these initiatives. Organizing African film screenings in a major European or American city might work, since one might find a big enough African Diaspora and intellectual, interested, non-Africans who can afford the ticket price. But the returns made through ticket sales in Africa can hardly justify the efforts by these initiatives. Economically these initiatives definitely are not viable and they seem to be just a small drop in the ocean to overcome the monetary challenges of the African film industries. Just as filmmakers from the continent, screening initiatives are depended on outside funding, making them dance to the tone of foreign donors, with all strings attached. We can continue to blame African governments and their lack of political will. We can continue to blame Hollywoods dominance for all the shortcomings in the African film industries. And we can continue to blame Western donors and producers for their mere interest in their Western markets and festivals. But unfortunately African filmmakers and their producers too seem to put more emphasis on American and European markets and festivals than supporting local screening initiatives, local film festivals and prioritizing exhibitions on the continent over screenings and distribution deals in far away markets. The reason might be economically motivated, but African audiences sometimes don’t seem to be the primary concern.

The way out of the dilemma
VOD platform theoretically might be the future and the solutions to all this, but for its success in reality, there is need for a parallel development in internet accessibility and affordability for urban and rural Africa alike. And African filmmakers must strengthen and re-vitalise the Panafrican Federation of Filmmakers (FEPACI) and its national film bodies, in order to push for their governments, their audiences, their cinemas, their video shops, their dvd sales to buy, sell, watch, and of course enjoy African film products. Much more promising at the moment seem to be crowd funding initiatives, which have been on the rise since the past ten years. Crowd funding might hold the rescueing lifeline for the African film industries. It secures funding, production, and distribution. Crowd funding is getting plenty of small contributions from individuals. These contributions together can make a good percentage of the total budget of the film. And in addition, since a lot of people are involved in financing the film, they are also interested in the product, which they want to see and promote amongst their friends, families, and other contacts. Hence they play a significant role in marketing and distributing the film. This of course only can work, since social media and internet network are bringing people closer together.
And if a filmmaker has created enough hype about his film, and got enough small donations to start producing, he can show to investors with big money that there is a keen interest in the film and it holds the potential of bringing some revenue for the investor in the end.

Local, national and regional bodies should create movie collections and equip videoshops and libraries with local, national, regional, and continental content being relevant to their respective clientel and their film industries. African consumers need physical spaces and places where to get access to local, national, regional and continental film material. Be it in the form of movie collections to be rented out at videoshops and libraries, be it in the form of broadcasting on local, national, regional, or continental TV sets (but not only on Pay-TV channels), and be it in form of local, national, regional, and continental film festivals. And we need a regional and a stronger pan-African integration. It cant be, that a film from Namibia stops at Namibian boarders and doesnt cross into the film markets of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa, Botswana etc. It cant be, that a Zimbabwean film only is shown and distributed within the Zimbabwean boarders, then one looks at South Africa, once that territory is covered one looks overseas. The regional integration of the national film industries is a must and can broaden the customer base for local filmmakers. Thinking merely in national territories is outdated and keeps the African film industries small.

African people are too often customers of Western film products. They get constantly bombarded with Western and recently also with Nollywood film products. But they too have to make a change. They are the ones who buy DSTV pay TV, they are the ones who dont demand African film products at their local video shop, cinema and national TV station. If this is overcome, if the African audience a.k.a consumer awakes, there is no stopping for African cinema. There are more than one billion Africans, hence more than one billion customers. A force to be reckoned with...

Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III.: Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft, Teil II

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:34:00 +0100

Prinz Kum'a Ndumbe III. eröffnete mit diesem Beitrag das Symposium ,,Theologie interkulturell" 2011 zur Spiritualität in Afrika seit Urzeiten (150.000 Jahre), zum spirituellen Beitrag Afrikas seit Enoch und der Sinnflut und nahm Stellung zur modernen interkultureller Theologie in einer Macht- und Geldbessessenen Welt. Das Symposium fand an der Goethe - Universität Frankfurt statt im Fachbereich am Fachbereich Katholische Theologie, Wilhelm-Kempf-Haus in Wiesbaden-Naurod. Das Thema Symposiums 2011 war "Afrika im Aufbruch? Analysen und Impulse in interdisziplinärer und interkultureller Perspektive", 25. November 2011. Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft
Fortsetzung, Teil II (1)
Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III., Universitätsprofessor
Université de Yaoundé I
Fondation AfricAvenir International
www.africavenir.org; www.exchange-dialogue.com „Wenn ich sage, dass Afrika der Kontinent der Hoffnung ist, tue ich dies nicht aus reiner Rhetorik, sondern ich drücke ganz einfach eine persönliche Überzeugung aus, die auch jene der Kirche ist. Allzu oft bleibt unser Geist bei Vorurteilen oder Bildern stehen, welche die afrikanische Wirklichkeit in einer negativen Sicht darstellen, die von einer betrüblichen Analyse herrührt. Man ist immer versucht, nur das hervorzuheben, was nicht geht; ja, es ist einfach, den belehrenden Ton eines Moralpredigers oder Experten anzuschlagen, der seine Schlüsse auferlegt und letzen Endes wenige geeignete Lösungen vorschlägt. Man ist auch versucht, die afrikanischen Gegebenheiten nach Art eines neugierigen Ethnologen zu untersuchen oder wie einer, der in ihnen nur eine große Reserve an Energie, Bodenschätzen, Landwirtschaft und Menschen sieht, die aus oft wenig edlen Interessen leicht ausgebeutet werden kann. Dies sind die oberflächlichen und rücksichtslosen Sichtweisen, die zu einer Afrika und seinen Einwohnern wenig angemessenen Verdinglichung führen. Ich bin mir bewusst, dass Worte nicht überall dieselbe Bedeutung haben. Aber jenes der Hoffnung ändert sich kaum von Kultur zu Kultur. Schon vor einigen Jahren habe ich der christlichen Hoffnung eine Enzyklika gewidmet. Von Hoffnung sprechen bedeutet von der Zukunft sprechen und daher von Gott! Die Zukunft wurzelt in der Vergangenheit und in der Gegenwart. Die Vergangenheit kennen wir gut, bedauern ihre Misserfolge und begrüßen ihre positiven Errungenschaften. Die Gegenwart leben wir, wie wir es vermögen. So gut wie möglich, hoffe ich, und mit der Hilfe Gottes!“ (2)

1- Wieso Afrika im Aufbruch ist

Afrika ist der Kontinent der Hoffnung, bekundet Papst Benedikt XVI. am 19. November 2011 vor Regierungsvertretern und religiösen Führern in Cotonou, Benin und betont, dies sei keine reine Rhetorik, sondern seine persönliche Überzeugung sowie jene der katholischen Kirche. „Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft“, betitelte ich mein in Berlin 2006 veröffentlichtes Buch (3). In Europa sprach man noch vom hoffnungslosen Kontinent, vom „Elendskontinent“, wie der „Spiegel“ mal sein Magazin betitelte (4). Doch: „Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft“.“ Dieser Titel irritierte und irritiert immer noch manche, die Afrika als hilfsbedürftigen Almosenempfänger verinnerlicht haben, als aidsverseuchten Kontinent und ewigen Unruheherd, der nur durch ständige humanitäre Intervention des wohlwollenden Westen und Norden vor dem Untergang gerettet werden kann. (5)

In Bayreuth habe ich vor genau 2 Wochen dieses aufbrechende Afrika überzeugend zu zeigen versucht. Erlauben Sie, dass ich diese Darstellung hier ganz kurz zusammenfasse.

Der afrikanische Kontinent zählte im Jahre 1900, also nach der transatlantischen Sklaverei und 16 Jahre nach der Aufteilung Afrikas unter den europäischen Mächten nur noch 133 Millionen Menschen. 2010 waren es aber schon über 1 Milliarde Menschen. In 39 Jahren, also im Jahre 2050 werden es 2 Milliarden sein, und 2060 sogar 2,7 Milliarden. Jeder fünfte Erdenbewohner lebt dann in Afrika, und jeder 3,4. Jugendliche lebt auch dann in Afrika und ist unter 30 Jahren.
Als viele afrikanische Länder 1960 ihre Unabhängigkeit erlangten, gab es kaum Universitäten auf diesem Kontinent, man konnte nicht einmal ganze 10 afrikaweit zählen. Im Jahre 2010, d. h. 50 Jahre später aber zählt man schon über 800 universitäre Einrichtungen auf dem Kontinent, und eine panafrikanische Universität bestehend aus 5 Hauptzentren in Nord-, West-, Ost-, Zentral- und Südliches Afrika mit jeweils einem Schwerpunkt ist in Planung. Diese Hauptzentren sollen in einem Netzwerk mit anderen Universitäten in Afrika verbunden sein, die auf einem der Gebiete der 5 Schwerpunktwissenschaften arbeiten. Die Universitäten sind nur ein Bespiel für die sehr starke Expansion von Bildungseinrichtungen in Afrika. Die Frage einer afrikazentrierten und entwicklungseffizienten Aus- und Fortbildung ist akutes Thema geworden.
1/3 der Reserven aller Bodenschätze befinden sich auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent. 89% der Reserven für Platin, 81% für Chrom, 61% für Mangan, 60% für Kobalt, 46% für Diamanten findet man in Afrika. Gold wird zu 21% in Afrika ausgeschöpft, Uran zu 20%, Ölreserven belaufen sich auf 10%, 15% der Weltproduktion sollen 2020 aus Afrika kommen. Andere Mineralien wie Koltan, Niobium, Bauxit, Blei, Kupfer, Eisen, usw. sind je nach Region von entscheidender Bedeutung. Es gibt also objektiv genügend Rohstoffe, um der Wirtschaft Afrikas eine gewisse Autonomie bei der eigenen Ankurbelung zu gewähren. Während mit der jetzigen Finanzkrise die EU-Länder eine Wachstumsrate von maximal 1-2% erwarten können, verzeichnen viele afrikanischen Länder eine Wachstumsrate von 5% in diesem Jahr 2011, die drei Ölländer Nigeria, Angola und Tschad erwarten 6% für 2011, sogar 7,25% für 2012, und der Musterschüler Ghana erreicht sogar einen Rekord von 13,5% in diesem Jahr.
Die afrikanische Bevölkerung ist der aufoktroyierten Diktatur müde und lechzt nach Freiheit und neuen transparenten Regierungssystemen. In vielen Ländern gehen Menschen auf die Straße oder hoffen auf faire und transparente Wahlen. Die Manipulation durch ausländische Mächte und Medien des Nordens und kriegerische Interventionen der NATO in Afrika versuchen die Weigerung der Bevölkerung vor jeder weiteren Diktatur so zu instrumentalisieren, dass der Westen noch stärker in Afrika den Kurs der Dinge bestimmt und Afrika weiterhin in struktureller Abhängigkeit und Unterentwicklung hält.

Aus dem Aufstreben des Afrikas im Aufbruch ergeben sich folgende grundlegende und zentrale Fragen in diesem Jahr 2011 für alle Afrikaner und für ihre Staaten:

Wie können wir Politiker an die Macht bringen, die dem eigenen Volk rechenschaftspflichtig sind, wenn nötig abgewählt werden können, ja Politiker, die dieses Afrika im Umbruch als Chance für die Welt, als Zukunft neu zu gestalten gedenken?
Wie können wir eigengedachte politische Systeme basierend auf unserer Kultur und Anschauung der Welt bei uns erfinden und einführen, ohne dass der militärisch starke Norden vor allem unter der NATO eingreift und ein uns fremdes politisches System aufzwingt?
Wie können wir unsere Bodenschätze und Rohstoffe zuallererst für unsere Bevölkerung und für die Entwicklung unserer eigenen Wirtschaft einsetzen, ohne dass seitens der NATO ein militärischer Konflikt unter dem Deckmantel der Menschenrechte, der Demokratie und der Freiheit ausgelöst wird?
Wie kann Afrika eigene wirtschaftliche Bedürfnisse stillen und Wachstum anhalten, und gleichzeitig dem Westen, sowie den neuen rohstoffbedürftigen wirtschaftlich aufsteigenden Ländern gerecht werden, ohne dass ein internationaler flächendeckender militärischer Konflikt ausgelöst wird?

2. - Von Reichtum, Geld und Spekulationen zur Strukturierung des Mangels und der Armut auf der Welt und in Afrika
Reichtum ist in Fülle auf dieser Welt vorhanden und es gibt keinen ursprünglichen Grund zum Mangel und zur Armut. Wer vor allem in Afrika lebt, dem wird die verschwenderische Üppigkeit tagtäglich vor Augen geführt, sei es in den sandigen, endlosen Wüsten, in den artenreichen tropischen Wäldern, auf den unendlichen Meeren und flutenden Flüssen, unter dem mit Schätzen gefüllten Boden sowie auf der großzügigen und fruchtbaren Erde. Und überall strahlt verschwenderisches Licht, gibt erfülltes Leben und schenkt innige Freude. Man kann lachen, tanzen und danken. Wer in Afrika lebt, der bedarf keiner Statistiken um den Reichtum zu sehen, zu spüren, zu riechen, vor allem in den zentralafrikanischen Ländern. Oft drängt sich eher die Frage auf: Was haben wir eigentlich nicht in diesem unserem Land, was hätte Gott versäumt, uns zu schenken? Man schüttelt eher unverständlich den Kopf, denn unendlich viele Menschen leben in Armut, in einem vor Üppigkeit strotzendem Land wie Kamerun. Den gleichen Gegensatz kann man in so vielen anderen Ländern des Kontinents hautnah erleben, machtlos und verständnislos. Afrika steht eigentlich nicht als Ausnahme da, denn dieser Widerspruch zwischen den von der Natur geschenkten und vom Menschen erarbeiteten Reichtümern und der manchmal bitteren Armut so vieler Menschen in einem Land schockt in jedem Land, auch wenn er besonders krass an vielen Orten Afrikas in Erscheinung tritt.

Wir leben in einem Zeitalter der vom Menschen strukturierten Armut und des vom Menschen erdachten und organisierten Mangels. Wir stehen vor einer historischen Herausforderung des menschlichen Willen, des vom Menschen produzierten Irrsinns und der von der breiten Bevölkerung geforderten Gerechtigkeit in der Verteilung der Reichtümer dieser Welt. Die Frage ist nicht, ob diese Erde uns alle mit der Bevölkerungsexplosion ernähren kann und in Reichtum erhalten kann. Die Fülle ist stets vorhanden gewesen, weltweit. Die Frage ist, ob der egozentrische und sich selbstverherrlichende moderne Mensch, der geschult wurde, erst und hauptsächlich nach den Individualinteressen zu trachten, rechtzeitig zur Einsicht gebracht werden kann, dass die Sackgasse des alles für sich Heranraffens so eng geworden ist, dass eine über Nationalgrenzen flächendeckende Explosion weltweit die Fortdauer der menschlichen Gattung auf der Welt ernsthaft und nachhaltig zu gefährden droht. Kein Staat, kein Mensch steht außerhalb dieser global drohenden Gefahr des jetzigen Jahrhunderts und Jahrtausends.

Über die ständigen Reichtümer der Natur hinaus, die unter dem Boden, auf der Erdkruste, auf Meeren und Flüssen üppig vorhanden sind, hat der moderne Mensch das System des Geldverkehrs erfunden, um den Tausch in der Gesellschaft, unter den Nationen und unter Geschäftsleuten zu organisieren. Der egozentrisch denkende und wirkende Mensch gestaltet den Geldverkehr, verortet Fülle und Mangel nach seinem Gutdünken, nach seiner potentiellen überlegenen Macht des Augenblicks, er stellt sich in den Mittelpunkt des Habens und gestaltet das geltende Recht nach seinem individuellem Wohlergehen, er beschützt zuallererst jene Gruppen, die seine Macht sichern, ihm und seinem Wohlstand dienen. Das exponentielle Wachsen des Geldflusses in der Welt, anstatt den Menschen weltweit zu einem würdevollen Leben auf Erden zu verhelfen, hat eher eine menschlich unvorstellbare Geldakkumulation in den Händen von einigen winzigen Gruppen kapern lassen, die auch Staaten den politischen Kurs zur Organisation der Gesellschaft erbarmungslos diktieren, auch wenn dieses Diktat nicht immer sichtbar und einleuchtend wird. Dieser egozentrisch denkende und wirkende Mensch bestimmt den Wert des Geldes nicht nach den Gegebenheiten der von der Natur geschenkten und stabilen Reichtümer, sondern nach einem eigenen fluktuierenden System des geographisch verorteten Auf- und Abwertens, dieser Mensch entscheidet darüber, welche Arbeit welchen Geldwert an welchem Ort der Welt haben darf. Dabei hat diejenige Arbeit einen absolut höheren Wert, welche seine Macht und die Fortdauer seines erfundenen Systems sichern und ausbreiten hilft. Eine Arbeit, die ihm gar nicht dient, wird abgewertet und aus dem System geworfen. Für Menschen, die in dieser aus dem System geworfenen Arbeit sich abrackern und hart ein Überleben erkämpfen, gilt: Sie werden in bitterer Geldnot und Armut ihr Leben fristen müssen. Der so verbreitete informelle Sektor in afrikanischen Ländern, der 80-90% der arbeitenden Bürger in diesen Staaten beschäftigt, veranschaulicht glänzend diesen Zustand.

Es ist bei diesem Auf- und Abwerten des erfundenen Geldes hoch interessant zu beobachten, dass das unter dem Boden gelagerte Gold seinen Wert nicht nur erhält, sondern dieser Wert von Generation zu Generation steigt, und wenn es zu einer Finanzkrise kommt, stürzen sich gerade diese Menschen der Machtstrukturen auf das Gold zurück. Gold ist keine Erfindung des Menschen. Gold gehört zur Schöpfung, genauso wie der Mensch zur Schöpfung gehört.

Wie aus einigen Statistiken, die ich anfangs dieses Vortrages gab, herauszulesen ist, gehört der afrikanische Kontinent zu den reichsten Orten der Welt dank der Schätze unter dem Boden, auf der Erdoberfläche, auf den Meeren und Seen. In den letzten 5 bis 6 Jahrhunderten gehörte das von Sklaverei, Kolonialismus und Neokolonialismus besiegte, beherrschte und geschwächte Afrika nicht mehr sich selbst. Die grundlegende Restrukturierung des politischen und militärischen Systems führte zu einer gezwungenen Außenorientierung der Wirtschaft im Dienste der Okkupationsmächte. Die von Gott geschenkten Reichtümer in der Natur eines bestimmten afrikanischen Landes mussten nun den Weg in die Metropole der Besatzungsmacht nehmen, von Fremden verwalteter und orientierter Rohstoffexport wurde zum Hauptziel der einheimischen afrikanischen Wirtschaft, die Einfuhr verarbeiteter Industriewaren aus den Metropolen der Besatzungsmächte ergänzte das System der in Abhängigkeit haltenden Arbeitsteilung. Man kann das so kurz und bündig ausdrücken: „Ihr Afrikaner müsst verstehen und hinnehmen, das die natürlichen Reichtümer, die auf eurem Territorium sich befinden nicht euch gehören, sondern uns, den Besatzungsmächten, und nach der offiziellen Besatzung den dominierenden Mächten des industriellen Nordens. Ihr verfügt über keine anerkannte Souveränität über diese Reichtümer. Das ist die gewollte und erzwungene Ordnung der internationalen Beziehungen und ihr müsst sie so hinnehmen, sonst gibt es Krieg bei euch, und ihr werdet, wenn nötig, auch in einer internationalen militärischen Koalition niedergemetzelt werden.“

Diese lang währende und nachhaltige Niederlage der Afrikaner ermöglichte auch im 19. Jahrhundert die Einführung fremder Währungssysteme, die im ausschließlichen Dienst der Okkupationsmacht, ihres Stellvertreters oder einer der Okkupationsmacht selbst übergeordneten Struktur standen. Die fremde europäische oder von den USA gelenkte Währung organisiert das Wirtschaftssystem auf afrikanischem Boden seit über einhundert Jahren. Diese fremde Währung entscheidet über die Mechanismen der einheimischen afrikanischen Wirtschaft, sie wird auf- oder abgewertet, je nach Bedürfnissen der fremden Macht, nicht einmal nach Absprache mit dem betroffenen afrikanischen Staat – der Staatschef wird lediglich informiert. (6) Die eigentliche Zentralbank dieser Währung liegt außerhalb des afrikanischen Kontinents, die betroffenen afrikanischen Staaten verfügen über ein Konto dort und können darüber unter bestimmten Bedingungen verfügen, das Konto kann aber auch in Krisensituationen einfach gesperrt werden und das afrikanische Land wird erdrosselt, oder der störende Präsident wird abgesetzt, in die Flucht gejagt order einfach ermordet, am besten durch die Hand eines Mitbürgers.

Diese Mechanismen der Abhängigkeitshaltung und der wirtschaftlichen Unterjochung sind nicht nur der führenden Machtschicht in den jeweiligen Ländern Afrikas allmählich klar geworden, sondern auch der breiten Bevölkerung und ist regelmäßiger Diskussionsstoff auch in den Medien geworden. Die Afrikaner arbeiten seit längerem daran, eine einheitliche afrikanische Währung für den Kontinent auf die Beine zu stellen, der letzte Versuch, der mit einem afrikanischen Währungsfonds in Yaoundé 2011, einer afrikanischen Zentralbank in Abuja 2012 und einer afrikanischen Investitionsbank in Syrte scheiterte vorläufig mit der Ermordung des führenden Gestalters und Finanziers, Mohammar Gaddafi, im Oktober 2011. Gerade Gaddafi hatte eine offizielle Reserve von über 145 Tonnen Gold in der Zentralbank Lybiens (7) zusammengestellt und gedachte damit, einen entscheidenden Beitrag zur Einigung Afrikas zu leisten.

Die Abwälzung der Euro-Krise auf die afrikanischen Länder, die sich gerade im positiven Wachstum befinden, durch eine aufgezwungene eventuelle Entwertung des Francs CFA wird die afrikanische Bevölkerung und die Führungselite noch hellhöriger machen und den Unmut womöglich noch explosiver gestalten.

Die künstliche Konstruktion der Armut in Afrika und die ständigen militärischen Interventionen von außen, um den geschaffenen strukturellen Mangel kontinentalweit aufrechtzuerhalten sind erkannt worden, und diese Erkenntnis gefährdet ernsthaft die reibungslose Kontinuität des ungerechten Systems. Es ist bekannt, dass Afrika seit der Sklaverei, dem Kolonialismus und Neokolonialismus die militärische, politische und wirtschaftliche Schlacht verloren hat, dass der Hauptwiderstand aber in der Kultur währen konnte. Wie sieht heute der Ansturm auf diese afrikanische Kultur aus, auf diese so bewährte Hochburg?

3. - Kultur und Religion: von der Verwurzelung religiösen Glaubens in Afrika zur Planung eines 3. Weltkrieges
„Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft“, schrieb ich auf dem Titelblatt meines Buches. In Cotonou sagte Papst Benedikt XVI.: „Die Zukunft wurzelt in der Vergangenheit und in der Gegenwart“, und suchte einen Dialog der Religionen in einem Land mit überwiegender Voodoo-Tradition. Gerade die Entdeckung oder das neue Aufleben der afrikanischen Vergangenheit, Tradition, Kultur und Religion rückt immer stärker in den Mittelpunkt des afrikanischen Alltags. Im Westen Kameruns, z.B. bei den Bamilekes, ist in diesem November wieder die Zeit der „Funérailles“, der Anrufung der in den Tod Vorausgegangenen gekommen. In puren afrikanischen Glaubensritualen werden die in den Tod gerufene Verwandtschaft mit den Lebenden intensiv in Verbindung gebracht, und die Anrufenden gehören allen heutigen Glaubensrichtungen an, ob Moslems, Christen - außer den Zeugen Jehovas und den Pfingstlern -, ob Anhängern afrikanischer Religionen. Auf der Suche nach der afrikanischen Vergangenheit, Spiritualität und Identität ist auch diese Diskussion aufgetaucht: „Wie war es mit dem Glauben, mit der Religion in Afrika vor zweitausend Jahren, vor dem Christentum, vor dem Islam, wie war es vor 5.000 Jahren zur Zeit der Blüte des schwarzen Altägyptens, wie war es vor 10.000 Jahren, zur Zeit der pliozänen und quartären Pluvialzeiten der Sahara (8), also zur Zeit der biblischen Sintflut Noahs, wie war es mit dem Glauben und der Religion vor 32.000 Jahren, als die Menschheit hauptsächlich aus Schwarzen bestand, wie war es in diesem Afrika, der Wiege der Menschheit vor 150.000 Jahren, als der ‚Homo Sapiens’ seine ersten Schritte auf dieser Erde machte ?“ (9) In diesem Afrika im Aufbruch wird der Beitrag Afrikas zu den Weltreligionen hinterfragt, das Buch Enochs des Äthiopiers, das 9.000 Jahre vor Christus verfasst wurde und aus dem Jesus Christus selbst auswendig zitierte, wird von Afrikanern heute zur Diskussion gestellt (10). „Guter“, „richtiger“ Glaube konnte nur aus dem Ausland kommen, weit weg von Afrika, so wurde es den Gläubigen Afrikas im letzten Jahrhundert in den Moscheen und in den Kirchen eingehämmert. Nun drängt sich aber die afrikanische uralte religiöse Vergangenheit seit Menschengedenken auf, und es wird eindeutig, dass gerade Afrika Mutter des Glaubens und der Religion mit schriftlichen Texten ist, mehrere Jahrtausende vor den beiden in Afrika importierten Weltreligionen Islam und Christentum.

„Afrika ist im Aufbruch“, Krieg wird aber angesagt, Krieg der Religionen zwischen Christentum und Islam auf afrikanischem Boden. „Marshallplan oder Internationaler Notplan zur Bekämpfung des Fortschreitens des radikalen Islams und des iranischen Einflusses auf Nordafrika und im Mittleren Osten“ liest man, oder „Kampf gegen Islam: Israel handelt in Afrika“. (11) Auf der christlichen Seite entwickelt sich ein radikales Christentum, importiert aus den USA. Der einflussreiche Pastor Rod Parsley der „World Harvest Church“ aus Colombus in den USA, der vom Präsidentschaftskandidaten Mc Cain als „spiritueller Lehrer“ und Berater betrachtet wurde, schrieb in seinem Buch „The 2005 Silent No More“ vom notwendigen Krieg zwischen Christentum und Islam, den er als Religion des Anti-Christen oder als falsche Religion brandmarkte. Er fordert die USA auf, den Islam auszulöschen. Er geht sogar soweit zu behaupten, die Daseinsberechtigung der USA bestünde zum Teil darin, den Islam völlig aus der Welt zu schaffen. (12) In diesem Verständnis entstand auch der Begriff „Achse des Bösen“, der 11. September sollte als Auftakt zum Weltuntergang und zur Einrichtung des Reich Gottes sein, wobei der von George W. Busch ausgelöste Krieg gegen den Irak als eine der Hauptstufen zu verstehen war. (13) Dies alles wirft uns auf die Zeit der Kreuzzüge zurück, wo im Namen Christi, Päpste zum Mord gegen Andersgläubige aufriefen und dennoch heiliggesprochen wurden. Papst Urban II., der am 27. November 1095 zum 1. Kreuzzug aufrief, oder Martin Luther fünf Jahrhunderte später in seiner „Heerpredigt wider den Türken“ aus dem Jahre 1529 stehen als gute Beispiele für diesen gesegneten Kampf gegen den Islam. (14) Im Koran und vor allem im Leben des Propheten Mohamed suchen Anhänger des Jihads Basisrechtfertigungen für den Kampf gegen Andersgläubige:

“The suras or chapters in the Koran were transcribed first in Mecca and then in Medina. In Mecca Muhammed courted the Jews but in Medina, after they failed to accept Muhammed as their last Prophet he turned on them. Ibn Ishaq, in the first biography about Muhammed wrote as follows about the surrender of the Jews at B. Qurayza; " Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al -Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in these trenches as they were brought to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka'b b Assad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all although some put the figure as high as 800". This biography of Muhammed was written by a Muslim about one hundred years after Muhammed’s death.” (15)

Der radikale Islam der Gegenwart wird deutlich durch den Brief von Osama Bin Laden an Amerika vom 24. November 2002 (Ladenise Epistle) grundlegend erklärt. Im Namen des Allmächtigen und Gütigen Allah soll der Kampf gegen Anhänger des Irrglaubens und des Bösen, d.h. gegen Juden und Christen aufgenommen und zum Sieg geführt werden.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39] "Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76] Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him. (16)

Jeder beansprucht Gott für sich, exklusiv, um den anderen zu bekriegen und zu töten. In Nigeria tobt seit Jahren schon ein Krieg zwischen Christen und Moslems, und die “Born Again Christians” und „Boko-Haram“ Gruppen verunsichern das Land im Namen Allahs oder im Namen Jesu Christi. (17)

Die Instrumentalisierung des Gottesglaubens verdeckt rein irdische, wirtschaftliche, weltpolitische und geostrategische Ziele eines Machtmonopols. Im Ost-Westkonflikt wurden Stellvertreterkriege vor allem in Afrika, Lateinamerika und Asien geführt, sie tobten woanders, aber nicht in den Metropolen der beiden Blöcke selbst, wo ein Scheinfriede im „Gleichgewicht des Schreckens“ herrschte. Mit der Invasion der US-Armee im Irak greift eine Koalition der führenden reichen Staaten ein Land des Südens direkt an. Dies wurde in Côte d’Ivoire gegen Präsident Laurent Gbagbo und in Lybien gegen Muammar Gaddafi 2011 fortgeführt. Die Hinrichtung von Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan 2011, der angekündigte Krieg gegen Syrien unter Baschir El Assad und gegen den Iran unter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reihen sich auch in diese Logik. (18) Der reiche Norden beansprucht in einer Staatenkoalition das internationale nukleare Gewaltmonopol, die widerspruchslose Entscheidungsmacht über die Reichtümer der Welt unter dem Boden, auf der Erdoberfläche, auf den Seen und Meeren, auf den anderen Sternsystemen außerhalb des Planeten Erde, und dieses reiche Staatenkartell kämpft erbittert darum, das Finanzsystem der Welt maßgeblich kontrollieren zu können. Mit militärischer Macht durch postmoderne Waffensysteme, die kaum Eigenschaden verursachen aber verheerendes Leid und totale Zerstörung beim Feind vor allem in der Südhemisphäre verursachen, ist diese reiche Staatenkoalition des Nordens bemüht, die Reichtümer Gottes auf der Welt und das vom Mensch erfundene Geldsystem in ihren Händen exklusiv zu kontrollieren. Dabei wird Glaube und Irrglaube ins Spiel gebracht, auf der oft ehrlichen Suche nach Gott. Menschen niedermetzeln sich in feindselig gestalteten religiösen Gruppen gegenseitig. Und jeder gibt an, in Gottes Auftrag und gottgerecht zu handeln, Menschenmassen rufen Gott gegen den Feind, Einzelne opfern tiefgläubig ihr Leben im Heldentod auf und erhoffen sich das Gotteshaus im Jenseits. Aber gerade in diesem Prozess des Krieges bereichert sich fast grenzenlos eine winzig kleine Gruppe von Menschen, die Reichtümer Gottes und das Geldsystem für sich erfolgreich gekapert und in eigenen Händen noch stärker konzentriert hat. Elend, Armut und Mangel breiten sich dann noch schlimmer aus, krass in den verwüsteten Ländern, aber auch sichtlich in den Zentren eines ungleichen Wohlstands. Wir stehen vor der Tür eines 3. Weltkrieges und wollen es nicht wahrhaben, solange er nicht vor der eigenen Haustür schon tobt. Ähnlich wie in der Zeit vor dem 2. Weltkrieg erleben wir genau begrenzte Blitzkriege, diesmal von einer Koalition von militärisch stark überlegenen Staaten gegen einen ganz bestimmten kleinen und militärisch schwachen Staat (Irak, Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Libyen). Nur, wie lange noch wird diese vereinte Blitzkriegsstrategie erfolgreich währen, ohne einen umfassenden, weltweiten Krieg auszulösen?

„Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft“. Durchschaut man diese Piraterie der von Gott für die gesamte Menschheit geschenkte Fülle durch eine winzig kleine aber höchst organisierte Gruppe von Menschen, die Armut und Mangel weltweit nachhaltig gestalten und als Massendestruktive Waffen erbarmungslos gebrauchen (19), und dies um allein in einem unnötig überflüssigen Wohlstand zu verharren, durchschaut man die lange Geschichte des Glaubens an den obersten und einzigen Schöpfer seit Geburt der Menschheit in Afrika, und genauer seit dem Homo Sapiens vor 150.000 Jahren, durchschaut man den Machthunger von Menschen, die andere auch in Gottes Namen auf jeden Fall unter ihre exklusive Führung zu zwingen trachten, so drängt sich folgender Appell auf:

„Die von Gott gegebene Fülle auf jeder Ecke der Welt ist sichtbar. Der blind gewordene und herumirrende, aber vor Arroganz und Selbstgenügsamkeit strotzende Mensch, der diese Fülle nicht mehr wahrnimmt und übersieht, lebt in der Überzeugung, dass nur, indem er dem Anderen das ihm von Gott Geschenkte weg raubt, er selbst dann zu Wohlstand und Reichtum gelangt. Aber Fülle ist sichtbar überall, spürbar, greifbar, in Afrika erst recht gehört dies zur Alltagserfahrung. Wir Menschen des 21. Jahrhunderts stehen vor der dringenden Notwendigkeit, zur Bescheidenheit zurückzufinden und Gottes Liebe und Wille auf Erden walten zu lassen, damit Er sein Werk vollendet, in Gerechtigkeit und Würde für alle Menschen. Wir sollten uns dahin bemühen, und den drohenden 3. Weltkrieg noch rechtzeitig stoppen.“ Douala/Frankfurt, den 25. November 2011
Fußnoten:

(1) Teil I: Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft, Douala/Bayreuth, 11.11.2011 (Zukunftsforum Wissenschaft – Kultur- Gesellschaft/ Stadt Bayreuth und Universität Bayreuth - Institut für Afrikastudien (IAS), ÜberMorgen – Trendsetter Afrika, in: www.africavenir.org; www.exchange-dialogue.com
(2) Ansprache von Papst Benedikt XVI. in Benin beim Treffen mit zivilen und religiösen Führungspersönlichkeiten, in: ZENIT, die Welt von Rom aus gesehen, ZG11111901 - 19.11.2011, http://www.zenit.org/article-24054?l=german
(3) Kum’a Ndumbe III., Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft – An die Mitbürger der Einen Welt im anbrechenden 21.Jahrhundert – herausfordernde Reden zur Begegnung, Band II, Verlag AfricAvenir/Exchange & Dialogue; Berlin/Douala, 2006
(4)Titelblatt des Spiegels : Elends-Kontinent Afrika. Rettung durch die Weißen? Nr. 51/1992, 14.12.1992
(5) Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft, Rede vor der Universität Bayreuth anlässlich des Symposiums „ÜberMorgen- Trendsetter Afrikas“, am 11.11.2011, in: www.africavenir.org, www.exchange-dialogue.com
(6) Der Franc CFA (ursprünglich Comptoirs Français d’Afrique, dann Colonies Françaises d’Afrique, also Französische Niederlassungen in Afrika, dann Französische Kolonien Afrikas) wurde 1994 von Frankreich abgewertet, die afrikanischen Staatsoberhäupter wurden lediglich auf einer Versammlung informiert, dasselbe soll für die Entwertung ab 1. Januar 2012 gelten, denn nach Medienberichten werden zur Zeit die afrikanischen Staatschefs einzeln informiert. Siehe hierzu: Les malheurs continuent sous Ouattara : Le Franc CFA dévalué le 1er janvier 2012, in : http://news.abidjan.net/h/417231.html. Diese Meldung hat sich jedoch nicht bestätigt.
(7) Le Monde 9 Sept 2011, http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/09/08/kadhafi-a-vendu-20-de-l-or-libyen-avant-sa-fuite_1569585_1496980.html
(8) Büdel, Julius, Die pliozänen und quartären Pluvialzeiten in der Sahara. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, Band 14, 1963
(9) Zu dieser Diskussion, siehe u.a. Kum’a Ndumbe III, L’Afrique s’annonce au rendez-vous, la tête haute! 2è édition, Ed. AfricAvenir/Exchange & Dialogue, Douala/Berlin/Wien 2011 ; Jean Philippe Omotunde, « Hymnes et Prières KAMITS », vol. 7, Ed. Menaibuc, Paris 2009, Doumbi Fakoly, les chemins de la Maât, Ed. Menaibuc, Paris, 2008
(10) Ronald K. Brown, The Book of Enoch, GBTS Press, San Antonio, Texas, 1998 ; Jovanovic, P., Bruyant, A. M., Enoch – Dialogue avec Dieu et les Anges, Le Jardin des Livres, Paris, 2002; Indus Khamit Cush; Enoch, The Ethiopian: The Lost Prophet Of The Bible: Greater Than Abraham, Holier Than Moses, A&B Publishers Group, Brooklyn, New York, 2000
(11) "Plan MARSHALL" ou plan international d'urgence pour empêcher la progression de l'Islam radical et l'influence iranienne en Afrique du Nord et au Proche-Orient ?; in http://lessakele.over-blog.fr/article-plan-marshall-ou-plan-international-d-urgence-pour-empecher-la-progression-de-l-islam-radical-et-l-influence-iranienne-en-afrique-du-nord-et-au-proche-orient-68893545.html; Lutte contre l’Islam : Israël agit en Afrique, 16 Nov. 2011, in www.israel7.com/2011/11/lutte-contre-l’islam-israel-agit-en-afrique
(12) Vgl. PressTV-Sendung von Rod Parsley vom 13. März 2008, dazu: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=47232
(13) Dazu ausführlich die Arte Sendung „De la croisade à la contrition“ mit dem Videofilm in 4 Teilen „George W. Bush sous l’emprise de Dieu“ und Olivier Bombarda : « Depuis toujours en Amérique, christianisme et nouvel ordre mondial sont étroitement liés. Vivre les utopies, concrétiser les idéaux libéraux et les exporter vers les autres pays – voilà le projet des Américains. Les Etats-Unis se considèrent comme le « God’s own country » et la mission de George W. Bush, libérer l’Irak de Saddam Hussein par la violence, fait partie de son devoir chrétien d’améliorer le monde. » ; in : http://raton-laveur-l-aigle.hautetfort.com/evangeliques-et-usa/
(14) Die Päpste des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit sahen im Islam eine Bedrohung der weltweiten kirchlichen Macht, die man durch Krieg bekämpfen müsse. So rief Papst Urban II. am 27. November 1095 zum ersten Kreuzzug auf, um das Christentum im Nahen Osten von der Herrschaft der Moslems zu befreien. Papst Urban II. wurde 1881 von Papst Leo XIII. selig gesprochen. Bedeutsam für die Kirche ist auch Papst Innozenz III., der 1098 zum vierten Kreuzzug und 1215 zum fünften Kreuzzug aufrief. Er forderte auch auf, alle christlichen Abweichler vom Katholizismus zu ermorden und rief deshalb auch zum Kreuzzug gegen die urchristlichen Katharer auf (1209-1229), die auf päpstliches Geheiß im Laufe der Jahre allesamt umgebracht wurden. Die Leiche des Papstes, der eines natürlichen Todes starb, wird seit 1891 in der Kirche San Giovanni in Laterano in Rom von den Gläubigen verehrt.

Auch Martin Luther sah, wie die Päpste, im Islam der türkischen Osmanen die große Bedrohung für das kirchenchristliche Abendland. Er predigte deshalb im Jahr 1529: "... weil die Christen ... ein jeglicher von seiner Obrigkeit, zum Streit wider die Türken gefordert und berufen werden, sollen sie tun als die treuen und gehorsamen Untertanen (wie sie denn gewisslich tun, so sie rechte Christen sind) und mit Freuden die Faust regen und getrost dreinschlagen, morden, rauben und Schaden tun so viel sie immer mögen, weil sie eine Ader regen können ... werden sie darüber erschlagen, wohlan, so sind sie nicht allein Christen, sondern auch gehorsame, treue Untertanen gewesen, die Leib und Gut in Gottes Gehorsam bei ihren Oberherrn zugesetzt haben. Selig und heilig sind sie ewiglich ..." (Eine Heerpredigt wider den Türken, D. Mar. Luther. Anno 1529; Tomos 4, S. 494 b-496), zitiert aus:
Kirche, kirchliches Christentum und Islam, in: « Der Theologe », Nr. 36, http://www.theologe.de/kirche_islam.htm
(15) G. Richard Jansen, Two Religious Wars, 400 Years Apart - 1517-1651; 1922 –Today, Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80521, January 25, 2007,in: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/two_religious_wars.html
(16) Zum « Brief an Amerika » von Bin Laden: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, vollständig in: The Guardian, 24 Nov. 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/the Observer
(17) Vgl. Nigeria Christian / Muslim Conflict, in: Global Security, 11-07-2011 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm;Vgl auch The Rise of Boko Haram, Why the Christmas Day bombings in Nigeria could be the harbinger of much worse to come, by David Francis, December 28, 2011, in: Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/27/the_rise_of_boko_haram
(18) über solche politische Morde siehe : Etienne Dubuis, L’assassinat des dirigeants étrangers par les Etats-Unis – Un siècle au service de la puissance américaine, Ed. Favre, Lausanne, 2011
(19) Jean Ziegler, Destruction massive – Géopolitique de la faim, Seuil, Paris 2011

Lettre du Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III au Synode Général de l’Eglise Evangélique du Cameroun 2012

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:19:00 +0100

A l'occasion du 56è synode de l'Eglise Evangélique du Cameroun du 1er au 3 mars 2012 à Douala, le Prince Kum'a Ndumbe III interpelle dans une lettre les chrétiens, mais aussi les autres croyants pour une réflexion profonde sur les débuts du christianisme au Cameroun, sur la relation avec la spiritualité profonde de l'Afrique depuis Enoch, sur le déluge de Noé et les rapports entre Jésus Christ et l'Afrique. Des révélations inédites. Lettre de Bonabéri, 22 février 2012

A mes chers frères, à mes chères sœurs en Christ,

Je vous souhaite la bienvenue sur la terre de nos ancêtres, ici à Cameroons Town, rebaptisé Douala en 1901, et à Hickorytown devenu Bona Bele, Bonabedi, francisé en Bonabéri. Que le séjour de nos pasteurs, de nos fidèles et de tous ceux qui accompagnent ce synode général soit imbibé de l’esprit saint et empreint d’une profonde spiritualité.

Nos pionniers
Le message de Jésus Christ n’est arrivé que très récemment au Cameroun, quand le 6 novembre 1843 les Noirs de la Jamaïque Joseph Merrick, Prince et Alexander Fuller débarquèrent à Cameroons Town ( Douala), avant d’aller s’installer à Bimbia, alors sous le règne de King William, dès le 10 avril 1844. Venant de la Jamaïque et avant de partir de l’Angleterre pour le Cameroun, Merrick, théologien, linguiste et anthropologue de la Baptist Missionary Society écrira en août 1844 : « Le seul mot Afrique touche une fibre dans le plus profond de mon être. Etant moi-même africain d’origine, je suis fier de cette parenté…Il m’est impossible de penser à ce pays sans sérieusement vouloir que l’Evangile qui contient la Bonne Nouvelle de grande joie, soit annoncée à travers ce continent, de long en large. » Ces Noirs vont donc introduire le christianisme au Cameroun, mais aussi l’école moderne, l’imprimerie, l’édition et l’évangélisation. Après la mort de Joseph Merrick le 22 octobre 1849, Alfred Saker, d’abord mécanicien et conducteur de bateau, puis aide missionnaire encore en 1848, prendra la relève avec les Tobbo Deido, Josué Dibundu et Adolphe Lotin Samé en créant la Native Baptist Church de Béthel à Akwa, en novembre 1849, native pour insister sur l’origine africaine de cette église. Le roi Mbap’a Bedi (Priso Bell) cédera du terrain pour une station de l’église à Bonabéri en 1864, sous l’impulsion du Noir de Jamaïque J. J. Fuller et des missionnaires Joseph Dybol, Robert Smith et des anciens de l’église George Nkwe et Angwa . Les premiers baptisés seront Henry Fuller, Ngungu de Bonendale, Robert Dibaso, Toko’a Munjonge, suivront Mikano’a Bulu (Green Joss Bell), Dybol Eleme Ekambi, John’a Musongo et Kum, fils de Lock Priso (Kum’a Mbape). Doo’a Bedi ((Bul’a Makolo du nom de sa maman), rentrant de Bimbia où il avait laissé le missionnaire Fuller, donnera le nom de Fuller à son enfant qu’il trouvera déjà né de son épouse Mbondi à son retour, pour pérenniser cette amitié avec le Jamaïcain. En effet, les Duala emprunteront aux Subu (Bimbia) le mot « Obbase » (Loba, Nyambe), qui deviendra « Ebasi », église en duala.

Grâce aux efforts conjugués de Merrick, Saker, George Nkwe, la traduction de la bible en duala sera achevée en 1872. Elle sera améliorée plus tard par Mbende Ngando, Dinckelacker, Paul Helmlinger, etc. Ce n’est qu’après la conférence de Berlin de 1884/85 que les Anglais de la BMS se retireront pour laisser la place aux missionnaires de Bâle en Suisse, envoyés par le chancelier Bismarck. Débarqueront ainsi au Cameroun le 23 décembre 1886 les missionnaires de la Suisse allemanique Munz, Dilger, Johannes Bizer et Friedrich Becher, et le Jamaïcain Fuller rentrera en Angleterre en 1887.

Quand les baptistes insisteront qu’ils ne peuvent pas baptiser les bébés, comme le font les missionnaires de Bâle, la séparation avec ceux qui seront désormais de la mission de Bâle (Basel), donc de l’Eglise évangélique, sera consommée en 1887. Le pasteur Dibundu continuera avec les fondements de l’église baptiste à Akwa, Bonabéri et à Victoria, certains catéchistes rejoindront la mission de Bâle : Epe’a Kwan, Johannes Deibol, David Mandessi Bell, Bebe’a Ndumb’a Loba, Ngango’a Itondo (père de Martin Itondo), Filip Ekam Ekanga, Wud’a Njombe, Benjamin Etond’Ewese, etc. Les premières femmes anciennes de l’église seront Rebeka Ebenye (épouse Henry Fuller Ngungu), Bwele (mère du pasteur Johannes Deibol), Mariam (épouse Robert Dibaso), O’o (épouse John’a Musongo), Senje (épse Mikano Bulu), Elong’a Fula (épse Fuller Bulu), etc. Les pasteurs Modi Din, Joseph Ekollo et d’autres demeureront de grands pionniers pour l’accueil de l’Evangile au Cameroun.

Une arrivée bien tardive de l’Evangile au Cameroun
1843-2012: il y a 169 ans que les Jamaïcains apportèrent l’Evangile de Jésus Christ au Cameroun. Comment sommes-nous restés au Cameroun ignorants de ce message de Jésus pendant plus de 1800 ans, quand on sait que Jésus est venu en Afrique dès ses premiers jours, qu’il y a grandi, que la sainte famille est allée jusqu’au Lac Tana en Ethiopie, que Jésus Christ en prêchant citait par cœur des passages du livre d’Enoch, un Noir d’Ethiopie qui avait écrit son livre saint 9.000 avant la naissance de Jésus Christ, donc 40 à 80 ans avant le déluge dont Noé fut sauvé, bien avant la Genèse qui date de 1400 ans seulement avant Jésus-Christ ? Savons-nous encore que le déluge s’est passé en grande partie au Sahara actuel, allant jusqu’au nord Cameroun et que l’eau du déluge existe encore dans les sous-sols et était exploitée par la Libye au temps de Khadafi? Sommes-nous, chrétiens d’Afrique, conscients que le livre d’Enoch, l’Ethiopien, fut enlevé du canon biblique grâce à l’influence de l’évêque italien Filastrius de Brescia mort en 398 ? Et savons-nous que 80 passages du Livre d’Enoch l’Ethiopien, se retrouvent dans les quatre Evangiles du Nouveau Testament, et 309 passages dans l’ensemble de la Bible ? Ne l’oublions pas, d’Enoch, le Noir d’Ethiopie, il est écrit : « C’est par la foi qu’Enoch fut enlevé pour qu’il ne vît point la mort, et qu’il ne parut plus parce que Dieu l’avait enlevé ; car avant son enlèvement, il avait reçu le message qu’il était agréable à Dieu. » (Epître de Paul aux Hébreux, 11:5). Le chrétien camerounais que nous sommes parle d’Israël, mais ignore souvent la proximité entre Israël et l’Ethiopie. Quand on parle de la reine de Saba qui rend visite au roi Salomon, (1 Rois 10,2 Chroniques 9, Matthieu 12,42, Luc 2, 31, Cantique des cantiques 1, 1-6) beaucoup ignorent qu’il s’agit de la reine Makéda d’Ethiopie qui lors de son voyage tomba enceinte de Salomon qui avait sept cent princesses de différentes nations comme femmes et trois cent concubines, et dont un fils naquît, David II, nommé Ménélik, qui devint le roi d’Ethiopie en installant une dynastie qui dura jusqu’à Haïlé Sélassié Ier comme 225è roi de cette dynastie du Lion de Judas, en 1975. Et que dire de l’eunuque, intendant de la Reine Candace d’Ethiopie, venu en pèlerinage à Jérusalem, à qui Philippe annonce la Bonne Nouvelle, et qui réagit spontanément en disant : « Voici de l’eau. Qu’est-ce qui empêche que je sois baptisé ?...Et il fît arrêter le char, ils descendirent tous les deux dans l’eau, Philippe avec l’eunuque, et il le baptisa » (Actes, 8, 26-38). Le christianisme déclaré religion d’Etat en Ethiopie en 330 après Jésus-Christ, fera de l’Eglise d’Ethiopie, d’origine apostolique (St Mathias qui a remplacé Judas au collège des apôtres) la plus ancienne église chrétienne du monde après celle de Jérusalem. Quand ferons-nous, Camerounais, le pèlerinage pour aller visiter les 120 églises souterraines taillées dans du roc pour protéger les chrétiens des armées de la reine Yodit (Gudit, Judith), défenseur acharné du Judaïsme en Ethiopie au 9è siècle ? Aujourd’hui, en 2012, les 11 églises du Roi Lalibela et les 120 églises dans le Tigré sont placées sous la protection de l’UNESCO comme patrimoine de l’humanité. Il est temps qu’au Cameroun, dans nos églises, pasteurs et laïcs retrouvent les fondements africains de la Bible pour l’interpréter sans déstabiliser notre peuple et sans le détourner de lui-même.

Que la lumière divine nous entoure et nous éclaire tout au long des travaux de ce 56è synode général de l’Eglise Evangélique du Cameroun.

Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III
Professeur des Universités

Kwame Opoku: Affirmations and Declarations: Review of James Cuno’s Museums Matter

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:41:00 +0100

In this article, Kwame Opoku reviews the latest book by James Cuno "Museums Matter - In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum". Cuno, he writes, has clearly and consciously decided not to tackle any of the issues relating to the acquisition, possession or ownership of cultural property of others since this has earned him in the past a whole lot of criticism from scholars everywhere. One cannot criticize an author for not writing on a particular subject. But if an author writes a book In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum, can he honestly ignore a salient aspect of the universal museum, namely, the acquisition and the possession of cultural artefacts from the different cultures of the world? “Enlightenment philosophy was instrumental in codifying and institutionalizing both the scientific and popular European perceptions of the human race. The numerous writings on race by Hume, Kant and Hegel played a strong role in articulating Europe's sense not only of its cultural but also racial superiority.”
E. Chukwudi Eze, Race and Enlightenment. (1)

When Dr. James Cuno, former Director of the Art Institute of Chicago and now President and Chief Executive Officer of the J. Paul Getty Trust, published his book, Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, in 2009 (2) David Gill wrote that Cuno had not given himself sufficient time to respond to the various serious criticisms that had been made against his earlier books, especially as regards the universal/encyclopaedic museum in its acquisition, possession and ownership of looted/stolen/confiscated artefacts.(3) Some thought that Cuno had adopted a policy not to enter into any form of dialogue with his critics hence the repetition of views that had been heavily criticized, without the least attempt to answer them. Some may have seen this as a sign of contempt for his critics and a mark of arrogance. (4) Cuno has now published Museums Matter - In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum. (5)

After an introduction, the author deals successively with, the Enlightenment Museum, the Discursive Museum, the Cosmopolitan Museum and the Imperial Museum and ends with an epilogue. Cuno has clearly and consciously decided not to tackle any of the issues relating to the acquisition, possession or ownership of cultural property of others since this has earned him in the past a whole lot of criticism from scholars everywhere. One cannot criticize an author for not writing on a particular subject. But if an author writes a book In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum, can he honestly ignore a salient aspect of the universal museum, namely, the acquisition and the possession of cultural artefacts from the different cultures of the world? David Gill has remarked:

A browse suggests that Cuno has chosen to sidestep one of the most pressing issues for so-called encyclopedic museums in North America, Europe and Japan: the acquisition of newly surfaced antiquities. The "Medici Conspiracy" has brought about the return of some 130 antiquities to Italy from North American collections. How have these high profile encylopedic museums damaged the reputation of museums in general? (6)

Without the presence of such artefacts, the universal museums, such as British Museum, the Louvre, the Völkerkunde Museum, Vienna, the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin, the Art Institute of Chicago etc, lose their most attractive characteristic. Could they even pretend to be universal or encyclopaedic? But as it soon becomes clear, the author cannot totally avoid referring to the presence of these objects if he is to talk about universal museums, if he is to make any comparisons between cultural objects from different cultures. What he tries to do is to avoid discussion in any detail of how foreign artefacts came to the universal museums. This is the kind of question that springs to the mind whenever a foreign object is seen in these museums. Even a child would ask how these heavy Egyptian mummies came to the museum. How did the mighty statute of Ramses II come into the British Museum, seeing the size of the statue?

In explaining the origin of the objects, the author is forced to give a very misleading account and if possible, to avoid any discussion on the legality or morality of the acquisition, possession and retention by the museum. Take for example what Dr.Cuno says about a Benin bronze of a Warrior Chief in possession of his former institution, the Art Institute of Chicago:

“Take the plaque shown in figure 5, it was forcibly removed from the West African kingdom of Benin in 1897 by British troops seeking retribution for the deaths of their colleagues.” (7)

An uninformed reader might think that a group of soldiers had gone out on a Saturday night, perhaps drinking, and some of their comrades had been killed in a brawl in Benin and decided to seek revenge by taking whatever valuable objects they could find. Cuno, as well as all those Western writers who give misleading accounts of this nefarious aggression by Britain against the Benin kingdom have their own reasons. It was one of those shameful and criminal events of British imperialistic adventures in Africa and they would like to hide it if possible but they cannot because anytime you show the Benin bronzes the story comes up.

The truth is that the British had determined long before 1897 that the Oba of Benin who was resisting the imposition of British rule in his kingdom had to go. They had calculated that the artworks in the king’s palace would be enough to cover expenses of military operation. A first attempt by the so-called Pre-emptive Forces had failed when the King of Benin and his army got wind of the imminent attack. Under the pretext of visiting the king who had advised them not to come, the army of 129 soldiers and officers set off for Benin City. They were attacked and many killed. Britain then sent a larger army. The so-called Punitive Expedition which captured Benin treasures, killed Benin nobles, men, women and children and burnt Benin City. (8) Further comments by Cuno on this plaque are all tendentious:

“The Benin kingdom was a war faring power, and war was the force behind its empire building from the second half of the fifteenth century until the conquest by the British four hundred years later. This plaque was no stranger to violence - not in its production through fire, its role in a bellicose culture, nor the confrontation with another empire that led to its removal (one empire confronting the remnants of another).” (9) These phrases, “war faring power”, “bellicose culture”, “war was the force behind its empire building” clearly indicate the prejudiced views of Cuno and a determination to justify the British invasion of Benin and the looting of the artefacts that are now in Western museums, including the Art Institute of Chicago and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The author seems to be saying that war was the usual business of Benin and so if the Edo people lost their power and artefacts to another empire, there is no much ground to feel sorry. The Benin culture becomes here “bellicose culture.” These phrases coming from a Westerner, from a country much involved in the war business can lead to very fruitful reflections. Can Cuno mention one single empire in the history of humankind in the past or at present that did not rely on military force to maintain itself? Where are the non-bellicose cultures? Clearly not in those countries that have been involved for centuries in slave trade and subjugation of non-Western peoples. The destruction of the Benin kingdom which had existed for four centuries is described by Cuno as “removal.” The British travelled all the way from Europe to Africa, bringing war to Benin just as they did in Magdala (Ethiopia) in 1868, and in Kumasi (Ghana) in 1874 but are not described as war-faring. The victim of British aggression is presented as a nation addicted to war. Cuno is here reflecting the prejudice imbedded in Western intellectual tradition which often defeats common sense. As indicated by the sub-title of the book, In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum, Cuno sets out in this book to show us or rather tell us how beneficial the concept of the universal museum or the encyclopaedic museum has been and why there should be more of such museums:

“If encyclopedic museums hold the promise I believe they do - that from curiosity come tolerance and understanding - we should encourage their creation everywhere. Without such institutions, one risks a hardening of views about one’s own, particular culture as being pure. essential, and organic, something into which one is born, something one cannot change or rise above through exercise of free will and reason. The collective, political risk of not having encyclopedic museums everywhere possible - in Shanghai, Lagos, Cairo, Delhi and all other major metropoles - is that culture becomes fixed national culture, with all the dangers entailed by fragmentation of humanity that Sternhell describes”. (10)

After telling us, page after page, that the universal museum is good for all countries, Cuno warns that without such an institution there is a danger that we may come to believe that our particular culture is “pure, essential, and organic, something into which one is born, something one cannot change”. But is there any truth in all this? I never saw or visited any of the so-called universal museums before I was nineteen but I was fully aware that my own culture was not the only one in the world in so far as my mother and father had different languages and different cultures, in addition to recognizing various different cultural manifestations everyday. Cuno’s African friends could have told him that most Africans move through different cultures everyday. We do not know where Cuno and his friends got this idea that some people believe that their cultures are ”pure”, uninfluenced by any other culture. Certainly, none of those writing about culture or claiming the return of their looted/stolen cultural objects makes this argument; it appears to have been invented to make those claiming cultural objects appear to be dangerous elements, out of touch with history and reality. An alleged “purity” of culture has never been an argument in recent discussions. For Africans, it is easily acknowledged that the impact of Europe, since contact in the fifteenth century and especially since colonialism has been remarkable.

Surely, if there are dangers of fragmentation in the African countries, this is not due to the absence of universal museums but largely due to the absence of strong national cohesion, the nationalism that appears to be anathema to Cuno and others if it rears its head anywhere outside the Western world where nationalism reigns supreme despite all protestations to the contrary.

Having decided not to write about the acquisition, possession and control of artefacts from other cultures in the universal museums, Cuno can ignore the histories of acquisition and even dare to suggest we build universal museums in places such as Lagos, Cairo, Delhi etc. The author does not need to take into account that many Nigerian artefacts, including the Benin Bronzes, and others are in foreign museums, mostly in the universal museums. How could Nigeria acquire artefacts from the Western world? With military force as was the case in the British invasion of Benin? Cuno had previously denied that there was any link between the British, French and other empires on the one hand, and the universal museums on the other hand. Cuno now admits, as we shall see later, that there are links between colonial empire and the universal museum but he does not specify what these links are. Moreover, he has not explicitly or implicitly admitted that those links allowed the museums to acquire more artefacts. Not dealing with acquisition of artefacts. he does not have to deal with such links here but the British Museum, Louvre, Ethnology Museum, Berlin, Ethnology Museum, Vienna, have all acknowledged that without colonialism they would not now be in possession of many cultural artefacts. Even the British Museum which is the example par excellence of the so-called encyclopaedic museum has admitted at various instances the connection between its large collection and the imperial connection. David M. Wilson declared in The Collections of the British Museum as follows: “The Asante's skill in casting gold by the lost-wax method, and the use of elaborately worked gold to adorn the king and his servants is represented by many superb pieces which came to the Museum after British military intervention in Asante in 1874, 1896 and 1900″. (11)

Cuno declares at the beginning of his section on the Enlightenment Museum that: “The encyclopedic museum is a modern institution, born of the intellectual ferment of early modern Europe. Its founders were figures of the Enlightenment, confident in the promise of reasoned inquiry and deeply sceptical of received and unverifiable truths.”(12) Later on Dr. Cuno declares that: “We are heirs to the Enlightenment, connected not by “faithfulness” to doctrinal elements, but rather [by] the permanent reactivation of an attitude - that is, of a philosophical ethos that could be described as permanent critique of our historical era.” (13)

Cuno does not explain why, for instance, we Africans who are not inheritors of the Enlightenment should adopt the universal museum. When Cuno says we are inheritors to the Enlightenment, it is not clear to me whether he includes us Africans and other non-Western peoples. One point though is clear: the founders of the European Enlightenment did not include Africans in their thoughts on liberty or intellectual, scientific inquiry. David Hume, who never visited Africa or knew any Africans, denied the Africans any talent: “I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.” (14) The great Hegel did not have any good opinion about Africans: “The Negro, as already observed, exhibits the natural man in his completely wild and untamed state. We must put aside all thought of reverence and morality - all that we call feeling - if we would rightly comprehend him; there is nothing harmonious with humanity to be found in this type of character.” (15) Immanuel Kant also denied the Africans any capacity for creativity and thought the colour of Africans was a clear indication of their stupidity: “The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have even been set free, still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality, even though among whites some continually rise aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in colour.” (16) “And it might be that there were something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid.” (17) Thus the leading lights of the European Enlightenment not only provided justifications for colonialism and imperialism but were also racists, convinced of their harmful views.

The intellectual history left by the philosophers of the Enlightenment cannot be said to be one that is propitious for developing honest and unprejudiced ideas about social development outside Europe. Many of the racial prejudices that prevail in the West, both in ordinary life and in the social sciences have their origins in these philosophers. The museums which are largely the creations of the Enlightenment could not escape the grip of these foolish ideas. (18) Thus the European Enlightenment is not per se a persuasive recommendation as Cuno seems to assume. He must provide more credible and concrete examples to convince us that the encyclopaedic museum is the right kind of museum for all of us, independent of the concrete experiences we may have made with colonialism and the existing universal museums.

After the Enlightenment Museum, Cuno discusses what he calls the Discursive Museum which centres on the museum’s function of presenting to the public objects and information about the world’s natural and artificial creations. The collections enable the visitor to make up her own mind. According to Cuno, some critics of the museum believe the institution has power “over the visitors is even deeper, more fundamental and basic, and can only be described in psychoanalytic terms…” To these critics, museum installations - and thus museums themselves - are never not ideologically motivated and strategically determined. They are always already part of a discursive formation in which discourse is power” (19)

Cuno asks the reader whether she feels controlled in any significant way when she walks through her local galleries. What about a museum like Louvre? Cuno states that the Louvre has nationalist foundations and that as a French national museum, its director does not report to an independent board of trustees like the British Museum but to the Ministry of Culture. An examination of the appointment of the Trustees of the British Museum clearly indicates who their masters are. The twenty five Trustees of the British Museum are appointed as follows: one by the Queen, fifteen by the Prime Minister, four by the Secretary of State, and five by the Trustees of the British Museum. There is no way the Trustees can deny that they act in the interest of the British Government and, perhaps, people. The tendency of Anglo-American writers to present others as more nationalistic is simply amazing when in truth all present States are nationalistic. (20)

Dr. Cuno asks whether the fact that the Louvre has nationalist foundations and is a national museum, make people see it as indicating the heritage and pride of a nation. Does its decision to open the Louvre Abu Dhabi affect “one’s experience of Louvre in Paris or make it an instrument for defining and glorifying an essential French cultural identity?” Cuno answers his own question thus: “Whatever the French state’s ambitions, in my experience the state is absent from one’s experience of the Louvre and its collections.” (21) Cuno later asks with reference to a Chinese ewer now in the Art Institute of Chicago, “Does it matter then where we see it, in one gallery or another?” (22)

We beg to differ from Cuno on these matters. Having decided not to deal with questions relating to the acquisition, possession, and ownership of artefacts in the universal museum, even though this has been the most important question in the last decades, Cuno is obliged to take certain logical positions. He must take the position that the location of an artefact is not important. Just like Neil MacGregor stated after the Greeks had opened the Acropolis Museum, built largely in response to criticisms that there was no suitable place in Athens for the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles which were said to be better left in the British Museum. MacGregor declared after the completion of the ultra-modern and expensive museum, that the location of the Parthenon Marbles was never an issue: “The real question is about how the Greek and British governments can work together so that the sculptures can be seen in China and Africa”. Yes, this is what the venerable director of the British Museum stated. What surprised me more than this statement was that not many commentators took him up on this. (23)

The location of artefacts is not important for Cuno because he does not want to discuss the relocation or restitution of the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, the Rosetta
Stone, the bust of Nefertiti and the Benin Bronzes or restitution from the Art Institute of Chicago. Surely, for those whose cultural artefacts are in the museums of others, the location of artefacts is a very important question. Even for persons with no stake in the question of restitution, it makes a difference whether an object is in the museum in the village, town or city where I live. If you live in London, Paris, Berlin, New York or Chicago, you have greater chance of seeing many objects in your city. But supposing you are living in Africa, in Benin City and you are keen to see the sculptures of Queen-Mother Idia and the other Benin Bronzes looted by the British in 1897. The location of these objects away from Benin City may mean you will never see them because you cannot afford the travel costs to London even assuming that you receive a visa for Britain. The hurdles Africans face when trying to obtain a visa for the Western countries should not be underestimated. The Ghanaian artist, Rikki Wemega-Kwawu has stated that the ideal of globalization: “presumes egalitarianism, with the free movement of people and goods around the globe. But the reality of the situation as exists now debars the African access to that free movement and full participation in the globalization process. Visa procurement alone to a Western country for an African is a harrowing experience, to say the least. Apart from the many requisite demands and very vigorous and sometimes humiliating procedures applicants are subjected to, astronomical visa fees are taken from applicants only to be refused the visa; the visa fee is never returned. This almost amounts to a rip-off, not to mention the endless, winding, labyrinthine queues in the scorching sun, which El Anatsui so well captured in his famous installation Visa Queue.”(24)

The experience of most Africans would confirm what Rikki Wemega-Kwawu has written. These are aspects of the question that Cuno and others never have to consider because unlike Africans, the whole world seems open to them.

Cuno may have different feelings from the rest of us when he is in the Louvre or the British Museum. He has not been a colonial subject. He and his country have different relations with the former colonial powers. He is a Westerner after all. Those of us who were colonial subjects and Africans for that matter, have obviously different reactions when we enter these imperialist museums. When Africans enter these places, we know we are not on home grounds and sometimes we are reminded directly or indirectly that we are visitors. When we see Chinese, Korean or Japanese objects, we wonder how they came there. When we see African objects whether the Nok sculptures or the Benin Bronzes, we realize how much of African art has been transferred to Western museums. We realise that many have been looted or taken away by force. Our powerlessness runs over our whole personality for in truth, we would wish that at least some of these artefacts would be returned to their original locations. When we read what others offer as explanations for keeping our looted artefacts, our anger increases and we are reminded of the colonial and neo-colonial relationship that still keeps us in inferior position. An African in the Louvre or in Musée du Quai Branly can never ignore the fact that he is in a French museum. The same goes for the British Museum. For various reasons, many Africans do not visit these temples where they know they will be confronted with our lost treasures.

The Discursive Museum seems to have as primary objective to provide us objects and let us, as visitors, make our own experience and assessment: “As liberal institutions, museums respect individual agency. We expect our visitors to determine their own experience. They bring to the museum a range of preparedness, with specific interests, curiosities, and assumptions about what they are going to see.” (25) Yet one cannot avoid the impression that the author wants us to concentrate on the objects and admire their qualities but not worry about their history as to how they landed in the museum.

I enjoyed reading Cuno’s chapter on the Cosmopolitan Museum and can agree with much of what he says there and especially the citations of the various authors who have dealt with the concept of cosmopolitanism. I found his linking of travelling with universal museum interesting and useful: “…as we saw in the last chapter, objects tell stories, and most tell stories related to travel, dislocation, transmission, and translation… Such objects are as mongrel as languages. Wandering from object to object and gallery to gallery in an encyclopaedic museum opens one’s curiosity to the complex histories of cultural relations and to the workings of artistic translation among them.”(26) But as usual with Cuno, his analogy has the effect that the travel of objects always ends in the universal museum. Is there any reason why the objects cannot continue their travels or indeed return home from where they started the journey?

I also agree with the response of Kwame Appiah to the question relating to opposition between patriotism and cosmopolitanism:

“The cosmopolitan patriot can entertain the possibility of a world in which everyone is a rooted cosmopolitan, attached to a home of his or her own, with its own cultural particularities, but taking pleasure from the presence of the other, different, places that are home to other, different people.” (27)

This is a position which many Africans who, voluntarily or not, have been drawn into a wider world of different cultures and civilisations but are still attached to their original African roots. They may know many Western languages and cultures but still find in many respects the African culture to offer insights that are absent in the others. They may find for example, that Akan funeral dirges offer explanations of life and death that are absent from other cultures. African music may move them in a way that no other music does. They may enjoy Mozart and Schubert even though Europeans constantly ask them, when they go to concerts, whether they can really enjoy Mozart’s music. They may find that African family solidarity, despite all criticisms, possesses some advantages.
But the question is whether cosmopolitanism and patriotism constitute the important divide of our times. Should we not be more concerned about the unequal distribution of wealth in countries and between countries?

What we may find surprising though is the tendency of Dr. Cuno to link many issues that may be partially connected but deserve separate treatment and consideration if one is to have a complete picture of the matters involved. Let us take for example the following citation: “These few examples from just one encyclopaedic museum remind us that works of art tell stories about both roots and routes, and have been doing so for a very long time. They are both witnesses to and arguments for not just the translation but the relocation of works of art (Cuno’s emphasis). That is, as I have suggested elsewhere, governmental efforts to retain works of art within a given jurisdiction as evidence of a pure, essentialized, state-based identity are contrary to the truth and history of culture. Efforts to proclaim a national culture are political acts meant to authorize a government’s hold on power through the misuse of cultural precedent. All such efforts in the past have failed, and in the future will as well. For culture has always circulated and engendered transculturation, which as the art historian Flood has used the term, ”acknowledges that cultural formations are always already hybrid and in the process, so that a translation is a dynamic activity that takes place both between and within cultural codes, forms, and practices.” (28)

We have in this paragraph issues relating to (i) Relocation of works of art,
(ii) Attempts by governments to retain works of art,
(iii) State-based identity,
(iv) Misuse of cultural precedent, and
(v) Nature of the translation process.

Each of the above deserves separate discussion and would need more explanations and evidence for conclusion one way or the other. Cuno
puts them altogether and expects us to go along with his way of thinking or conclusion. This will be more an act of faith and trust rather than evidence and history, especially as Cuno prophetically predicts that certain attempts by governments that have failed in the past, would also fail in the future. Is Cuno seriously trying to persuade us that because of the benefits of having artefacts of different origins in the museum, these benefits constitute arguments for the relocation of artefacts? Should we perhaps relocate more African artefacts to the West? Nobody, of course, thinks of relocating iconic Western artefacts to Africa. Cuno has not provided any evidence to support the proposition that relocation of artefacts of others is good. If people in London, Berlin or Vienna find it enriching to have Benin Bronzes in their museums, we must also ask whether the people of Benin also find it enriching, given the conditions under which those objects were removed. None of us would oppose having objects of other cultures in another country but this must be legally done and not with violence. Many objects in the universal museums were looted/stolen, confiscated or removed under very dubious circumstances. It is misleading to give the impression that the issue simply relates to objects of foreign culture being in another country or in the universal museum. The real issue is about the way the objects were acquired.

Dr. Cuno does not tell which governments have been trying to proclaim a national culture through the misuse of cultural precedents. This assertion must be rejected as far as most African governments and societies are concerned. This cannot be applied to the government Nigeria and the kingdom of Benin; their efforts of long date to recover their stolen/looted cultural objects cannot be described as politically motivated.

What James Cuno describes as efforts by Government to retain cultural objects appears to be a reflection of his negative attitude towards governmental attempts to control the illicit traffic in artefacts. He declares that such attempts have failed in the past and will always fail. He seems to prefer a situation of no control. (29)

The desire of Cuno to present everything as favouring the universal, cosmopolitan, encyclopaedic museums in their retention of the artefacts of others obliges him, to bend even well-known historical facts such as the British invasion of Benin.

In the chapter on the Imperial Museum, Cuno seems to deal more with nationalism and its dangers rather than with the nature of the Imperial Museum. It must be said immediately though that Cuno seems finally to have accepted that the Imperial Museum has something to do with imperialism and the empire:

”This is the context in which the encyclopaedic museum was founded and has thrived and with which it is irrecusably linked. It isn’t enough to say that the encyclopaedic museum is the result of empire, even if over the course of its history its fate has been intertwined with the imbalances of power that allow for, and come with, empire. Its diverse collections stand as evidence of the fact that, as Said has written. partly because of empire, all cultures are involved in one another; none is single and pure, all cultures are hybrid, heterogenous, extraordinarily differentiated and unmonolitic. Such mixing, it must be noted, is the result of empire since the beginning of time and not just since the advent of modern European imperialism” (30)

This is, in many ways, typical of this book as we have already noted: too many issues are thrown into one paragraph. Some of the points raised by the text can be accepted by all but others are problematic. That the universal imperial museum was linked to the empire has been said often and will be accepted by most of us. Very few would, in the first instance, consider the fact that the museum has artefacts from various cultures as evidence that all cultures are heterogeneous, hybrid and differentiated. The heterogeneous nature of most cultures is evident and would not be suggested first to us by a visit to an imperial museum. What the huge and diverse objects would suggest to many of us is the fact that the imperial museum was a great beneficiary of an empire even if it was not created by it or used as instrument of imperialism as Cano asserts. But he cannot draw such a conclusion in the face of many demands for restitution and his own desire not to discuss the acquisition of the cultural artefacts of others by the imperialist museum. Cuno asks:

“Should one look for evidence of empire, whether political, economic or cultural kind, one can find it everywhere in the encyclopedic museum, for it is a fact of history and history is objectified in the museum’s collections. The question is, what does one do with this? (31) The author answers his own question when he states that “For all of this, the encyclopedic museum should be preserved where it exists today and encouraged where it does not yet exist. This will take trust, compromise, and understanding by all parties in all corners of the postcolonial world. But it must be done, precisely because so much is at stake.” (32)

The universal museum may or may not be an appropriate model for our age.
But following the Enlightenment principle of critical questioning of received ideas and institutions, why must the criticism stop here? Why does Dr. Cuno decree that we must stop at the universal museum and not consider other alternative forms of preserving cultural artefacts? Here again, Cuno’s principles and logic must bring the cultural objects to the universal museum which has been declared the best for all States and all peoples, without any prior examination. Can or should museums exist without any reference to the society in which they are supposed to operate? Must institutional development end with the model which was established during the European Enlightenment?

The recommendation to India and African countries to build universal museums is remarkable, bearing in mind the nature and the reputation of the universal museums. Can we, for a second, imagine India or Nigeria looting, stealing or buying religious and spiritual artefacts of others and displaying them despite the objections of the owners? Could Nigeria, for instance, procure Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Crosses and other religious artefacts and keep them in Lagos while refusing to return them to Ethiopia as the British Museum does? People in most African and Asian countries have respect for the cultural and religious objects of others and do not share the immorality or amorality that seems to prevail in many Western museums. The average person in Accra or Lagos would be shocked by the very idea of acquiring illegally the religious or cultural objects of others for the use of a museum. Why would one even touch a religious object one does not believe in and keep against the wishes of the owners? Cuno assumes that we all share the Western lack of respect for the religious and cultural objects of others and are ready to defend at all costs the illegality and immorality that underlies many of the acquisitions of the universal museums. It is true though that the West expects countries in Africa and Asia to follow Western ideas and patterns, irrespective of the religions, the geography, the politics and cultures of those countries. Dr. Cuno, in his recommendation to Africans and Asians to establish universal museums, does not make room for cultural, political or religious differences. As said already,

Tom Flynn who has studied more closely the question whether the universal museum is an appropriate model for our times, concluded:

“We have seen, and continue to see, evidence of new visionary thinking among more progressive museum professionals. Many of them nurture a vision of a more enlightened museology, grounded not in further encyclopedic accumulation, ownership and confrontation, but in collaboration, co-operation and exchange. This may require replacing the outdated model of the temple with that of the forum in order to account for the museum’s changing social function in a rapidly changing world. However, that need not represent dissolution of its primary responsibility to engage and educate. Instead it could endow the museum with a new function: to use the exchange of material culture to help build social cohesion. If the dispersal of parts of British national collections to the regions can be identified as beneficial in building local communities, then it logically follows that the repatriation of culturally significant artefacts to source communities could be equally beneficial in helping reconstruct a sense of national identity.” (33)

The words relating to “trust”, “compromise and the understanding in all corners of the postcolonial world” coming from Cuno are new in the vocabulary of the staunch supporters of the universal museum. Is Cuno sincere in this or was this merely for the consumption of his local audience in the USA? Have the supporters abandoned their arrogant and self-assured pose when dealing with requests for restitution by Africans and other non-Western people? One should not be surprised that some of us remain sceptical.

Several times the author refers to unnamed persons or groups who seem to have a very narrow conception of culture and believe that their own culture is pure. We do not know who these people are nor are there any references to their writings. Could the author be referring to those who demand restitution? We see here efforts to avoid touching the question of the illegal acquisition of artefacts by the museums. This practice has resulted in leading American museums having to return more that 100 artefacts to Italy.

Western museum directors including Cuno, MacGregor, and Philippe de Montebello (retired) have spent the last decades developing theories and strategies that support the retention by the universal museums of the artefacts removed from Africa and Asia during the colonial era and the imperialistic age. (34) They have made no attempts to reach a compromise with those claiming restitution and have generally been dismissive of such claims and quite often, arrogant and disrespectful. A good example is the request by the Benin Royal Family for restitution of some of the Benin bronzes from the Art Institute of Chicago and from the Fields Museum, Chicago.

A request for restitution was sent after James Cuno, then Director, Art Institute of Chicago, had indicated at the opening of the exhibition- Benin - Kings and Rituals: Royal Arts from Nigeria, Chicago, (10 July - 21 September 2007) that if a demand for restitution were made it would be given serious consideration. (35) The request (Annex below) was sent by the brother of the Oba of Benin through a special messenger, also a member of the Royal Family. Up to now, neither Cuno nor the Field Museum has found it necessary even to acknowledge receipt of that request. Readers may judge for themselves if this is how such requests should be treated and whether the Benin Royal Family does not deserve a better treatment. Would Cuno have reacted in the same way if the request came from a European Royal Family?

It is ironic though that Cuno keeps using Benin Bronzes to illustrate his theories about the beneficial nature of the universal museum. Benin is surely the one case where most people, even supporters of the universal museum, would say that the costs of the universal museum in terms of the destruction of Benin City and the massacre of the Edo people are too high a price if that is what can happen in building a universal museum. It is true though that Cuno once defined the Benin culture as an extinct culture at about the same time as the Benin Royal Family was collaborating with the Art Institute of Chicago and others to present the Benin exhibition in Chicago and many Benin persons and princesses were present at the institute in Chicago.(36)

It is noticeable that in a book entitled, Museums Matter: In Praise of the Encyclopedic Museum, there is not a single mention of the notorious Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. (2002) (37)

Readers may recall that the Declaration, signed by the world’s major museums, was aimed at halting or at least delaying the restitution movement by providing the major museums immunity against claims for restitution, especially against Greece which was mounting political pressure for the return of the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. Although the British Museum did not sign the Declaration, it issued a press release to support the statement and carried the document on its website, stating that “Eighteen of the world's great museums and galleries have signed a statement supporting the idea of the universal museum.” Among the signatories was Cuno, then Director of the Art Institute of Chicago and also, the Paul Getty Museum where he has recently become President and Chief Executive Officer. The Declaration was attacked on all fronts. (38) Not long after the signature, Italy, by a mixture of threats of legal process and political pressure, secured the return of looted artefacts which several leading American institutions including Getty Museum, Princeton University and others had bought in contravention of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. A senior curator of the Getty Museum, Marion True had to stand trial and was in jail for a number of years. The extent of the illegal purchase by leading US museums shocked the art world. In the course of time, it became clear to all that the self-serving Declaration was a mistake and offered no immunity to the signatories. Thus in the meanwhile, the signatories do not refer to it and would like us to forget it. But that document clearly represents the attitude of the major museums to restitution. In the meanwhile there has been much restitution both by the signatories and non-signatories. Has Cuno also retreated from this Declaration?

It would be helpful for reconciling the interest of both the major museums and the countries claiming restitution if Cuno, MacGregor, Philippe de Montebello and other supporters of the “universal museum” would cease exaggerating and stop pretending that anyone who asks for restitution of an artefact wants to empty their museums. Tom Flynn has correctly noted:

“Who said anything about dismantling them? Nobody. But James Cuno, Neil MacGregor, Philippe De Montebello, et al, would have everyone believe that this is the primary objective of the museum's critics, thereby forcing Dr Singh to distance herself from such an irrational notion. Finally, Dr Singh's suggestion that the encyclopaedic museum could never be made again is surely correct. This contrasts with James Cuno's sunny insistence that new encyclopaedic museums should be established everywhere.

In other words, the only way to defend your own unsustainable conspicuous consumption is to recommend that everyone else start consuming in a similarly unsustainable way.” (39).

An example of this outrageous exaggeration can be seen in a letter by Philippe de Montebello. After the publication of my article, “Is Legality still a Viable Concept for European and American Museum Directors?” in Afrikanet.info, Philippe de Montebello then Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York wrote mischievously, inter alia, the following: “Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should remain there.” (40) Instead of dealing with the criticisms of the lack of respect of legality by the museum directors, Montebello preferred to divert attention to other issues.

When Dr. James Cuno was appointed recently as President and Chief Executive Officer of the J.Paul Getty Trust, many were wondering whether he was going to change the Getty’s policy as regards the purchase of unpronvenanced antiquities. The Getty Trust had been involved in many scandals of purchasing antiquities they should have known were illegally transferred from the country of origin. Lately they had to return to Italy a considerable number of such antiquities. After such scandals, the Getty modified its policy. Was Cuno who had until then been regarded as the most fervent supporter of acquiring artefacts not properly provenanced, going to modify the Getty’s new policy? David Gill asked: “Will Cuno be toning down his position as he takes up his new role?” (41)

In Museums Matter, Cuno has toned down considerably his language. His language and style are no longer abrasive and provocative. He writes almost in a statesman’s mode and not that of a partisan, fighting from the trenches, bent on provoking and attacking the other side. He calls for reconciliation and co-operation from all corners. We cannot yet speak of a “new Cuno” or the “metamorphosis of the partisan” of retention of illegally acquired artefacts or artefacts without proper provenance. It must have been impressed on him that, after going through so many scandals and restitutions, the Getty could not afford to be constantly linked with illegal acquisition of artefacts. (42)

Cuno has admitted the existence of links between the “universal museum” and the colonial empire but has not specified what these links are and their implications for the universal museum. He has not admitted that the massive collection of the universal museum was made possible by colonial violence, actual or structural. Nor has he admitted any link between the insatiable appetite of the universal museum for artefacts and the illegal trade in artefacts. Dr. Cuno has not given up the substance of his well-known opposition to restitution. He has not yet answered any of the substantive questions raised by his previous publications. Museum Matters has taken care of the questions of presentation but not the substance of his views. This is a change in tactics and strategy but not in objectives. The President and Chief Executive Officer has improved the public relation aspects of his presentation. We must wait for substantial changes in his position and concrete acts.

Cuno recommends that we build universal museums where there is none in Lagos, Delhi and other places. Has he thought about the costs, at a time and in places where persons are dying of hunger because of lack of adequate resources? Or is this not relevant for the supporters of the universal museum?

At several places in Museums Matter, we are told that the universal museums “as liberal, cosmopolitan institutions, they encourage identification with others in the world, a shared sense of being human, of having in every meaningful way a common history, with a common future not only at stake but increasingly, in an age of resurgent nationalism and sectarian violence, at risk”. (emphasis by Cuno) (43) Similar statements are found through the book, trying to convince us that the universal museums “work to dissipate ignorance and superstition about the world and promote tolerance of difference itself”, “they promote tolerance and understanding of difference”. (44)

Dr. Cuno is trying to convince us that the universal museum is a factor for understanding between persons of different cultures and works for tolerance. But these are only affirmations and declarations. He does not provide a shred of evidence to support the view that these huge institutions contribute to tolerance and understanding among different cultures. Ironically, his model of the universal museum, the British Museum, is located in a country that for most part of its history has been at war and does not seem to wish to change this tradition. There is no evidence or semblance of evidence that the presence of a universal museum in London has contributed to understanding of persons or countries or other cultures and thus created more tolerance. If Cuno’s model of universal museum has not been able to create more tolerance in its original home where it has been for hundreds of years (established in 1753), how can Cuno expect the institution to contribute to tolerance in countries where it has so far not been established?

The final paragraph in Museums Matter seems to me to signal the ultimate failure of the universal museum to convince even the British of its attributes and usefulness as propagated by Cuno: “The example of India is evidence of the need to cultivate a cosmopolitan view of the world and encourage cultural institutions to support it. The British, having launched the quintessential cultural institution - the encyclopedic museum - exploited India economically, deprived its citizens of self-determination (withdrawing only after decades of protests and violent confrontations), and established many of its lasting cultural institutions. But they failed to give India what Britain enjoyed for itself, and what others have since emulated: museums with representative examples of the world’s cultures, committed to scientific inquiry, open to the public and respectful of individual agency, and dedicated to the dissipation of ignorance about the world. The absence of such museums, except for the few small but noble ones established locally, is part of the tragic legacy of empire in India.”(45)

Does Dr. Cuno really believe in what he has written? Does he really expect the British to have built a universal museum/British Museum in India, in Delhi perhaps? Should the British have created such universal museums in Accra, Lagos and other colonial capitals? Should they have sent the Koh-i-Noor diamond to Accra and the Benin Bronzes to Delhi instead of London? ` To suggest the creation of such an institution in the colonies is to misunderstand the aims and objectives of the universal museum. The main aim of this European Enlightenment institution was to show British citizens how the natives, outside Europe, lived their lives, their cultures and religions. It was not the objective of the museums to show natives in Africa and Asia how the Europeans lived, or the nature of the British; that they would know through British rule. The Enlightenment created interest in Europe about how the non-European peoples lived.

We should perhaps be grateful that the British did not create such universal museums and so did not transfer looted artefacts from Asia to Africa or vice versa. If that had happened, we would now be perhaps confronted with claims for restitution from India against Ghana and Nigeria might be urging India to return the Benin Bronzes that the British looted.

But all this is speculation or even idle speculation. But this is a characteristic of the fanatic supporters of the universal museum. They are past masters in diverting attention from concrete and actual claims. Instead of facing directly a claim for the restitution of looted objects, such as the Benin Bronzes, they rather draw attention to discussions as to whether Nigeria has adequate facilities for keeping the Bronzes. Instead of returning the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles to Athens, they argued for years that Athens had no adequate facilities for the Marbles that Lord Elgin took away from Greece under unclarified circumstances. Once the Greeks built ultramodern facilities, the British Museum director proclaimed that the location of the Marbles was never an issue.

The “universalists” would use any argument however speculative or unreasonable it may be provided in the end it leaves the Parthenon Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, the Ethiopian holy crosses and other looted artefacts in the British Museum. We do not know whether any Indian expressed to Cuno the view that the British failed in India by not creating a universal museum. We have not heard any Ethiopian, Ghanaian or Nigerian complain that the British did not create a universal/British Museum in Addis Ababa, Accra or Lagos. Indeed, many Africans would say that it would be enough if the British would return what they had looted from us. To suggest that the British should have created a universal museum in any of their Asian or African colonies betrays a misunderstanding of the objectives of colonialism. The colonial power came to the colony to take as much wealth as he could and not to enrich the cultural life of the colony.

Can one evaluate an institution such as the universal museum by leaving out an aspect of that institution which raises many questions and has been discussed intensively in recent decades? To leave out, as Cuno does in Museums Matter, questions relating to the acquisition and possession of the cultural objects of others is to leave out a whole series of important issues:

1. Legality of acquisition of artefacts
2. Morality of acquisitions of artefacts
3. Role of violence, actual and structural, in the acquisition of artefacts
4. Restitution or acceptance of restitution demands
    i) Justifications for restitution demands
    ii) History of restitution demands
    iii) Relationships, past and present, of demanders and holders of artefacts
    iv) Effects of acceptance or rejection of restitution on museums as a whole and previous owners.
5. How are the acquisition policies of the major museums linked to the illicit trade in artefacts?
     i) Do these policies encourage stimulate or dampen the illicit trade?
    ii) How do recent revelations concerning illicit acquisitions by major    museums relate to the very nature of the institution?
    iii) What has been learnt from the recent scandals involving major American museums and their staff?
6. Acquisition of the artefacts of other peoples under International Law and the United Nations, UNESCO and ICOM. Have the relations between these bodies and the universal museums been co-operative or conflictual?

We must ask whether from a methodological point of view, it is acceptable to leave out important and controversial aspects of an institution, examine parts of that body’s development and draw general conclusions to cover the whole institution. Is it acceptable to examine an institution said to derive from the European Enlightenment and leave the main characteristic principle of the Enlightenment?

“For, if nothing else, the Enlightenment taught us to examine all thoughts and evidence and hold none to be irrefutably true, not even Enlightenment principles themselves. As Kant concluded,”Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected.” Cuno. (46)

****************

“Well, when I hear people talk about human rights, I question their sincerity, because I walk through the British Museum and see artefacts and ornaments belonging to my people, the Asantes, being showcased in London, and they won't give them back to me. I went to Windsor Castle some time ago and saw the gold cup of Nana Karikari and other artefacts being exhibited there. They still have our treasures there; and also at the British Museum. But when we talk about human rights, are we not saying that I, the Asantehene, also have things over which I have rights? And why can't I have the treasures and gold looted by the British from my people back?”
                                                 Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, Asantehene. (47)

                                                                        Kwame Opoku. 15 February, 2012

-------------

NOTES

1. E. Chukwudi Eze, Race and Enlightenment, Blackwell Oxford, 1997, p.5.

2. Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, Princeton University Press, 2009.

3. See reviews and criticism of James Cuno’s Who Owns Antiquity? 2008, in Looting Matters, Sat June 21, 2008.
See also, New Interview with Cuno”, Looting Matters, Friday, March, 2009.

4. Kwame Opoku,” Refusal of Intellectual Dialogue: Comments on an Interview with James Cuno”, www.modernghana.com.
5. James Cuno, Museums Matter: In praise of the Encyclopedic Museum, 2011, University of Chicago Press, 148pp.
6. http://lootingmatters.
7. Museums Matter p. 63.
8. K. Opoku, “Compromise on the Restitution of Benin Bronzes: Comments on Article by Professor John Picton on the Restitution of Benin Artefacts”, http://www.modernghana.com                       http://www.museum-security.org
See also the rap version of the history of the invasion by Monday Midnite, 1897 (Notorious B I G’s is Dead Wrong REMIX) http://www.google.at
9. Museums Matter, p. 65.
10. Ibid, p. 30.
11. British Museum Press, 1989, p. 97. The Visitor's guide to the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, admits the enormous expansion of its African collection during the colonial period: “The greatest number of objects, however, came to the Berlin museum during the colonial period. Before 1884 - the year of the Berlin Conference, at which African territory was formally divided between the various colonial powers - and 1914 the African collection grew to 55,000 objects. Members of the German colonial administration and military in Africa were instructed to assemble collections for the Berlin Museum of Ethnography (Museum für Völkerkunde). At the same time, the museum contributed to the financing of joint collecting expeditions beyond German colonial regions, or acquired collections on the European market for art and ethnographica. As an example it is sufficient here to cite the acquisition made by Felix von Luschan, who served as Director of the African and Oceanic Department from 1905. Luschan acquired, at auctions in London and elsewhere, the collection of objects from Benin that is one of the most important and largest in the world.” Ethnologisches Museum Berlin, Prestel, Museum Guide, München 2007, p.113. On p.114 of the same guide we read the following: “The outstanding works of art from Africa presented here give an impression of the cultural and artistic significance of this great continent, a greatness that despite centuries of plunder, subjection, colonial exploitation and racism has remained unbroken in its creative powers.“
12. Museums matter, p.11.
13. Ibid. p.23.
14. David Hume, Selected Essays, Oxford World Classics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998, p.360.
15. Georg W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History. Dover Philosophical Classics, Dover Publications, New York, 1956, p.93.
16. Immanuel Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1960, p.111.
17. I. Kant, ibid. p. 113.
18. K. Opoku, “Why do Europeans, even Intellectuals, have Difficulty in Contemplating the Restitution of Stolen African Cultural Objects? Wolf Lepenies and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin,” http://www.modernghana.com
19. Museums Matter, p. 43.
20. Ibid. p.44.
See also K. Opoku, “Is Nationalism such a Dangerous Phenomenon for Culture and Stolen/Looted Property?” http://www.modernghana.com K. Opoku “When will Everybody Finally Accept that the British Museum is a British Institution?”http://www.modernghana.com
21. Museums Matter, p.45.
22. Idem, p.50.
23 K. Opoku, “The Amazing Director of the British Museum: Gratuitous Insults as Currency of Cultural Diplomacy?” http://www.modernghanal
24. Museums Matter, p.52.
25. AfricanColours - The Politics of Exclusion: The Undue Fixation of .of Western-Based African Curators on Contemporary Africa Diaspora Artists- A Critique”.. www.africancolours.com
26. Museums Matter, p.68
27. Idem p. 78.
28. Idem. p. 77.29, See comments on the Cuno’s attitude towards efforts to curb the illicit trade in artefacts in K. Opoku, “A Blank Cheque to Plunder Nok Terra cotta?” http://www.modernghana.com
30. Museums Matter, p. 102.
31. Idem. p. 103.
32. Idem, p.113.
33. Tom Flynn, “The Universal Museum: a valid model for the 21st century?”
http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/UniversalMuseum.pdf
34. K.Opoku, “Does the Demand for the Restitution of Stolen Africa Cultural Objects Constitute an Obstacle to the Dissemination of Knowledge about African Arts?; Comments on a Letter from Philippe de Montebello,Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York,” afrikanet.info
K. Opoku, “Do Directors of “Universal Museums” ever Learn from Experience?” http://www.modernghana.com
K. Opoku. “Once in the British Museum, always in the British Museum: Is the De-accession Policy of the British Museum a Farce?”
http://www.museum-security.org
35. See Annex below.
36. K.Opoku, “Benin Exhibition in Chicago: Cuno A grees to Consider Request for Restitution of Benin Bronzes.” http://www.modernghana.com
37. Signatories of the Declaration were the Directors of the following museums: The Art Institute of Chicago
Bavarian State Museum, Munich (Alte Pinakothek,
Neue Pinakothek)
State Museums, Berlin
Cleveland Museum of Art
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Louvre Museum, Paris
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Prado Museum, Madrid
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York
38. See M. O’Neill, “Enlightenment Museums: universal or merely global?” http://www2.le.ac.ukf’
Tom Flynn, “The Universal Museum: a valid model for the 21st century?”
http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/UniversalMuseum.pdf
K. Opoku .” Is the Declaration on the Value and Importance of the “Universal Museums” now Worthless? Comments on Imperialist Museology”, http://www.modernghana.com
39. Tom Flynn, "Terrifying places with insatiable appetites for works of art": the encyclopaedic museum comes of age”, http://tom-flynn.blogspot.com/2008/06
40. afrikanet.info
See also, Tom Flynn, “Ex Africa semper aliquid novi”
http://www.museum-security.org
41. Looting Matters.. 42. See Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy, Public Affairs, New York, 2006;
Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, Chasing Aphrodite, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, New York, 2011.
Michael Gross, Rogues Gallery, Broadway Books, New York, 2010.
43. Museums Matter. p. 6.
44. Idem. pp. 8, 29, 30, 54, 83, 84, 112 and 121.
45. Idem. p.121
46. Idem. p. 7.
47. Interview of the Asantehene by Ankomah, Baffour, New African, Apr 2009 http://findarticles.com
See also Freeonline Library http://www.thefreelibrary.com

---- ANNEX I
LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE OBA OF BENIN TO HOLDERS OF BENIN BRONZES

ANNEX II
OPINIONS ON THE “UNIVERSAL MUSEUM”

Artknows, “The Mythology of the Antiquities Market: Reading Ricardo Elia”, Culture in Development
“As long as encyclopedic or universal museums remain intransigent in the face of claims for the return of cultural objects — many of which were looted at the expense of the archaeological record — the looting and collecting of antiquities will continue (as will the arrogant denial of the implications). Museums are, by definition, and certainly in practice, the institutional face of 'culture without context'

The encyclopaedic museum may be all we have, but in its present form it is both disreputable and unsustainable. Can it be made over? What can the great encyclopedic museums do to transform themselves from symbols of overweening power and acquisitiveness into forces for good in a rapidly changing world?

They could start by setting a better example to collectors of antiquities. Not by giving things back — although a genuinely well-meaning, selective approach to that would help — but rather by rethinking their prejudiced and anachronistic condemnation of a notional 'nationalism' as the main motivation of source nations seeking dominion over their own heritage. Until that happens, the History of the World in 100 Objects will remain what many already see it as: wretched propaganda. “

Dr.Kavita Singh, “Do we really want the freer circulation of cultural goods?”
The Art Newspaper.

“The events and anxieties in Bangladesh tell us how Western museums are seen outside the west: as terrifying places with insatiable appetites for works of art. They are also seen as the arm of a more powerful state, with infinite funds and power at their command. To tell a Bangladeshi protestor that universal museums “build bridges across cultures and promote mutual understanding” would only provoke anger or derision
For the last 100 years, new nations have needed to show themselves not as modern constructs, but as the fulfilment of a historic destiny. The development of the idea of national heritage has been fundamentally important in shoring up national feeling, and now when artefacts from the nation circulate in the world they become metonyms for national citizens. Their pricing becomes a shorthand for how people are valued. Their trade, licit and illicit, evokes lived experiences of immigration.
Museums like the British Museum or the Louvre describe themselves as universal museums. We are now well aware that these great collections were mostly made possible by historically traumatic events such as conquest or colonialism, at a particular juncture in history when there was a convergence of wealth, power, physical contact with distant lands, and an intellectual interest in encyclopaedism. Today universal museums face criticism and calls for repatriation of objects. In response, they urge us to see them as sites that rise above national boundaries, to affirm an essential unity of humankind.”

Mark O’ Neill. “Enlightenment Museums – Universal or Merely Global
http://www.elginism.com
“A universal museum would, by definition, create displays which addressed the realities of power relations, past and present. Without facing up to human destructiveness in displays, ‘seeing the world as one’ achieves little more than a Coke or Benetton advertisement, portraying humanity (or at least those of its members who were good at art) as one big happy family. The world is haunted by violence and terror because there are many bad as well as good ways of organizing society. Nor is there any clear link between those cultures which were good for people and those which were good at art. But none of the universal museums acknowledges that, in the words of Walter Benjamin, the great artworks in museums
owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to the other’ (Benjamin, 1970:258)
It is difficult to imagine universal museums taking on a more valuable role in society than that of exploring the relationship between universal norms and the particular (or mixed) cultural traditions within which people live. Definitions of these norms are often rejected as the imposition of western values on cultures to which they are alien and as norms which the west respects selectively, as suits its interests – hence the importance of the credibility of a universal perspective. A great deal of the violence and intimidation inflicted in the world arises from the perpetrators’ fear of loss of certainty in identity, and a consequent desire to return to imagined purer states, to destroy apparent threats. Identity is neither as fluid as postmodern theorists maintain, nor as fixed as fundamentalists assert, meaning that choices, by individuals and societies, are both more difficult and more important than in either school of thought. A more focused meaning of the displays of a universal museum than ‘seeing the world as one’ might be something like ‘seeing how cultures change, evolve, conflict and intermingle, while at the same time retaining deep continuities, and how choices made to change or to remain the same radically affect the lives of individuals for good or ill’. The material reality of museum objects could play a unique role in exploring, in terms of possible universal values, the nature of individual and group identities in relation to their inherited cultures, their responses to change and to the cultures they encounter. Truly universal institutions would grapple with the possibility that, in the words of Michael Ignatieff ‘the central importance of human rights in the history of human progress’ is that it ‘has abolished the hierarchy of civilizations and cultures’ (Ignatieff, 2003:94). Only when museums embrace this as their core ethic and epistemology will they realize their potential to help create a more humane world and achieve some sort of universality.”

50 years later: Fanon's legacy by Nigel C. Gibson

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:17:00 +0100

The damnation of the world’s majority that Frantz Fanon spoke about did not end with the withdrawal of formal colonial rule. It continues in the razor wire transit camps, detention zones, rural pauperisation and in shanty towns, writes Nigel C Gibson.

When I was asked by Dr. Keithley Woolward to address the question of Fanon’s contemporary relevance, I was reminded of a blurb on the back of my recent book Fanonian Practices in South Africa: From Steve Biko to Abahlali baseMjondolo which reads, ‘This is not another meditation on Fanon’s continued relevance. Instead, it is an inquiry into how Fanon, the revolutionary, might think and act in the face of contemporary social crisis.’ My comments today should be considered in that spirit.

‘Relevance’ — from a Latin word ‘relevare’, to lift, from ‘lavare’, to raise, levitate — to levitate a living Fanon who died in the USA nearly 50 years ago this coming Tuesday in cognizance of his own injunction articulated in the opening sentence from his essay ‘On national culture’: ‘Each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it’ (1968 206). The challenge was laid down at the opening of this year of Fanon’s 50th (as well as the 50th anniversary of his ‘The Wretched of the Earth’) which began with revolution — or at least a series of revolts and resistance across the region, known as the Arab Spring.

Fanon begins ‘The Wretched’, as you know, writing of decolonisation as a program of complete disorder, an overturning of order — often against the odds — willed collectively from the bottom up. Without time or space for a transition, there is an absolute replacement of one ‘species’ by another (1968: 35). In a period of radical change such absolutes appear quite normal, when, in spite of everything thrown against it, ideas jump across frontiers and people begin again ‘to make history’ (1968: 69-71). In short, once the mind of the oppressed experiences freedom in and through collective actions, its reason becomes a force of revolution. As the Egyptians said of 25 January: ‘When we stopped being afraid we knew we would win. We will not again allow ourselves to be scared of a government. This is the revolution in our country, the revolution in our minds.’ What started with Tunisia and then Tahrir Square has become a new global revolt, spreading to Spain and the Indignados (indignants) movement, to Athens and the massive and continuous demonstrations against vicious structural adjustment, to the urban revolt in England, to the massive student mobilisation to end education for profit in Chile, to the ‘occupy’ movement of the 99 percent.

And yet, as the revolts inevitably face new repression, elite compromises and political manoeuvrings, Fanonian questions — echoed across the postcolonial world — become more and more timely. (How can the revolution hold onto its epistemological moment, the rationality of revolt?) Surely the question is not whether Fanon is relevant, but why is Fanon relevant now?

CONTEXTS AND GEOGRAPHIES

In the penultimate chapter of ‘Frantz Fanon: A Portrait’, Alice Cherki notes that Blida Psychiatric Hospital in Algiers still bears his name, that Fanon has a boulevard and a high school for girls named after him, though young people have no idea who he is. After independence in Algeria, Fanon was quite quickly marginalised. A new constitution identified the nation with Islam and that women were actively dissuaded from playing any part in public life did not jibe with Fanon’s vision of politics.

Fanon was dead before Algeria gained its independence, yet ‘The Pitfalls of National Consciousness’ chapter of ‘The Wretched’ (based on his reflections on his West African experiences as well as his concerns about the Algerian revolution) is a fairly accurate portrayal of what Algeria became with oil money playing an enormously important role in pacifying the population and paying for a bloated and ubiquitous security force.

To speak about relevance, then, is also to speak about historic context. Fanon was recruited into the FLN during the battle of Algiers. Although a committed anti-colonialist he had not moved to Algeria to join a revolution but to take up the job as director of psychiatry at Blida-Joinville Hospital. It was a job he wanted and he put enormous energy into fighting to reform how psychiatry was practiced in the hospital. He created space — both practical and intellectual (reading groups) for himself and his colleagues — to institute a kind of Tosquellean [1] inspired institutional sociotherapy to humanise the asylum where the patient would become ‘a subject in his or her liberation’ and the doctor an ‘equal partner in the fight for freedom’ (Cherki 36). In a sense, that would become Fanon’s political philosophy. The Algerian war of national liberation — declared a year after he arrived — politicised him and radicalised him, as he began to see and treat its effects in the hospital and in his work. He was asked by the FLN to use his skills as a therapist to treat those who had been tortured. He began to clandestinely treat the tortured while treating the torturer as part of his hospital work. Indeed his comments in ‘L’An cinq de la revolution Algérienne’ (‘Year Five of the Algerian revolution’ published as ‘A Dying Colonialism’ in English) bear this experience out not only on his withering critique of the medical profession involved in torture but also in his desire to find the human being behind the coloniser, believing that liberation would put an end to the colonised and the coloniser (1967c, 24) and his condemnation (though understanding) of those who have thrown themselves into revolutionary action with ‘physiological brutality that centuries of oppression give rise to and feed’ (1967c, 25). At Blida the situation became untenable and he simply couldn’t continue. As he wrote in his letter of resignation, how could he treat mental illness in a society that drives people to a desperate solution? Such a society, he added, needs to be replaced (1967b, 53). With the authorities closing in on the hospital, which was suspected as a hotbed of support for the FLN, he resigned before he was picked up and began to work full time for the revolution.

This was part of Fanon’s context.

At the same time it was not surprising that, when the opportunity arose, Fanon would join a revolutionary movement, or as Glissant put it (1999 25), to act on his ideas. [2] And yet, at the same time it was not only acting on ideas but that for Fanon ideas were always influenced by practice and also transformative. One can see in ‘Black Skin White Masks’ that he was in a sense already a revolutionary, and given the chance he would ‘take part in a revolution’, as Jean Ayme put it (quoted in Cherki 2006:94). But at the time Fanon was a revolutionary who was not deeply political. Fanon had been introduced to Ayme, a psychiatrist, anti-colonist activist and Trotskyist, in September 1956 when he had given his paper at the first Congress of Black Writers and Artists. And in Ayme’s Paris apartment, in early 1957 — where he stayed before leaving to join the FLN in Tunis — he spent his time reading about revolutionary politics.

He had been recruited into the FLN by Ramdane Abane, the Kabylian leader of the FLN who became Fanon’s mentor. Abane, who has an airport named after him in Kabylia, had been a key figure in the 1956 FLN conference Soummam which had criticised the militarisation of the revolution, insisting on a collective political control, and put forward a vision of a future Algeria that remained Fanon’s. They both believed in the ‘revolutionary dismantling of the colonial state’ (Cherki 105). The principle adopted as the Soummam platform was a vision of the future Algeria as a secular democratic society with the ‘primacy of citizenship over identities (Arab, Amazigh, Muslim, [Jewish] Christian, European, etc.)’ (Abane 2011): ‘in the new society that is being built,’ Fanon wrote in italics in Year 5, ‘there are only Algerians. From the outset, therefore, every individual living in Algeria is an Algerian … We want an Algeria open to all, in which every kind of genius can grow’ (Fanon, 1967c 152, 32).

Abane was liquidated by the FLN at the turn of 1958. Fanon died before Algeria gained its independence in 1962 and was quickly marginalized, then dismissed as irrelevant and out of touch for not understanding the power of Islam (a charge that has been repeated for 50 years). In France, the story was similar. ‘Les damnés de la terre’ was criticised as romantic and Fanon dismissed as an interloper to the Algerian revolution. The book only sold a few thousand copies.

Translated into English in 1963 by an African-American poet, Constance Farrington, ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ was published in 1965 in the United States, going through innumerable printings and becoming a best seller in the revolutionary year of 1968 when it was subtitled ‘a handbook for the Black revolution’.

As Kathleen Cleaver puts it in ‘The Black Panther Party Reconsidered’, ‘The Wretched of the Earth became essential reading for Black revolutionaries in America and profoundly influenced their thinking. Fanon’s analysis seemed to explain and to justify the spontaneous violence ravaging across the country, and linked the incipient insurrections to the rise of a revolutionary movement’ (1998: 214). The colonial world that Fanon wrote about ‘bore a striking resemblance,’ she added, ‘to the world that American blacks lived’ (1998: 215). Of course the influence had been mutual since the descriptions of Black American life by writers such as Richard Wright played an important role in the development of Fanon’s ‘Black Skin White Masks’. For Cleaver, what was especially relevant to the Black Panthers ‘was Fanon’s analysis of colonialism and the necessity of violence’ (1998 216). And associating Algeria with Fanon, some Panthers fled to Algeria in the late 1960s. Thus it was through the Panthers that Fanon returned momentarily to Algeria, but noticeably shorn of his internal critique of the liberation movements and post-independence and thereby reduced to just another anti-colonial figure. Yet just as Eldridge Cleaver was opening the First Pan African Cultural Festival in 1969, Fanon had made his way across the Limpopo into the heart of settler colonial Africa — apartheid South Africa. As well as Black Power, Black theology writers provided an importantly link between Fanon and Biko and Fanon became essential for the development of Black Consciousness in South Africa; a movement that was explicitly a praxis oriented philosophy in outlook which became a crucial turning point in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle.

My recent work on Fanonian Practices in South Africa can be understood in terms of thinking about Fanon’s relevance. It begins with Biko’s engagement with Fanon. Biko, who has a hospital named after him in Pretoria, was murdered in 1977 and argued in a Fanonian vein in the early 1970s that it was possible to create a ‘capitalist black society, black middle class,’ in South Africa, and ‘succeed in putting across to the world a pretty convincing, integrated picture, with still 70 percent of the population being underdogs.’ You see, hospitals, airports, roads and so on, can be renamed after revolutionaries, yet it turns out that not much changes for the bulk of the people. Now nearly 40 years after Biko’s statement, Fanon’s ‘The Pitfalls of National Consciousness’ — an essay written from within the Algerian revolution — which provides a forecast for the post-independent nation, a keen analysis of the dreadful cost of its failure, is an uncanny portrait of post-apartheid South Africa.

So the second moment of Fanonian practice is a critique of contemporary postcolonial reality. In other words, the lasting value of employing Fanon’s critical insights and method. The source is not only ‘The Wretched’ where he calls the national bourgeoisie ‘unabashedly … antinational,’ opting, he adds, for an ‘abhorrent path of a conventional bourgeoisie, a bourgeois that is dismally, inanely and cynically bourgeois,’ but also ‘Black Skin White Masks’, which concludes with a critique of bourgeois life as sterile and suffocating. In the Antilles there have been struggles for freedom, he argues, but too often they have been conducted in terms and values given by the white master and creating profoundly ambivalent situations and neurotic symptoms described in ‘Black Skin’.

Fanon left the Antilles to study in France, but after his World War Two experiences he already no longer believed in the French mission and profoundly disapproved of Césaire’s support for assimilation. Just recently I was reading Richard Wright’s collection, ‘White Man Listen’, published in 1957, specifically an essay ‘The psychological reactions of oppressed people’ as it articulates with ‘Black Skin White Masks’, specifically Fanon and Wright’s critique of Mannoni. [3] The book is interestingly dedicated to Eric Williams and to ‘the Westernised and tragic elite of Asia, Africa and the West Indies — men who are distrusted, misunderstood, maligned by left and right.’ Fanon wrote about these elites in ‘Black Skin’ and in ‘The Wretched’. Indeed they remain crucial to the post-independence situation, but in a review of the book in El Moudjahid in 1959 he was critical of Wright’s book because of its singular focus on the tragedy of these elites while real life and death struggles were taking place across the continent (see Cherki 159).

THE REALITY OF THE NATION

The damnation of the world’s majority inscribed in the Manichean geographies so well described by Fanon in ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ does not end with the negotiated settlement and the withdrawal of formal colonial rule. The violence that orders colonialism, the violence that follows the colonised home and enters every pore of their body, is reconfigured in the contemporary world of razor wire transit camps and detention zones, in rural pauperisation and in the shanty towns and shack settlements. It is the silent scream of much of the world’s population, who appear most of the time without solidarity, without agency, without speech. Beyond the gated citadels, beyond the zones of tourism, in the zone of often bare existence, there seems no way out. And yet, at a moment like ours in 2011, there is all of a sudden made absolutely clear the rationality of rebellion. So, the shocking relevance of a Fanonian political will.

Yet more than a simple us-and-them, the ‘we’ for Fanon was always a creative ‘we,’ a ‘we’ of political action and praxis, thinking and reasoning. Indeed this was not only his critique of colonialism but also of the neo-colonial afterlife. ‘Colonialism is not a thinking machine,’ Fanon argues, but all too often its aftermath, the new nation, is mired in the same mindlessness, indeed a stupidity created by the national bourgeoisie’s will to power often mediated by crude force against the very people who made liberation possible. In contrast, Fanon’s ‘we,’ for example, is wonderfully articulated in Walcott’s poem, ‘the Schooner Flight’: ‘Either I’m nobody or I’m a nation.’ It is the nobodies, the damned, the impoverished and landless who for Fanon become the source, the basis, the truth of the ‘reality of the nation’ (the first title of ‘A Dying Colonialism’). As anti-eviction activists in South Africa say, ‘we are poor but not poor in mind’ and collectively ‘we think our own struggles.’

The articulation of these movements with Fanon, is the third element of Fanonian practices. Since this notion of truth has created some concern among scholars, let me try to explain it, for it can’t be understood without a notion of how social change creates a radical mutation in consciousness, as Fanon puts it.

In other words, in a period of social change what is now obvious seemed just a few months ago outrageous. Who could have imagined great political changes such as the fall of the Berlin Wall or the end of apartheid? Below these rather grand events are the local and grassroots movements that open up space for thinking that seem not only outside the realm of the possible but that also include voices that are often unheard.

This week a UN conference on climate change is taking place in Durban, South Africa. The poor, who experience the full force of extreme weather and have to spend their time dealing with its effects, are not invited. A couple of days ago I received an article by Reverend Mavuso of the Rural Network in South Africa, an organisation of poor and landless rural people and part of the poor people’s alliance, that reminded me of Fanon’s critique of tourism, which he viewed as a quintessential postcolonial industry with the nationalist elites becoming the ‘organizers of parties.’ This is not just a Caribbean experience; it has become the experience of post-apartheid South Africa with private game parks and Safaris taking over land.

Presented to the world as ‘eco-tourism’, Mavuso (2011) writes, ‘game farming and the tourism industry are evicting the poor, ‘rob[ing us of our] … land … and replac[ing us] … with animals’ (my emphasis). In post-apartheid South Africa, thousands are evicted with the promise of jobs but the jobs turn out to be few poorly paid domestic workers or security guards.

In short, in contrast to exclusive global conferences, a truly humanist environmentalism begins with the needs and experiences of the poor. It is an epistemological challenge, a shift in the geography of reason.

Fanon argues in the conclusion to ‘The Wretched’ that we have to work out new concepts. Where will those new concepts come from? How is political education developed? What is it for? Fifty years after ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ I am suggesting that we consider the maturity of the struggle that is expressed in the rationality of the rebellions. For Fanon, to engage this reason is not synonymous with systematising ‘indigenous knowledge’ or culture. It is the rebellion — which is at the same time always for Fanon a mental liberation — that encourages nuance and encourages radical intellectuals engaged in and with these movements to work out new concepts in a non-technical and non-professional language. Often in defiance to those (intellectuals and militants) who consider thinking a hindrance to action, the ‘opening of minds’ and imagination is encouraged.

‘We imagine cities where politicians, policy makers, engineers and urban planners think with us and not for us,’ argues S’bu Zikode, the former president of Abahlali baseMjondolo, expressing the right to the city in the most concrete terms. Abahlali baseMjondolo — part of the subtitle of ‘Fanonian Practices’, which translates as people who live in shacks, is an organisation of about 30,000 shack dwellers in South Africa that was created six years ago after the residents of one shack community realised that land that had been promised was being cleared for other buildings. The organization is decentralized, autonomous, self-reliant and deeply democratic. What is interesting about Abahlali now six years after its self-organization is its thinking born of experience and discussion in what they call the ‘university of the shacks.’ They call it living learning. Press statements are written collectively; and quite in contrast to technical education, learning is a collective and living thing that always needs to be nurtured. Their idea of ‘citizenship’ (including all who live in the shacks in democratic decision making regardless of ancestry, ethnicity, gender, age, etc.) connects with Fanon’s political notion of citizenship formed in the social struggle. So when Zikode speaks of imagination, it is one produced collectively by long discussions in the shack settlements. ‘We imagine cities where the social value of land is put before its commercial value,’ he continues. ‘We imagine cities where shack settlements are all offered the option of participatory upgrades and where people will only move elsewhere when that is their free choice. We imagine the quick improvement of local living conditions by the provision of water, electricity, paths, stairs and roads while housing is being discussed, planned and built. We imagine cities without evictions, without state violence being used to disconnect people from electricity and water and without any repression of organisations and movements. We imagine cities without the transit camps that have become the permanent alternative housing solution for many poor people since the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals by the United Nations. We reject, completely, the way in which the Millennium Development Goals have reduced the measure of progress to the numbers of 'housing opportunities delivered' when in fact progress should be measured in terms of people's dignity as this is understood by the people themselves’ (Zikode 2011).

Such imaginings come from thinking and discussions that jibe with Fanon’s notion of political education. He presents what he calls the militant who wants to take shortcuts in the name of getting things done not only as anti-intellectual but atrocious, inhuman and sterile. Instead, he insists the search for truth is the ‘responsibility of the community’ (2004, 139). In ‘The Wretched’, Fanon speaks of the meeting, of this coming together, as the practical and ethical foundation of the liberated society, as ‘a liturgical act’ (un acte liturgique [2002, 185]); liturgical acts which ‘are privileged occasions given to a human being to listen and to speak … and put forward new ideas …’ (1968 195).

Again at the local level, in ‘The Wretched’ Fanon gives the seemingly banal example of lentil production during the liberation struggle, writing of the creation of production/consumption committees among the peasants and FLN which he says encouraged theoretical questions about the accumulation of capital: ‘In the regions where we were able to conduct these enlightening experiments,’ he argues, ‘we witnessed the edification of man through revolutionary beginnings’ because people began to realize that ‘one works more with one’s brain and ones heart than with one’s muscles’ (2004, 133; see 1968, 292).

Talking of the political economy of food he adds: ‘We did not have any technicians or planners coming from big Western universities; but in these liberated regions the daily ration went up to the hitherto unheard-of figure of 3,200 calories. [But t]he people were not content with [this] …. They started asking themselves theoretical questions: for example, why did certain districts never see an orange before the war of liberation, while thousands of tons are exported every year abroad? Why were grapes unknown to a great many Algerians whereas the European peoples enjoyed them by the million? Today, the people have a very clear notion of what belongs to them.’

This type of shift in cognition represents a shift in epistemology.

EDUCATION FOR LIBERATION?

The mandate for the College of the Bahamas is to ‘foster the intellectual development of students and the wider community by encouraging critical analysis and independent thought’ and the meeting today is considered part of the project to attain university through contributing to that discussion. Yet critical and independent thought can never be guaranteed and certainly can’t be assured by a university. In this final section of my presentation I want to consider the problematic of a university in the post-colony as it articulates with movements and thinking outside of it.

Real grassroots social movements open up new spaces for thinking. Yet on the other hand the global university of the 21st century not only often looks elsewhere but actively seeks to suppress these spaces. The quest to be ‘world class,’ such as that which the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal announces, is couched by the term excellence seen through a neo-colonial prism of donors and global elites. At best the new movements become researched — the paradigms often developed by the World Bank or other funding agencies — they are never allowed to ask theoretical questions. It is a neo-colonial arrangement.

Recognising that the colonised intellectual committed to social change is fundamentally alienated from the people, Fanon suggests a methodology that fundamentally challenges the elitism, internalised values and ways of thinking they have imbibed. Perhaps the same, often depending on context, can be said of the postcolonial intellectual. In ‘Black Skin White Masks’, for example, Fanon argues that this alienation and neurosis is quite normal; that is to say a product of books, newspapers, schools, and their texts, advertisements, films, radio — what we might call hegemonic culture. How then do we go about creating space for a critical humanities as a consciously decolonizing project (by decolonizing I do not simply mean the formal end of colonialism but, following Fanon, the form and content of pedagogies and practices devoted to the decolonization of the mind)? Since such a conception runs counter to the university in the global market place that judges itself in those terms, what is to be done within the situation and places we find ourselves? Also on what philosophic ground and from what principle do we ask the question? Certainly, we cannot take the existence of a public sphere, of public intellectuals, and any claim of intellectual autonomy as either guaranteed or unproblematic.

For Fanon education is always political education. In practice all education is political and education is political in all its forms of socialization and in its disciplines. In other words education helps us organize our lives, helps us think and act, help us think and create images of justice. Fanon means something different by political education. Just as for Fanon culture has to become a fighting culture, education has to become about total liberation. De-colonial education has to be a total critique and a transformative experiential process. Indeed this notion of education as transformative is often recognized on the private level in the rhetoric of individual entrepreneurship that often powers the discourse of the university’s value, but the issue for a de-colonial national education is an education that helps create a social consciousness and a social individual. Fanon is not concerned with educating the power elites to lead but to promote self-confidence among the mass of people, to teach the masses, as he puts it, that everything depends on them. This is not simply a version of community or adult education and certainly not of a hyperdermic notion of conscientization. Let me give an example that focuses less on content than form. In ‘Year 5 of the Algerian Revolution’ (‘A Dying Colonialism’) Fanon has an essay on the radio, ‘the voice of Algeria.’ What becomes clear is the importance of the form of the meeting. He describes a room of people listening to the radio, and the militant — namely the teacher — is among them, but (jammed by the French) there is only white noise on the radio. After a long discussion the participants agree about what has taken place; the teacher becomes an informed discussant, not a director. The form of the classroom is a democratic space, and the result is in a sense the point that political education is about self-empowerment as social individuals. It is a new collectivity, a new solidarity. The reference to the voice of Algeria is simply an example that helps to emphasize the processes at stake. The wider issue of the politics of pedagogy and curriculum must include the geography of the postcolonial university, its buildings, its gates, its barriers, its classrooms and all its spatial set ups. Colonialism, Fanon argues, is totalitarian. It inhabits every relationship and every space. The university produces and reproduces reification and thus has to be thoroughly reconsidered. But that reconsideration doesn’t come in one fell swoop; it is a process and a praxis, but one that also must include its philosophy and its raison d’être.

This is not a call to the barricades even if it is a call to ideological combat to have one’s ears open, to not confine new development in a priori categories. In other words, a de-colonial praxis would have to begin from the movement from practice not simply where the people dwell in those thousands of revolts taking place across the country but in their self-organization. Ideological combat, or a fighting culture, as Fanon explains in ‘The Wretched’, is quite simply engaged intellectual work. In other words, and this is obvious, it is not about intellectuals going to the rural areas to pick up a scythe and be with the people. I am not saying that that can’t be done, but that is not intellectual work, and it certainly does not challenge the division between mental and manual labour. So to conclude, what makes possible the intellectual capacity to see into the reasons for popular action, or in short, the rationality of revolt?

In the revolutionary moment of the anti-colonial struggle Fanon writes of the ‘honest intellectual,’ who, committed to social change, enters what he calls an ‘occult zone,’ engaging the notion of the transformation of reality with a real sense of uncertainty while also coming to understand what is humanly possible. This zone is a space that is being shaped by a movement which, he says, in ‘On National Culture,’ is beginning to call everything into question (1968, 227). ‘The zone of hidden fluctuation’ (2004, 163) or ‘occult instability’ (1968, 227) [C’est dans ce lieu de déséquilibre occulte 2002 215] ‘where the people dwell’ is not a ghostly movement but corporeally alive. If honest intellectuals feel the instability of it, it is because they cannot really take a living role, that is to say a disalienated role, in this movement unless they recognise the extent of their alienation from it (1968, 226). But the intellectual’s role need not be a mysterious one. Rather it can be quite practical, grounded in a sharing of reason where trust is implicit. This of course means that the intellectual must give up the position of privilege and begin to comprehend that the ‘workless,’ ‘less than human’ and ‘useless’ people do think concretely in terms of social transformation (see 1968 127). After all this new zone of movement and self-movement — what one might also call a radical zone of dialectical leaps in thought and activity (see James 1980) — is a space where souls ‘are crystallized and perceptions and lives transfigured’ (translation altered 227; 2004,163). Fanon’s language is almost transcendental here, and one may argue that such heavenly ‘authenticity’ born of this revolutionary moment seems as impossible as the idea of the excluded, the uncounted and unaccountable, the damned of the earth, upsetting the household arrangements of the here and now, creating a genuine moment (and zone) or community where trust and the sharing of reason is implicit. Fanon is not speaking of some heavenly space of some future afterlife; he locates the space very much in the contingent now and that is being lived, quite practically and unstably, in the present. This ramshackle movement from practice as a form of theory (see Dunayevskaya 1988), that is to say as both force and reason, is inherently uncertain and also, at the same time, unexceptional. It challenges reason as it is commonly accepted (instrumental, technical or even the professionally ‘critical’) and decenters it, moving it closer to the reason or reasoning of so many of those who have been considered unreasonable, but who in a dialectical logic are implicitly proposing a new humanism.

One of the challenges of Fanonian Practices in South Africa, from Biko to Abahlali is epistemological; it is to think of thinking from the underside, if you will. The struggle school is a struggle, as Richard Pithouse puts it. And let’s be clear sometimes that school comes into contradiction with the university system and can have dire costs both in terms of employment and in terms of threats of violence. Fanon talks about ‘snatching’ knowledge from the colonial universities; he is also aware of the great sacrifices that this can entail. In ‘The Wretched’ he makes a point to distinguish between the hobnobbing postcolonial intelligentsia and the honest intellectual who abhors careerism, distrusts the race for positions, and who is still committed to fundamental change even if he or she presently does not see its possibility.

What if the vaunted position of ‘intellectual’ does not require a degree from a ‘world class’ institution? The public intellectual without a university accreditation is becoming almost unthinkable. But to be relevant the national university has to be transformative, self-critical and also open to the experiences and minds of the common people who have been often excluded; not simply an accrediting agency for service industries, the university instead must be dedicated to the growth of every kind of genius.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abane, Beläid. 2011 in Nigel C. Gibson, editor, Living Fanon. New York: Palgrave
2. Cherki, Alice. 2006. Fanon: A Portrait. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Cleaver, Kathleen, Neal. 1998. “Back to Africa: The Evolution of the International Section of the Black Panther Party” in Charles E. Jones eds. The Black Panther Party Reconsidered. Baltimore MD: Black Classic Press
3. Dunayevskaya. Raya. 1988. Marxism and Freedom. New York: Columbia University Press
4. Fanon, Frantz. 2002. Les damnés de la terre. Paris: La Découverte, 2002.
5. __________. 1967a. Black Skin White Masks. Translated by Lars Markman. New York: Grove.
6. __________. 1967b. Toward the African Revolution. Translated by Haakon Chevalier. New York: Grove.
7. __________. 1967c. A Dying Colonialism. Translated by Haakon Chevalier. New York: Grove.
8. __________. 1968. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Constance Farrington. New York: Grove.
9. __________. 2004. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove.
10. Glissant, E 1999. Caribbean Discourses: Selected Essays. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1999.
11. James, C.L.R. 1980. Notes on Dialectics London: Allison and Busby.
Reverend Mavuso. 2011. “Climate Change and Global Warming are perpetuated by the capitalists to oppress the poor to make profit”.
12. Wright, Richard. 1956. “The Neuroses of Conquest,” The Nation, October 20. pp. 33-331
13. Wright, Richard. 1995. White Man Listen. New York: Harper Collins.
Zikode, S’bu. 2011. “Upgrades v Evictions,” September 29 at abalhali.org.

END NOTES

[1] Fanon studied and practiced with Tosquelles before leaving France for Algiers. Tosquelles who was carrying out a revolution in psychiatry at Saint Alban and was an anticolonialist grew up in Catalonia and had been an active anti-stalinist during the Spanish civil war.
[2] Glissant writes that “it is difficult for a French Caribbean individual to be the brother, friend, or quite simply the associate or fellow countryman of Fanon. Because, of all the French Caribbean intellectuals, he is the only one to have acted on his ideas, through his involvement in the Algerian struggle” (1999 25). Fanon made a “complete break” and yet Martinican intellectuals have failed to recognize him almost at all. He adds that they could not find in Fanon a figure who “awakened (in the deepest sense of the word) the peoples of the contemporary world” (1999 69).
[3] Wright’s review of the English translation of Mannoni’s book (which was published in 1956) in The Nation (Oct 20, 1956) was similar to Fanon’s critique in Black Skin White Masks. Titled “The Neuroses of Conquest,” Wright praised Mannoni’s book for focusing on the psychology of the “restless” Europeans who set out for world “that would permit free play for their repressed instincts” but he criticized Mannoni for creating the impression that the Madagascar “natives are somehow the White man’s Burden.” Like Fanon’s alienated Black, the native, Wright argues, vainly attempts “to embrace the world of white faces that rejects it” and in reaction to this rejection ”seeks refuge in tradition. But he concludes “but it is too late” there is “haven in neither.” BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* This was a keynote address delivered at the Critical Caribbean Symposium Series ‘50 Years Later: Frantz Fanon’s Legacy to the Caribbean and the Bahamas,’ Friday 2, December 2011 at The College of the Bahamas. It was first published in Thinking Africa.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

Review of "Juju Factory" by Hans-Christian Mahnke, AfricAvenir, Windhoek, Namibia

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:58:00 +0100

“Juju Factory” provides an adroit analysis of issues of immigration and integration. The film brilliantly questions ideas of “authentic” representations of “Africaness,” introducing a complex cinematic language that shows how contemporary African film not only is diverse in its tendencies but also relates in diverse ways to different (trans-)national traditions and schools of thought. Directed by Congolese filmmaker Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda, the film was the big event during the 2007 Fespaco - the Pan African Film Festival of Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso, where it had its world premiere. It has received four awards for best film in Austria (Innsbruck International Film Festival), in Tanzania (Zanzibar International Film Festival), in Kenya (Kenya International Film Festival) and in France (African Film Festival at Apt). Furthermore the film received also the Best Actress Award (Carole Karemera as Béatrice) in Italy (Festival Cinema Africano, Bari).

Noble Links
In December 2010, Mario Vargas Llosa, famous writer from Peru, received the Nobel Prize for Literature. Only a month earlier, in November 2010, Vargas Llosa presented his newest book “El sueno del celta” to a Spanish speaking audience. It has been a bestseller in Spain and was the most popular title at the XXIV Feria Internacional del Libro de Guadalajara. The book is a novelization of the life of Anglo-Irish diplomat-turned-Irish nationalist Sir Roger Casement (1864-1916). Sir Roger Casement became world famous for his exposure to and his first-hand accounts of the systematic tortures inflicted on the people of Congo by European commercial and colonial concerns at the time of King Leopold II of Belgium. The book entitled “The dream of the Celt” is scheduled to appear in English in early 2012. Once the book will be available in English, it will again put Congo and its colonisation on the centre of debates around the world. I am saying this, since I do believe that Vargas Llosa’s Nobel Prize and the ever-controversial Casement could prove irresistible, especially to an English speaking audience. It also could once again show that colonisation, exploitation, and capitalism can go pretty well hand in hand. Something, the globalising Occupy Wallstreet Movement might put onto its agenda sooner or later too. The novel naturally and purposefully invites comparison with Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. But it also could and should draw attention on a film made a few years earlier, “Juju Factory”. What is the film about and why does it relate to “The Dream of the Celt”?
The people of Congo suffered under Belgian rule tremendously, beyond imagination. And as well as Casement, director Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda is tortured by this reality. But, other than Casement, Bakupa-Kanyinda suffers additionally and rightfully too from the projections on Black people and his acute awareness of the state of Africa. The film, as Oliver Barlet put it, is a “meditation in accordance with Balafu Bakupa-Kanyinda's now well-identified obsessions and style: Africa's relation to power and creation”. Deliberately fictional the film touches styles of documentary reporting in order to catch the echoes of the inhabitants talking about their neighborhood: "To each street its own people", one of them says. The film does its best to break the globalizing image of a mythical Africa. “Juju Factory” invites us to read a dense net of references and allusions, names and phantoms, memories and nightmares. With the help of the protagonist, the writer Congo Kongo, the filmmaker leads us through Matonge, the only European city area to have an African name, a district in the south of Brussels, renamed after a commercial district in Kinshasa. With a repo man threatening to take away all his belongings, people back home in Congo Kongo depending on him to send money, and a need to express his own feelings about exil and about his roots, Congo Kongo agrees to write a book – supposedly a “travel guide” spiced up with ethnic exotic ingredients to introduce Matonge Village to white Europeans, promising a commercial success – for an allegedly African publishing house. So begins the conflict between Congo Kongo and Joseph Désiré, his dictatorial publisher, and African insisting to be Belgian, who goes so far as to ask the statue of king Leopold for advice for how to deal with this uppity writer. Inspired by the vision of complex and tormented souls that he meets at all crossings in Matonge, and since Matonge started in the tombs of the colonial expositions of the museum of Tervuren, Kongo conceives of the idea of writing a book that follows the paths of Congolese history and its many ghosts. Delving away too deep for his editor’s comfort, since he doesn’t write a tourist guide as requested but a narrative of different African stories from a migration background, Kongo Congo must try to keep his head above disaster and finish his book. Hints appear that the book Congo Kongo is writing is in fact the film we are watching. And as Joseph Désiré becomes increasingly rigid and demanding, insisting on a prettified advertisement about ethnic color in Belgium’s capital, Congo Kongo becomes increasingly haunted by thoughts of Patrice Lumumba and the history of European theft and pillage of the African continent. Congo Kongo’s journey evokes images that need to be read. The face of Patrice Lumumba cross-fades beneath the surface; it appears alongside the rhymes of young rappers; it looks back from the wall of the writer's apartment, framed like a precious souvenir inspiring poetic and thoughtful writing. Then the montage switches to an extract from the documentary by Thomas Giefer “Mord im Kolonialstil”. We see Gerard Soete; the man who finished off the conglomerate’s dirty work. He laughs while holding two teeth in his hands, two teeth dislodged from Patrice Lumumba’s head. Finally, these transfers of remembrance lead to the whispered question: What have we made of ourselves? "As long as the lion won't be able to tell, all hunting tales will be to the glory of the hunter" the film tells us, encouraging, yes, demanding from Africans, to start taking charge of one's own history, and to do so while believing in the human being, before one has become another Joseph Désiré, Congo Kongo’s publisher.
In the end, Congo Kongo writes a story from his soul about injustice, racism, and colonialism in the modern world. Despite the lure of money, bill collectors, and pressure from his editor, he manages to stay the course and complete his novel. Kongo, his community, and the cinema audience might discover how it is possible to stand upright with the terrible colonial past of Europe, Africa, and the world. "You are a man because the other is", Kongo writes in his notebook.
The tokoloshe we are looking for, is in our fellow man, hiding in the then and now. It’s for us to see.

Awards:

Best film Tyrol Awards, Innsbruck International Film Festival, Austria 2007
Golden Dhow Award Best film, Zanzibar International Film Festival 2007
Best film, Kenya International Film Festival 2007
Best film, Festival de Cinema Africain d’Apt, France 2007
Best Actress (Carole Karemera), Festival Cinema Africano, Italy

Press:
“Avec “Juju Factory” Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinde offre un diamant du Congo aux cinéphiles du Continent.” (www.lefaso.net - Burkina Faso) “The wealth of ideas, the humour, a deliberately crazy camera and tight interwoven editing, voluntarist dialogue and roaming at night… Juju Factory is a factory for manifestos, a Soleil Ô-type cry in which Le Damier would have spawn its offspring. Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda seems to be looking for the life-saving juju, this talisman supposed to protect us from monsters and which must be hiding somewhere out there, in the culture reread in the light of the present. It's for the tortured artists to take action, in the colorlessness of their interior exile, listening to their exile as immigrants or victims of exclusion. It's that crazy Balufu's pleasure to put us on track with this rich, diverse, operatic, scathing and torn film.” (Oliver Barlet, AfriCultures) « A humourous and super-clever social commentary on ... exile and migration? Belgian colonialism? Racism in Europe? The psychology of the colonized? Of the decolonized? Of the comprador bourgeoisie? ... I think all these things.” (www.sketchythoughts.blogspot.com - USA) “This film carries a heavy load of diasporic desires and above all fears. ... The concrete Belgian past which the film brings into view harks back to 1897 when 250 Congolese men and women were shipped to Belgium to feature in the colonial section of the Universal exhibition, but the film also recalls the murder of Lumumba. Psychologically and conceptually, the filmmaker displaces the diasporic ‘double consciousness’ and explores the multiplexity of attitudes and identifications of Congolese and Africans which he explicitly defines as ‘in exile’ in Belgium.” (Karel Arnaut – University Ghent, Mediating Matonge: Relocations of Belgian postcoloniality)

Kwame Opoku: Nok Once More

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:35:00 +0100

In this article, columnist Kwame Opoku comments on a recent article by Karl- Ferdinand Schaedler in the catalogue accompanying the recent exhibition AFRIKA AFRIQUE AFRICA in Vienna entitled “Against the Destruction of Art Objects - The Other Side of Restituting Cultural Assets”. Opoku argues that trying to create the impression that Western museums are at the forefront of the fight for restitution is a clear attempt to cause confusion in the minds of readers. “It is indeed unfortunate that so much Nok material has been looted over time to supply the international market. Properly excavated, such pieces might have shed valuable light on the Nok culture.” Ekpo Eyo (1)

Recently, a very observant reader drew the attention of the Nigerian authorities to a proposed auction of a Nok sculpture in a French auction house. (2) The Nigerian Commission for Museums and Monuments, the body established by law to protect and preserve cultural artefacts of Nigeria promptly sent a strong message to the French auction house requesting the suspension of all acts relating to the Nok object until its true provenance has been established. Suspension of the sale and discovering the true provenance of the Nok artefact would help Nigeria to discover how such an object was taken out of the country and enable the authorities to prevent such illegal activities. A few months ago, there was an exhibition, entitled AFRIKA AFRIQUE AFRICA in Vienna. According to the catalogue, there were 73 Nok pieces in the exhibition. One whole hall was devoted to Nok sculptures. (3) It has been said that some of the Nok sculptures displayed may well be fakes. This is a question we would leave to Nok specialists. What interests us here is the justification often advanced for keeping African artefacts, including Nok objects, in Western museums, institutions and in private collections. One such justification was given in the catalogue of the exhibition.

The catalogue includes five essays by Armand Duchâteau and one by Karl- Ferdinand Schaedler entitled, “Against the Destruction of Art Objects - The Other Side of Restituting Cultural Assets.”(4) This essay is interesting from several points of view, especially, as the author seems to put the British Museum and other Western Museums as being in the forefront of the struggle for restitution and preservation of African artefacts. One can see the essay’s potential for causing confusion in the minds of many. The author refers to discussion on the preservation of national cultural possessions revived by the opening of boundaries in Eastern Europe and the large number of African artefacts, especially the Nok objects, that are available on the open market.: “This abundance of finds presumably plays a role in the fact that a number of museums in Europe and the US are choosing not to acquire any Nok pieces (which some of these institutions are already regretting).” According to Schaedler, museums refrained from acquiring such objects because they were afraid of criticism from their own country and from the countries of origin of the objects. As a further indication of the unease of the museums, he states, was that during the 1995/96 exhibition, Africa - The Art of a Continent at the Royal Academy, London, archaeological findings from Mali and Nigeria were shown only on videos for the British Museum had threatened to withhold objects it had agreed to lend if the allegedly illegal objects were displayed. According to the author, the efforts to bring the issue of cultural preservation of African artefacts died quickly because ”no one on the African side seemed to be interested in these cultural assets, unless it was for purely financial reason”. Besides, those objects that were restituted quickly returned to the art market. Dr. Schaedler does not specify which objects and their country of origin. The author argues that all the efforts to preserve cultural objects are, as far as Africa in concerned, impositions from the West. For Africans, he argues, what matters is the present and not the past. Europeans have been brought up to preserve the past:

“As far as Africa is concerned, this entire situation seems to be based on a deeply rooted cultural misunderstanding. What is being put forward here is the image of the naïve African who is unable to manage his own affairs: economic neo-colonialism is now being followed by its cultural counterpart in its purest form. What we in the West do is right. And the others must follow suit if they intend to become part of the community of civilized peoples. They must preserve their culture and protect their cultural heritage; they must not only live for today, but also consider yesterday and tomorrow. These are certainly maxims with which we in America and Europe grew up, ideals which seem right to us and which we hold in high regard. And why not? But these principles must not necessarily hold true for other cultures … If those in the West feel compelled to preserve cultures and erect museums this is solely their view of things. In Africa this idea generally meets with incomprehension. And if Africa - where since the end of the Cold War colonialism has again been rearing its head - is not allowed to maintain its right to independence in economic and political affairs, it should at least have the right in the area of culture.”

This statement contains various ideas which cannot be left uncommented. What Schaedler is saying in effect is that Europeans are trying to impose on Africans the idea and obligation to preserve their cultural artefacts. He considers this a form of colonialism in the cultural field. The author not only makes assumptions that are not supported by history and historical experience but also seems to ignore various international efforts such as UNESCO Conventions, UN resolutions, decisions of international conferences and other bodies to preserve cultural artefacts in all continents including Africa.

It is obvious that Africans did not need Europeans to tell them to preserve objects of their cultural heritage. Had Africans not preserved their cultural objects, there would have been none for the Europeans to loot or steal when they came to the Continent. Somebody must have looked after the various African objects that European invaders looted or colonial administrations and adventurers confiscated. And who preserved the famous Benin bronzes before they were looted in 1897 by the British in their infamous “Punitive Expedition”? Surely, common sense would indicate that these Benin bronzes, kept in the palace of the Oba of Benin were preserved by the people of Benin who did not need any Europeans to advise them on the need to preserve cultural objects that had been preserved for hundreds of years. What about the Dogon sculptures that had been preserved for hundreds of years before they were stolen by the French in their notorious Dakar-Djibouti expedition in 1931? (5)

Surely the expert has heard the view often expressed by many that Africans venerate their ancestors hence many sculptures such as the Kota reliquaries. Some have even said Africans worship their ancestors. Are these the marks of those who do not care about the past and the future? What about the view often expressed that the African concept of ownership of land is based on the belief that the land belongs to a whole lot of people of whom some have died, some are living but a lot more are to come. Could this also be a characteristic of a people who only live for the present?

Even assuming that Africans did not preserve their cultural objects before contact with Europe, surely the relationship that started in the 15th century must have left their marks. Various museums have also been built in many African countries during the colonial rule. Is one entitled to disregard these museums which have the main function of preserving cultural artefacts? Is one to ignore also the classes that have grown up in these five hundred years and their cultural development both in terms of African and European cultures?

What is very remarkable is that Dr. Schaedler completely ignores the existence of UNESCO and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. (6) The author seems to ignore the fact that the Convention as well as various instruments impose on States, including the African States, an obligation to preserve their cultural heritage. He even goes so far as to say that “After all, the legal premise that all goods lying beneath the earth are the property of the country in which they are found certainly has no legal or moral basis and in the final analysis can be seen as a holdover from the colonial era.” Can a person with some familiarity with European history make this assertion? Is the author aware that the 1970 UNESCO Convention attributes to the cultural heritage of the State cultural objects found on its territory? Article 4 of the Convention reads as follows:

"The States Parties to this Convention recognize that for the purpose of the Convention property which belongs to the following categories forms part of the cultural heritage of each State:
(a) Cultural property created by the individual or collective genius of nationals of the State concerned, and cultural property of importance to the State
concerned created within the territory of that State by foreign nationals or stateless persons resident within such territory;
(b) cultural property found within the national territory;
(c) cultural property acquired by archaeological, ethnological or natural science missions, with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property;
(d) cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed exchange;
(e) cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property.”

Of course, Schaedler ignores all the efforts made by bodies such as UNESCO, United Nations and ICOM (International Council of Museums) and other bodies in the area of preservation of culture. It is remarkable that Dr.Schaedler can write about restitution of African artefacts, especially about the Nok artefacts without mentioning for once the Nigerian Commission for Museums and Monoments, the body specifically charged with preservation of Nigerian cultural artefacts, a body whose consent is required for legal exportation of artefacts from Nigeria. Or are the activities of the Commission regarding control of exportation of artefacts not relevant to the issues we are discussing?

Can an expert in African art and culture afford, in the long run, to ignore historical facts and the work of UNESCO, ICOM , the Commission for Museums and Monuments and other bodies, write about Africans in a derogatory, if not racist, tone which we thought had disappeared with the end of colonialism?

NOTES

1. Ekpo Eyo, From Shrines to Showcases: Masterpieces of Nigerian Art, 2010, Federal Ministry of Information and Communication, Abuja. p.23. The preamble to ICOM red List Africa reads as follows: “The looting of archaeological items and the destruction of archaeological sites in Africa are a cause of irreparable damage to African history and hence to the history of humankind. Whole sections of our history have been wiped out and can never be reconstituted. These objects cannot be understood once they have been removed from their archaeological context and divorced from the whole to which they belong. Only professional archaeological excavations can help recover their identity, their date and their location. But so long as there is demand from the international art market these objects will be looted and offered for sale.” http://archives.icom.museum/redlist
ICOM red List
See also K.Opoku, “Recovering Nigerian’s Terracotta, http://www.modernghana.com
Revisiting Looted Nigerian Nok Terracotta Sculptures in Louvre, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris “ http://www.myweku.com
“A Blank Cheque to Plunder Nok Terra cotta?” http://toncremers.wordpress.com
“Let Others Loot for You: Looting of African Artefacts for Western Museums”
http://www.modernghana.com

“Does the Demand for the Restitution of Stolen African Cultural Objects Constitute an Obstacle to the Dissemination of Knowledge about African Arts? Comments o a Letter from Philippe de Montebello, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.” http://www.afrikanet.info

2. http://tinyurl.com/c8clw3o

3. Herbert Stepic(Ed.) Afrika Afrique Africa, Christian Brandstätter Verlag, Wien, 2011, pp. 162-169; : http://www.stepic-collection.com/de/informationen.html
http://www.stepic-collection.com/de/vernissage.html

4. H. Stepic, pp. 16-23.

5. See Michel Leiris, Afrique Fantôme, 1953, Gallimard, Paris

6. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Hassouna Mansouri: "Waiting for Robin Hood" - A Review of the International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA)

Sat, 10 Dec 2011 14:21:00 +0100

In this review of the International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA), Hassouna Mansouri takes a critical look at some of the well-intentioned films by European directors about Africa and asks: In how far can European filmmakers substitute their colleagues from Africa in speaking about the realities of the African continent? Hassouna Mansouri: "Waiting for Robin Hood" - A Review of the International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA) At the end of a screening at the International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA) a lady took the microphone and invited people to buy plastic bottles which were for sale right at the exit of the theatre. It was an initiative of an NGO working in the field of improving access to drinking water in Africa. The goal was to collect money to supply a village in South Sudan with clean water. I try to imagine the reaction of the audience. Some should have thought: again some charity for our poor friends from Africa. Isn’t it enough that the government pays millions every year from our taxes to help the third world countries. Some others thinking it would be a noble action to let wealthy Europeans pay few Euros and give hundreds of families access to the viable liquid. At the end the ones will indifferently walk away the others will buy some battles. And this happens a lot in festivals. But whether it would change something in the world or how far, this remains another question. You could witness this at the occasion of the screening of Hinterland a documentary made by Dutch director Albert Elings. He followed a former Sudanese child soldier who came to the Netherlands 11 years ago as an asylum seeker making his trip back to his country. That’s why the full title of the film is Hinterland-A Child Soldier’s Road back to South Sudan. The production properly began in 2002. Kon Kelei was then starring in Tussenland (Between countries) a feature film by Dutch filmmaker Eugenie Jansen who won one of the three Tiger Awards at the International Film Festival Rotterdam. At that time, documentary maker Albert Elings started to follow the expatriate. After the independence of the country and the peace agreement between Khartoum and Juba, he goes back home. The film follows him on this first trip to his birthplace where he has plans to open a school and insure drinking water to his community. It tells one of those stories we hear more and more in our times and which are the dream of millions of young people in the South, but at the same time they are the nightmare of the western world. Kon fled Sudan more than a decade ago when he was recruited as a child soldier by the rebels. After a long trip in a containershhip he ended up in the harbour of Rotterdam. Since then his life would never be the same. As a refugee in one of the asylum camps in the Netherlands, he could go to school and graduate in international law. Now he is back with a master in his pocket and a lot of dreams and plans to develop his new independent country South Sudan. The documentary follows the metamorphosis of the young man during quite ten years, from the moment he was admitted in the asylum camp until he goes back home to his motherland. The film shows Kon Kelei in the camp, then during his graduating ceremony at the university of law in Nijmegen, and finally when he goes back to his family and his village in the deep inlands of South Sudan. It is definitely not more than the story of a young refugee who grabbed the opportunity of success.
However the film points, unconsciously, to the gap between two worlds. Following Kon in his trip you see two ways of living; on one side the life he lived all these years in exile, on the other side the life of his family lives but also the life he would have had if he didn’t run away. Then you see how absurd is the difference of chance and the iniquity between two worlds. This feeling is much deeper in the Netherlands where the naïf and optimist message of the film is in complete contradiction with the actual debate about the policy toward underdeveloped countries. European countries are indeed facing a terrible economic crisis. In addition to budget cuts in fields like culture and public services, they find the solution by reducing budget allowed to international development which means retrenchment in the policy of sustain to the weak economies.
At the same time recently the case of the young Angolan Mauro Manuel, opened a very animated debate about the decision to send him back to Luanda after ten years of exile and even though he has no more family in the African city. The fact is that Mauro is a very special case and even too complex for an emigration law that reduces human beings to numbers. The eighteen year old man came to the Netherlands as a 8 year old boy. His mother dropped him in an airplane to spare him poverty, misery and civil war. In the European country he was welcomed by a family who tried to adopt him for two times without success. Still, the kid grew up in Dutch society quite like any other young boy: going to school, playing in the courtyards and hanging around in the parks. Now that he is mature, the very rational society wants him to fit somewhere. Such a case is not predictable by law. The boy went to Dutch school for ten years, he speaks the Dutch language like his mother tongue, he has Dutch friends and dreams about making a living in the only one society he knows.
Unlike Mauro Manuel who is still young (only 18), Kon Kelei is more grown up. He finished his master degree, and a brilliant future is waiting for the young expert in international law. He is teaching at the newly born university of law and will probably embrace a political career. Like him the film shows many other south Sudanese young people who are still finishing the process of qualification. They are the incarnation of the dream of many young African men: go to the North, learn, make money and go back to serve the family, the tribe and the country. We are put back to the sixties an seventies when African students were sent to Europe to graduate in different fields and once back, take care of their people. Can we ever forget that this strategy led to all kinds of post-colonial regimes? Dictators that peoples in Tunisia, Egypt and other African countries are struggling against, are all well educated and somehow graduated in Europe and the USA. All African ruling elite learned how to govern their people in Europe whether they went there physically or not.
From that point of view there is a very naive idea about the way the North is giving back something to Africa. One could not see this film without thinking about the political and economic background of the refugee phenomenon. Such a film, even when it is made apparently with a lot of good feelings, is then part of a widespread practice in the western world which aims to give people a good conscience: Getting out of the film, you can buy a plastic bottle from a humanitarian organization which is collecting money to develop drinking water in South Sudan. For few Euros, people get the opportunity to clear their conscience and feel in peace spiritually. At the same time they let their governments send asylum seekers and immigrants back to the misery which they create with their unfair policy. Worse is that there is a big dilemma in this kind of situations. If you participate to the humanitarian effort you are accomplice to a certain neo-capitalist system that you support indirectly. If you don’t do anything, you will not help the situation of millions of people getting better or, let’s say, at least not getting worse. That’s how the neo-liberalist rulers of the world by a perverse effect use humanist values of solidarity and trap citizens in order to use their need of spiritual peace and mercifulness to spare themselves the obligation to fulfil their duty. In this kind of situations the nice mythical figure of Robin Hood crosses one’s mind. The NGO is taking money from the riches to give to the poors. Not bad, one could say. But there are two counterarguments to this naive configuration. First, NGOs are not steeling. Second, people who buy the plastic bottles mostly are not really the richest of the western world. Those who are steeling and the modern aristocrats profiting from the privileges of the neo-liberalism are the multinationals and the banks. At least one could see in the young former refugee an incarnation of the modern Robin Hood for whom the wealth he made thanks to his exile could be seen in a very subtle metaphor as a taxes imposed to riches that he uses to help his/her poor people. This latter was robbed by the imperialist western companies and rulers. Unfortunately this is not the idea we can find in this film neither in another The Sacrifice (Yoole), a documentary by Moussa Sene Absa from Senegal who points to the illegal migration on the coast of the Atlantic ocean. Asylum seekers or illegal migrants could be seen as the Robin Hoods of our times. Their plan is in fact to take the money of the richest and give it to the poor. But it in the legend of Robin Hood, the hero is of aristocratic blood. That’s why I see the myth of the good thief more in these European filmmakers who stand against the iniquity of the neo-liberal machine milling everybody and everything in its path; the poor would then be the Asian and the African peasants as well as the worker and the petit bourgeois in the wealthy European societies. But the work of this kind of rollercoaster is more obvious in continents like Africa where the absurd contradictions can be easily verified. That’s why even if African cinema is not well represented in western festivals, African subjects nourish a lot of documentaries made by northern directors. The 24th International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam opened with a The Ambassador, a film about the Central African Republic made by Danish filmmaker and journalist Mads Brügger. Already before the kick off of the festival and the screening of the film a polemic started between the filmmaker and one the protagonists, the Dutch businessman Willem Tijssen who asked the festival (via a letter) to withdraw the film from its program. Tijssen is running a company called Diplomatic Services Africa and helped the filmmaker to get a Liberian passport. He was paid for that service a modicum sum of 50.000 US dollar. 3/4th of the amount was used to corrupt African officers, admitted the man, while the whole salary was supposed to reach the 135.000 US dollars. It was not explicitly said whether he was contesting the way he was showed in the film or because he was not paid the rest of the promised money. But this prologue gave already the LA of the whole concert. The journalist went to explore the milieu of diamond traffic in Central African Republic. This is one of the most mysterious businesses in the world to which it would be impossible for an African filmmaker to enter. To do this it is not enough to find diamonds. The most difficult is to be able to take them out of the country. Or the only safe way is to be a diplomat and be sure not to be searched by customers when you are leaving the territory with few diamonds in your Samsonite hand suitcase. Because it was not possible for him to pass as a western diplomat, the journalist, a blond and tall Danish man, enters the central African territories as a Liberian official. After some adventures and dirty dealings he establishes his business. The whole process is filmed by a minuscule hidden camera. That’s how we enter a world of corrupted officials in the high and dark spheres of euro-African diplomacy. There is a lot to learn from these stolen images. We are taught for example that after the fight for the control of minerals in the seventies, France and China are nowadays working together to spoil African soil. We learn how French secret services were involved in the provocation of Central African rebellion(s). We are told that Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and her minister of Foreign Affairs were on the list of persons not allowed to hold any high official position because of their involvement in the civil war. We are taught how a lot of European diplomats are part of a corrupted network serving as intermediaries in the illegal commerce of diamond. They bring you in touch with officials who will provide the false diplomatic passport, and with the local officials who will help you infiltrate the market of whatever you want. At the end we will come to the conclusion that the big white people are earning hundreds of millions of dollars using the mines and the work of the poor and short height pygmies. The filmmaker doesn’t hesitate to show himself always standing with his two local pygmies whom he took as assistants. Therefore he cynically visualizes the relationship of power and spoliation that weighs too much on Africans. This documentary is part of a whole tradition of successful films about Africa. The same festival opened in 2008 with a film about Congo called Enjoy Poverty by Dutch video-maker Renzo Martins who explored the insane networks of foreign organizations working in this country. He showed how United Nation’s and Humanitarian NGO’s work in an area where lifes of Congolese are wasted while westerns are making wealth selling everything : photos of corpses to newspapers and press agencies, medicines to sick malnourished children, diamond and minerals to international traders, development plans to politicians. A couple of years earlier, Austrian filmmaker Hubert Sauper investigated the business of Nile perch fish in the Tanzanian’s Lake Victoria. He depicts the impact of hyper-production on the life of the locals while the tasty fish dishes lands on the plates of European consumers. Can these filmmakers be associated to the image of Robin Hood ? This brings me to another question in fact: Is it an African destiny to always be something to be talked about and never something that talks? The weak, the subaltern of our times is the one who is not able to talk, to represent himself. That’s the philosophy on which the policy of hegemony was built since ages. Confiscate the right of the other to talk is a part of the strategy to dominate it and to despoil it. But if the subaltern cannot represent itself, it must be represented. That’s how many European filmmakers can play an interesting role: give back the rightful owner something that has been unfairly taken away from him. Unfortunately in this case filmmakers can do nothing to bring back all the diamonds and mineral stolen by the westerns. What they can restore is an image of what is happening. From that point of view they operate on the field of media and representation of the other. Hopefully will the films somehow help denouncing the inhumane practices and hence reduce the suffering of millions who could not do so in another world. In how far can European filmmakers substitute their colleagues from the South? Not everybody can be Robin Hood but those who have the wealth, the blood, the know-how and the education. In one word and in our modern context, one needs to be rich enough to be able to rise his/her voice. Production circumstances as a matter of fact can be so heavy that Africans can be less free than a European filmmaker. Hence it is not always obvious that an African filmmaker will talk about his/her continent better than a non African. S/He would never be able to do what the Danish director did. Not only because it is a huge financial operation, but also because an African diplomat who is blond is a so unexpected ironic situation that it is the most eloquent one to show how African context is absurd, and how far the “White” can go in the process of dispossession of the other from its most primordial identity. Our world is definitely a tragedy and doesn’t fit with the legend of Robin Hood which is more like a fairytale ending happily with reestablishment of the good prince in the joy of the people. None from the 1% of the human being will dare espouse the cause of the other 99%. The latter are perhaps occupying the squares like the legendary thieves were hiding in the woods. But the good prince who will lead them to fight the iniquity is unfortunately from another time and will probably never come back. As far as we don’t consider that filmmakers are dreaming of changing the world by helping the poor and denouncing the real thieves as modern avatars of Don Quixote fighting against some windmills.

Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III.: Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:31:00 +0100

Bei diesem Text handelt es sich um den Eröffnungsvortrag von Prince Kum'a Ndumbe III. bei der Tagung "ÜberMorgen – Trendsetter Afrika", organisiert von der Universität Bayreuth - Institut für Afrikastudien (IAS) und der Stadt Bayreuth.

Verehrter Herr Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Bayreuth, Dr. Michael Hohl, Verehrter Herr Vizepräsident für Internationales der Universität Bayreuth, Prof. Dr. Stefan Leible, Verehrter Herr Direktor des Instituts für Afrikastudien / IAS der Universität Bayreuth, Prof.Dr. Achim v.Oppen, Verehrte Preisträgerin und liebe Schwester Madjiguène Cissé, Verehrte Damen und Herren, Ich kam als junger Schüler in dieses eure Land im Juli 1961, nach München, und konnte nichteinmal „Guten Tag“ auf Deutsch sagen. In diesem November 2011 lassen Sie mich von Kamerun einfliegen, damit ich in eurer deutschen Sprache den Eröffnungsvotrag zu „ÜberMorgen – Trendstetter Afrika“ im Audimax der Universität Bayreuth halte, wieder mal nach Bayern, auch wenn mancher Franke nach Napoleon verweist, um seine Zugehörigkeit zu Bayern zu beanstanden. Ich komme gerne in diese Stadt, zum Dialog. Frau Madigueye Cissé aus dem Senegal wird preisgekrönt, wegen ihrer ausserordentlichen Leistung und Hingabe im Kampf, Mauern abzubauen, dagegen aber Würde und Menschlichkeit zum Triumpf zu bringen. Auf eurem Boden, in Europa. Ich bin euren Eltern und Grosseltern dankbar, auch meinen deutschen Eltern, die ein Zueinander der Menschen verschiedener Völker als Notwendigkeit erkannten, den Weg mit Mut bereiteten, damit eine Madigueye Cissé erfolgreich in eurer europäischen Heimat den sesshaft gewordenen Einwanderern aus Afrika ein europäisches Zuhause ermöglichte. Meiner Schwester Cissé aus dem Senegal spreche auch ich besonderen Dank und hohe Anerkennung für ihr Engagement aus. Ich weiss aus eigener Erfahrung, was es bedeudet, seit Jahrzehnten als nur Gast in einem Land zu leben.

„Afrika ist im Aufbruch, Afrika ist die Zukunft“, schieb ich als Titel meines deutschverfassten Buches, das vor fünf Jahren in Berlin herauskam. Dieser Titel irritierte und irritiert immer noch manche, die Afrika als hilfsbedürftigen Almosenempfänger verinnerlicht haben, als aidsverseuchten Kontinent und ewigen Unruheherd, der nur durch ständige humanitäre Intervention des wohlwollenden Westen und Norden vor dem Untergang gerettet werden kann. Afrika, der dunkle Kontinent, die „tropische Ergänzung Europas“, wie manche noch vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg planten, Afrika, diese entwicklungsgehemmte Postkolonie mit ruchlosen Diktatoren, dieser Katastrophenherd mit unbarmherzigen „Warlords“, dieses Afrika soll im Aufruch sein, dieses Afrika soll Zukunft bedeuten? Ich schrieb als Untertitel zu meinem Buch „An die Mitbürger der Einen Welt im anbrechenden 21. Jahrhundert – herausfordernde Reden zur Begegnung“ . Ich ging aber noch einen Schritt weiter. Ich bot der deutschen Leserschaft eine Anthologie an, und so dreizehn in Deutsch verfasste Bücher, Essais, Erzählungen, Theaterstücke mit meiner afrikanischen Sicht und Stimme über Europa, über Afrika, über die Welt, über die Wanderschaft zwischen den Kulturen und Kontinenten. Mir war nicht bewusst, dass ich einen Rollenwechsel anstiess, eine rote Linie überschritt. Der Deutsche, der Europäer, der Norden schreibt über sich selbst, über die Welt, über Afrika, über die Afrikaner. Nicht der Afrikaner schreibt über Deutschland, über Europa, über die Welt, über Afrika, und noch dazu für den Leser aus dem Norden, für den deutschen Leser. Und was passiert da auf einmal? Der lernende Afrikaner als Lehrender und Botschaftsträger? Ich provozierte ein Unbehagen unter manchen Intellektuellen in Deutschland, einigen Afrikaspezialisten hierzulande wurden diese Bücher zur Anbiederung, die Medien schwiegen und rezenzierten nicht. Die Leser aber kauften gut die Bücher, für sich, für Familienmitglieder, für Freunde. Die Nachricht sickerte durch, dass eine afrikanische Stimme ohne Ubersetzungsfilter im deutschsprachigen Raum eine nicht gewöhnliche Botschaft ankündigte und zur Begegnung einlud. Hier stehe ich vor Ihnen, heute, als Zeichen dieses Afrika im Aufbruch, mit einer Einladung zum kritischen Dialog. Ich freue mich ganz besonders, so in Bayern, meiner zweiten Heimat, auftreten zu dürfen.

1. Bevölkerungswachstum, ein Aufbruch der Jugend Juli 1961 – November 2011, Afrika zählte damals bei meiner ersten Deutschlandreise vor 50 Jahren 257 Mio. Einwohner, heute sind wir über 1 Milliarde Menschen mit der weltweit höchsten Geburtenrate von 3,4%. Im Jahre 2050, in nur 39 Jahren also, werden voraussichtlich 2 Milliarden Menschen den afrikanischen Kontinent bevölkern, 2,7 Milliarden sogar 2060, nach Prognosen der Afrikanichen Entwicklungsbank und der Weltbank . Jeder 5. Erdeinwohner wird in Afrika ein Zuhause haben, sagen uns die Projektionen der Weltbevölkerungstendenz. Bedenken wir, dass nach der Entvölkerung durch Sklavenrazzia und 16 Jahre nach der Berliner Kolonialkonferenz, im Jahre 1900 also, der afrikanische Kontinent nur 133 Mio. Eiwohner zählte, was eben nur 8,1% der Weltbevölkerung ausmachte. Im Jahre 2050 wird dieser Anteil auf 19,8% steigen, d. h. jeder fünfte Erdbewohner ist dann aus Afrika. Und diese afrikanische Bevölkerung ist jung, sehr jung. Über die Hälfte der Einwohner dieses Kontinents ist heute unter 30. In Tunesien sind die Jugendlichen 51% der Bevölkerung, in Ägypten 61% und im bevölkerungsreichsten Staat Afrikas, in Nigeria sogar 64,5%. Bei 2050 sollen 29% der jugendlichen Weltbevölkerung in Afrika leben, d.h. einer von 3,4 jungen Menschen weltweit lebt dann in Afrika. Diese Menschen leben und werden auch weiterhin in Afrika leben und nach ihrem Erdenglück suchen.

Ein Vergleich mit der Europäischen Union von 27 Staaten kann die Tendenz verdeutlichen. Die 501 Mio. EU-Einwohner am 1. Januar 2010 werden voraussichtlich 525 Mio. im Jahre 2035 sein, 526 Mio. im Jahre 2040 aber auf 517. Mio im Jahre 2060 zurücksinken. Dabei bilden Menschen mit 65 und mehr 17% der Bevölkerung im Jahre 2010 und schon 30% im Jahre 2060. Menschen mit 80 und mehr bilden dann in der gleichen Zeitspanne 5% und 12% . Die Entwicklungen sind also in Afrika und Europa entgegengesetzt. Wo leben denn diese Afrikaner oder Europäer heute oder in der Zukunft?

UNO Statistiken zufolge lebten im Jahre 2010 97% der Menschen weltweit in ihrer ursprünglichen Heimat, nur etwa 3%, also 214 Mio. wanderten aus. 70 Mio. Migranten, die in einem Land des Südens geboren wurden, leben in einem Land des Nordens, andere 70 Mio. dieser Bürger aus dem Süden wanderten in ein anderes Land des Südens aus, 59 Mio. Menschen aus dem Norden wanderten in ein anderes Land des Nordens aus, und 15 Mio. Bürger des Nordens wanderten in ein Land des Südens aus. Im März 2011 lebten von der einen Milliarde Afrikaner 30 Mio. im Ausland.

Das Verscheuchungsspiel mancher Politiker über die „Invasion der Barbaren aus dem Süden“ sollte uns angesichts dieser Statistiken nachdenklich stimmen.

Was Afrika betrifft, wandern die Afrikaner eher in ein anderes afrikanisches Land, auch in Kriegszeiten, als aus ihrem Kontinent aus. Die interne kontinentale Migration macht über 90% der gesamt afrikanischen Migration aus, die Migration ausserhalb Afrikas hält sich in Grenzen mit 10% der Migranten, davon gehen nach Europa 63% und nach Nordamerika 31%, der Rest in andere Regionen der Welt. Die Nordafrikaner allerdings wandern zu 90% ins nördliche Ausland, auch wegen der nahen Nachbarschaft zu Europa. Nach Angaben der Weltbank von 2011 wandern die afrikanischen Migranten zu 9% nach Frankreich, zu 8% in die Elfenbeinküste, zu 6% nach Südafrika, zu 5% nach Saudiarabien, zu 4% nach England, zu 4% in die USA, usw. Fazit: Die Afrikaner bleiben hauptsächlich bei sich zuhause. Nur muss dafür gesorgt werden, dass dieser Milliarde Menschen Zugang zu einer effizienten Bildung und Ausbildung vor Ort gewährt wird. Ich gebe als Beispiel nur die Entwicklung der Hochschullandschaft an.

2. Aufbruch in Bildung und Ausbildung im Hochschulbereich Als diese Länder unabhängig wurden, gab es dort kaum oder gar keine modernen Universitäten. In Dakar wurde die 1918 gegründete medizinische Schule am 24. Februar 1957 in eine universitäre Anstalt verwandelt, im Kongo gab es die Universität Lovanium und die offizielle Universität, in Uganda die Universität Makarre und in Nigeria die Universität von Ibadan. Mein Land Kamerun hatte noch keine Universität 1960. Seitdem aber sind bei uns neben 10 staatlichen Universitäten über 12 private universitäre Einrichtungen entstanden. Auch wenn die „Vereinigung afrikanischer Universitäten“ mit Mitgliedern aus 46 Staaten 270 Universitäten verzeichnet, kann man ruhig davon ausgehen, dass in vielen Ländern nicht einmal die Hälfte der universitären Einrichtungen in diese Vereinigung schon eingetreten ist, denn 2010 wurden 800 universitäre Einrichtungen in Afrika gezählt. Die Afrikanische Union bemüht sich um die Harmonisierung der Programme und plant die Gründung einer „Panafrikanischen Universität“, bestehend aus 5 Hauptzentren in Nord-, West-, Ost-, Zentral- und Südliches Afrika mit jeweils einem Schwerpunkt. Diese Hauptzentren sollen in einem Netzwerk mit anderen Universitäten in Afrika verbunden sein, die auf dem gleichen Gebiet arbeiten. Die 5 Schwerpunktwissenschaften in Lehre und Forschung sollen sich konzentrieren auf: Weltraum; Wasser-und Energie (inklusive Klimawechsel); Grundsatzwissenschaften; Technologie und Innovation; Natur-, Lebens- und Geowissenschaften (inklusive Gesundheit und Landwirtschaft); Gute Regierungsführung mit Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Die Detailplanung für die Lancierung der „Panafrikansichen Universität“ wurde am 13. Mai 2011 in Kenia vom Ministerrat der Afrikanischen Union für Erziehung verabschiedet und den Staatsoberhäuptern am 1.-2. Juli 2011 in Malabo vorgestellt.

Bitte bedenken wir: von kaum 10 universitären Einrichtungen 1960 zu 800 im Jahre 2010 bis zum Aufbau der panafrikansichen Universität heute, dies sind fundamentale Umbrüche.

Was bedeuten diese Statistiken? Seit 1960, dem Jahr vieler Unabhängigkeiten auf dem Kontinent, macht Afrika Riesenprünge in der Bevölkerungszahl, in der Zahl der Jugendlichen und in der Zahl der Ausbildungsstätten. Der Mensch ist das allererste Kapital eines Landes, der gut ausgebildete Mensch ist der Garant des Fortschritts in diesem Land. Diese Umbrüche verändern das Gesicht des Kontinents in einem sehr schnellen Rhythmus. Auch wenn man die Qualität der Ausbildung der Menschen für einen effizienten Einsatz noch mancherorts bemängeln darf, kann man die enormen Fortschritte der letzten Jahrzehnte nicht mehr unterschätzen. Gerade der Norden schöpft voll aus den afrikanischen graduierten Migranten, zumal im Jahre 2000 jeder 8. graduierte aus Afrika doch in einem OECD-Land lebte, meistens nachdem er eine akademische Ausbildung in seinem Land genossen hatte. In seiner Dakar-Rede vom 26. Juli 2007 sprach der französische Staatschef Sarkozy sogar von der „émigration choisie“, einer auserwählten Migration und zielte auf die ausgebildeten jungen Afrikaner ab. Die Erziehung und Ausbildung vom Kindergarten bis zur Universität wird in den kommenden Jahrzehnten einer grundlegenden Mutation unterzogen werden. Die einfache und unkritische Übernahme der aussenorientierten Lehrstoffe aus der ehemaligen Kolonialmetropole oder aus anderen Ländern des Nordens weicht allmählich einer afrikazentrierten Erziehung und Ausbildung, zur besseren Effizienz für die Entwicklung der Länder des Kontinents. Es wird also nicht mehr nur um Ausbildung gehen, sondern um die Hinterfragung und Überwindung der zur Unterenwicklung führenden Ausbildung, die den Auszubildenden jahrzehntelang in Afrika auch nach der Unabhängigkeit aufgezwungen worden ist. Die Frage wurde oft gestellt, wieso denn asiatische Länder nach dem Kolonialjoch es weitaus besser als die afrikanischen Staaten schafften, die Entwicklung anzukurbeln. Die Verwüstung im kulturellen und Erziehungs- wie im Ausbildungsbereich wurde dabei gar nicht hinterfragt.

Der eigentliche Aufbruch des neuen Afrikas basiert auf der afrikazentrierten Kultur zwischen Tradition und Postmoderne, auf der Afrikanischen Renaissance in Erziehung und Ausbildung, auf der Innovation vom internationalen Niveau zur Stillung der eigenen Bedürfnisse in Forschung und Technologie. Dies sind die Voraussetzungen und das fördernde Flussbett für eine nachhaltige wirtschaftliche Ankurbelung des afrikanischen Kontinents.

3. Wachstumsrate und Aufbruch in der Wirtschaft

Der Reichtum an Bodenschätzen in Afrika ist ja bekannt, auch wenn er diesen Ländern wegen der internationalen Konstellation und Machtgier immer wieder wie zum Fluch zu werden droht. 1/3 der Reserven aller Bodenschätze befinden sich auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent. 89% der Reserven für Platin, 81% für Chrom, 61% für Mangan, 60% für Kobalt, 46% für Diamanten findet man in Afrika. Gold wird zu 21% in Afrika ausgeschöpft, Uran zu 20%, Ölreserven belaufen sich auf 10%, 15% der Produktion sollen 2020 aus Afrika kommen. Andere Mineralien wie Koltan, Niobium, Bauxit, Blei, Kupfer, Eisen, usw. sind je nach Region von entscheidender Bedeutung. Es gibt also objektiv genügend Rohstoffe, um der Wirtschaft Afrikas eine gewisse Autonomie bei der eigenen Ankurbelung zu gewähren. Die afrikanischen Länder sind noch nicht in der Lage, selbst diese Rohstoffe auszubeuten, sie gewähren eher ausländischen Firmen aus den Industriestaaten Schürfrechte und verdienen an diesen Konzessionen. Die meisten Länder sind auch zu klein und technologisch wenig entwickelt, um eigene Schürfeinrichtungen aufbauen zu können.

Die Einnahmen aus den Schürfrechten, der Handel mit anderen Rohstoffen, der Aufbau der Kleinindustrie gekoppelt mit dem Verbrauch der Haushalte und den Investitionen erlauben in den letzten Jahren, eine ansehnliche Wachstumsrate in Afrika zu verzeichnen. In der Eurozone erwartete man vor der jetzigen Krise für 2011 eine Wachstumsrate von 1,7% und 2% im Jahre 2012, in den USA 2,2% für 2011 und 3,1% für 2012, in Japan 1,7% und 1,3% jeweils. Das Bild in Afrika sieht jedoch anders aus. Die Länder des „arabischen Frühlings“ haben momentan einen Rückschlag erlitten, Ägypten wird von -1,2% auf 1,8% im Jahre 2012 springen, Tunesien erwartet nach den Umwälzungen von 2011 eine Wachstumsrate von 3,9% im Jahre 2012, Marokko ist auf 4,6% schon dieses Jahr. Algerien steigt von 2,9% 2011 auf 3,3% 2012. Südafrika steigt aus einer gewissen Rezession von 3,4% jetzt auf 3,6% nächstes Jahr. Die drei Ölländer Nigeria, Angola und Tschad erwarten 6% für 2011, sogar 7, 25% für 2012. Das mit Krieg erschütterte Côte d’Ivoire verzeichnet 2011 –5,8%, der IWF erwartet aber 8% für 2012. Auch in Libyen nach dem Krieg und den Wiederaufbaugeschäften von 200 Milliarden $ wird ein Aufschwung erwartet. Das Musterbeispiel aber bleibt Ghana mit einer Wachstumsrate von 13,5% dieses Jahr. In diesem Jahr, und so erwartet der IWF auch für 2012, werden viele Länder in Afrika die stärkste Wachstumsrate der Welt verzeichnen.

Die Tendenzen zeigen deutlich, dass die Wirtschaft in Afrika wohl positiv und gewinnbringend angekurbelt werden kann, auch wenn man von einem anfänglich niedrigen Wirtschaftsniveau ausgegangen ist. Das Negativbild der afrikanischen Wirtschaft bedarf in der öffentlichen Meinung des Nordens einer Kurskorrektur.
Der Aufbruch in der Wirtschaft darf sich aber allein nicht aus der Wachstumsrate messen lassen. Es ist erkannt worden, dass Afrika ein sehr reicher Kontinent ist, dass die Bevölkerung jedoch seit Jahrhunderten strukturell arm gehalten oder armregiert wurde. Die neue Entwicklung zeigt nun aber deutlich, dass diese strukturelle Armut in einem reichen Umfeld vorhersehbare Explosionen angefangen hat auszulösen. Eine Milliarde Menschen bestehend aus über 50% Jugendlichen unter 30 Jahren, die auf einem Kontinent mit 1/3 aller Bodenschätze leben, einem Kontinent mit der höchsen Wachstumsrate, wird nicht mehr lange hinnehmen, in Armut gezwungen zu werden. Diese Bevölkerung hat auch bis in die ganz unten stehenden Schichten erkannt, dass diese strukturelle Armut sowohl von ausländischen Mächten oder multinationalen Firmen, als auch von einheimischen kleinen Gruppen künstlich gehalten wird, um der gnadenlosen Plünderung des Landes einen freien Raum zu schaffen. Diese Bevölkerung hat auch erkannt, dass trotz aller internationalen Propaganda sie sich ein eigenes, selbst gewünschtes und gewähltes politisches System im ihrem Land nicht einrichten, geschweige denn an die Macht bringen darf. Auch das politische System muss importiert werden oder so gestaltet sein, dass die gnadenose Plünderung und die strukturelle Armut nicht in Frage gestellt werden können. Die Bevölkerung muss so in Abhängigkeit gehalten werden, dass sie immer um Hilfe und Almosen bitten muss, um überhaupt überleben zu können. Sie wird in Schranken des vom Staat nicht geförderten informellen Sektors verwiesen, genauso wie in der Kolonialzeit, als es darum ging, Wirstschaftszeige zu fördern, die als Zulieferer der Kolonialmetropole in der neuen Arbeitsteilung zwischen Afrika und Europa galten. Die einseitige Rolle des Rohstofflieferanten und des Energiespeichers für den Norden führte zu einer Restrukturierung der einheimischen Wirtschaft, die nur noch mit Zwang aussenorientiert wurde. Und dieser koloniale Zwang bedurfte einer strukturellen Korruption, um nachhaltig umgesetzt werden zu können. So kommen und bleiben oft an der Macht einheimische Führungskräfte, die sich wie ausländische Plünderer erbarmungslos verhalten. Nur weh, wenn sie sich nicht mehr bedingungslos dem Westen beugen.
Gerade in diesem Jahr 2011 ist dieses Dilemma der afrikanischen Bevölkerung in den Ländern des „arabischen Frühling“, in Côte d’Ivoire und in Libyen noch deutlicher geworden. 4. Aufbruch für neue Regierungssysteme und Interventionen für das Kriegsspiel Der arabische Frühling
Der Drang nach Freiheit, guter Regierungsführung, Gerechtigkeit, Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflicht ist ernorm in der afrikanischen Bevölkerung. Dass Unruhen, Schrei nach Demokratie, Rücktritt der Staatsoberhäupter in Tunesien, Ägypten, Syrien, Ermordung im Krieg des libyschen Staatschefs jedoch nicht nur spontane Bewegungen einer nach Freiheit lechzenden Bevölkerung waren oder sind, wird sich noch zeigen. Gerade die Zone des arabischen Mittleren Osten hat Ölreserven von 60% weltweit und nimmt den Platz Nr. 1 auch für die Produktion ein. Die Länder mit islamischer Bekennung wie Saudi Arabien, Irak, Iran, Kuwait, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate, Quatar, Yemen, Libyen, Nigeria, Algerien, Kazachstan, Azerbaidjan, Malaysia, Indonesien und Brunei besitzen zwischen 66,2% und 75,9% aller Weltreserven an Öl. Von den weltweit bekannten 1200 Milliarden Barrel Ölreserven sind in Saudi Arabien 264 Milliarden Barrel, im Iran 137 Milliarden, im Irak 115, in Kuwait 101, in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten 98, in Lybien 46,6, in Ägypten 4,6 Milliarden Barrel. Israel könnte hier jedoch eine Revolution einsetzen, sollten die Forschungen des Israël Energy Initiative (IEI) unter Dr. Harold Vinegar zum erfolgreichen Ergebnis führen und aus Israel ein führendes Ölland in der Region machen. Die Frage ist: Wer zeigt sich dem Westen gegenüber freundlich für die Schürfrechte? Sein politisches System ist dann strategisch nicht gefährdet. Wer aber leistet Widerstand? Bei dem wird dann westliche „Demokratie“ mit Waffen von aussen aufgezwungen oder es gibt interne Umwälzungen, die ihn zur Flucht zwingen. Dass die Wahlen in Tunesien zugunsten der islamischen Partei ENNADA ausging, wie früher die FIS in Algerien – dieses Experiment wurde noch rechtzeitig gestoppt – verunsichert westliche Kreise, für die der Islam mit westlichem Demokratieverständnis nicht zu vereinbaren ist. Geht es also um Demokratie oder um Sicherung der Ölreserven und der strategischen Rohstoffe? Man kann sich ja noch im Irak an die nie gefundenen Massenvernichtungswaffen erinnern. Côte d’Ivoire und Libyen
Im Westen wurde der Krieg in Côte d’Ivoire als Krieg zur Rettung der Demokratie, und in Libyen als ein Krieg zur Rettung der Bevölkerung vor dem eigenen diktatorischen Staatschef an die öffentliche Meinung vekauft. Früher galt im Ost-West-Konflikt die Zugehörigkeit eines afrikansichen Landes zu einer Gruppe als Grund genug, von der anderen Seite geächtet oder bekriegt zu werden. Patrice Lumumba, der nicht einmal Kommunist war, aber die Interessen seines Landes wahrzunehmen gedachte, wurde kaltblütig von der CIA ermordet. Eine Zeit lang war nach dem Fall der Berliner Mauer der Westen der einzig weltweit bestimmende. Mit dem Austeigen der Länder wie China, Indien und Brasilien entstehen Polyzentren der Weltentscheidungen, und diese Konkurenz schlägt sich radikal in den Kampf um Kontorolle der Ölreserven und der strategischen Rohstoffe nieder. Laurent Gbagbo, der dem Westen und vor allem Frankreich nicht mehr den absoluten Vorrang geben wollte, musste unter blutigen Massakern ins Gefängnis. „La Côte d’Ivoire n’est pas une sous-préfecture de la France“ (Côte d’Ivoire ist kein Unterbezirk Frankreichs) hatte er zu sagen gewagt. Bei Ghaddafi ging es nicht nur darum, dass er Hoheit über die Ölreserven seines Landes behalten wollte und vor allem China ins Land brachte, er finanzierte auch tatkräftig die Afrikanische Union mit dem Ziel, eine Zentrral- oder föderative Regierung für ganz Afrika zu bilden. Ganz konkret errichtete er in Syrte, Libyen, die Afrikanische Investitionsbank, einen Afrikanischen Währungsfonds mit Sitz in Yaoundé, Kamerun 2011, eine afrikanische Zentralbank in Abudja, Nigeria, mit dem Plan, schon 2012 eine einheitliche Währung für den afrikanischen Kontinent ins Leben zu rufen. Dies bedeutet, dass Ghaddafi durch die Vereinigung aller afrikanischen Staaten den Einfluss des Westens, des Nordens oder ausländischer Multis in Afrika entscheidend zurückgedrängt hätte. Damit hätte das geeinte Afrika schon in den nächsten Jahren ein gemeinsames Sprungbrett gehabt, Bevölkerunszuwachs, Rohstoffreserven und Wachstumsrate nachhaltig zu optimieren. Die Idee der Vereinigten Staaten von Afrika, die in den 50er-Jahren vor den Unabhängigkeiten von Politikern wie Kwame Nkrumah, Sékou Touré, Patrice Lumumba oder Kaiser Hailé Selassié getragen wurde, konnte von Ghaddafi ganz konkret zur baldigen Umsetzung finanziert werden. Auch er musste durch den Tod zahlen, weil der Westen dies in Afrika noch nicht zulassen kann. Folgende Fragen bleiben in diesem Jahr 2011 zentral für alle Afrikaner und für ihre Staaten:

1- Wie können wir eigengedachte politische Systeme basierend auf unserer Kultur und Anschauung der Welt bei uns erfinden und einführen, ohne dass der militärisch starke Norden vor allem unter der NATO eingreift und ein uns fremdes politisches System aufzwingt?

2- Wie können wir unsere Bodenschätze und Rohstoffe zuallererst für unsere Bevölkerung und für die Entwicklung unserer eigenen Wirtschaft einsetzen, ohne dass seitens der NATO ein militärischer Konflikt unter dem Deckmantel der Mensschenrechte, der Demokratie und der Freiheit ausgelöst wird?

3- Wie kann Afrika eigene wirtschaftliche Bedürfnisse stillen und Wachstum anhalten, und gleichzeitig dem Westen, sowie den neuen rohstoffbedürftigen wirtschaftlich aufsteigenden Ländern gerecht werden, ohne dass ein internationaler flächendeckender militärischer Konflikt ausgelöst wird?

4- Wie können wir Politiker an die Macht bringen, die dem eigenen Volk rechenschaftspflichtig sind, wenn nötig abgewählt werden können, ja Politiker, die dieses Afrika im Umbruch als Chance für die Welt, als Zukunft neu zu gestalten gedenken?

Zum Ausklang: Die Vergöttlichung des Geldes im nationalen und internationalen Verkehr

Wir haben Geld im nationalen Verkehr miteinander und in den internationalen Beziehungen vergöttlicht. Geld ist das A und O auf der Welt geworden. Geld ist Gott. Geld, Macht, Werte: Aus diesen drei Wörtern entsteht ein kurzer, erschütternder und nüchterner Satz, nämlich: Geld macht Werte. Ich greife dich an, ich töte dich, weil ich deine Familie vor dir retten will. Dann kassiere ich die Dividenden ein. Die Welt wohnt einer Modernisierung, ja einer Spitzentechnologisierung des Raubrittertums mit feinster Manipulation der öffentlichen Meinung bei.

Wie können wir, Sie hier in Europa und im Westen, wir bei uns in Afrika und im Süden, aus dieser Sackgasse des sich mit modernsten Waffen Niederschlachtens herauskommen? Es gibt saubere Kriege nur am Fernsehen mit den zensierten Bildern. Aber diese Feinheit beim Mord mit Dronen, vor Ort, vor den Augen der eigenen Kinder, die dann auch zerfetzt werden, wegen Öl, wegen Uran, wegen Koltan, im Namen der Freiheit und der Demokratie, ja diese Feinheit beim Mord, wie lange wird sie noch toben können, ohne dass die Schwachen mit Verzweiflungswaffen zurückschlagen?

Afrika ist im Aufbruch, wir tragen die Jugend, die Jugend trägt die Zukunft und Zukunft verlangt Gerechtigkeit, Hoffnung und Harmonie mit der Schöpfung. Wieso können wir Menschen, mit all dem Wissen um die unendliche Weite der Milchstrasse und der anderen Strassen im All, mit all dem Wissen um die Winzigkeit unserer Erde, wieso erlauben wir uns immer noch, so kurzsichtig, wenn nicht blind zu gestalten, zu planen und zu handeln, als gäbe es nur mich, das machtbesessene, egoistische, sich selbst verherrlichende Ich, das glaubt, doch zu übeleben, auch wenn dieses Ich alles andere vernichtet? Die Schöpfung zeigt sich doch jeden Tag, spätestens beim Aufmachen unserer Augen beim Morgenlicht, in ihrer Schönheit, ihrem Gleichgewicht und ihrer Unendlichkeit; wir aber wollen den Gesetzen der Schöpfung hartnäckig widerstehen und nach eigenem Gutdünken den Lauf der Dinge auf der Welt mit menschlicher Unzulänglichkeit gestalten. Als wären wir die Erstgeborenen im Universum. Wir aus Afrika mahnen zur Rückbesinnung, wir sind die Wiege der Menschheit, es gilt, diese Menschheit zu sich selbst zurückzurufen, auch in diesem Zeitalter der ungeahnten technischen und technologischen Errungenschaften: Ihr seid nicht der Meister, unterstellt euch der Weisheit der Schöpfung und des Schöpfers. Wir können dann Sprünge in die Postmoderne machen und Harmonie in uns und zwischen uns zurückrufen. Die Entscheidung liegt in unserer aller Hand. Douala/Bayreuth, den 11. 11.2011 Copyright: Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III., Universitätsprofessor Université de Yaoundé I, Fondation AfricAvenir International

Yash Tandon: Whose dictator is Gaddafi?

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:58:00 +0200

On the day which apparently sees the killing of Gaddafi by NATO troops operating in a clear imperialistic mission, AfricAvenir re-publishes an article by Yash Tandon, which was first published in Pambazuka News in May this Year. In this article Tandon explains the contradictions of ‘imperial finance capital’ in controlling neo-colonial states like Libya. While Gaddafi was being ‘accommodated’ by imperial powers, the ‘Arab Spring’ forced their hand, he says.

To put the West’s case bluntly and simply, it has apparently intervened in Libya to ‘protect the people’ from the ‘dictator’ Gaddafi. This begs the question: whose dictator is Gaddafi?

If there is one third world leader in the whole galaxy of the Empire’s neo-colonial dictators, one who best exemplifies the contradiction between the Empire and a neo-colony, it is Gaddafi. Libya is a neo-colony in the sense that Kwame Nkrumah used the term, and Gaddafi, like Robert Mugabe, is objectively a neo-colonial dictator though subjectively anti-imperialist.

To understand this apparent contradiction, one needs to appreciate the vital difference between a colony and neo-colony. A neo-colony is ruled by the Empire not directly; only indirectly - through its agents in the countries concerned. Whilst a neo-colonial economy, and hence the neo-colonial state, is, in the ultimate analysis, controlled by the Empire - on behalf of global finance capital. There is a ‘government’ that is in the seat of governance, and this government, or regime, is often in open defiance of the Empire. When the Empire talks of ‘regime change’, it means change in government without losing its control over the neo-colony.

To put the matter from the other side, a neo-colony is not, as the term might imply, a docile, submissive, community. It is a community, or a people, still in struggle against the Empire for its full liberation. The people occasionally rebel against the government if they are oppressed or economically marginalised, as, among others, in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Zimbabwe. In rebelling against a neo-colonial government, however, the people also rebel, objectively, against the Empire, against the neo-colonial economic and political order. These are two sides of the same coin; they are the same phenomenon. Flip one side of the coin, and you see the face of Gaddafi; flip the other side and you see the face of the Empire. The challenge facing a neo-colonial ‘upstart’ like Gaddafi and Mugabe is how to keep the coin with the face of the Empire visible. Of course, the Empire has the reverse challenge. In the case of both Zimbabwe and Libya, the Empire has been better than its rebellious neo-colonial dictators in keeping the coin with the ‘dictator’s’ face visible at the top.

How has the Empire managed to do this? It has done so by using three weapons: one, by exploiting the divisions among the people; two, by using the ‘humanitarian’ card; and three by exploiting its bigger control over the world media. In both Libya and Zimbabwe, the Empire has been able to portray itself as a ‘saviour’ of the people, an ‘ally’ to ‘help’ them remove the government and put in place one that is more ‘democratic’. This is what is currently happening in the Arab world and many parts of Africa where the people have taken to the streets to protest against a system that is oppressing and exploiting them.

Each neo-colony is different. Each has its own history, culture, economic links with the global economy and ethnic, religious and class configuration. To understand the specific character of Libya and Gaddafi, a bit of knowledge of history is necessary. It is important to bear in mind that Libya is part of an ancient civilisation going back to the Phoenicians in the 5th century B.C., well before the birth of western civilisation. In more recent times, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Libya fell in the hands of Italy. In October 1911, Italian battleships attacked Tripoli, bombing the city for three days. Resistance followed under Omar Mukhtar's Mojahideen guerrilla forces. Thousands of Libyans were forced to leave their land and live in concentration camps. Thousands died of hunger, illness and some of them were hanged or shot because they were believed to be helping the Mojahideen. The Libyan historian Mahmoud Ali At-Taeb said in an interview with the Libyan magazine Ash-Shoura (October 1979) that in November 1930 there were at least 17 funerals a day in the camps due to hunger, illness and depression. Mukhtar's nearly 20 year struggle came to an end when he was captured in battle and on 16 September 1931 hanged in front of his followers in the concentration camp of Sollouq by the orders of the Italian court. He was about 83 years old, but he kept on fighting until death. Today Mukhtar’s face is shown on the Libyan 10 Dinar bill. His final years were immortalized in the movie ‘The Lion of the Desert’ (1981). This history, and the heroic resistance put by Libya’s national hero, Omar Mukhtar, go some way to explain the arrogance of Gaddafi towards Western civilisation and colonisation.

This is the legacy that inspires Gaddafi, just as in Zimbabwe it is Kaguvi's spirit (his mudzimu) that inspired Mugabe and the people to fight the second Chimurenga against the British Empire. Coming to modern times, on 1 September 1969, Colonel Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in a bloodless military coup. The British tried to dislodge him (the so-called ‘Hilton Assignment’) but failed. Gaddafi has been in power ever since. In 1977, he renamed the Libyan Arab Republic the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Gaddafi created a system of ‘Islamic socialism’ which blended Arab nationalism; ‘direct, popular democracy‘; aspects of the welfare state; and Islamic morals (among them, outlawing alcohol and gambling), on all of which he elaborated in his ‘The Green Book’. He closed down American and British military bases and partly nationalised foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. In June 1972 he announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for the Palestinian struggle for liberation could register at any Libyan embassy and would be given training on armed combat. In the hope of persuading the West to end support for Israel, he promoted oil embargoes as a political weapon. On 7 October 1972, he praised the Lod Airport massacre, carried out by the Japanese Red Army. In 1976 after a series of attacks by the Irish Provisional IRA, he claimed that he had been supplying arms to the IRA.

Notwithstanding all this, and despite Gaddafi being a thorn in the flesh of the Empire, Libya (like Zimbabwe) has remained a neo-colony of the Empire. A few facts attest to this reality. Libya is OPEC's 8th largest oil producer. It depends primarily upon revenues from the petroleum sector, which contributes practically all export earnings and over half of GDP. According to the International Energy Agency, more than 70 per cent of its oil is exported to European countries, especially Italy, France, Germany, and Spain, many of whom have invested heavily in Libyan oil. For example, by the end of October 2010, the number of French companies in Libya had nearly doubled from 2008 - most of them in the energy sector. It is no wonder that President Sarkozy is so nervous about the outcome of the current civil war in Libya. Italy alone buys a quarter of Libya's oil and 15 per cent of its natural gas. In all these years, Italian companies continued to retain a strong presence in Libya, which owned significant shares in Italy's Eni oil corporation, Fiat, Unicredit bank and Finmeccanica. In January 2002, Gaddafi purchased a 7.5 per cent share of Italian football club Juventus for US$ 21 million, through a long-standing association with Italian industrialist Gianni Agnelli. As well as Italy, several other European and British companies maintained strong commercial interests in Libya. This is at the national level. But at the personal level, the Gaddafi family became extremely wealthy as a result of his continuing links with the Empire. The $70 billion Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) is a state institution, but it would be a safe bet that Gaddafi has (or had, until a recent freeze on it) full control over it. Whilst he financed many groups fighting the Empire, he and his sons, known to live in opulent luxury in the West, often donated money to ‘liberal’ causes, such as the London School of Economics Centre for the ‘Study of Global Governance’; indeed, the former Director of the LSE, Anthony Giddens, (Prime Minister Tony Blair’s political mentor) visited Gaddafi in 2007 to give him some lectures on ‘democracy’.

However, Gaddafi has his idiosyncrasies. He is trusted neither by the Empire nor by his fellow heads of state in the Arab League and the African Union. President Museveni, in praising Gaddafi as a ‘nationalist’ criticised him for his ‘mistakes’ - among them, backing Idi Amin in Uganda; pushing for a United States of Africa; proclaiming himself ‘king of kings’; ignoring the plight of Southern Sudan; and promoting terrorism. For the Empire, Gaddafi had become an unreliable, indeed dangerous, neo-colonial dictator. The Empire had to bring him to book.

Here is a brief account of how the Empire ‘disciplined’ Gaddafi and finally succeeded. For most of the 1980s and 90s, Libya was under the Empire’s economic and diplomatic sanctions. In April 1986, a joint US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps force attacked Libya. In 1993 the UN imposed sanctions against it. As the sanctions began to bite, President Nelson Mandela made a media-hyped visit to Gaddafi in 1997 followed by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. As a result of these overtures, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to hand over two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, which came down on Lockerbie, Scotland. Gaddafi paid compensation to victims of Lockerbie - US$2.7 billion to the families of the 270 victims, i.e. up to US$10 million each. The UN sanctions were thereupon suspended, but US sanctions against Libya remained in force. Gaddafi went on to cooperate with investigations into previous Libyan acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. On 15 May 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, and that it would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism. Libya was thus restored to its ancien regime status as a neo-colony.

Following Gaddafi’s rehabilitation, several imperial Heads of State, most flamboyantly the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi rushed to Tripoli to shower the ‘dictator’ with photo opportunities of kisses and hugs and to secure from him investment opportunities as well as access to oil. In March 2004, Blair went to Libya, and praised Gaddafi for his co-operation. In July 2007, Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (European Union) agreements. In August 2008, Berlusconi signed a landmark cooperation treaty in Benghazi, under which Italy agreed to pay $5 billion to Libya as compensation for its former military occupation, in exchange for Libya agreeing to stop illegal immigration to Italy, and investments in Italian companies. As the diplomatic editor of The Daily Telegraph, David Blair, said, Libya's 'Brother Leader', had gone from being ‘the epitome of revolutionary chic’ to ‘an eccentric statesman with entirely benign relations with the West’. (The Daily Telegraph, 13 August 2009). Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, not to miss his turn, went to Libya to sell arms to the Empire’s neo-colonial dictator, even as the people were marching against him in Tripoli.

But soon the imperial dictators were to regret their sudden passion for Gaddafi. The Tunisian and Egyptian ‘people’s revolutions’ took them by surprise. When the contagion spread to Libya, the Empire could no longer defend the recently rehabilitated Gaddafi. It jumped on the ‘democratic bandwagon’, making a quick U-turn, and ditched Gaddafi as quickly as they had dashed to hug him. That Gaddafi ran a tight-fisted autocratic regime in Libya for decades was a well-known fact. His autocracy was never a matter of much concern to the Empire. There were other equally harsh regimes in the service of the Empire in other parts of the Arab world, such as Bahrain and Yemen, as well as in many pro-imperial neo-colonies in Africa. What tipped the scale against Gaddafi was his unreliability, and not the fact that he was a ‘dictator’. The challenge the Empire faced since his turnaround in 1999 had been how to turn Gaddafi from a dictator who served ‘revolutionary’ causes to one who would serve imperial interests without creating problems for it. When this did not happen, he had to go, as indeed Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak, long time ‘allies’ (read, ‘neo-colonial dictators’) of the Empire.

But how to get rid of Gaddafi became a bigger problem for the Empire than getting rid of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Earlier, I explained two vital differences between a colony and neo-colony. There is a third difference between the two. Unlike colonies, neo-colonies are ‘sovereign’ states, and members of the UN. They have rights as ‘independent nations’, rights to self-determination, and rights to development. The Empire cannot just bomb a sovereign member of the UN, for example, without the UN’s sanction, especially of its Security Council, which is the organ in the UN that deals with matters of international peace and security. This creates hurdles for the Empire. In the UN context, for example, the Empire has to get Russia and China (the two other permanent members of the Security Council with a veto power) on board, and at least a majority of the remaining non-permanent members before it can attack a neo-colony. The Empire could not just attack Libya and take out Gaddafi. A proper rationale had to be engineered - one that could be sold to the Empire’s own sceptical publics, to ‘allies’ in the other neo-colonies, and to allies in non-imperial Europe and the rest of the third world. The critical support needed here was that of the other neo-colonies in the Arab World, best of all if it could be expressed institutionally by the Arab League. After much neo-colonial ‘persuasion’ and carrot dangling, this was achieved. For years the League has been belittled, even ridiculed, by the Empire for its flabbiness and foibles. Suddenly, when the League supported the ‘no-fly zone’ against Libya, it became ‘the voice of the Arab people’. In the event, Russia and China abstained, as also did India and Brazil, for reasons that we cannot go into here. For good measure, the African neo-colonies - South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon - voted in favour of the resolution.

Once these ‘enabling conditions’ of a new ‘diplomatic reality’ was created, the Empire was quickly able to get the Security Council to pass a ‘consensus’ resolution. Resolution 1973 (2011) demanded ‘an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians’, which it said might constitute ‘crimes against humanity’; it imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace - ‘a no-fly zone’; and tightened sanctions on the Gaddafi regime and its supporters. It authorised Member States, ‘acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory’ - requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

However, even before the ink was dry, France had begun to bomb Libya. Soon France was joined by Britain and the United States, until the ‘authority’ of the UN was effectively transferred from it to NATO. International lawyers will no doubt write copious papers on the legality of the actions that followed in terms of both the resolution and international law. For example, in an ‘open letter to President Barack Obama on the crisis in Libya’ the National Conference of Black Lawyers argued that there was ‘no lawful basis for commencing a military campaign’ in Libya. But in the world of ‘diplomatic reality’, this is just ‘a lot of noise’ after the fact. And in any case, there are always several contending views on the legality or otherwise of such actions. Above all, there is no equivalent of the Nuremburg Tribunal or the International Criminal Court that dare put on trial the Imperial Dictators -Obama, Clinton, Sarkozy, or Cameron. The ICC is essentially a neo-colonial tool of the Empire, meant to be used only against third world or former East and Central European dictators and violators of human rights.

CONCLUSION

Libya is a neo-colonial state; it is imperial finance capital which, despite contradictions, is in effective control of the state and its economy. Gaddafi has been an unwilling neo-colonial dictator for finance capital, with a rather utopian vision to liberate from the Empire; utopian because he wanted to fight the Empire whilst still keeping the country’s and his own wealth within the imperial industrial, financial and banking system. The Empire might have accommodated him, and indeed did rehabilitate him after his turnaround in 1999, but the ‘Arab Spring’ upset the programme of the Empire, and it had to quickly take a U-turn and ditch Gaddafi just as it Ben Ali and Mubarak. The issue of how things might move forward in Libya is a big issue, one which I shall write about in the next column.

* Yash Tandon is a writer on development theory and practice, chairman of SEATINI and senior adviser to the South Centre.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

Interview with Johanna Kahatjipara on the Occasion the Repatriation of the Mortal Remains of Herero and Nama Genocide Victims

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:37:00 +0200

On the occasion of the repatriation of the mortal remains of Herero and Nama, who were killed by German troops during the Genocide of 1904-08, AfricAvenir spoke to Johanna Kahatjipara, whose grandmother and other relatives were subjected to the excesses of the German colonial troops. Nurse by education, she is today an independent researcher on the Namibian culture of oral history and collector of old and historical pictures, books, and artifacts from the German Colonial Era. She is member of the Oral History Association South Africa (OHASA) and was a speaker at the Centenary Commemoration of the Ohamakari Battle, 14 August 2004, on the role of the Ovaherero and Ovambanderu women during the war of 1904. Johanna Kahatjipara is member of the Technical Committee for the Ovaherero Traditional Chiefs on the Ovaherero/Ovambanderu Council for Dialogue on the 1904 Genocide (OCD-1904), regularly attends international conferences on genocide and reconciliation as a speaker and consults media productions like TV documentaries on the German colonial past in Namibia.

As an introduction, we would like to ask you, personally, as a descendant of the victims of the German genocide of the OvaHerero people 1904-08, can you share your thoughts on the topic of the German colonial wars in Namibia in general?

It is painful thoughts to know that my ancerstors were treated in the most undignified manner, that they were so traumatised and scared and yet they were also brave to have brought us up. I sometimes ask myself how does it feel to be thirsty without water? How does it feel to die from poisoned water? What kind of poison was it? So many questions run through my mind but there are no replies. My family is connected to the Skullls in that my grandmother's uncle was also hanged and beheaded. My grandmother Auguste Kavetjurura-Kahatjipara was also confined to a concentration camp and made to wear a medal pass around her neck like a dog together with her first born half German daughter, my aunt Metha Kavetjurura.

In particular, what is your view on the Namiban skulls, currently still stored in German museums, archives and private collections, and their return in October 2011?

The skulls in the German Museums are so confirming horrible acts committed against my ancestors. The return of the Skulls is to me a way of acknowledging the cruelty committed against my ancestors. Their return is long overdue and I am happy that finally they are returning back home from were they were taken in the most undignified manner.

Do you have preferences/suggestions on how and where the skulls should be buried/displayed, once back in Nambia? We do understand, traditional regulations suggests a different handling than the one agreed upon by all stakeholders now.

In modern times that we now live in, I believe that the agreed upon manner in which the skulls will be kept is the most appropriate way. In this way the history of what happened will be kept alive for the young generation to know these past and to avoid repetition of such to happen again.

In the current discussion amongst the OvaHerero communities, the government, the two different committees of the royal house of Maherero and Riruako, the Joint Technical Committee, do you think, women view-points are represented and are recognized by these stakeholders sufficiently?

Women view-points in my opinion are not that much represented and recognised.. This is also clear in the number of women in the delegations.

As a last question, do you see a connection of the topic of the returning human remains from Germany, which will not end with the return of the skulls held at the Charité, to other cultural objects from Namibia in German archives, museums etc, and to broaden this debate, from other countries, which are stored, displayed, etc. in Germany but elsewhere in Europe?

Cultural object should be returned as well to their countries of origin. Wherever they are now kept is not serving any purpose. Back in their own country we can use them as teaching material to the young generation about the culture of our ancestors. They will serve as documentation of our history and culture and moral. Words cannot even start to describe the audicity of keeping cultural objects in museums of people who do not even live the culture of the very people to whom the objects belong.

Kum'a Ndumbe III: Preserve, Promote, Protect from a Francophone / Linguistic Perspective – The AfricAvenir International Foundation in Cameroon

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:08:00 +0200

Paper presented by Prince Kum'a Ndumbe III at the conference "The African Diaspora Heritage Trail Conference (ADHT)", in Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 22-24, 2011.

A person whose memory has been erased cannot find the way home.

It is a great honour for me to take part in the « African Diaspora Heritage Trail Conference » held here in Halifax, Canada. I am happy to have made the trip to meet all these brothers and sisters, hailing from all over the world, whose hearts beat for humankind’s future... for a civilization that took root in the land of mother Africa. During these last five centuries, people of African descent have walked a very unique path. And today we have reached the cusp of a new beginning that will continue to grow during this third millennia, with ADHT’s program being one of the vitalizing components working towards this new African Renaissance.

Since 1985, AfricAvenir International’s main challenge has been to reawaken the erased identities of people of African descent... a people who have been subjected for centuries to self-negation and planned assimilation, adopting secondary values from others. This African awakening has caused oppressing nations to question themselves and their history with African peoples and the rest of the world. It is an awareness that, starting with the African experience, leads our people and those of other continents to seek a new commitment to one shared destiny for humankind.

Not only did we start with a so called Francophone Africa, but Cameroon’s experience led it from being a German colony in 1884 following bilateral relations with the Portuguese to a simultaneously French and English colony in 1919 following World War I. After gaining independence in 1960 and partially reunifying the two Cameroons - the French and English parts - in 1961, today’s Cameroon is defined as a Francophone and Anglophone country that is both a member of the Francophonie and the Commonwealth. To define and present the Cameroon of 2011 as a Francophone and Anglophone country is to acknowledge the wiping out of memories and the negating of Cameroon’s national identity where citizens use more than 270 languages every day without mutual understanding, even if these languages can be grouped into linguistic categories. However, you will hear daily on the radio, on television, in schools, at parliament, even within our international exchanges, that Cameroon is a bilingual country (French and English), not a multilingual country based primarily on African languages. This is indeed the legacy of having systematically removed local knowledge systems as well as the state of decision-making structures that govern the majority of African nations in the early 21st century. The colonial and neo-colonial systems have shaped Africans in such a way as they live in a state of constant contradiction, caught between a heritage spanning thousands of years and today’s legacy. They must try to succeed within a system that accepts them only if they renounce who they truly are and agree to be inserted into structures of dominance imposed by others. Even armed with multiple university diplomas, modern day Africans must distinguish themselves as structurally illiterate when it comes to themselves, their past and their African environments. They must shine within models taken from elsewhere that must presumably serve as solutions to African problems. Thus, today’s modern Africa and my Cameroon are essentially based on the sustained extraverted nature of their political and legal systems, their economic structures, their cultural and religious expressions, not to mention their military defence systems which are entirely dependent on the delivery of imported materials. Despite titanic efforts from some of Africa’s leaders who are aware of this pretence, Africa is still largely managed by the long term concepts, strategies and policies determined off continent. Coveted by others since the 19th century, Africa’s immense wealth continues to grow with new discoveries being made in the African subsoil; however, instead of boosting Africa’s development and expansion, it has instead turned it into a devastating battlefield in 2011, a place of destruction caused by the strategies of others, even if some of our own people, unaware of the issues or just simply greedy or criminal, also play their part in the situation. And this bloody destruction is taking over the continent and we are the ones that are dying, not the others who attack us or who developed these sustainable strategies of domination and of extraversion.

The practice of sustainable extraversion built into the governmental and educational systems requires that modern Africans establish close contacts not between themselves or between themselves and other peoples of African heritage, but rather, if not exclusively, between themselves and their off continent master thinkers and strategists. Europe and North America become mirages and the African elite tries to identify itself within their glorified models touted as successful, its portfolio and agenda not including a major interest in pursuing privileged relationships with nations or governments of African descent in the Diaspora.

In the early 80s, when I managed the Cameroonian Writers’ Association and co-directed the Central African Writers’ Association, and given my vast experience as a university professor, I recognized that it was very difficult to modify the course of events within the formal structures in a country that calls itself Francophone and Anglophone, while it is in reality multicultural and multilingual. We had to create a space dedicated to experience and freedom, to the rebirth of a solid African standing. That is why the AfricAvenir International Foundation was created in Duala in 1985, 26 years ago.

To preserve

1- Collecting and archiving Cameroonian stories about the birth of Cameroon

When I was the head of the Germanic Studies Department at the University of Yaoundé in Cameroon, I realized that researchers from all disciplines were facing major difficulties while writing on the history of the birth of modern Cameroon. Almost all the documents were written in German, mostly in Gothic script, so the French- or English speaking Cameroonian intellectuals could not access the documents without first getting dicey translations from German students who were unsure of themselves. So in 1982, I set up a multidisciplinary team made up of germanists, historians, economists, legal experts, anthropologists and sociologists to look all over Cameroon for elderly individuals to interview who had either experienced first hand the German colonial period or who had parents who had had lived during that period. Thanks to the project “Memories of the German era in Cameroon”, we were able to record interviews with 120 Cameroonians who witnessed firsthand the German era in Cameroon, hence the birth of modern day Cameroon. Each interviewee was questioned in their own language, in French or in English. We were therefore able to gather how Cameroonians saw and interpreted the birth of modern day Cameroon. We also identified how they experienced the German colonization, and if they resisted it.

2- Translation of key texts on the period of the birth of Cameroon

At the same time as this first project, we initiated a second project primarily with germanist colleagues entitled: “Translation of key texts of the German colonial era”. The intention was to give researchers from different disciplines access to professional and reliable translations on the birth of modern day Cameroon. These two projects, despite tangible results, ended in 1986. However, they should be able to be reinitiated today, if only to make available to the public the information collected at the time and the resulting translations.
3- Stories and proverbs collected in the Cameroonian languages circa 1880

Our research has brought us to ask ourselves: how can we find documents pertaining to our Cameroonian society before the colonial invasion? Looking through archives in Germany, we found, collected and brought back to the AfricAvenir International Foundation in Duala, more than one hundred stories, collective works and proverbs drafted in Cameroonian languages and translated into German. But most importantly, all these tales and proverbs had been collected in their original languages, in the 1880s, by German missionaries. These tales speak of the social, political and economic contexts of Cameroonian society, before the presence of any outside or colonial influence.

4- Gathering of texts on Cameroon’s development in Cameroonian languages

Our search for texts written by Cameroonians also brought us to find in both France and Cameroon, texts in the Cameroonian languages, mostly in Duala, by schoolteachers, pastors and royal secretaries from the 1920-1930s on political, legal, economic, religious and cultural issues that were then brought back to the AfricAvenir International Foundation. These texts are especially illuminating on how societies where organised and managed prior to the colonisation.

5- Cheikh Anta Diop Library

Having noted that students can barely even find books written by their own teaching professors in the libraries of Cameroon’s universities and must use mostly European and sometimes American textbooks, I decided to create the “Cheikh Anta Diop Library” at the Foundation in Duala. Its purpose is to buy and collect books on the birth of modern day Cameroon, the evolution of the African continent, the African Diaspora and African international relations. Another important aspect is the collecting of books written by Cameroonians, Africans and other writers of African descent. There are books written in 81 Cameroonian languages in the library as well as books in other various European languages. Books from other authors, whether they are of European origin or other, are also collected. The library currently has about 7000 volumes. Researchers who use it regularly are from Cameroon and Europe. However, managing the library has become an ongoing financial problem which is why it is only partially open to the public.

6 – Reading and press archives

French colonization restricted the number of media outlets, and this legacy carried on into the post-colonial era. The liberalization of Cameroon’s press did not happen until 1992. Through its reading room, AfricAvenir began making news items available to the public, archiving them once read. Still available in 2011, the reading room’s accessibility has often been interrupted, and on a few occasions restricted to a few titles, because of lack of funds. Collecting continues, but no longer includes all press items. International African press is no longer presented on a regular basis in the reading room. However, these archives were of great service when preparing a presentation on the 50th anniversary of Cameroon’s independence.

7- African cinema has proven to be a great instructional tool for the university, high schools and colleges, primary schools and different societal groups. I started experimenting with it in the late 1990s, during my courses at the Free University of Berlin, at the University of Yaoundé I, in the villages of Bonendale near Duala and in the high schools and colleges in the city of Duala. The effect is real and gripping. African cinema has the ability to deliver a message that is passed on to and transforms the viewer. We have collected over 120 African films at the Foundation, which is ridiculous compared to films made by Africans or filmmakers of African descent. However, payment of licensing fees which is crucial to the survival of filmmakers poses a problem for the AfricAvenir Foundation in Duala since it does not have the financial means to do so. Thankfully these films are well distributed through AfricAvenir International chapters in Berlin and in Windhoek where they have the money to pay the broadcasting rights.

8- The collection of Cameroonian music CDs has remained the neglected child of the Foundation. Despite having started this project five years ago, it has been discontinued before even reaching 80 titles. In 2011, we reached out again to music distributors. We hope to find a solution in 2012.

9 –Teaching and scientific research at the Masters and PhD levels on African renaissance issues These teachings have been available since the start of my academic career in 1975; however, coaching supported by the Foundation only dates back to 1992 when the first German students came to Duala for long term internships. Thanks to the scientific support given to researchers as well as the availability of the Foundation’s infrastructures, especially the Cheikh Anta Diop Library, many master and doctoral theses have been developed and defended in Cameroonian, German and French universities.

10 – To safeguard reflections and research results on questions of African heritage and the African renaissance, as well as on balanced international relationships with the African continent To this end, we launched a publishing company, Éditions AfricAvenir, in 1985 with the publication of two important books: one by Hubert Mono Ndjana, “Voyage en Corée” and one by Kum’a Ndumbe III, “L’Afrique relève le défi – projet pour un partage communautaire modern”. Because of political upheavals in Cameroon, this initiative was suspended in 1992, but was resumed in 2002 under the label Éditions AfricAvenir/Exchange & Dialogue. To date, books have been published in the languages of colonial Cameroon: in English, in French, in German as well as in the many Cameroonian languages. So far, published authors have all been of Cameroonian, African and European descent, but a first book from a Canadian author will be released in October 2011. All these authors recognize their part to play in committing to one common destiny for humankind.

To promote

If we have created these preservation structures within AfricAvenir International Foundation’s headquarters in Duala, it should be noted that they do not exist in this form at the Berlin, Vienna or Windhoek chapters of the Foundation. These chapters rather archive their promotional works in their respective countries. It should also be noted that despite the diversity of these preservation structures, the AfricAvenir Foundation buildings are not impressive, as their appearance is modest, if not outdated at times.

The job of promoting varies depending on what the national chapters of AfricAvenir International choose as their priorities to be implemented each year in their respective countries.

1 – The 2 websites

The www.africavenir.org website was created in 2002 by my Political Science students at the Free University of Berlin. After several semesters at the university, German students were offended when they heard for the first time what they were learning in my classes and how research findings on the falsification of African histories and of international African relationships should not be limited to university classrooms. They then proposed to me to set up a website to share and spread these ideas. To foster a commitment to one common destiny for humankind and to structure this project in a methodical manner, I offered a course for two semesters at the University of Berlin on how to build a website dedicated to questions on the African renaissance and balanced relationships with Africa. These political students then applied themselves to learn the basics of computer science so they could develop a website. Germany’s Eric van Grasdorff became so enamoured with the project that he wrote his master’s thesis on “African Renaissance and Discourse Ownership in the Information Age. The Internet as a Factor of Domination and Liberation”. He has remained the webmaster of this website on the African renaissance and the work of our various chapters until 2011. 3000 visitors are using daily this homepage, 75000 visitors did it last August.

The publishing house website www.exchange-dialogue.com launched by Eric Van Grasdorff in 2005 has been restructured at the Foundation’s headquarters in Duala in 2011 and is currently being managed from Cameroon. It covers publications from our publishing house as well as relations with national and international media on our activities.

2- Dialog forums and African palavers

Dialog forums and African palavers on many subjects are mostly organised by the headquarters in Duala and by the German chapter in Berlin. AfricAvenir Berlin, thanks to the high commitment of its members and to sources of financial subsidies, has become a champion over these last few years in organising regular forums, inviting Africans from their native countries to come to Germany and join in debates. The goal of these forums is to gather individuals around a table who are struggling to meet because of different political, ideological and religious barriers and to encourage them to listen and learn from each other. Forums are held in either English or French in Cameroon and in German in Germany. These same themes are presented and debated in Cameroonian neighbourhoods and villages in the language used by the community. All this happens in the spirit of an African palaver; we do not look at the time; we look for consensus.

3 - Tourism, travel and dialogue meetings

The desire to create meeting places between people from different cultures and of different origins brought us to offer the following trips between 2001 and 2009: “Discovering African spirituality”, “Understanding African care and healing”, “Reconciling modernity and tradition”, “Witnessing an African king’s enthronement”, “Preventing conflicts in Cameroon”. Trips were two weeks in length, meant for European tourists and under the supervision of the various structures existing within the Duala Foundation at the time of the trips. The effect of these trips has been extraordinary because it has changed in sustainable manner the way those Europeans see Africa. Visitors become African ambassadors within their country, not to mention that each individual brings back something that was very essential for himself or herself.

4 - Academic internships

Academic internships offered to students last between three and nine months. European students have been taking part in this program since 1992 and our first young Canadian student arrived to us in 2011. These internships allow students and young graduates from Cameroon, Europe or elsewhere to leave the university or school structure and to take part in a mixture of theoretical and practical research. For example, a German student specializing in road construction will be made responsible for the screening of African films and for debates in a Cameroonian village for a month, with frequent power cuts, before being assigned elsewhere. These young people come out of these experiences stronger than ever and excel for the most part at their studies once they return to their country.

5 - Public readings

Public readings with authors can promote our publishing house’s books on structuring and preserving the idea of an African renaissance and our commitment to one common destiny for humankind in different languages: French, English, German and Cameroonian languages. The Berlin chapter broke new ground by introducing theatrical readings by professional actors who read excerpts from works by African authors or authors of African descent. Up until now, these readings are mostly held in Cameroon, in Germany and Austria.

6 - Storytelling, dance, theatre and concert evenings

Evenings dedicated to storytelling, dance, theatre and sometimes music and presented in various languages have been organised at the Foundation’s headquarters in Duala. In 2007, we organised a native languages competition over a three month period that involved the participation of 1500 students from 15 different secondary schools. Each student entered the contest using their native language. It is surprising to follow a story from beginning to end in a language that we do not know, only having been given a summary to follow at the beginning. These shows are also organised by the Berlin chapter who often invites African musicians to large concerts. In 2010/2011, a play was introduced with great success in Vienna by Austrian students from BRG Marchettigasse secondary school, thanks to the support of the Vienna chapter of AfricAvenir and the Austrian Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture.

7 - Book fairs

Participation in book fairs is essential to the dissemination of our books, to our ability to share with other editors, to meeting new authors and to contacting film companies capable of bring our books to the big screen. That is why Éditions AfricAvenir/Exchange & Dialogue regularly attends the Frankfurt Book Fair since 2006. We will also be participating in Paris and London book fairs in 2012.

8 - African cinema

In Cameroon, all theatres were gradually closed for various reasons, most having been transformed into Pentecostal or Revival churches. And, even when these cinemas were open, mostly Hollywood, kung-fu and second rate movies were shown. African movies were rarely shown in cinemas. That is how the idea was born in the early 90s to project African films in the Foundation’s large hall in Duala. These screenings are also planned in villages, neighbourhoods, universities, secondary schools and colleges and are accompanied by discussions. And, the Berlin and Windhoek chapters, who both have excellent programs, also regularly invite African filmmakers, directors and actors to take part in debates held in Germany and Namibia. In Namibia, AfricAvenir helped organise a Namibian movie database, “Namibian Movie Collection At The FNCC”, with the collaboration of “Joe-Vision Production” and Namibian filmmakers. As for the Berlin Chapter, it contributed to creating a website for the African filmmakers’ guild.

9 - Artists’ exhibitions

Artists’ exhibitions popped up spontaneously in 1992 and were managed by the artists themselves who had transformed one of the Foundation’s rooms into a gallery. But, given the political instability at the time, the experience was short lived. It was revived after 2005 with the guest artists in residence of Goddy Leye’s Art Bakery in Bonendale. Currently, meetings with artists from different disciplines take place at the Foundation and the gallery has been renovated. In Berlin, major exhibitions have been organised on the abolition of slavery and the participation of Africa and third world countries during the Second World War.

10 – The “African Ingenuity– books-music-art” initiative

In a few weeks, the “African Ingenuity” initiative will be inaugurated at the AfricAvenir International Foundation headquarters in Duala. A bookstore offering publications from Africans and peoples of African descent had been opened in 1991 but did not survive the “years of fire”. Currently, a new space has been created with a variety of books by African and non-African authors on Africa, international relations and other subjects. Cameroonian music is well represented by original CDs as we are awaiting the extension to other musicians from Africa and the Diaspora. Wood, bronze and fabric craftsman also spread their wares in this space which has already proven to be too small even before the official opening.

11 - The return to Africa of treasures looted during the colonisation

The AfricAvenir International Foundation, in association with 75 German organisations, has lobbied for the return of king Kum’a Mbape (Lock Priso)’s Tangué to Cameroon, looted by the German governor Maximilian Bucher as spoils of war on December 22, 1884 in Duala and which currently sits in the Munich Museum of Ethnology in Germany. AfricAvenir also contributed to bringing to light the movement to have returned the skulls of Namibian heroes assassinated during the Herero and Nama genocide during the scramble for German South-West Africa in 1904-1908. The skulls that needed to be prepared by the widows of those assassinated before being brought to Germany as war trophies and were deposited at Berlin’s Charity Hospital should be returned to Namibia in the fall of 2011 thanks to the request of the Namibian government and to a collective mobilization effort.

12 – Renaming street names dedicated to slave traders, colonial references and war criminals.

AfricAvenir International, in association with 75 German organisations, has participated in the large movement that led to the removal of the name of the slaver Otto Friedrich von der Gröben (1657-1728) who operated in Ghana from a pier in Berlin. On August 29, 2011, the pier was renamed “Mai Ayim Ufer”, in honour of an African-German woman activist and poet (1960-1996) from Ghana who fought for the equality of people of African descent.

To protect

How can we protect this initiative, make it more visible and more sustainable and have it last beyond its already 26 years? As we did in the beginning, we must rely now more than ever on our own human, material and financial resources within the AfricAvenir International Foundation because it has been the formula that has allowed us to survive up until now. We should expand the international circle with more members, more volunteers. The magnitude of the task, however, has become such that for the project to be visible, professional and efficient and be able to reach greater numbers, a strong management framework based on an international network is needed. A link with similar structures in other African nations, with structures of the African Diaspora and with structures in different countries that work towards one common destiny for mankind without domination... this is the link that must be established with secure funding. Sharing experiences with others is crucial to our ability to remedy our approach at the AfricAvenir International Foundation. We need your experience, your know-how, your logistical, scientific, managerial and financial support if we are to enrich our journey. We would welcome the opportunity to share with you our modest experience which grew from our strong willingness to champion the development of a different world, one that is respectful to every citizen’s wellbeing and to the rules of the cosmos.

Reise in ein umkämpftes Terrain - von Joachim Zeller

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:46:00 +0200

Eine Delegation aus Namibia wird in Kürze in Berlin eintreffen, um die Schädel ihrer Vorfahren entgegenzunehmen. Was erwartet sie bei ihrem Besuchsprogramm in der Stadt? Ein Artikel von Joachim Zeller.

In den kommenden Tagen ist es soweit. Nach langer Vorbereitung wird eine aus 53 Teilnehmern bestehende Delegation aus Namibia in Berlin landen, darunter Vertreter der Herero und Nama und ihre traditionellen Führer. Sie haben die lange Reise auf sich genommen, um die Gebeine ihrer Vorfahren heimzuholen, die seit hundert Jahren in der Sammlung der Berliner Charité lagern. Es handelt sich um zwanzig aus der ehemaligen Kolonie „Deutsch-Südwestafrika“ stammende Schädel, die nun „repatriiert“ werden sollen. Die menschlichen Überreste gelangten während des Kolonialkrieges von 1904-1908 nach Deutschland. Dieser Krieg gegen die Herero und Nama wurde von Seiten der kaiserlichen „Schutztruppen“ unter General Lothar von Trotha als Vernichtungskrieg geführt und endete in einem Völkermord, für viele Historiker der erste Genozid des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Zwischen 35-80% der ca. 40.000-100.000 Herero und bis zu 50% der damals ca. 22.000 Nama kamen in dem Krieg ums Leben. Während ihres rund einwöchigen Aufenthaltes werden sich die Besucher aus Namibia natürlich auch in der Bundeshauptstadt umsehen. Der Stadtrundgang dürfte sie vor allem zu den - wenigen - im öffentlichen Raum Berlins noch zu findenden kolonialen Spuren führen. Unvermeidlich wird die namibische Delegation dabei mit den innerdeutschen Querelen im Umgang mit der koloniale Vergangenheit konfrontiert sein – und wohl oder übel auf manches Ungemach stoßen. Einer der Orte ist der Garnisonfriedhof in Berlin-Neukölln, wo 2009 ein neuer Gedenkstein eingeweiht wurde. Die Inschrift lautet: „Zum Gedenken an die Opfer der deutschen Kolonialherrschaft in Namibia…“ Sollten die Namibier die doch sehr im Allgemeinen bleibende Inschrift beanstanden, muss man sie auf die Intervention des Auswärtigen Amtes hinweisen. Es hatte „dringend davon abgeraten“, den Terminus Völkermord bei dem von der Bezirksverordnetenversammlung Neukölln initiierten Namibia-Gedenkstein zu verwenden. Dieses Vorgehen gegen die Völkermord-These (eigentlich Völkermord-Befund) hat bereits eine lange Tradition, will doch das Außenministerium möglichen Reparationsforderungen als Folge eines solchen Schuldbekenntnisses vorbeugen. Und dies, obgleich die Klage, mit der die Herero Wiedergutmachungszahlungen erstreiten wollen, wiederholt vor US-Gerichten abgewiesen wurde und nach Auffassung von Juristen auch zukünftig keinerlei Aussicht auf Erfolg besteht. Um sein Anliegen durchzusetzen, scheute das Auswärtigen Amt übrigens nicht vor unlauteren Methoden zurück. So ließ es noch im Jahr 2004 verlautbaren, bei der Bewertung des Kolonialkrieges in Deutsch-Südwestafrika als Völkermord handle es sich um eine „äußerst umstrittenen Schlussfolgerung einzelner Historiker“. Überflüssig zu erwähnen, dass die Forschungsergebnisse der überwiegenden Mehrheit der damit befassten Geschichtswissenschaftler einfach in ihr Gegenteil verkehrt wurden. Die Stellungnahme des Auswärtigen Amtes - sie ist mittlerweile von der Homepage des Ministeriums verschwunden - war aber vor allem aus dem Grund skandalös, da man dabei auf einen höchst fragwürdigen Autor aus dem rechtsradikalen Spektrum Bezug genommen hat, nämlich Claus Nordbruch, einen notorischen Völkermord-Leugner. Immerhin kann man der namibischen Delegation in diesem Zusammenhang vermelden, dass mittlerweile die Zeiten vorbei sind, in denen derjenige, der „im Ausland auf Parallelen zwischen dem Völkermord an den Hereros und den Juden und Polen hinwies… es mit Zensurabsichten der Auswärtigen Amtes zu tun“ bekam, wie der Hannoveraner Geschichtsprofessor Helmut Bley berichtet. Das alles ist natürlich nicht ganz neu für die betroffenen Namibier. Im Oktober 2003 mussten sie sich anlässlich des Besuches des damaligen Grünen (!) Außenministers Fischer in Windhoek anhören, von ihm werde es keine Äußerung geben, die „entschädigungsrelevant“ sei. Ganz anders dagegen Entwicklungsministerin Wieczorek-Zeul, die im August 2004 anlässlich des 100-jährigen Gedenkens an die Schlacht am Waterberg eine klare Entschuldigung aussprach. Wieczorek-Zeul bat die Herero „im Sinne des gemeinsamen ‚Vater Unser’ um Vergebung… Die damaligen Gräueltaten waren das, was heute als Völkermord bezeichnet würde“. Die Rede der SPD-Ministerin ging als Meilenstein in die Annalen der deutsch-namibischen Beziehungen ein. Auf ihrem weiteren Weg durch Berlin dürfte die Namibia-Delegation natürlich auch ins Afrikanische Viertel im Wedding fahren. Es ist wohl das größte - koloniale - Flächendenkmal seiner Art in Deutschland, denn die Lüderitz-, Swakopmunder- oder die Windhuker-Straße erhielten einst aus kolonialpropagandistischen Gründen ihren Namen. Die Text- und Bildtafel, die dort demnächst aufgestellt werden soll, informiert über die Geschichte des Viertels und über die geplante Umbenennung der Lüderitz-Straße. Zurück in der Stadtmitte, kommt die Besuchergruppe zu dem wohl wichtigsten postkolonialen Gedenkort Berlins, nämlich zur Afrika-Stele, welche in der Wilhelmstraße 92 steht (sinnigerweise schräg gegenüber der „Mohrenstraße“, die umzubenennen, es seit Jahren heftige Auseinandersetzungen gibt). Die 2005 errichtete Afrika-Stele erinnert an die berüchtigte Kongo-Konferenz von 1884/85. Wahrscheinlich werden sich die Namibier verwundert die Augen reiben, wenn sie die weitere Inschrift lesen: „Der Kolonialkrieg in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, den das Deutsche Reich von 1904-1908 gegen die Herero und Nama führte, endete in einem Völkermord.“ Hier hat also, das scheint dem Außenministerium bisher entgangen zu sein, das umstrittene Reizwort „Völkermord“ Verwendung gefunden, wie dies übrigens bereits auf anderen antikolonialen Mahnmalen etwa in Bremen und Düsseldorf der Fall ist. Aber die Afrika-Stele ist ja auch, so werden die Besucher erfahren, eine Stiftung zivilgesellschaftlicher - und zwar afrodeutscher - Akteure. Die Stadtrundfahrt wird schließlich an der Neuen Wache Unter den Linden vorbeiführen. Das umfangreiche Inschriftenprogramm der Zentralen Gedenkstätte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland schweigt sich allerdings über die Opfer der deutschen Kolonialherrschaft in Übersee aus. Mitglieder der afrodeutschen Gemeinschaft versammeln sich deshalb einmal im Jahr vor der Neuen Wache und präsentieren Spruchbänder, auf denen es heißt: „Koloniale Verbrechen an Afrikaner/innen - weiße Flecken in der deutschen Geschichte“. Ein sich aus ihren Reihen rekrutierendes „Komitee für ein afrikanisches Denkmal in Berlin“ (KADIB) setzt sich denn auch für ein Berliner Mahnmal zur Würdigung der Opfer des Kolonialismus und des antikolonialen Widerstandes ein. Spätestens an dieser Stelle wird den namibischen Besuchern klar sein, dass dem südwestafrikanischen Kolonialkrieg - und gleichermaßen der deutschen Kolonialgeschichte allgemein - in der offiziellen Erinnerungspolitik Deutschlands eine gänzlich marginale Bedeutung zukommt. Ein letztes Indiz dafür werden sie im angrenzenden Deutschen Historischen Museum antreffen. Dort hat man die Kolonialgeschichte in einen Schaukasten unter einer Treppe im dunkelsten Teil der Ausstellung verbannt. Der museumsdidaktische Skandal liegt aber nicht in der - wie in einer „Rumpelkammer“ anmutenden - beliebigen Auswahl der Exponate. Vielmehr ist es die Kommentierung des dort gezeigten Fotoalbums eines Kolonialsoldaten, der am Krieg gegen die Herero und Nama teilgenommen hat. Auf der beigegebenen Tafel wird der genozidale Vernichtungsfeldzug in Südwestafrika als „Strafexpedition“ betitelt. So bezeichnete damals das deutsche Kolonialmilitär seinen Krieg gegen die Freiheitskämpfer der Herero und Nama. Da dem Besucher jegliche weitere Erläuterung des Geschehens vorenthalten wird, kommt das Museum seiner Aufgabe nicht nach, über dieses uns bis heute so belastende Kapitel deutsch-namibischer Geschichte angemessen aufzuklären. Der „Leerstelle koloniale Vergangenheit”, die Erkenntnis werden die Gäste aus Namibia mit nach Hause nehmen, haben sich die vormaligen Kolonialherren noch zu stellen. Ob die Namibier die Tatsache trösten wird, dass bei anderen ehemaligen Kolonialnationen wie den Niederlanden die Kolonialgeschichte ebenfalls nur ein Minderheitenthema ist, muss dahin gestellt bleiben. Joachim Zeller Der Autor ist Historiker und Mitherausgeber der Bücher „Kolonialmetropole Berlin. Eine Spurensuche“ (2002) und „Völkermord in Deutsch-Südwestafrika. Der Kolonialkrieg (1904-1908) in Namibia und seine Folgen“ (2003; Lizenzausgabe 2011).

Bildlegende:
Der am 2.10.2009 eingeweihte Gedenkstein für die „Opfer der deutschen Kolonialherrschaft in Namibia“ auf dem Garnisonfriedhof in Berlin-Neukölln. Der Namibia-Gedenkstein wurde vor dem „Afrika-Stein“ (früher: „Herero-Stein“) errichtet. (Foto: Joachim Zeller)

"Dutch Museum to sell African Collection" by Kwame Opoku

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:01:00 +0200

It is of course not our business to tell a museum how to conduct its affairs, writes Kwame Opoku, our concern is, however, the selling of African art objects that may have been looted, stolen or extorted during the colonial era. The legal status of many African artefacts is indeed still disputed by the African owners and the European museums that are holding them.

We were shocked to read the news that Rotterdam’s Wereldmuseum (World Museum) is planning to sell its African and American collections to cover shortfalls made likely by the economic crisis in Europe and planned cuts in state subsidies to the arts in 2013. (1)

It is of course not our business to tell a museum how to conduct its affairs. Our concern is, however, the selling of African art objects that may have been looted, stolen or extorted during the colonial era. As we all know, the legal status of many African artefacts is still disputed by the African owners and the European museums that are holding them.

The idea of a museum selling African artefacts undermines all the arguments made for the acquisition and retention of African artefacts by European museums and other institutions. This form of commodification will make many African ancestors turn in their graves and wonder whether their descendants have any cultural values left intact after slavery and colonization. The selling and buying of sacred and cultural objects of others has become the business of many, including museums. One recalls the shock and amazement of many when it became known that the British Museum had been in the habit of selling Benin artefacts for cash. (2)

Selling and buying art objects whose exact legal status is in doubt or contested constitutes risky business and those interested should be aware of this crucial factor that may cause trouble in future.

Can we assume that the museum would provide all potential buyers the full history of the possession of the objects proposed for sale? It is well known that museums are very reluctant to give detailed information on the acquisition history of African objects in their collections since most of them have been acquired either through violence or in circumstances that are dubious. It may be significant that the Netherlands adhered rather late on 17 July 2009 to the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. (3) Many museums may still not be inclined to abide by the conditions of the convention as regards transparency.

African embassies in Europe may find it worthwhile to enter into contact with the Dutch museum to find out what objects are now being proposed for sale and to ensure that artefacts claimed by their peoples and governments are not included or better still, request that they are returned since the Wereldmuseum has now no use for these objects. They should reserve the rights of their peoples and governments to sue whoever buys objects that should have been returned to them long ago. The Wereldmuseum has some 9878 African objects of which 713 come from Angola, 68 from Cameroon, 199 from Ghana, 1134 from the Democratic Republic of Congo, 391 from Mali, 353 from Nigeria, including 204 from Benin (http://www.wereldmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken).

The Dutch were in Africa for a considerable period of time and some of the artefacts in Dutch museums may be of historical value to African States. (4)

But can the Wereldmuseum continue to be a world museum without African and American collections?

Kwame Opoku, 22 August,2011.. --- NOTES

1. http://www.printfriendly.com Dutch-museums-may-sell-treasures-to-make-ends-meet.ashx%2523axzz1VRhcy21C   Reuters. “Dutch museums may sell treasures to make ends meet” http://www.reuters.com Dutch News.nl “Rotterdam museum may sell its entire African collection, http://www.dutchnews.nl

2. Martin Bailey, “British Museum Sold Benin Bronzes”, http://www.forbes.com   Museum Security Network, “British Museum sold Benin Bronzes for £75 each.”
http://www.museum-security.org

3. http://portal.unesco.org 4. Some readers may recall that that the Dutch were in Africa for a long time. See “Ghanaian King’s Head Returned by the Dutch” http://www.newstimeafrica.. The article relates the story of the return of the head of a Ghanaian king, Badu Bonsu II, of the Ahanta people, who was decapitated by the Dutch in retaliation for the killing of two Dutch officials. His head was kept for some 170 years in a Dutch museum at the Leiden University Medical Centre. How many more African heads are still in Dutch museums and has anybody bothered to explain how they were secured? Will that also b sold? Will the Dutch follow the Germans and agree to return some of the bodies of Africans taken to Europe for experiments or will they allow the spirits of the dead to roam around and disturb their descendants for failure to perform the customary rites?    See K. Opoku, “Namibian Bones in European Museums: How long are the dead to remain unburied? Genocide with impunity. http://www.modernghana“. A History of Ghana, by W. E. F. Ward (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1967) has a good account of the Dutch presence in Ghana from 1598 to 1872 when they ceded their possessions to the British.

The Dutch had driven out the Portuguese from the Gold Coast in 1637 before they were in turn forced to cede their possessions to the British by treaty in 1872 and thus leave an area where many European countries had sought to secure foothold because of the gold resources in the land. See Albert van Dantzig, Forts and Castles of Ghana, (1980, Sedco Publishing Ltd, Accra) as well as Kwesi J. Anquandah, Castles and Forts of Ghana, (Ghana Museums and Monuments Board, Accra, 1999).

“Embracing Opacity” Interview with Ntone Edjabe (Chimurenga Magazine)

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:41:00 +0200

Ntone Edjabe is the founder and editor of Chimurenga, a literary magazine produced in Cape Town focusing on contemporary African politics and popular culture. The title Chimurenga refers to the Shona word for ‘struggle’ as well as to a popular music genre in Zimbabwe. In this conversation on July 14th 2011, Edjabe looks back at the first decade of publishing Chimurenga and speaks about the philosophy underlying the publication. His current project, The Chimurenga Chronicle, takes on the form of a newspaper backdated to the week of May 11 – 18 2008, the period marked by the outbreak of so-called xenophobic violence in South Africa. In an effort to shift the perspective away from the confines of nation-states The Chimurenga Chronicle is produced in cooperation with independent publishers Kwani? in Kenya and Nigeria’s Cassava Republic Press. The newspaper will be released on October 19th 2011, the day known in South Africa as “Black Wednesday” since the historic day in 1977 when the apartheid regime declared 19 Black Consciousness organisations illegal and banned two newspapers. Subtitled “A speculative, future-forward newspaper that travels back in time to re-imagine the present”, The Chimurenga Chronicle engages with the call of theorist Achille Mbembe, to “imagine new forms of mobilization and leadership, to create an ‘intellectual plus-value’ based on a ‘concept-of-what-will-come’”. |+| Download the pdf Version

The first edition of Chimurenga was published in 2002. Approaching your 10th anniversary as a literary magazine, what are some of the changes and continuities characterising the Chimurenga publication?

There was no clear strategy behind the project in the beginning, and I think that is perhaps one of the reasons why we are still here. Initially, Chimurenga was conceived as a single book. I was working as a journalist and together with a couple of journalist friends I was producing a lot of material without having a platform to print it. In print, there was simply no space for longer features, more analytical and more reflective writing. Since I was and still am very involved in music, I asked some of my friends as well as some of my favourite writers in the music scene to submit texts that related to music and politics. The nexus of a lot of my work is where politics and popular culture intersect. In that sense Chimurenga is essentially about music and politics.

At first it was a completely personal initiative. I collected the texts and put them together. We called it “Chimurenga – Music and Politics. Music is the Weapon”. However, because there was no clear strategy behind it, everybody received it differently and some people thought it would be the first edition of a magazine. Since I distributed Chimurenga myself, at concerts and in a couple of bookshops, many people started sending their own writing, saying ‘I want to be in the next Chimurenga!’ By the time we ran out of copies of the first collection we already had enough material from readers for a second edition, “Chimurenga. Volume 2”. Back then, the strongest piece of writing related to the idea of self-anthropology: re-discovering home and re-examining ones’ own home base, so we chose “Dis-covering Home” as the title.

By that time we started to realize that we couldn’t always wait for people to respond to our publication so that we could in turn respond to them. We therefore decided to plan four editions in advance and although we were practically functioning like a magazine for the first two to three years we did not consider Chimurenga to be a magazine in a strict sense. This approach set the tone for how the publication was and still is. It was very organic from the beginning. Now, after doing it for ten years, it has clearly become a strategy and a philosophy. We however always tried to remain as reflective as possible, to still be able to see what’s working and what’s not working, what’s important and what’s not.

Your current project, The Chimurenga Chronicle, is conceptualized as a newspaper set in May 2008. For a newspaper it will however be quite heavy in size. Comprising close to 300 pages it will appear more like a manifesto. Did you want to work with the medium of the newspaper to deconstruct it?

The newspaper is one of the aspects. The other aspect is our relationship with time. Whether time is perceived as linear or secular, depending on whatever philosophy one adheres to – my own sense is that we seem to be caught in these perspectives and that we don’t engage with them enough. We wanted to play with the idea of time travelling, and we wanted to use the tool that is specifically invented to mark time and space, the newspaper, to then use that very tool to deconstruct both, the tool and our sense of time.

Although we created a newspaper which is set in 2008, and will be released in October 2011, we decided that we were not going to do a retrospective. We are saying instead, ‘It is 2008, we are physically in 2008 and today we are producing the news of 2008 to engage with the colonial project of the newspaper’. Our sense of history, our sense of what is important and our sense of record are all marked by that medium. So yes, the project is partially to deconstruct the newspaper but not exclusively.

It is also about language. Newspapers contribute so much to the invention of language. For example, how we speak about a lot of issues is already predetermined by what newspapers decide to make an issue in the first place. Another aspect that we wanted to engage with is the crisis of May 2008 which spread across the African continent. For me, this event was much more significant compared to how it was being reported or analysed.

The statistics of the pogroms in May 2008, initially targeting Zimbabwean refugees in Alexandra, Johannesburg, and then spreading rapidly, are rather well known. About 60 people died and 100 000 were displaced in the course of very few days. On the other hand, the reasons usually offered for the outbreak of violence still appear to be obscure. Which new perspective can the Chimurenga Chronicle offer in this regard?

We wanted to go back into the moment to report and analyse not just the events themselves, but everything that was going on around the world which in some way contributed to what happened in South Africa. In this sense we didn’t want it to be a South African newspaper. Creating a South African newspaper would trap us again in South African parochialism. We wanted to create a newspaper which dislocates itself, whereas most newspapers tend to locate themselves. The Cape Times is the Cape Times, the New York Times is the New York Times. They see everything from Cape Town or from New York. We wanted to create a newspaper which looks at everything from an analytical place, an ideological place and a philosophical place – not a physical place. This is in itself very contradictory because newspapers are in their foundation made to mark time.

Because our newspaper aims at both, dislocating time and space, we decided that it should have at least three different bases. Not in the sense of having correspondents but in the sense that the newspaper should be as relevant in Lagos and in Nairobi as it is in Johannesburg or in Cape Town. That is why we have an editorial room in Lagos as well as an editorial room in Nairobi. In the end, how we are going to read the newspaper here and how they are going to read it there, especially concerning aspects like slang and referencing, is going to be challenging but that is the challenge of the project. I, nevertheless, think that 20 years into the era of the internet we should be better equipped intellectually to deal with ideas outside of the trap of place and time.

While some commentators have called the events of 2008 a watershed moment for post-apartheid South Africa, others emphasize the persistence of everyday violence. How can the Chimurenga Chronicle keep the balance between emphasizing the exceptional and the structural nature of what happened three years ago and now?

That is precisely what we are trying to do. If I can sum it up, for me, the Chimurenga project is about embracing complexity as opposed to the drag that is required of African thinkers, intellectuals and producers of knowledge to simplify things. The relationship with knowledge produced by Africans is always somehow towards simplicity because we are trapped in a logic of emergency. When there is always famine, misery and war it is impossible to think about going to the moon. As a matter of fact you can’t think at all. Essentially, what Chimurenga is trying to do is to liberate us from this shut hole of relevance. But how can you do that when you also exist in that very demanding place? Because the crisis is not fictional, there is indeed famine and war. But there is also life. There is also innovation, thinking, dreams, all the things that make life. It’s complex and our project is to articulate this complexity.

Now, it’s probably difficult to articulate complexity without coming out obscure. I do however find courage in the work of people like Edouard Glissant. He spoke of the right to opacity and to me that is a very liberating idea. Although we have been publishing the magazine for some time before I engaged with his work, he certainly set a new path for what we are producing. We have started to embrace opacity, not running away from it. We do not always try to overexplain, overclarify and always justify our existence and say ‘Well, the reason why we do this is because we are trying to liberate the mind’ – No! Not that this would a bad thing, but there is no absolute necessity for us to know why we are doing what we are doing. We are doing it primarily because we are alive. That was a very libratory idea for us and it kind of canalized the ideas behind the design and the writings we take on. It made us better understand this kind of semi-obscurity, our market strategy and our reluctance to be visible and not to be invisible either – because it's not about being invisible.

Compared to academic journals and literary magazines, the newspaper format is a more accessible medium. Is the intervention of the Chimurenga Chronicle also an attempt to engage with a greater public?

The newspaper is sometimes more accessible and sometimes less so, because it has commercial implications. But at the level of ideas and at the level of intent it is still a platform that is essentially public. Because it is sold on the pavement and not in a specialist bookstore a newspaper creates a very direct contact with the public. For example, when you are walking on the pavement and you see a newspaper poster. We wanted to engage with that aspect and we will have a whole poster campaign as part of the project. We are going to produce newspaper posters and put them up in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Lagos and Nairobi, one a month before the newspaper appears. The Chimurenga Chronicle will eventually also be available on the street when it appears. It will lay next the Star, the Cape Times and the Nation in Nairobi so that we can really work with that public space.

What will the slogans on your posters say? The term xenophobia, for instance, is still very contested in the South African context, leading to the sceptical formulation of ‘so-called xenophobic violence’. How do you approach this challenge of language?

I think there are a couple of things related to this matter. Firstly, this is a society where racism is institutionalised. Here you either have more access or you have less access to institutions. It's not a historical matter and it’s not necessary a legal one either but it’s functional. In this context one has to be able to identify the specificity of xenophobia – and I think it does have a specificity. Over the past three years the South African state has put a lot of effort into cancelling the term xenophobia out of its language and out of public and critical discourse. It has tried to emphasize the criminal elements of the attacks and by doing so it has depoliticised the issue. It has become more of a class concern with the rhetoric being one of ‘poor people behaving like poor people’.

I, however, think that in this context there was a clear identification of the Other – recognizing him or her through language, practice and history. That practice is linked to racism, of course, and it is linked to colonization and to how people were marked by it. All of that is not a particularly South African issue. Therefore, in dealing with this theme we can’t deal with it as a South African newspaper. Because what does it make of Côte d'Ivoire? What does it make of the Biafra war in Nigeria? What does it make of Kenya? We can use xenophobia as an umbrella theme but we could just as well use tribalism or racism. The question I am asking is, ‘Can we move away from semantics and really deal with the common denominators between the situations?’

Laslty, although xenophobia is the main theme of this newspaper, the word xenophobia is in fact very seldom used. Among the 350 000 words published in this Chimurenga edition xenophobia is probably used five times, because that is not the issue. The themes that we explore are themes of boarders, mental and physical boarders. We will also look at aspects like the business of migration. For example, what are the major conglomerates – whether it is Western Union or the Visa system – which actually make money out of all these people, who leave their homes and go? We have not yet explored these issues, we just tend to talk about the poor migrant that dies in the Sahara. But when we talk about the desperation of refugees, who is actually making money out of them? What is that industry behind it? Somebody has to investigate these issues so that we can talk about them and move outside of the logic of emergency and the state.

Up until today South Africa’s history is often told as a story apart from the rest of the African continent. Is The Chimurenga Chronicle intended as a statement against this narrative?

For me, the event of 2008 was South Africa’s official entry into the postcolonial. That is what this newspaper attempts to mark, essentially. The argument of South African exceptionalism has absolutely no basis any longer although the South African parliament will still understand itself as a very exceptional and hyperdemocratic space – but on the ground it isn’t. We want to record the moment South Africa officially became an African country. Later we can argue about that, but we have to be able to mark this moment and to mark it strongly enough so that we can have broader conversations. Then only we can really speak about what is going on in other African countries as opposed to superficial debates along the lines of ‘What is wrong with these Ivoirians, why can’t they accept their president? And what is wrong with these Nigerians, why can’t they find a job?’

We are not trying to do another bodycount or to show how bad South Africans are. As far as I am concerned they are not any worse than anyone else. What we continually try to say to South Africa is, ‘Give up your super-human status, you are not super-human! The world convinced you that you are different from anyone else and now you got this image of yourself, but a super-human? No you are not!’ After 2008 people asked themselves, ‘How could it happen here?’ I say ‘it will happen here because you are part of the world, because it is happening everywhere!’ There is an ongoing debate around alleged attempts from the ANC to limit the rights of the press by introducing the Secrecy Bill. How do you perceive this debate and what do you think of the current state of journalism in this country?

There is some kind of paranoia concerning the press in South Africa. The newspaper here has for a very long time been dominated by a few groups on a cooperate level, but also by very few schools of thought. The whole idea of the fourth estate has given the newspaper powers that it never actually had. Now that ANC politicians are coming out, behaving like politicians and not like revolutionaries, there is an emerging paranoia with everybody suddenly talking about freedom of expression.

My sense has always been that in this country, no concept of the idea of freedom has been developed beyond individual freedom. Every time there is a crisis the first flag the intellectuals raise is this issue of individual freedom. At the same time there is no concept of communal freedom being developed. Freedom is been reduced to the individual level where everyone is equal and can do whatever he or she wants, whether you live in a township like Khayalitsha or in a suburb like Gardens, but that is nonsense.

The Chimurenga Chronicle is a way of dealing with this paranoia. When the ANC started threatening newspapers, the media started coming out and saying ‘Oh, now you are behaving like African dictators, you want to control the press!’ At the same time, in countries like Burkina Faso and Cameroon, there are far more stringent press laws in place. But in these places people find ways to participate and to subvert that system. I don't want to romanticise these cases but I want to rather highlight the fact that people there are not marching on the street shouting ‘We want help!’ – instead they are too busy finding ways to deal with the repression. It is in this tradition that we can find the emergence of the satirical press across Central and West Africa since the mid 1990s. That is where people started publishing subversive ideas in the form of cartoons and comics.

In South Africa, on the other hand, because there is such a thick conservative notion of how serious the press should be, when the tabloids started emerging five years ago, the response was ‘you can’t take these people seriously they are talking about witches!’. To me, that is completely backward and is not in any way an attempt to deal with reality. In this context we wanted to come out with a newspaper which is serious and therefore can’t be dismissed as a comic, but which also deals with the ideas that these comics and satirical papers engage with.

In contrast to Johannesburg with its popular reputation as an ‘Afropolitan’ metropolis, Cape Town still appears to be somewhat reluctant to embrace its identity as an African city. How do you position yourself with Chimurenga in this particular place?

In a way we are both inside of Cape Town and we are not. Chimurenga would not exist outside of this building here, the Pan-African Market. That is very clear to me. In the first place, it was important for me to almost create a sort of an island mentality. We are both right in the middle of the city and at the same time we are outside of it. Here we have created a reality where brothers and sisters from the rest of the continent can come, play and be ironic with this construct. Here they can sell millions of reproductions of masks that are produced in factory style and imported into a space where there is a deep irony about this.

Secondly, it was important to find a way to make a living out of that and do it right in the middle of the city. Yet, we are still somewhat aside and we insist on speaking a different language. We are almost trying to drive it down the throat of this city that they are going to engage with us on our terms. We do not try to become a part of the Cape Town cultural scene but at the same time we participate in it. There is so much transformation that still needs to happen here. The moment you set comfortable in this place you’re lost.

Questions by Moses März

Visit www.chimurenga.co.za and www.chimurenganewsroom.co.za for further information.

Revisiting Looted Nigerian Nok Terracotta Sculptures in Louvre/Musée du Quai Branly, Paris

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:43:00 +0200

Article by Kwame Opoku. After reviewing the great Ekpo Eyo’s last book Masterpieces of Nigerian Art which included images of the looted Nok sculptures, he writes, he felt the need to revisit these remarkable pieces that the French were allowed to keep by the Nigerian government. |+| Full Text Article as pdf (including pictures)

“His attitude is dishonourable. I regret that Nigeria was weak enough to accept to sign an agreement in order to give an appearance of legality to this acquisition. But above all, the fault lies with the French president who made the request. The responsible officials of the museum should be ashamed to have placed their Head of State and their own country in such a deplorable situation.” Lord Renfrew (1) Figure of a seated male. One of the looted Nigerian Nok terracotta bought by the French, now in the possession of the Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, France, with post factum Nigerian consent.

After reviewing the great Ekpo Eyo’s last book, Masterpieces of Nigerian Art
which included images of the looted Nok sculptures, I felt the need to revisit these remarkable pieces that the French were allowed to keep by the Nigerian government. (2)

Readers will no doubt recall the circumstances under which the French acquired three impressive Nok terracotta sculptures. Briefly, the French bought the three sculptures from a Belgian dealer in 1998 for 2.5 million francs even though they were fully aware that under Nigerian law no antiquities may be exported from the country without the permission of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments and that the three objects were on the ICOM Red List of items that are prohibited for export from Nigeria. It took the intervention of ICOM to bring the matter to discussion and to the embarrassment of the French who had bought the pieces in 1999 for the planned museum, Musée du Quai Branly. (3) Finally, the French acknowledged the ownership of Nigeria in those pieces and signed an agreement by which Nigeria loaned the pieces to France for a period of twenty-five years which was renewable. The agreement with France shocked those interested in the preservation of African heritage insofar as it sent a wrong message to looters and dampened attempts to prevent looting. Prof. Shyllon, a leading Nigerian expert, described the agreement as an “unrighteous conclusion.” (4)

It should be added though that the French may well have been under the impression that despite the provisions of the law forbidding such exports, there would be no objections from the Nigerian government. After all, at least one of the Nok sculptures had appeared in 1998 in an exhibition in Brussels entitled The Birth of Art in Africa - Nok Statuary in Nigeria, organized by the Banque Générale du Luxembourg. In the catalogue of the exhibition, the Chairman of the Board of Directors thanked the Nigerian government for its support:
“The government of Nigeria offered its support to our bank for the organization of this exhibition. We wish to thank their representatives for their precious help and their open-mindedness”. (5) In the introduction to the catalogue, written by the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Information and Culture, Nigeria, we read: “Therefore, let me, on behalf of my government and the business communities in Nigeria, register my sincere appreciation for organizing the exhibition”. (6) There was here no objection from the government of a State from which some of the exhibited artefacts were considered to have been looted.

Terra cotta piece with figures in low-relief. One of the looted Nigerian Nok terracotta bought by the French, now in the possession of the Musée du Quai Branly/Louvre, Paris, France, with post factum Nigerian consent.

The text of the strange Franco-Nigerian agreement was never published but we know from discussion in ICOM that the organization recommended that “visitors should be clearly informed of the precise status of these objects and the way in which they were discovered.” (7)

We visited first the main building of the Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, where most of the looted African artworks are kept and then proceeded to the part of the Louvre Museum, called the Pavillion de Sessions where the looted Nigerian
terracotta as well as other artefacts are to be found. The Pavillon des Sessions was inaugurated in April 2000 and was to be part of the future Musée du Quai Branly which was scheduled to open in 2006. The Pavillon is a wing of the Louvre which is dedicated to the arts of Africa, Oceania, Asia and America. This annex to the Musée du Quai Branly exhibits some 120 masterpieces from those continents. (8)

Unlike African artefacts in the main building at Quai Branly which are presented in semi-obscurity or dim light, we noted with satisfaction that the three objects were presented in a well-lit hall under the same conditions as objects from America, Asia and Oceania. (9) What surprised us though was that even though there are written notes indicating that the three objects came from Nigeria, there is no express mention that they were there by virtue of the consent of the Nigerian government to the French purchase. The history of the objects was also not recounted in such a way that the average museum visitor would know how these Nigerian sculptures came to the French museum. It is stated in a notice on each of the three objects that it was “Deposit of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. What can this mean to the average visitor? A museum visitor might think that Nigeria had deposited the object there for safekeeping because of fear of rampant burglary in Nigeria. Another visitor might consider the “Deposit” as some sort of security presented by Nigeria for a loan from France. There is no where a specific statement that these objects which France bought from the illegal market are acknowledged as property of Nigeria and the history of the purchase by France disappears. Nigeria has an embassy in Paris and several Nigerian officials visit Paris each month. We assume that some of them would have visited the Pavilion des sessions and would report back home on the observance or the non-observance of the agreement between France and Nigeria relating to the Nok sculptures. But how does one evaluate an agreement that was never published?

Figure of a bearded male. One of the looted Nigerian Nok terracotta bought by the French, now in the possession of the Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, France, with post factum Nigerian consent. Did the recommendation of ICOM that “visitors should be clearly informed of the precise status of these objects and the way in which they were discovered” become part of the Franco-Nigerian agreement or did it remain a mere recommendation?   We know from various statements and sources what items were dealt with in the agreement even though the text of the agreement was not published. For example, a statement from the French Culture Minister, Catherine Tasca, announced the signing of an agreement between France and Nigeria adding that an agreement on cooperation will be signed dealing with training, technical assistance, inventory of collections and research on dating of archaeological objects. http://www.culture.gouv.fr The expiration of the twenty-five years term of the unpublished treaty would no doubt be occasion for Nigerians to consider various actions connected to the looted Nok artefacts and to renew or not to renew what Prof. Shyllon has rightly described as an “unrighteous conclusion.” Lord Renfrew and others quite correctly criticised sharply the French for buying objects they knew to have been looted. The main blame seems to have been put on the French. However, many accounts also underline the Nigerian role in the whole affair. (10)

Trophy Head, Benin, Nigeria, now in the Palais des Sessions, Paris, France. Part of the objects looted by the British in 1897 from Benin, Nigeria.This artefact was sold to the Musée du Quai Branly by Musée Barbier-Mueller.

Should Nigerians wait for the expiration of the 25 years term of the agreement before seeking the return of the looted Nok objects? Some might think that given the patently illegal manner in which the French procured these objects, the flagrant disrespect of Nigerian laws and all the circumstances surrounding these objects, the best thing will be to start now (what should have been done long ago) by telling the French to return them. The French knew perfectly well that it was illegal to export Nok objects from Nigeria. The pretence they sometimes make that they bought the objects in good faith from the free market should not be taken seriously. But the conduct of the Nigerian President Obasanjo in giving approval to the nefarious agreement also deserves clear condemnation. Nigerian officials responsible for preserving the nation’s cultural heritage had advised against approving such an arrangement with the French since it was a clear violation of Nigerian law but the President went ahead.

Warriors holding ceremonial swords, Benin, Nigeria, now at the Palais des Sessions, Louvre, Paris, France. Part of the objects looted by the British in 1897 from Benin, Nigeria. This artefact was sold to the Musée du Quai Branly by Musée Barbier-Mueller. The present government of Nigeria, headed by President Jonathan Goodluck, has declared its intention of setting up a body that will have the mandate of bringing back to Nigeria the artefacts that have been looted/stolen from the country and are now outside. (11) Nok artefacts should be on the list of items that should return home. Nigeria should augment its list of artefacts she seeks to recover to include Nok artefacts. (12)

Nigeria should reclaim not only artefacts stolen/looted long ago but also those stolen recently and bought by States that should be discouraging looting of artefacts. A request for the return of the Nok objects given away by a former President and others in violation of the law will send the right message to the peoples of the world that Nigeria is serious about recovering her looted heritage. It would also demonstrate that everyone is subject to the law even if he is a high official or president. One of the basic rules of democracy is the observance of the law, starting with the constitutional law. African governments must not only subscribe to this principle but should enforce it and demonstrate its application in all matters of the State, including cultural matters. The present government is not bound by acts done in clear violation of Nigerian law and International Law in circumstances where all concerned knew that their actions were in violation of well-established rules for the protection of the national heritage of Nigeria. In this connection, Nigeria should also formally ask Great Britain to return the Nigerian artefact that Yakubu Gowan, then military dictator of Nigeria, took to the British Queen on a visit to Britain in 1973. (13) It should not be accepted that Western countries encourage African dictators in their patent violations of laws, encouraging them to illegally transfer wealth of their countries and sometime later bomb them, as it were, back into democracy. A nation that prides itself of being democratic cannot encourage dictators in their violations of laws.

The actions of the two Nigerian presidents are so unconscionable that some might be tempted to assume they acted in ignorance of the serious violation of the law. However, they must have been advised by officials charged with preserving Nigeria’s cultural heritage that these actions were wrong. In any case, do we need any specialists to advise that giving away national treasures is clearly a betrayal of national interest? But what about officials who write forewords or introductions to catalogues or books in which the stolen or looted
Nigerian artefacts are proudly displayed? Should Nigerian scholars take part at all in an enterprise where the highlights are constituted by looted artefacts such as Nok sculptures? Can we assume that where a high official or scholar participates in such enterprise that consent had been given to export the artefacts discussed? (14) There is here a need for clear rules of guidance, at least for government officials, as to how Nigerians and other Africans should act in connection with projects that involve one way or other, looted/stolen national treasures. Dealing with stolen items cannot simply be left to individual conscience or to indifference.

In trying to secure the participation of African officials, scholars and others in exhibitions where the main highlights are constituted by stolen/looted artefacts from their countries, organizers seek to obtain some legitimacy for an enterprise that may be subject to legal and moral objections. The display of looted or stolen objects risks criticism from several quarters. To some extent, the participation of Africans in such exhibitions, for whatever reason, lends to the show some legitimacy even if the African official indicates that his participation does not imply approval or connivance at the earlier brutal invasion or other crime. In any case, the mere presence of African participants lessens the moral revulsion and objection that might otherwise arise. African collaboration also lessens the pressure on the Western holders of looted artefacts to return the objects or at least to seek some form of accommodation with those deprived of their cultural artefacts. African participation in major exhibitions organized in the last decades has not resulted in any restitution of looted objects or in any significant modifications in the attitude of the position of Western holders of looted African artefacts. On the contrary, they have emboldened Western museums in their refusals and encouraged the conception that African artefacts do not belong to Africans alone but to the whole of mankind; that the relevant question is not who owns what but who can best look after the significant cultural artefacts of humankind. But nobody is discussing whether European artefacts belong to Europeans or to humankind. Britain and Greece are still disputing the ownership of the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles.

Our French and the British contemporaries could have been supporters of the recovery of African artefacts that had been looted/stolen in the colonial and post Independence periods. As inheritors to colonial loot, they are best informed about the state and status of cultural artefacts in the former colonies. Unfortunately, the acts and policies of French and British museums and authorities clearly indicate that they are not willing to help in matters of restitution. On the contrary, they are fighting to keep what the colonialists looted or carted away from the colonies as well as objects recently looted. In this process, they have managed to involve Africans, even if violations of the law have to be committed. Thus the case of the three looted Nok sculptures now in Paris can serve as a good example for the implications of restitution of cultural artefacts from the African continent and African complicity in the plundering of the cultural heritage of the continent.

“It is indeed unfortunate that so much Nok material has been looted over time to supply the international market. Properly excavated, such pieces might have shed valuable light on the Nok culture.” Ekpo Eyo. (15)

Kwame Opoku. 14 July. 2011 Among the impressive African objects in the Pavillon des Sessions is this sculpture of Gou, God of war that the French looted in 1892 from the former French colony, Dahomey, now Republic of Benin.

NOTES

1. Lord Renfrew in interview with Noce Vincent in Liberation, entitled, «L'attitude de Chirac est déshonorante»        http://www.liberation.fr

« Je trouve son attitude déshonorante. Je regrette que le Nigeria ait eu la faiblesse d'accepter de signer un accord pour donner une apparence légale à cette acquisition. Mais, par-dessus tout, la faute en incombe au président français, qui en a fait la demande. Les responsables du musée devraient avoir honte d'avoir placé leur chef d'Etat et leur propre pays dans une position aussi déplorable.» Translation from the French by K.Opoku.

See the following articles in Liberation: “Paris conforte l'archeo-trafic”. http://www.liberation.fr      “Des pillages alignés sur le marché.” http://www.liberation.fr
See also, John Henley, “Louvre hit by looted art row”, The Observer, April 23, 2000
http://www.arcl.ed.ac.uk 2. K. Opoku, “Excellence and Erudition: Ekpo Eyo’s Masterpieces of Nigerian
Art”, www.modernghana.com 3. See the useful note of Ton Cremers and a report by Wandera Ojanji and Sue Williams www.museum- security.org reproduced in Annex I; Noce Vicent, “Pour Manus Brinkman, «l'Afrique risque de perdre son patrimoine». Ces pièces sont intouchables» .in the French newspaper, Libération ”ttp://www.liberation.fr      Sally Price reports that Jean- Paul Barbier-Mueller“sold to the French State 276 Nigerian works of art for the sum of 40 million francs”. Paris Primitive Jacques Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly, University of Chicago Press, 2007,p. 75. 4. F.Shyllon. “Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from Nigeria - An unrighteous Conclusion.” http://portal.unesco.org See also the account of French purchase of the Nok sculptures in Sally Price, op. cit pp .6780

5. Bernard de Grunne, The Birth of Art in Africa - Nok Statuary in Nigeria,
1998, Editions Adam Biro, Paris, p.10.

6. Ibid. p.11

7. ICOM Press Releases; 5 March 2002.
Nigeria’s Ownership of Nok and Sokoto Objects Recognized.
http://archives.icom.museum/press

8. On the Pavillon des Sessions, see inter alia, Constantine Petridis, “Arts of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas - recent exhibitions”,
http://findarticles.com
The New York Times, “Chirac Exalts African Art, Legal and (Maybe) Illegal”, http://www.nytimes.com
Raymond Corbey, “Arts premiers in the Louvre”, http://www.google.
Anthropology Today Vol 16 No 4, August 2000.
See also the excellent photos in Lessing Photo Archive,
http://www.lessing-photo.com
Wikimedia,      http://commons.wikimedia.org
Also of great interest is the DVD, Chefs-d’oeuvre et civilisations
Arts Premiers au Louvre, Le Cd officiel. 9. K. Opoku, “More Dogon in Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, than in National Museum, Bamako?” http://www.modernghana.com
10. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (http://www.mcdonald.cam. reported: “Controversy continues concerning the Louvre's decision to exhibit two recently purchased Nok terracottas in their new gallery for art from Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas (see In the News CWC Issue 6), opened by President Chirac in April. The Art Newspaper (June) reports that, according to an unpublished account by an official in the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments, President Chirac first approached the then Nigerian president, seeking approval to buy the pieces (on sale in Brussels for a reported $360,000 2 years ago). Approval was not forthcoming since the Commission believed such a deal would 'confer legality . . . and encourage further looting'. Apparently, in May 1999 President Chirac raised the matter again with the new Nigerian government; the National Commission's reservations were overturned and an agreement reached whereby the French would acquire the pieces (and one other Sokoto sculpture) with government blessing in return for technical assistance to Nigerian museums. The Nigerian president presented them personally when the deal was signed in February.
However, in April, the Nigerian embassy in Paris issued a statement which referred to the Nok pieces in the Louvre, warned 'individuals or groups against the purchase, sale or export' of such items, explaining that sale, export or transfer violates various Nigerian laws and has been condemned by ICOM (see In The New CWC Issue 6). Following fresh controversy over the case, generated by archaeologist Lord Renfrew's comments that Chirac had displayed a 'dishonourable attitude', Nigeria's ambassador to Paris, Abiodun Aina, has denied that his government reached an agreement with France and called for the pieces to be repatriated. The case is now being investigated by art crime specialists in the French police. The Louvre has emphasized that it had no role in the acquisition of the contested statues”.
See also an interview of the Director of the Musée du Quai Branly who stated that Obasanjo came personally to the Pavillon des sessions and gave approval:

« Nous avons acheté ces statues nok dans des conditions parfaitement légales au regard de la législation française de l'époque. Notre prise de risque était éthique mais pas juridique. Nous avons demandé au gouvernement nigérian sa position. Le président Obasanjo est venu en personne au pavillon des sessions, avant que nous ayons acheté les objets, et nous a donné son aval pour l'acquisition de ces statues. Nous avons donc estimé que le risque valait la peine au regard du message que nous voulions faire passer. Ces acquisitions ont déclenché une double protestation. D'une part, la colère de l'ambassadeur du Nigeria en France, adversaire du président Obasanjo, qui n'appréciait pas d'avoir été tenu à l'écart de la décision. D'autre part, une protestation politique de la part de journalistes qui ont fait valoir, à juste titre d'ailleurs, que ces objets avaient été pillés au Nigeria et que nous n'aurions jamais dû les acheter même si nous étions juridiquement en droit de le faire. Face à ce double mouvement de contestation - le président Obasanjo ayant été également critiqué au Nigeria -, nous avons décidé de faire machine arrière. Nous avons fait amende honorable et avons décidé de les restituer, de les offrir au Nigeria. Dans le cadre d'un accord, ce pays en est donc propriétaire mais il a accepté de laisser ces pièces en dépôt au musée du Louvre pour une durée de vingt-cinq ans renouvelables”. http://www.africultures.com 11. K, Opoku, “Reflections on the Abortive Queen-Mother Idia Mask Auction: Tactical Withdrawal or Decision of Principle?” http://www.modernghana.com 12. K. Opoku,“ Reflections on the Cairo Conference on Restitution: Encouraging Beginning”. http://www.modernghana.com 13. See, inter alia, Sunday Times, February, 2005,   “ President's priceless gift for Queen was national treasure”, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol
Reuben Abati. “Gowon, the Queen and the stolen bronze”, The Guardian, http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com
Stanley Nkwazema, 'Missing Artefact, Gift to Britain', all Africa.com http://allafrica.com
Louise Jury “Benin bronze given to Queen was taken from Nigerian museum.” The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk Modern Ghana. Com, http://www.modernghana..com-queen
BBC News “Queen’s 'replica' bronze is real” http://news.bbc.co.uk
Nigel Reynolds, “President 'liberated' bronze for Queen from museum
The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co 14. See preface in Gert Chesi and Gerhard Merzeder (Eds.) The Nok Culture, Art in Nigeria 2,500 Years Ago, 2006, Prestel Verlag. Munich. Berlin, London, New York. 15. Ekpo Eyo, op. cit. p.23. The preamble to ICOM Redlist Africa reads as follows: “The looting of archaeological items and the destruction of archaeological sites in Africa are a cause of irreparable damage to African history and hence to the history of humankind. Whole sections of our history have been wiped out and can never be reconstituted. These objects cannot be understood once they have been removed from their archaeological context and divorced from the whole to which they belong. Only professional archaeological excavations can help recover their identity, their date and their location. But so long as there is demand from the international art market these objects will be looted and offered for sale.”    http://archives.icom.museum/redlist
For an impression of how much African terra cotta has gone to Western museums and private collectors, see for example, African Terra Cottas, 2008’ in the Barbier-Mueller Museum Collections, edited by Floriane Morin and Boris Wastiau, Somogy Editions d’Art. See also, Peter R. Schmidt and Roderick J. McIntosh (Eds.), Plundering Africa’s Past, Indiana University Press, 1996; K. Opoku, “Recovering Nigeria’s Terra Cotta,” Museum Security Network     http://www.museum-security.org
K.Opoku, “Let Others Loot for You: Looting of African Artefacts for Western Museums “, http://www.modernghana.com;   Patrick J. Darling, “The Rape of Nok and Kwatakwashi: the crisis in Nigerian Antiquities” http://www.mcdonald.cam
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ANNEX I
More on looted NOK statues from Nigeria. www.museum- security.org
Last week I informed the Museum Security Mailinglist about illicitly excavated and exported NOK statues presently in the Louvre museu, Paris. In newspaper reports the source of these statues supposedly was a Belgium dealer.
Michel van Rijn ( http://www.michelvanrijn.com/) has been able to trace this /dealer via a Le Monde contact: Comte de Grune's son, who used to be with Sotheby's but now looks after the family business given the "grand age" of his father, was indeed involved in the deal leading to the sale of one of the Nok's pieces to the Louvre. Mr. Van Rijn also was the one who discovered possibly looted NOK statues at the European fine Art fair in Maastricht, The Netherlands (TEFAF). These statues were offered for sale by another Belgium dealer: Deletaille.
The following report: Out of Africa, gives insight in the consequences of the trade in looted African antiquities. Ton Cremers
Out of Africa "The looting of archaeological items and the destruction of archaeological sites in Africa are a cause of irreparable damage to African history and hence to the history of humankind. Whole sections of our history have been wiped out and can never be reconstituted." The introduction to the Red List of African archaeological and ethnological objects, published by the International Council
of Museums (ICOM), should be sounding alarm bells everywhere. Unfortunately the trafficking in such goods is booming and Africa is being bled dry of its cultural heritage. In Mali and Burkina Faso, ICOM reports, "all the archaeological sites are systematically looted." This means that despite the large numbers of objects now available on the art market very little is known about the cultures which produced them. And their exact provenance and date will remain forever unknown. Items from the Côte d'Ivoire for example, "are identified as such only by chance discoveries made during illegal excavations and left in the Abidjan museum. Nothing is known about the societies that made these objects, and the current extent of looting gives every reason to fear that everything will be destroyed," reports ICOM. Those responsible are not only looting national treasures, they are violating that which is sacred to Africa's peoples. In the Wajir area of northern Kenya, collectors are contracting locals to dig up cemented graves for rare and unique antiques, antiques even the Kenya Museums had never encountered before. When George Abungu, the director of Kenya's National Museums last visited Wajir he found the excavated remains of the dead scattered over the ground. "And the Vigan-gus, the grave yards of the Mijikenda tribe at the Kenyan Coast, are no lon-ger found in that area, but easily found in museums all over Europe and Ame-rica," he adds. While unprotected archaeological sites are easy targets, Africa's museums have also suffered heavy losses in raids by often heavily armed bandits, who're ready to assault and even kill any guards who dare to oppose them. This is especially true in those countries hit by political turmoil. Nigeria's museums, for example, have been hit by "violence and robbery on a massive scale", reports ICOM. "The headquarters of the traffickers is reputed to be Bamako, the capital of Mali," says Professor Folarin Shyllon from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. "There is also a thriving business in Cotonou (Benin Republic). Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire are staging posts from where goods are sent to Paris or sold to local dealers who ship them to the US and European art capitals." Objects from Uganda, Congo Brazzaville and Kenya are smuggled out of Kenya from the port of Mombasa, often concealed in containers transporting coffee. Dr Abungu accuses financially powerful collectors, diplomats, and museums in Europe and America for promoting the trafficking by promising what seem to be fabulous sums to impoverished African communities and unscrupulous local middlemen. However, he adds, African govern-ments are also very much to blame for the trade. They have not considered protection, conservation or preservation of cultural heritage a priority. Stopping, or even diminishing such traffic will require a massive effort: to make local populations aware of what is happening, to sensitise them to the need to conserve or preserve their heritage, and to provide them with alternative ways to make a decent living. However, dealers and collectors also need to make an effort. They need to be more vigilant, honest and aware of the terrible impact the loss of such objects can have on their traditional owners ... and their children, who may well only have access to their cultural heritage if they can afford a trip to Europe or the United States.
Wandera Ojanji in Nairobi with Sue Williams From:
http://www.unescosources.org/

Côte d'Ivoire : la démocratie au bazooka? par Achille Mbembe

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:57:00 +0200

Dans les conditions actuelles où l'on est sommé de choisir une partie contre l'autre selon l'impératif de la lutte à mort, il est difficile de dire quoi que ce soit sur la crise ivoirienne, ses causes historiques, ses significations pour l'Afrique postcoloniale, les modalités de sa possible résolution et ses conséquences sur l'équilibre de la sous-région sans susciter un déchaînement incontrôlé de passions, voire la violence des partisans des deux camps. Par Achille Mbembe et Célestin Monga (cet article est paru sur le site de |+| Mediapart).

Raison et vociférations

Il est pourtant impératif d'apporter autant de clarté que possible sur ses enjeux ; de chercher à entendre raison, au-delà des tragiques événements au cours desquels des civils déjà fort appauvris perdent la vie dans des combats de rue, pendant que les chefs des factions bénéficient de protection et jouissent de toutes sortes d'immunités.

D'autre part, pour sortir de l'impasse, encore faut-il dépasser le dualisme Laurent Gbagbo-Alassane Ouattara. Le projet démocratique en Afrique ne saurait en effet être réduit à une simple mystique électorale, surtout dans les contextes où chefs de guerre sans foi ni loi, vieux fonctionnaires carriéristes et entrepreneurs politiques maniant à la fois l'eau bénite et le feu se servent avant tout des élections comme d'une voie royale pour le contrôle des rentes et toutes sortes d'accaparements.

La crise ivoirienne - tout comme d'autres qui l'ont précédée - impose par contre que l'opinion africaine et internationale se saisisse de nouveau des questions fondamentales qui détermineront l'avenir de la paix et la sécurité des peuples et des États dans cette région du monde. Ces questions sont les suivantes. Comment détermine et valide-t-on, de manière irrécusable, les résultats d'un scrutin dans un pays dont une bonne moitié du territoire est occupée par des rebelles armés combattant un gouvernement que la communauté internationale n'a pas déclaré illégitime ? À qui appartient le droit de statuer sur les contentieux électoraux en Afrique ? Comment fonctionne le principe universel de primauté entre droit national et droit international dans un État où la Constitution n'a pas été suspendue ? L'utilisation de la force militaire par des États voisins ou étrangers pour résoudre des conflits post-électoraux dans un pays indépendant se justifie-t-elle en droit ? Si oui, quels critères démocratiques doivent remplir les pays qui y envoient des soldats ? Et comment se fait-il qu'il y ait eu si peu d'interventions armées alors même que le dévoiement des élections est devenu une pratique courante, et que les contentieux post-électoraux n'ont cessé de se multiplier en Afrique au cours des vingt dernières années ?

Sur un plan similaire, quelle valeur faut-il attribuer aux prescriptions morales proclamées urbi et orbi par la communauté internationale sur un Continent où ses principes, son engouement, sa fermeté et ses sanctions s'appliquent différemment selon le pays et le moment, c'est-à-dire de façon inconsistante, voire arbitraire ? Plus précisément, de quelle légitimité peut se prévaloir une ancienne puissance coloniale qui, de jour, embrasse, soutient, finance, arme et décerne des satisfecits à des autocrates répugnants et, de nuit - juge et surtout partie - entretient des bases militaires dans des pays en conflit tout en se posant en donneuse de leçons de morale et en pontife de la démocratie ?

Poser ces questions alors que dans le cas ivoirien qui nous préoccupe la messe semble avoir été dite ne relève, ni de la provocation, ni de l'appel à l'inaction. Il s'agit au contraire de préalables qu'il faudrait intégrer à toute discussion sur la résolution d'une crise politique devenue le symptôme des déficits structurels des marchés politiques africains d'aujourd'hui, des errements d'une communauté internationale qui se rend trop souvent en Afrique avec le dilettantisme de gens qui vont en safari, et de l'immense colère qu'une décolonisation inachevée et pervertie a laissé dans les esprits de nombreux citoyens et intellectuels africains.

Par ailleurs, ce qui se joue à Abidjan n'est pas qu'une « affaire d'Africains ». Le différend ivoirien interpelle tous les peuples en quête de justice et de liberté. Alors que l'on s'accorde à dénoncer la crise du modèle démocratique y compris dans les vieux pays industriels, les leçons que l'on peut en tirer seraient donc utiles aux citoyens d'autres États de la planète. À l'heure de la mondialisation et des vives contradictions qu'elle ne cesse de produire, il s'agit en effet de redonner vie et substance au projet démocratique à la fois à l'échelle nationale et locale et à l'échelle planétaire, de remettre à jour les termes d'un contrat citoyen qui offre le cadre de stabilité à toute société humaine digne de ce nom, de circonscrire les conditions (forcément extrêmes) dans lesquelles le recours à la force peut être une option dans les relations entre États et au sein des États, et de réévaluer les conditions et modes d'engagement des acteurs internationaux dans les crises régionales et nationales.

Deux vérités incompatibles

Une élection a donc bel et bien eu lieu en Cote d'Ivoire. Officiellement, l'organisation des opérations pré électorales et du scrutin présidentiel ont duré trois ans (2007 à 2010). Elles auraient coûté 261 milliards de francs CFA, soit environ 57.000 francs CFA par votant. Sur cette somme, l'État de Cote d'Ivoire (c'est-à-dire les pauvres contribuables de ce pays où le revenu mensuel par habitant est de moins de 60.000 francs CFA aurait payé 242 milliards, soit 93%.

Élu en octobre 2000 lors d'un scrutin qu'il n'avait pas organisé, Laurent Gbagbo avait été finalement reconnu et accepté comme Président de la République par la classe politique ivoirienne. Moins de deux ans plus tard, alors que personne ne remettait plus en cause sa légitimité, son régime avait été la cible d'une sanglante tentative de coup d'état. Ni Alassane Ouattara, ni Henri Konan Bédié, ni la CEDEAO, ni la France, ni la communauté internationale n'avaient, à l'époque, proposé une intervention militaire pour protéger un gouvernement dont tous reconnaissaient pourtant la légalité.

Au contraire, les promoteurs du putsch avorté de septembre 2002 ont bénéficié des honneurs de la République. Ils ont occupé militairement la moitié nord du pays qu'ils ont gouverné à leur guise, et leur chef a fini par se faire nommer Premier ministre. Le mandat présidentiel de Laurent Gbagbo s'étant achevé en 2005, il est quand même resté au pouvoir, estimant à tort ou à raison que le contrôle d'une partie du territoire par la rébellion armée lui imposait de demeurer à la magistrature suprême jusqu'à ce qu'une solution de sortie de crise soit trouvée.

Nul ne conteste que l'élection présidentielle de 2010 s'est déroulée dans des conditions peu optimales - la « partition » de fait du territoire national, une souveraineté passablement ébréchée en conséquence de divers compromis boiteux, et un processus inachevé de désarmement de la rébellion. La Commission Électorale Indépendante (CEI) chargée, d'après la Constitution et la loi électorale d'organiser les élections et d'en proclamer les résultats provisoires selon le mode du « consensus » n'a pu le faire dans le délai officiel des 72 heures après la fermeture des bureaux de vote. Ses 31 membres n'ayant pas pu trouver le « consensus » requis par les accords signés par les parties, son Président s'est fait conduire en pleine nuit par deux ambassadeurs occidentaux au siège de campagne du candidat Alassane Ouattara pour proclamer unilatéralement ce dernier vainqueur.

S'appuyant sur des allégations d'irrégularité et de fraudes dans certaines régions du pays, le Conseil Constitutionnel qui, en tant qu'organe juridique suprême en matière électorale, avait seul la prérogative de proclamer les résultats définitifs, a annulé les résultats à ses yeux truqués du scrutin dans les trois départements de la Vallée du Bandama. Sans demander que les élections y soient reprises, que les chiffres sur les procès-verbaux soient revalidés ou que les votes y soient recomptés, il a proclamé Laurent Gbagbo vainqueur. Conséquence : les deux candidats s'arc-boutent chacun sur sa position malgré la frivolité des faits sur lesquels ils s'appuient, l'opprobre dont ils sont l'objet dans certaines zones de la Cote d'Ivoire, les menaces de guerre que leur entêtement fait peser sur le pays, et les risques mortels auxquels ils s'exposent et exposent leurs compatriotes.

Depuis lors, deux logiques incomplètes s'affrontent. Pour les uns, tout se ramène à une affaire de vandalisme électoral. Il suffit alors, comme le réclament à cor et à cris les hérauts de la « démocratie par procuration », que la « communauté internationale » se hisse à hauteur du défi. La mise en quarantaine, l'étranglement financier et l'interdiction de voyager ne suffisant pas, une petite intervention chirurgicale conduite par les armées de la sous-région viendrait s'ajouter à la panoplie des moyens nécessaires pour extirper l'usurpateur, contraindre le larron - unilatéralement désigné ? - à la fuite, procéder à son assignation devant la Cour Pénale internationale, voire le « liquider » simplement.

S'étant avérés incapables de mobiliser leurs troupes aux fins de défense de ce qu'ils affirment être les résultats du suffrage universel au besoin par la voie d'un soulèvement populaire, une partie des Ivoiriens et de leurs alliés externes cherche maintenant à sous-traiter la besogne à des supplétifs africains - eux-mêmes probablement originaires de pays où des élections démocratiques n'ont jamais eu lieu, tragique ironie aujourd'hui concevable seulement en Afrique. Sans doute armés, encadrés et soutenus sur le plan logistique par un cartel de pays occidentaux, ils sont invités à verser leur sang et celui de quelques milliers d'Ivoiriens dans une aventure dont les fondements en droit international et en droit ivoirien n'existent pas. Les apparences de la démocratie dans ce qui fut autrefois le joyau de l'Afrique francophone seraient ainsi sauves. Et chacun s'en irait la conscience allégée, mais sans que la vieille demande de justice universelle à l'égard de l'Afrique et des Africains - qui était au fondement de la lutte pour une véritable décolonisation - ait progressé d'un pas.

Pour d'autres encore, tout ceci n'est qu'un complot - un de plus - ourdi contre le dernier des prophètes anti-impérialistes, et peut-être un jour martyr de la lutte pour la « seconde indépendance » d'un continent pillé depuis des siècles par des prédateurs de tous bords.

Quant aux États occidentaux - ceux-là même qui n'ont cesse d'invoquer la liberté, les droits de l'homme et la démocratie, mais qui n'hésitent jamais à les fouler aux pieds chaque fois qu'il s'agit de vies de nègres - l'appui indéfectible et multiforme, actif ou silencieux, prodigué depuis 1960 aux régimes de partis uniques, aux caporaux et autres kleptocrates en civil, aux guerres de sécession (cas du Katanga et du Biafra en particulier) et à toutes formes de répressions sanglantes sur le Continent a fini d'oter toute crédibilité à leurs sermons.

Dans ce procès qui dure depuis un demi-siècle déjà, ce que l'on appelle « la communauté internationale » n'est pas en reste. Qui, toutes générations confondues, ne se souvient en Afrique du meurtre de Patrice Lumumba, premier Premier ministre démocratiquement élu de la République du Congo, assassiné le 17 janvier 1960 avec la complicité silencieuse de l'ONU ? Plus près de nous, cette « communauté internationale » n'a-t-elle pas fermé les yeux sur les génocides du Rwanda, au Darfour, ou en République Démocratique du Congo ? La liste est en effet longue des « bonnes dictatures » que les propriétaires de la bonne conscience mondiale continuent de sponsoriser à travers la planète et dont les dirigeants criminels sont reçus sur tapis rouges et à coups de fanfare à Paris, Londres, Washington ou Bruxelles.

Les trafiquants d'élections en Irak, en Afghanistan, au Pakistan, en Biélorussie, en Libye, en Éthiopie, en Égypte, et dans de nombreux autres pays ne dorment-ils pas tranquilles ? La toute-puissante et généreuse communauté internationale ne continue-t-elle pas de leur déverser chaque année des dizaines de milliards de dollars d' « aide financière » ? Quant au Premier ministre kenyan Raila Odinga que l'Union africaine a affublé du titre pompeux de médiateur de la crise ivoirienne, rappelons simplement qu'il a accepté 1.500 morts dans son pays après l'élection présidentielle de décembre 2007 avant d'entrer dans le gouvernement d'un Président qu'il qualifiait la veille de « tyran sanguinaire ». Pour le reste, bien des dictateurs crapuleux n'ont pas hésité à enfourcher le cheval du nationalisme et du panafricanisme pour justifier désordre et chaos.

Le voleur de boeufs et le voleur de poules

Il faut donc revenir aux constats de fond. Le premier est qu'aux élections de 2010, la Cote d'Ivoire a été piégée par l'architecture juridico-politique dont elle s'est hâtivement dotée pour résoudre la crise des dix dernières années. Tant que cette architecture est en place, chaque consultation électorale majeure risque de déboucher sur les memes impasses.

Deuxièmement, il est désormais difficile, voire impossible, de déterminer avec exactitude lequel des deux candidats a gagné de manière incontestable le scrutin présidentiel des 31 octobre et 28 novembre. L'un et l'autre disposent de demi-arguments pour justifier leur position et défendre leur cause. Mais aucun ne dispose de toute la vérité.

Troisièmement, si guerre il doit y avoir, elle sera avant tout une guerre contre les civils, comme nous l'ont malheureusement appris tant d'expériences récentes.

Au demeurant, rivalisant de cynisme, les deux prétendants au trône (et leurs affidés) le savent parfaitement. Le premier semble se résigner à l'idée d'en être la première victime. Il rêve peut-être de célébrer ses propres funérailles à la manière des hommes riches au temps de l'esclavage - au milieu d'une flambée de sacrifices humains, en utilisant si nécessaire ses parents, clients et captifs comme gages et dommages collatéraux.

En appelant publiquement à une guerre d'extirpation menée par des armées étrangères dans son propre pays et contre une partie de ses compatriotes, le second voudrait accéder à la magistrature suprême par la fenêtre, en marchant sur les cadavres de ses concitoyens et en instrumentalisant vaille que vaille les instances sous-régionales et internationales, lorsqu'il ne se laisse pas instrumentaliser par elles, et en contractant auprès de ses soutiens externes une lourde dette secrète qu'il fera payer, le moment venu, par toutes sortes de capitations, privilèges extra-territoriaux et abandons de souveraineté.

Certes, celui qui appelle à la guerre n'a pas le même niveau de responsabilité morale que celui qui pourrait en être la principale cible. Mais tous les deux sont unis par une funeste dette de mort dont l'enjeu premier n'est pas la démocratie, mais l'accaparement des rentes sur fonds de relance des procédures de l'inégalité et, dans les deux cas, par le biais d'une intensification des conduites d'extraversion.

Il convient d'autre part de souligner que dans cette Afrique postcoloniale, la situation ivoirienne est somme toute prosaïque. Ce n'est pas la première fois - et ce ne sera sans doute pas la dernière - que l'on fait face à des perdants qui refusent de s'en aller et à des prétendants qui, voulant éviter le dur et patient travail de mobilisation de leur société, se démènent pour arriver au pouvoir dans les fourgons des armées étrangères d'occupation. Voleurs de boeufs contre voleurs de poules, c'était le cas récemment au Zimbabwe et, dans une large mesure, au Kenya. D'intervention armée, il n'y en eut point malgré l'ampleur du délit.

Que dire des successions de père en fils au Congo-Kinshasa, au Togo et au Gabon, ou encore des hold-ups électoraux à répétition au Cameroun et dans presque toutes les satrapies de l'Afrique centrale, en Guinée, au Burkina-Faso, en Mauritanie, en Ouganda, au Rwanda et au Burundi, en Éthiopie, en Érythrée et ailleurs ? La réponse de « la communauté internationale » ? Nul émoi. C'est qu'à l'heure actuelle, il n'existe, ni dans le droit international, ni dans les conventions africaines (ou d'ailleurs étrangères), aucune clause prévoyant le recours à une force extérieure pour fonder la démocratie ou restaurer celle-ci à la suite d'un contentieux électoral.

Le dévoiement des élections dans le cadre du multipartisme en Afrique est une question historique et structurelle. Le coût des élections en vies humaines n'a cessé d'augmenter au cours des vingt dernières années. Bien peu de ces exercices auront été conduits dans la transparence, dans des conditions de légitimité incontestables. Qui s'étonnera qu'en de si funestes circonstances, leurs résultats ne soient que rarement acceptés par tous les protagonistes ?

Pis, elles sont devenues le moyen privilégié de conduire la guerre par d'autres moyens. Dans maints pays en effet, nombreux sont ceux qui, mis dans l'impossibilité de voter, ont été pratiquement déchus de leur citoyenneté. Le formidable déséquilibre entre les ressources accaparées par les partis au pouvoir et celles des formations de l'opposition est tel que la compétition est faussée dès le départ. Tout est réquisitionné par les partis gouvernementaux : l'appareil d'Etat, la bureaucratie, la police, la garde prétorienne, l'armée et les milices, la télévision nationale, l'ensemble des magistrats et la cour constitutionnelle, sans compter les deniers publics.

Dans certains cas, il n'y a pas jusqu'à la « commission électorale indépendante » qui ne soit sous la botte du gouvernement. Par ailleurs, il n'est pas rare qu'elles soient précédées ou suivies par un couvre-feu, quand ce n'est pas par une déclaration d'état d'urgence. Alors qu'elles sont supposées consacrer l'idée de la souveraineté du peuple, peu nombreux sont les Etats qui peuvent les financer de manière autonome. La plupart des gouvernements dépendent partiellement ou entièrement de subsides étrangers pour en assurer l'organisation. Cette tutelle financière étrangère ne s'apparente pas seulement à de la corruption indirecte. Elle jette un discrédit sur la capacité des Africains à se gouverner eux-memes.

Hormis les rares cas de l'Afrique du Sud, du Botswana, de l'Ile Maurice et, dans une moindre mesure du Ghana, les élections constituent donc l'un des baromètres les plus trompeurs de la démocratisation des régimes africains postcoloniaux. Moment privilégié de cristallisation des conflits historiques, elles servent surtout à exacerber les antagonismes déjà présents au sein des pays considérés. Il est, de ce point de vue, significatif qu'elles aient été au point de départ des conflits meurtriers les plus récents, ou en tous cas de graves crises qui menacent durablement l'existence de maints États. Au cours des vingt dernières années, les violences pré- et post-électorales ont inévitablement conduit à des désordres civils et, souvent, à d'innombrables pertes en vies humaines, à des destructions spectaculaires de la propriété et à des déplacements parfois massifs de populations. Celles-ci sont ensuite abandonnées aux mains d'organisations humanitaires qui, pour justifier leur propre existence et activités, comptent de plus en plus sur la militarisation des désastres et catastrophes du Continent lorsqu'elles n'appellent pas directement à l'ingérence externe.

Quel droit d'ingérence ?

Parce qu'elle menace désormais la sécurité, la stabilité et le progrès des Africains, la question du respect du verdict des élections doit être abordée avec un minimum de profondeur historique et stratégique. Les contentieux électoraux ne seront pas réglés par la boite de Pandore que sont les interventions militaires ad hoc, mais par la constitution, sur la longue durée, de nouveaux rapports de force entre l'État et la société et entre les classes sociales en voie de cristallisation. Il appartient aux Africains et à eux seuls de conduire ce travail.

Aucun diktat d'aucune ex-puissance coloniale ne saurait s'y substituer. Les Africains seuls doivent décider s'ils veulent mettre un terme aux crises post-électorales à répétition. S'ils optent pour l'usage de la force (solution qui traduit par définition un déficit d'imagination morale), ils devront s'entendre au préalable sur des principes de droit collectivement négociés et qui s'appliqueraient à tous les cas sans exception. Pour être légitimes, de telles interventions armées (forcément rarissimes) devraient être entièrement financées par les Africains eux-memes.

Du Kosovo à l'Irak, de l'Iran à l'Afghanistan, du Moyen-Orient en Amérique Latine, l'on ne saurait oublier combien la politique des « deux poids, deux mesures » a plombé au long des années la légitimité des interventions des puissances occidentales dans les affaires d'autres États. À l'appliquer en Afrique, cette politique risque d'ouvrir de nouvelles fractures et fronts d'hostilité entre États du Continent. Quelle crédibilité auraient des soldats nigérians, nigériens, gambiens, togolais ou burkinabé arpentant les quartiers d'Abidjan à la recherche de la démocratie ? Il faut en effet faire preuve soit d'un strabisme notoire, soit de haine de soi ou de mépris invétéré des Africains pour justifier qu'au sein de la CEDEAO, des régimes issus de putsch militaires ou classés comme des dictatures sur l'indicateur Freedom House aillent « sauver la démocratie » dans des pays tiers.

En plus d'accentuer la logique qui fait des élections un jeu à somme nulle, la politique des « deux poids, deux mesures » encouragerait les tentatives d'instrumentalisation des instances internationales par des acteurs crapuleux, voire alimenterait guerres ethniques et tentatives de sécession - toutes choses absolument contraires aux intérêts de l'Afrique. L'alternance régulière au pouvoir en Afrique ne peut guère être fille du droit d'ingérence. Le « droit d'ingérence » n'est pas un droit. Il est une perversion du droit. Exception faite des situations d'extrémité (cas des génocides), les appels au « droit d'ingérence » visent surtout à consacrer l'asymétrie au coeur des relations internationales. Dans le cas de l'Afrique, il faut craindre que le « droit d'ingérence » ne soit, in fine, que l'équivalent du « droit de conquête » et d'occupation qui, au temps de la colonisation, justifiait l'asservissement des « races inférieures », c'est-à-dire justement celles qui, de force, avaient été déclarées incapables de se gouverner par elles-mêmes.

Sortir du piège électoral

Serions-nous par conséquent condamnés à la paralysie et à l'inaction ? Non, certes.

Dans le cas de la Cote d'Ivoire, il ne reste malheureusement qu'une palette de mauvaises solutions. S'il est désormais impossible de déterminer de façon indiscutable sur la base de procès-verbaux non falsifiés qui a gagné les élections ; si les deux prétendants au trône peuvent compter chacun sur une certaine force militaire et mettre dans la rue des dizaines de milliers de partisans convaincus de leur bon droit et décidés à en découdre, alors le scénario d'une révolution démocratique visant à neutraliser Gbagbo ou Ouattara n'a pas beaucoup de chances de réussite. D'ailleurs, il est de plus en plus évident, quelle que soit l'issue de la confrontation, qu'aucun des deux hommes ne pourra, à moyen ou long terme, gouverner sereinement la Cote d'Ivoire entière et tenir les rênes de l'État sans se lancer dans des « purges » de l'administration et des chasses aux sorcières dans l'armée ou au sein de la population, faisant ainsi le lit de la prochaine rébellion ou de la prochaine tentative de putsch.

L'on pourrait, à la limite, envisager la partition du pays et un divorce par consentement mutuel, à l'exemple de l'ancienne Yougoslavie. Mais une telle solution n'est pas seulement écartée par les deux « Présidents ». Les grands ensembles ethno-régionaux de Cote d'Ivoire - notamment dans le sud - sont très hétérogènes et les populations y sont tellement mélangées que les déchirements et le coût économique et humain d'un éclatement seraient insupportables.

Le bras de fer qui consiste à étouffer le régime de Laurent Gbagbo à coup de sanctions internationales, de retraits d'accréditation d'ambassadeurs nommés par lui, d'exclusion de ses représentants au sein des instances politiques et économiques régionales - y compris de l'Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine et de la Banque centrale des États d'Afrique de l'ouest -, de fermeture des guichets de la BCEAO, de menaces d'embargo sur les exportations de cacao qui sont avant toute chose la principale source de revenu de millions de pauvres paysans, pourrait plonger davantage la Cote d'Ivoire dans une crise économique et financière profonde et durable dont souffrirait l'ensemble de la sous-région. À cet égard, le recours à l'asphyxie monétaire comme instrument de combat politique révèle les véritables enjeux de la Zone franc. Celle-ci montre enfin au grand jour son vrai visage d'union monétaire asymétrique, de vestige du pacte colonial, de camisole de force bridant la compétitivité et la flexibilité des économies africaines et de piège politique pour tout adversaire désigné à la vindicte des pontifes de la bonne conscience internationale.

Si l'on écarte l'hypothèse d'un nouveau coup d'état militaire à la Nigérienne qui neutraliserait les deux principaux protagonistes du conflit actuel et certains de leurs affidés, il reste alors une dernière (mauvaise) solution - celle qui consisterait à reprendre le second tour de l'élection présidentielle, dans de meilleures conditions de surveillance et de décompte des voix, notamment par les Ivoiriens eux-mêmes.

Dans tous les cas, si les Ivoiriens doivent sortir de l'impasse dans laquelle ils se trouvent et retrouver les chemins d'une réconciliation durable, il n'y a guère d'alternative à une négociation entre les parties en conflit, à un renouveau de l'imagination morale et institutionnelle, et à une refonte radicale de leur système politique. Cette réforme pourrait prendre la forme d'une conférence nationale de laquelle sortirait une assemblée constituante. À une nouvelle constitution fondée sur le principe d'une décentralisation fédérative viendrait s'ajouter une réforme du scrutin. Celle-ci inclurait, de nécessité, une dose de proportionnelle à même d'assurer une représentation minimum de la diversité des « terroirs », tandis qu'un président fédéral honorifique serait élu au suffrage universel.

Cela dit, il n'y aura pas de progrès de la démocratie en Afrique tant que les Africains ne seront pas à même de choisir librement leurs dirigeants, c'est-à-dire, également, de congédier ceux d'entre eux dont ils ne veulent plus. Afin de parvenir à un renouvellement des élites, de la culture et des pratiques du pouvoir, il est absolument impératif que le nombre de mandats à la tête de l'État soit limité et que l'alternance au pouvoir devienne une réalité. L'une des raisons de l'enkystement des structures politiques africaines est bel et bien l'impossibilité dans laquelle se trouvent bien des peuples de se débarrasser pacifiquement de tyrans décidés à mourir au pouvoir.

Mais pour que les conditions d'une alternance pacifique soient réunies, il faut repenser de fond en comble la politique, l'économie et l'architecture des élections. Ce remodelage doit être l'œuvre des Africains eux-mêmes qui se doteraient, à l'occasion, d'un cadre juridique et de moyens de pression contre les pouvoirs délinquants. Ces moyens de contrainte pourraient inclure - dans de très rares cas étroitement circonscrits - des interventions militaires. La démocratie ne se réduit cependant, ni au multipartisme, ni aux élections même si elle est impensable sans ces ingrédients. De graves divisions traversent les sociétés africaines contemporaines. La plupart sont exacerbées par l'accélération de leur structuration objective en classes antagonistes, même si pour le moment, la conscience de classe est sinon détournée, du moins subsumée par d'autres formes de subjectivation. Dans ces conditions, le jeu démocratique dans le continent ne saurait être un jeu à somme nulle. Il est par conséquent impératif que soient « constitutionalisés » les statuts et droits de l'opposition et que, là où cela est possible, le gouvernement par coalitions l'emporte sur l'arithmétique purement majoritaire.

De façon plus décisive encore, un effort intellectuel colossal doit être consacré non seulement à l'approfondissement du sens de la démocratie elle-même, mais aussi à une extension progressive de ses multiples dénotations dans les conditions africaines contemporaines. Ceci implique que, dans la mise en forme des institutions de la démocratie, l'on prenne au sérieux la morphologie complexe des sociétés et surtout les pratiques quotidiennes par le biais desquelles les gens s'efforcent de soigner le lien social là où il a été endommagé, d'entretenir le minimum de cohésion nécessaire à la reproduction de la vie, bref de « faire communauté ».

Si les Africains veulent devenir les initiateurs d'une impulsion potentiellement innovatrice pour la démocratie dans le monde de notre temps, alors ils doivent arrêter de réciter les catéchismes et de psalmodier les versets des autres et faire oeuvre de créativité et d'imagination philosophique, politique et institutionnelle. Ils doivent forger une alternative historique à un modèle postcolonial de pouvoir qui, un demi-siècle après la décolonisation, ne sait toujours se nourrir que de la mystique du sang versé et ne sait, en conséquence, vivre que de la mort en masse de ceux qu'il est supposé servir.

Dans un contexte où l'inégalité des personnes semble mieux tolérée que l'exclusion des sujets, c'est au principe représentatif lui-même qu'il faut donner un nouveau contenu politique et juridique. Le but en la matière ne serait certes pas de pérenniser l'inégalité en tant que telle, mais de multiplier les répertoires grâce auxquels l'on conjuguerait désormais systématiquement différence et inclusion, afin justement que nulle composante du corps politique ne soit abandonnée sur le bord du chemin. Au demeurant, compte tenu des réalités socio-anthropologiques du Continent, aucune expérience d'auto-gouvernement ne saurait faire fi de l'existence objective d'une pluralité de corps titulaires de pouvoirs divers. Il n' y a pas jusqu'à l'idée même de société civile qui ne doive être repensée en fonction de cette multiplicité. Faute d'un déplacement substantiel de ses différentes dénotations dans différents contextes, l'idée de la démocratie en Afrique sera réduite à l'état de simple surface, vidée de tout contenu positif ; et loin de refléter la volonté du peuple, les élections resteront des moments de condensation explosive de conflits anciens - la guerre de tous contre tous.

Pour le reste, le besoin de transformations radicales n'a jamais été aussi pressant qu'aujourd'hui. Mais les forces sociales capables de porter ces transformations semblent manquer à l'appel. C'est à les rassembler et à les nourrir qu'appelle le présent. Telle est l'aride tâche à laquelle doivent s'astreindre les mouvements sérieux d'opposition et la coalition de tous ceux qui, contre la spirale dégénérative, veulent entreprendre la construction d'une liberté neuve en Afrique. Celle-ci doit redevenir son propre centre, sa force propre. Si, pour y parvenir, la guerre est inévitable, alors le Continent devra apprendre à choisir judicieusement ses guerres, faute de quoi consciemment ou non, il se fera chaque fois enrôler dans celles d'autrui, avec des conséquences chaque fois plus catastrophiques pour son avenir.

Achille Mbembe est l'auteur de Sortir de la longue nuit. Essai sur l'Afrique décolonisée (Paris, La Découverte, 2010).

Célestin Monga est l'auteur de Nihilisme et négritude (Paris, PUF, 2009).

Senegal on the rise by Sokari Ekine

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:17:00 +0200

The people of Senegal are out in protest over President Abdoulaye Wade’s efforts to manipulate the country’s constitution, writes Sokari Ekine in this week’s round-up of African uprisings. Ekine also discusses the continuing public sector strikes in Botswana and the creation of an online collective of activists opposed to Equatoguinean President Obiang Nguema’s rule. The winds of revolution from “Arabic” countries are blowing towards Senegal. Indeed the head of the press group Walfadjri [fr] just kicked it off. In a press conference on Thursday, Sidy Lamine Niasse called all Senegalese to a demonstration on March 19 - the anniversary of the Senegalese political alternative - to denounce the injustice reigning in the country. The sit-in will take place at the Protêt square or the independence square, rechristened the highly symbolic name of ‘Tahrir square’ by Sidy Lamine Niasse’ (translated into English – http://bit.ly/lA90ve)

A further statement made on the website Afrik explained the disillusionment of the youth with 40 years of mismanagement, corruption, rising prices, high unemployment and most importantly the belief that President Abdoulaye Wade was seeking to change the constitution to allow him a third term and priming his son Karim to succeed. The statement also condemned the arrest of rap group Keur Gui after their denouncement of the president and his failures (http://bit.ly/lA90ve).

On 19 March 3,000–5,000 protesters gathered in Independence Square in what turned out to be a peaceful rally despite the government announcement the night before that it had foiled an attempted coup and made 15 arrests. Many doubted the truth of this and felt it was a ploy to destabilise the protests by reaching out to nationalist sympathies. This may have worked as a separate group of some 10,000 demonstrators marched to the presidential palace in support of Wade.

Three months later on 23 June thousands of Senegalese in cities across the country and from all walks of life took to the streets with the chant ‘Don’t touch my constitution’ in opposition to a proposed law which would allow a presidential candidate to take power with just 25 per cent of the vote and create a vice-president which people fear would be given to his son. Within hours Wade had capitulated and abandoned the proposed 25 per cent vote but not the plans for a vice-president and not before human rights activists Alioune Tine, who had previously received death threats, and Oumar Diallo were seriously wounded in a brutal attack (http://bit.ly/my8rJx).

The reference to Tahrir Square was both a rallying call to enact a dream of a different Senegal and a declaration that says ‘we are here’ and things are no longer as they were.

The massive street protests in Dakar and cities across Senegal forced an almost immediate turnaround as the government quickly withdrew the proposed constitutional changes. Last December in ‘Twilight of a regime or dawn of a new era’, Sidy Diop warned of a looming instability in Senegal as the regime ‘confronted by threats to its survival’ struggles to keep a hold. The choice for President Wade is transparency and engagement with voters or, as he has attempted to do, to violate the constitution.

‘If, on the other hand, it is a question of taking another path, violating the constitution and republican values, this project would be very dangerous for national cohesion and might incur civil war. And any politician, of whatever political stripe, whose acts and gestures above all serve his personal ambition, would commit an enormous blunder and cause his country to slide into violence and chaos. This is the why we dare to hope that those who believe Wade has this intention are mistaken. Such an enterprise would not only be very risky but also his compatriots would put into question his whole life and his political career, which has been for the most part dedicated to changeover among parties, to commitment without concessions, to a continuous struggle for the defence of public liberties and democracy.’

Diop refers to an emerging movement and ‘new ways of expression through petitions’ which he suggests should be institutionalised as a way of both rejecting decisions and as instruments for creating new laws.

‘The present situation in Senegal is at a decisive turning point in its history. We have, on the one hand, a power that is very uncertain about its survival and that seeks solutions of all kinds for its continuity but which, of its own accord, has deprived itself of the bases that can guarantee it. On the other hand, there is an opposition that is trying hard to elaborate concepts and strategies in order radically to change the nature of the state and of power but which must overcome the difficulties and obstacles that lie in the path of a sustainable unity.

‘And then, between these traditional forces, a civil society has emerged that brings real hope to those that now doubt the capacity of the parties to get the country going again, because they themselves have contributed to create the present difficult situation.’

In the wake of 23 June protests, Senegalese civil society (http://bit.ly/m4uy29) made the expedient decision to create a new movement incorporating some 60 groups. Their first demand is for the president not to contest the 2012 elections; however, in doing so there is a recognition that political and social change requires a collective consciousness and organisation and cannot rely on the short-term impact of street protests.

Senegalese blogger Arame Tall’s post ‘Green Thursday in the Life of the Nation of Senegal: The Day everything Changed & Ticking bomb finally exploded’ is a powerful exposition on the historic meaning of 23 June for Senegal and the region.

‘Green for the color of hope, green for the color of renewal, green in opposition to the oppressing claw with which the ruling party of PDS (the Parti Démocratique Sénégalais) had reigned over the country of Senegal for the past 11 years of rule–whose color of representation was blue, once the symbol of SOPI, or change, when PDS’ leader Abdoulaye Wade was elected to power in 2000 toppling a 40-year regime.

‘Thursday June 23 was indeed a historic day in the life the Nation that we the youth of Senegal will never forget. The Nation came out, in all of its glory and fury, men and women, youth and old, poor and rich, swift politicians and lay common men/women, and took to the streets together as one to contest a law proposal orchestrated by the Presidency that was to change the rules of the electoral game to enable an easy reelection for Abdoulaye Wade for a third 7-year term in the upcoming February 2012 election.

‘Today the People of Senegal enabled their transition to a new era for their country, and Africa’s democracy: it is the era of Civil Society. The small country of Senegal has demonstrated once more the grandeur of its democracy, and the maturity of its Nation. I believe Senegal will never be the same after this historic day. 2 dead and 145 gravely injured was the bitter price to pay. But never again is the song sung by all the hearts as people go to bed in Senegal tonight.’

COUNTRIES TO WATCH

BOTSWANA

An agreement to end the nationwide strikes which began on 18 April was signed on 12 June, but it’s not clear whether everyone has returned to work. Views differ on the reasons behind the strike. Bongani Masuku of COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) sees the strikes as a struggle for workers rights and against the ‘neo-liberal restructuring of the public sector’. For Tshiamo Rantao of the Botswana Network of Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS, the strikes are a ‘sign of the rising power of labour’. Professor of International Relations Stephen Chan puts the strikes in the wider context of discontent with the ruling party:

‘There is genuine disquiet about possible shrinkage in public sector employment, but there is also a mood of discontent with the stylistics of the President and his austere and disciplinarian utterances. These convey the sense that society is an army camp where orders should be obeyed, rather than something open and expressive - whether for better or worse. Political opposition has not threatened the ruling party since independence, and there is no real sense that citizens seek the government's overthrow. But they do want a sense of new dynamism. The important thing about the trade unions is that they occupy the effective space that civil society and political opposition in Botswana should occupy, but cannot. The expressiveness of dissent, as led by the unions, is an important development in Botswana.’

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

African Dictator is a website created in March 2011 by an anonymous ‘collective of international social activists’ with no allegiance to any government or ideological perspective except to draw attention to countries led by dictators who have a history of civil and human rights violations. In Equatorial Guinea, a group of secret bloggers announced the creation of new movement which would use social media to remove President Obiang Nguema:

1) ‘The Equatorial Guinean Youth Collective, we are a youth organization, born in Equatorial Guinea in secret, to organize and fight for our legitimate rights and interests, joining the youth, strengthening the youth movement.’
2) ‘We have teamed up to find the exchange of news, views and the effective support of workers and democratic organizations in the imperialist countries and mainly of Central African countries, as young people and workers who have brought down dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt.’

Two years ago it would have been difficult to imagine that a small group of online activists would be influential in toppling a government but Tunisia and Egypt have shown that with time this is a real possibility. In a sense we are fortunate to be able to witness the early stages of what could become a mass movement. I hope the youth collective can sustain the struggle and that they will receive the support from activists across Africa and elsewhere.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Sokari Ekine blogs at Black Looks.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

Vordenker der Dekolonisierung: Der Kameruner Politologe Achille Mbembe vertritt in "Sortir de la grande nuit" einen radikalen Afropolitanismus

Sat, 21 May 2011 15:34:00 +0200

Der folgende Artikel von Moses März wurde zuerst im Kulturteil des Freitag veröffentlicht. Er wurde maßgeblich inspiriert durch die AfricAvenir Publikation "50 Jahre afrikanischen Un-Abhängigkeiten - Eine (selbst)kritische Bilanz". Afrikanische Intellektuelle denken über afrikanische Themen nach. So einfach ist das. Nur, was ist ein afrikanisches Thema? Der in Kamerun geborene Politologe und Historiker Achille Mbembe, aktuell einer der bedeutendsten und umstrittensten Autoren auf dem Feld der Postkolonialen Theorie, beruft sich in seiner Antwort auf den Schwaben Martin Heidegger. „Vielleicht geht die Weltnacht jetzt auf ihre Mitte zu“, zitiert Mbembe aus Heideggers Aufsatz Wozu Dichter? „Vielleicht wird die Weltzeit jetzt vollständig zu der dürftigen Zeit. Vielleicht aber auch nicht, noch nicht, immer noch nicht, trotz der unermesslichen Not, trotz aller Leiden“. Dichter in dürftigen Zeiten sollten sich um die entflohenen Götter sorgen, „auf deren Spur bleibend und so den verwandten Sterblichen den Weg spuren zur Wende“. Mit diesen Zeilen beginnt Achille Mbembes Essay Sortir de la grande nuit. Es geht um das dekolonialisierte Afrika, um die verwirrende Weltzeit und um Möglichkeiten, ihr jetzt zu entfliehen. Mbembe, Jahrgang 1957 und dadurch selbst ein „Kind der Unabhängigkeiten“, führt den Leser zurück ins Kamerun seiner Jugend und weiter entlang der biografischen Stationen, die sein Denken prägten: die Trauergesänge der Großmutter um gefallene und verleugnete antikoloniale Befreiungskämpfer, die Ankunft im ungeliebten Paris und schließlich die Entdeckung New Yorks, der „globalen Ökumene“ schlechthin.

Mbembes autobiografisch grundierter Text bricht mit dem europäischen Kodex scheinbarer Objektivität und folgt einer Tradition afrikanischer Intellektueller, die in der Autobiografie ein mächtiges Instrument gegen koloniale Geschichtsschreibung fanden. Mbembes Analysen sind deswegen auch als Literatur zu lesen. Ihn treibt eine beinah religiöse Mission mit dem Ziel, dass für Afrika und die gesamte Menschheit eine neue Zeitrechnung anbricht. Mbembes Buchtitel ist in diesem Sinne auch als Hommage an Frantz Fanon und dessen legendären Appell an Die Verdammten dieser Erde zu lesen.

Unerfüllte Aufgabe
Der algerische Befreiungskrieg gegen Frankreich war noch nicht gewonnen, da rief Fanon kurz vor seinem Tod 1961 die Elite der neuen afrikanischen Staaten dazu auf, sich von Europa abzuwenden. „Die große Nacht, in der wir versunken waren, müssen wir abschütteln und hinter uns lassen“, schrieb der 36-jährige Psychiater und Vordenker des antikolonialen Widerstandes. „Verlassen wir dieses Europa, das nicht aufhört, vom Menschen zu reden, und ihn dabei niedermetzelt, wo es ihn trifft, an allen Ecken seiner eigenen Straßen, an allen Ecken der Welt“. Fanons Aufforderung an die „kolonisierten Intellektuellen“, sich für eine radikale Transformation des Bewusstseins einzusetzen, bleibt für Mbembe eine unerfüllte Aufgabe. Fanon warnte: Wenn die schwache Schicht der einheimischen Intellektuellen den Kontakt zum Volk verliert, um mit der kolonialen Bourgeoisie gemeinsame Sache zu machen, gäbe es keinen Unterschied, ob ihr Land offiziell unabhängig oder noch immer Kolonie sei. In vielen Ländern hat sich dies bewahrheitet.

Mit der Mixtur aus Referenzen an Heidegger und Fanon macht sich Mbembe daran, die Dekolonisierung Afrikas neu zu denken. Im aktiven Willen zur Gemeinschaft und zum Leben liege die politische Bedeutung einer echten Dekolonisierung, schreibt er in Sortir de la grande nuit. Der Neubeginn lässt noch immer auf sich warten. Im Jahr 2010, anlässlich einer Reihe von Unabhängigkeits-Jubiläen, gab es für Mbembe deshalb nichts zu feiern: „Autoritäre Restaurationen hier, vorgetäuschte Mehrparteiensysteme da, anderswo magere, im Übrigen jederzeit reversible Fortschritte und nahezu überall ein sehr hohes Ausmaß an sozialer Gewalt.“ Spuren positiver Veränderung sieht er vage in den Bereichen der Kultur und der Vorstellungskraft. Dort transformiere sich der afrikanische Kontinent bereits rasant. Es gehe jetzt darum, eine politische Ökonomie, eine Vorstellung der Macht und einer Lebenskultur sowie Sozialstrukturen entstehen zu lassen, die auf traditionelle Systeme zurückgreifen und doch flexibel genug sind, auf gegenwärtige Anforderungen zu reagieren. Sosehr die jüngsten Revolutionen in Tunesien und Ägypten als panarabische Momente postkolonialer Emanzipation im Norden Afrikas gefeiert wurden, so sehr ließ das tragische Wahlfiasko in der Elfenbeinküste große Zweifel daran aufkommen, dass die Wende auch hier begonnen hat.

Intellektuellengenozid
Zwischen der Witwatersrand Universität in Johannesburg und der Duke University in den USA pendelnd, lebt Mbembe seit Langem außerhalb seines Heimatlandes. „Jene, die täglich etwas weiter von ihrem Geburtsort entfernt ihr Lager aufschlagen und ihre Boote auf andere Flüsse zerren, sehen den Lauf der undeutlichen Dinge besser“, zitiert Mbembe den Literaturnobelpreisträger Saint-John Perse. Die Erfahrungen des Exils, die Ausbildung in Metropolen wie Paris, London und New York und das anschließende Reisen im universitären Zirkus machen einen großen Teil von dem aus, was es bedeutet, ein renommierter afrikanischer Intellektueller zu sein.

Seit dem Bruch zwischen den großen afrikanischen Denkern und ihren Regierungen in den Achtzigern – die Unabhängigkeitseuphorie war verflogen und die Maxime „Silence: Development in Progress“ nicht mehr verbindlich – bestimmt das Exil die Lebensläufe afrikanischer Intellektueller. Ihr Prestige, heißt eine häufige Kritik, entstehe eher aus der Distanz vom afrikanischen Publikum und in Abhängigkeit von europäischen Institutionen als in afrikanischen Kontexten.

Sogar afrikanische Universitäten seien in diesem Sinne nicht afrikanisch, meint etwa Prinz Kum’a Ndumbe III, Schriftsteller und Professor im kamerunischen Yaounde. Im Hinblick auf die dort gesprochenen europäischen Sprachen müssten sie als Orte der Unterdrückung gesehen werden, an denen systematisch ein „Intellektuellengenozid“ betrieben werde. Mit seinem Aufruf, afrikanische Sprachen institutionell zu fördern, erneuert Ndumbe III eine Forderung, die der Autor Ngugi wa Thiongo aus Kenia in den siebziger Jahren aufstellte, als er entschied, seine Bücher nicht mehr in europäischen Sprachen zu veröffentlichen. Nach Thiongos Verhaftung durch das Regime Daniel arap Mois wegen seines Theaterstücks Ich heirate wann ich will schrieb er den ersten modernen Roman Teufel am Kreuz in der kenianischen Sprache Gikuyu auf dem Toilettenpapier des Kamiti Maximum-Security-Gefängnisses in Nairobi.

Afropolitanismus
Im Unterschied zu Ndumbe und Thiongo zielt Mbembe weniger auf ein fehlendes „afrikanisch-Sein“ unter den Intellektuellen. Ihm kommt es vielmehr darauf an, das Nachdenken aus dem „wissenschaftlichen Getto“ der Afrikadiskurse des 20. Jahrhunderts zu befreien. In Mbembes Augen sind der antikoloniale Nationalismus, die Négritude eines Leopold Senghors, diverse Spielarten eines Afro-Marxismus oder ein zum Essenzialismus neigender Panafrikanismus in einer Opfermentalität und einem „rassistischen Paradigma“ gefangen. Markige Worte, die 2001 intensive Kritik provozierten. Wütend erklärte Thandika Mkandawire, Mbembes Vorgänger als Direktor des panafrikanischen Sozialwissenschaftsrates: Mbembes „postmoderne Argumentation“ gleiche einer „Selbstgeißelung“, sei „modischer Unsinn“ und blind für die ökonomischen Realitäten.

Zehn Jahre später fällt es Mbembes Kritikern leicht zu behaupten, dessen Afropolitanismus sei nichts weiter als die Vision eines elitären Akademikers, der die eigene Weltsicht zur kontinentalen Norm stilisiert. Afropolitanismus ist laut Mbembe ein Phänomen, das in afrikanischen Metropolen wie Johannesburg besonders deutlich zu beobachten sei. Südafrika betrachtet er als „vorderstes Laboratorium“ dieser neuen afrikanischen Modernität. Aus der Dynamik eines postkolonialen Moments und einer Kultur der Mobilität entstehe ein Ort, an dem die Distanzen zwischen dem Hier und Dort verschwimmen, wo Tradition und Moderne parallel und miteinander existierten und das Fremde in die eigene Familie mit aufgenommen wird. Die Spuren einer neuen Menschlichkeit können nach Mbembe abstrakt in eben diesem Zustand „kultureller, historischer und ästhetischer Sensibilität“ gesucht werden.

Soziale Kräfte „von unten“
Mbembes post-strukturalistisch inspirierter Antikolonialismus und liberaler Universalismus unterscheidet sich nicht grundsätzlich von Überzeugungen, die momentan auch innerhalb des Mainstreams der Politikwissenschaft vertreten werden: Wirtschaftswachstum, Demokratisierung, eine liberale Verfassung und stabile Institutionen sind für Mbembe ebenso notwendige Voraussetzungen für seine Vision eines dekolonisierten Afrikas wie das langsame Verschwinden des Apartheid-Rassismus in privilegierten Studenten-, Künstler- und Unternehmerzirkeln. Nur so kann er ausgerechnet Johannesburg, trotz Kriminalität und sozialer Ungleichheit, zur Hauptstadt des Afropolitanismus ernennen.

Um radikales Anders-sein und um die „authentische Perspektive eines Afrikaners“ geht es Mbembe explizit nicht. Sondern darum, auf Tendenzen und soziale Kräfte „von unten“ hinzuweisen, die viele europäische Experten übersehen, weil sie sich auf das konzentrieren, was in Afrika angeblich fehlt. „Rational über Afrika zu sprechen, ist etwas, was zu keinem Zeitpunkt selbstverständlich war“, schrieb Mbembe in De la postcolonie. Nichts anderes könne der Anspruch afrikanischer Intellektueller sein.

Die intensiven Debatten, die von Mbembe und Kollegen auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent geführt werden, können in überregionalen Tages- und Wochenzeitungen wie dem Magazin Jeune Afrique oder Kameruns Le Messager sowie im Internet auf Portalen wie Africultures, Amandla und Pambazuka News verfolgt werden. Auf Pambazuka.org veröffentlicht beispielsweise eine Community von fast 3.000 Akademikern, Aktivisten, Frauenorganisationen, Bloggern, Schriftstellern, NGOs und Politikern regelmäßig neue Berichte auf Englisch, Französisch und Portugiesisch – eine deutsche Version ist in Planung. Pambazuka, was auf Kiswahili so viel wie „Morgendämmerung“ bedeutet, hat für sein Engagement bereits eine Reihe internationaler Preise gewonnen, darunter einen Platz unter den Top-Ten-Seiten „Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics“.

Dekolonisierung
Die antikolonialen Nationalisten, post-modernen Kritiker und überzeugten Panafrikanisten, die auf Pambazuka miteinander diskutieren, helfen viel von dem Verhalten politischer Akteure und historischen Zusammenhängen zu verstehen, die in europäischen Medien als irrational abgetan oder ignoriert werden. So wurde in Bezug auf die Elfenbeinküste versucht, die Gegenüberstellung von Laurent Gbagbo und Alassane Ouattara durch eine Vielzahl von Beiträgen aufzulösen, die die Ratio der beiden Hauptakteure des Konflikts beleuchteten, statt sich auf die Kuriosität eines Landes mit zwei Präsidenten zu fokussieren.

Die deutsche universitäre Öffentlichkeit wirft afrikanischen Wissenschaftlern gerne fehlende Objektivität vor oder behauptet, sie böten keine Alternativen zu den Einsichten westlicher Experten. Diese Kritik verhindert, dass die Stimmen afrikanischer Intellektueller in deutschen Medien Gehör finden. „Für das kommende halbe Jahrhundert“ entwirft Mbembe deswegen das Programm einer neuen Dekolonisierung: Es sei einerseits die dringende Aufgabe der „Intellektuellen, der Kulturschaffenden und der afrikanischen Zivilgesellschaft, die verschiedenen Kräfte der Gesellschaften zu mobilisieren, und andererseits, die ‚afrikanische Frage‘ zu internationalisieren“. Auch wenn die Dekolonisierung in erster Linie eine afrikanische Angelegenheit ist, hat der europäische Wissensbetrieb die Dekolonisierung seines Wissens noch vor sich. So steht eine deutsche Übersetzung der Werke von Achille Mbembe noch an. Zuerst veröffentlicht im Kulturteile des Freitag am 14.05.2011

Autor: Moses März
Moses März schreibt zurzeit im „afropolitanen“ Kapstadt seine Diplomarbeit in Politologie

Sortir de la grande nuit – Essai sur l’Afrique décolonisée Achille Mbembe Éditions La Découverte 2010, 243 S., 17 € |+| "50 Jahre afrikanischen Un-Abhängigkeiten - Eine (selbst)kritische Bilanz"

Rules, Lessons and Questions. An Essay by Temitayo Olofinlua

Sat, 21 May 2011 15:18:00 +0200

AfricAvenir herewith publishes the essay "Rules, Lessons and Questions" by Temitayo Olofinlua, for which she won the Heinrich Böll Foundation 'Unity in Diversity' Essay Competition. Temitayo Olofinlua holds a BA in Literature-in-English from the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife and is rounding off her Masters programme at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. She started writing as a student. She became the Editor-in-Chief of Socioscope News Agency in 2007, a news outfit in her university. She was later elected as the Vice-President of the Association of Campus Journalists. Life through these offices taught her responsibility, integrity and hard work. Skills from these volunteer positions as a student groomed her for life outside the university.

Temitayo Olofinlua works in Lagos as a freelance writer. Her essay, “Fear—the Enemy of Gender Equality” won the Women Learning Partnership Essay Competition; She also works as the editor of the Nigeria Beehive website: nigeria.thebeehive.org. When she's not writing, editing or reading, she is thinking or discussing with some friends issues too many to mention. Rule One
I was 13.
My mother looked me deep in the eyes “Do not make friends with Ijebu people.” She did not give reasons. It was a rule, in addition to the usual talk of remembering whose daughter I am, not allowing men touch me and facing my studies. As I left that day, I wondered if I was going to ask new friends their tribes, in addition to their names. So where are you from? Pleased to meet you! It was a joke! No one argues with my mother. That was her first rule I remember breaking. The very first time I was consciously disobedient. I was a boarding student at Federal Government Girls College, Akure. My school drew students from different parts of the country. Of course, there were Ijebus in my school. My friend, Kemi Ashiru who sat beside me in class was Ijebu. I took garri from her when starvation came like a devil pulling the walls of my belly with its three pronged fork. We both laughed at the Geography teacher with his belt sitting on top of his protruding belly like a river across a mountain. I made friends with her. Did I remember my mother’s injunction? Yes, but she could not see me. I was only bothered that during the holidays, she would look deep into my eyes and find out I’d been with an Ijebu girl. There are certain things students didn’t choose in my school: bunkmates, corner mates and class mates. It was a mix match. In life, there are certain things we can’t decide: our place of birth, our family, our national and ethnic backgrounds. They are chosen for us. By whomever you believe. Or by chance. These differences should enrich our humanity; they should make us better. They should be stepping stones not stumbling blocks.

The Beauty in Diversity
Nigeria’s diversity reminds me of a huge tapestry: each thread carefully knitted to make a beautiful whole, no part claiming responsibility for the beauty of the embroidery. Nigeria’s diversity is hidden, not in her over 200 tribes. It’s in the 200 tribes, each with its own unique culture. The beauty lies in each one of us accepting that no tribe is superior to the other; neither is any inferior to the other. My Culture is better than yours!
Lie! Big lie! Bigger than Rivers Niger and Benue combined.
My friend Chizobam offered me akpu with ofe n sala. She asked if I wanted it Yoruba style (stew and meal in the same plate; a slow passing stream or a river on a mountain) or Igbo style (stew and meal in different plates). I found it interesting. We got talking. I told her how as a child my father told me not to eat okele (swallow) in two bites. Like the Igbos. Take only what you can swallow, he said. Does my different way of eating make me better than Chizo? No. Difference does not mean superiority or inferiority; it just means another way of doing things; another way of speaking; another way of worship. Nigeria is a huge baobab tree with many cultures sheltered under it; it is fast becoming shade for other nationalities too. These nations have not only come, they have brought their cultures with them. There have been intermarriages with Nigerians; I suspect someday soon, there will be the creation of new tribes like Yorindians, Haujaps and Igbonese. The tree reminds me of the Yoruba concept of the sky being big enough for all birds to fly. Lesson One: De-stereotype your mind
In my short life, I have learnt certain lessons. I would not say that I was always like this: open to everyone regardless of ethnic associations. No! There was a time, in my mind Yorubas were party loving garrulous people; Igbos were always looking for the next person to dupe and that Hausas were such slow and unintelligent people. However, several life situations have questioned these myopic stereotypes. How narrow-minded I was? I do not know how I picked these stereotypes. I only remember being shocked on a certain day that a man (who from his accent I could tell was Hausa) argued intelligently with another. I was so surprised at meeting a sincere clothes seller in Yaba market. I asked again: You are sure you are Igbo? As if to doublecheck. As if to question his ethnic associations. How I was so tribe conscious? Tribalism like its elder brother racism implies a notion “My people are better than yours” therefore “I love my tribe over yours” consequently “I am more concerned about the common good of my tribe over national interests.” We make our generalizations of certain people, tribes and nationalities based on certain experiences of them. We not only do that, we want to impose these experiences on other people. No one is better than the other! No tribe is better than another, only different. There’s a need to do a mental detox. Delete the stereotypes of other people that exist in your mind. When it comes to stereotypes, one does not represent a whole. Be quick to address your biases anytime they raise their heads. Do not pretend that they do not exist. Only strike their heads before they affect my judgment of people or situations. Lesson Two: Many Roads Lead to Heaven
Who is God? This question is answered in diverse ways God himself would be surprised if he peeps at the creations humans have made of him. Different people hold on to strong opinions of their God. It does not matter if the religion was transported across miles of sand or ocean. Nigeria is a complex society where world religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism exist with Traditional African Religion. We are also quick to create sects and denominations. This is diversity, in a way; yet we have taken to guns to defend our gods. Aren’t our gods powerful, why do we fight for their honour? Religion unites yet we divide ourselves with it. Nigeria is a secular country, according to the country’s constitution. The Constitution guarantees individuals the freedom to profess and practice their religion. Many of the religions believe in unity and peace yet it makes me wonder why we draw the sword at the slightest provocation? Many of the religions preach selflessness, yet why is the ‘self’ always at the centre of our daily interactions? Why do we refuse to see everyone as parts of one body?
I remember that in my childish mind, I thought that the Bible was the Quran written in English; the Quran on the other hand was the Bible written in Arabic. There was so much similarities between both books: Isa and Isaac; Mohammed and Jesus; Miriam and Mariam; I thought the difference was just the language. Our religions have one thing in common: they preach love and peace. So, what separates us so? I forget that something exists in theory does not mean that it exists in practice. Lesson Three: Politrickal Principles of Divide and Rule
Nigerian history is filled with various attempts at national unity. In 1914, the Northern and the Southern protectorates were amalgamated by Lord Lugard. Since then, it’s been series of mergers and acquisitions aimed at forging a unified political entity out of over 200tribes. It is thought that unity could be reached by ‘lumping’ sets of people with similar cultural beliefs. Now there are 36 states. There are still clamors for new states. Why have these activities not succeeded in getting us closer to true national unity? Why have they only showed us how unalike we are rather than celebrate the diversity that exists among us? There is a continually increasing desire for personal enrichment as politricktians grab a chunk of the ‘national cake’ which never reaches the populace. It is lost in the huge ‘agbada’ of the Yoruba politricktians, the’ red chieftancy caps’ of the Igbo politricktians, and the long ‘Senegalese’ of the Hausa politricktians. Everyone scrambles for power at the centre; they say to better the lot of the nation. Usually that translates the good of their ethnic groups over the nation. That translates the betterment of their families over the nation. This leads to neglect of other parts of the nation. Soon, other parts of the country start crying under the weight of marginalization while the politician’s people (that translates his family, ethnic group or state—in that order!) live in stupendous wealth. They soon begin to feel insecure. The way I used to feel as a child tucked between four children—neither here, nor there; neither young nor old. When they were sharing stuff for adults and there were only two, the quick excuse was that I was too young. When they were buying toys for the younger ones, it changed and became that I was too old for such things. Talk of being lost in the middle. Lesson Four: Look Within!
Nigeria’s cultural diversity is hidden in its history. A look at history will show that each tribe has its civilizations: the Igbo Ukwu in the East; the Benin Masks in the Mid-West; the Nok Culture in the North and the Ife Heads in the West. How many Nigerians know of this glorious heritage? How many Nigerians know about the prowess of empires like the Oyo Empire, the Benin Empire, the Sokoto Caliphate and the Kanem Borno Empire? How many young people know about traditions and festivals like the Eyo and Osun-Osogbo Festivals in the West; Argungun festival in the North and the Iri ji in the East? How can a nation be so blessed, so rich yet unaware of it? How can she have so many beautiful cultures yet we focus on the things that divide us? How can my unborn children and grandchildren be aware of the beauty of this tapestry called Nigeria? How can knowledge of the country bring pride, not shame?
We are not taught. Even when we are, we are not taught to celebrate the beauty of these cultural traditions. We are told that they are fetish. They are backward. They are barbaric. We are taught about other people’s cultures, about everything that makes them look perfect. Even among ourselves, we have stories based on stereotypes in history about other tribes. Individual efforts at learning other peoples’ cultures cannot be overemphasised. Maybe then, the negative stereotypes would gradually be erased. Maybe we would begin to see that a tribe is a collective of unique people with individual potentials. How will you know if you wear a shade of stereotypes? Only in looking within will we find ourselves. Only then will we be able to appreciate the beauty that lies in our diversity. Lesson Five: Re-Orientation
The best way any nation can get lost, in history; can be easily forgotten is to forget its cultures. We are gradually forgetting and quickly getting lost in other people’s cultures. There is a need for massive re-orientation. Our native ways are not barbaric neither are they exotic, so no one has a right to look at me like a goat on sale when I decide to wear my native Iro and buba. No one should look at me as an infidel when I decide to spend my whole day at the Tafawa Balewa Square watching the Eyo Masquerades. How can this be done?
As much as it still remains with the individual to decide what he wears or what religion s/he practises, it is important that we are aware of the many options available. It is important to know that for every bucket of Custard there are many wraps of our native ogi. That for every pair of Jeans, there are yards of Ankara. That for every word spoken in English, there are many local words that cannot be translated into English. Well, the English Dictionaries haven’t found the best words to describe them (case in point—Yoruba words like yinmu and e ku le; Igbo words like ogbunigwe, chi). Oh, I hear you say that the pap is not as sweet or well packaged as the custard; that the Ankara is not as sexy as the pair of jeans, wait a minute, how will you appreciate the value of something you don’t even know? Why would you exalt another person’s values (automatically their economy) when you have yours? Every media outlet should be used to inform the Nigerian populace about the beauty of our culture. No longer should we be pleased with aping other people’s language, a tongue we can never speak perfectly. So why not let’s speak our own languages well? You ask—how many people speak Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo or Itshekiri? I hear you say that learning to speak your native language will destroy the fluency of your English? But I ask how many English people have learnt to speak your own language? How many of them even know that you have a native language? The agents of re-orientation are already available: The Nigerian film industry, radio, TV and the internet. No longer will we be satisfied to see only the negative sides of our culture portrayed through media instituted by us. CNN and BBC have done their bit to show that we have no (good) history, why are we enforcing their points? Lesson Six: Education
In primary school, I remember the threats of punishment for speaking ‘vernacular.’ In secondary school, the punishment was a fine of 5naira during the English week. We never had a Yoruba/Hausa/Urhobo Week. Education has a way of subtly saying that my culture is inferior and theirs is superior. Those supposedly ‘small’ things do not make Nigerians value their traditions. Our education Curriculum should be reassessed in such a way that it celebrates our diversity as a nation. This change can be influenced by incorporating Nigerian history and culture from the elementary stages of education. All agents of education should be used: classroom education, extra-curricular activities, informal education, studying books about national heroes and our cultural traditions. Even parents have a role to play. Never tell your child not to speak your native language lest we sell our soul to another man’s culture. I would like to see my children know much of Nigerian history in its totality. I would like to see my children understand the basic concepts of the many religions practised in the country. Maybe they would begin to see the beauty in many colours and not think that one religion or culture is greater than the other. Maybe then, we will see that we are not more special than the other person because they belong to another tribe but as unique individuals. Maybe we will begin to see and appreciate the variety in our society. Lesson Seven: A Cultural Revolution
Our nation is rich in cultures and traditions, many lost in time. There is no better time to uproot and celebrate them. This further reinforces that our festivals are not fetish. They are ours, they should be celebrated. We should be proud of being associated with them. This emphasizes the need for a cultural renaissance. There may be books in celebration of our heroes from the pre and post colonial times. These become records no one can take away from us. Records written not only in ink or performance but on hearts. Records passed from one generation to another. Records that will ensure that a time won’t come when we would have children that would not understand and appreciate the beauty of diversity that binds this nation as one. Rule Two
I am 25 years old. I am Yoruba, from Ondo state. I was born in Ogun state. The Ijebus are based in Ogun state. It’s a standing rule in my house: no one should bring an Ijebu person, an Igbo person or Hausa person home for marriage. It is a spoken rule. Sometimes, I make my mother angry. Frighten her a little. I tell her that I have found an Igbo boy I want to marry. She freaks out ‘You are not bringing him to my house.” I ask questions about how she reached her conclusions. I have gotten answers. Unclear answers. She says “the Igbos are very opportunistic. Selfish. The Hausas carry daggers under their jalamias. The Ijebus are wicked. I later find out most of these conclusions are based on fear, answers grounded in stereotypical views of other people. Her reasons are valid, to her. Her good friend was married to an Ijebu man, who showed her pepper, who almost killed her. Another friend got her promotion delayed because she was not an indigene of Ogun state. And our own example, we woke up one day to find a ‘calabash of sacrifice’ right at our doorsteps, freshly boiled eggs and palm oil, I remember. As though it were an ‘oritameta.’ As though the gods met at our doorsteps. My mother became more prayerful; praying longer and louder. I wonder sometimes, if when my mother prays “Dear God give my marriageable daughters good husbands;” does ‘good’ embrace Igbo, Hausa or Ijebu? Does it include these people so marked by her stereotypes? Today, I have great friends from different Nigerian tribes. Daily, I learn about something, a culture, a song, a story, I never knew. Maybe, I would marry one of them! New Questions
I am no longer disturbed by witching spirits. Different questions haunt me now; they keep me awake at night: why would one human kill another in the name of a religion? Why would people hack, burn and destroy in the name of a God of love and peace? Why is the political zoning such a big deal anyway if we are one? Why are there lower marks for students from catchment areas? Why would we be more content with focusing on the things that separate us rather than those that unite us? Why all these, if we are one nation? Chizobam taught me an Igbo proverb: Egbe belu, ugo beu nke si ibe ya ebela, nku kwaya which translates: let the kite perch, let the eagle perch. The one that says the other should not perch, let its feather break! The tree is our nation; we are the birds, unique in our differences. Let our uniqueness glorify our existence as one, not destroy it!

Uganda is ready for change by Sokari Ekine on Pambazuka

Fri, 13 May 2011 16:57:00 +0200

As Ugandan citizens take to the streets in protest against rising food and energy prices, Museveni’s government has once again wheeled out its Anti-Homosexual Bill in an attempt to divert attention from the real source of the problems the people face.

Uprisings continue across the continent, with Uganda being the latest country where citizens have taken to the streets in protest against rising food and energy prices. The Ugandan protests have been organised by Action for Change in a ‘Walk to Work’ campaign, which the majority of media are reporting is led by long-time opposition leader, Kizza Besigye who has since fled the country. However a number of bloggers claim the protests are not led by Besigye. ‘The architects, the brains behind the walk to work demonstrations were Muwanga Kivumbi, Mathias Mpuuga and Mukono North MP, Betty Nambooze Bakireke. Far from spotless characters, they nevertheless believed that it is possible for Ugandans to come together and demand a change. This is probably why before the walk to work demonstrations, they had formed an Activists for Change group that transcended their political party groupings and sought to form an arena where concerned Ugandans can air their grievances and plot how to find redress. It is that last part that particularly appeals to this blogger. That A4C, as they have dubbed their Facebook page, do not just want to be a complaining platform, they actually are trying to come up with solutions.’

The protests have met with a violent response from the government of Yoweri Museveni, with police firing live bullets at crowds, beatings and mass arrests. lexis Okeowo Alexis Okeowo writing in The New Yorker provides some background to the uprisings:

‘Only about a fourth of the four hundred thousand new entrants to the Ugandan labor market find formal employment; the rest enter the informal economy, where wages are minimal and survival is a struggle. Roads, hospitals, and other public services have all withered from government neglect. Residents are amazed as the government prepares to spend almost $800 million on new fighter jets and over 1 million on a lavish swearing in ceremony for Musveni’s new Presidential term, while food prices jumped by thirty-one per cent from April of last year (a jump the government blames on drought) and year on year inflation stands at fourteen per cent, up from eleven per cent last month.’

Africa on the Blog reports on the massive riots following the second arrest of Besigye:

‘The arrest this time round stirred up massive riots with in Kampala city. Ugandans this time want change and are ready to use force. I recently read a statement from the minister of internal affairs who just Besigye form arrest and “the bullets invented by the British and Americans” for killing the protestors. I couldn’t believe this was from a university graduate. The president’s statement was much worse, he used Idi Amin as a benchmark for his leadership skills and claimed Uganda was one of the most democratic countries in the world.’

Ndumba Jonnah Kamwanyah in the Southern Africa FBP likens Museveni to Egypt’s Mubarak with the same mindset and the same relationship with the West:

‘Typical of a mindset of a dictator, President Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power for 25 years, does not see the connection between the uprisings and his governing style. Instead his delusional mentality makes him see how indispensable he is to Uganda. Narcissistic is what he is, just like all dictators and autocratic leaders, and he does not care about what the Ugandan citizens think or want.

‘The west still considers him as an ally, disregarding his repressive policies on ordinary Ugandans. In fact he is the Hosni Mubarak of sub-Saharan Africa, coddled by the West and other African leaders despite the reality that Museveni has caused several times more deaths of Ugandans as well as citizens of neighboring countries like Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi and Congo.’

In what appears to be a calculated move on the part of the Ugandan government, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill [AHB] has been brought back minus the death penalty for a third reading on Wednesday 11 May. Gay Uganda makes the connection between the Walk to Work anti-government protests and the almost certain passing of the AHB. Whether the ‘Walk to Work’ protesters will see it that is a different matter entirely:

‘Less than a week ago, the opposition parties started a 'walk-to-work' peaceful protest. The government responded with over whelming violence. Currently, as I write, the major opposition leader is in neighbouring Kenya, for medical attention for injuries he received during one of his 4 arrests. They sprayed tear gas and pepper direct into his face, after breaking down his car windows. And, this was in full view of the press. The next day, riots paralysed the country. It was after the video of that arrest was shown on TV. Ugandans, the citizens of the country were appalled. They came out on strike. And, the government responded with overwhelming violence again. So bad that the spectre of Idi Amin Dada, famous dictator and life president of Uganda was raised. So, the country is in a ferment. With the coronation to happen in just a few days time. So, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is beind discussed... and ready to be passed. So, it is a DIVERSION. The government needs a heady diversion for the country. For the outraged citizens of Uganda.............If you want to condemn the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, please CONDEMN in the strongest terms possible, the general state of Human rights in Uganda.............But, remember that this is time for the GAY MOVEMENT around the world to make COMMON CAUSE with the average citizen of Uganda to decry the abuse of human rights of ALL UGANDANS.’ There are two petitions circulating to try and prevent the AHB from being passed with the ghastly headline ‘Stop the Kill the Gays bill’. On a positive note there were over 700,000 signatories in less than 24 hours and the Twitter stream for #Uganda was moving so fast it was impossible to read. The last time I had seen such speed was during the resignation of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

In other news, Pan African News Wirereports that the International Criminal Court [ICC] and the International Contact Group have met to provide ‘economic and pseudo-legal assistance for regime change in North Africa’:

‘The proceeding of the so-called “International Contact Group” resulted in the announcement of the establishment of a fund to finance the counter-revolutionary rebel groups that are fighting at the behest of the western states to overthrow the Libyan government. Under the banner of the Transitional National Council (TNC), the rebels are slated to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the imperialist states...

‘Another controversial institution has weighed in once again as it relates to the situation in Libya and that is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Referred to by many as the “African Criminal Court,” the ICC has a reputation of only targeting and indicting states and individuals on the continent. In Sudan, the ICC has issued warrants against the President Omar al-Bashir and other leading figures within the oil-rich nation, Africa’s largest geographic nation-state.’

Mayibuye Africa - Migration Blog reports that NATO forces deliberately ignored the crises for help from a boat full of African migrants escaping Libya which resulted in the death of 61 people.

“The facts as they appear are clear: A French ship, member of a NATO force acknowledged being in the area close to where the boat was. A helicopter labeled “ARMY” approached the boat and roped down emergency supplies of water and biscuits telling the migrants to hold off, help was on the way. After that? Nothing. No attempt was made to rescue them, nor get additional supplies of food and water. They were left to starve and die of thirst, a harrowing death of anguish and suffering of the men, women and children.’

In Egypt, Egyptian Chronicles explains the reasons for the strike by doctors in the country:

‘Egyptian doctors are having the first strike in country since year 1961 today , thousands of doctors are on strike today across the country from north or south.It is initially a partial strike which means ER , ICU , critical surgeries , neonatal units and acute renal failure units will be operating.Not all the hospitals thought are participating in the strike despite in some governorates almost all the hospitals are participating. In some public hospitals the patients themselves participated in the strike and joined the stands outside the hospitals.’

Gambian blog, The North Bank Evening Standard, writes on the violence around recent elections on the continent, the latest taking place in Nigeria. He writes that the failure of African states to ratify the African Charter on Democracy has contributed to the violence:

‘It is disheartening to note that only 10 of 53 countries on the continent have ratified the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, and with South Sudan ready to put on the number (54) in a few months time, soon it will be 44 countries defying their own undertaking. For a continent that have seen terrible suffering, it is common place for States to approve of Charters, Protocols and Conventions, however, domestication and implementation, which are a principal mandate of governments is as hard to take as trying to move a mountain.

‘When African leaders continue to perpetuate themselves in office, winning every election, the credibility of the electoral system may be questioned on whether the results are a fair representation of the will of the people.

‘In fact, at the recently concluded NGOs Forum, human rights defenders agreed that the lack of independence of electoral systems has made elections a growing source of conflict in Africa. Holding of credible elections, addressing electoral fraud has become a major problem on the continent as in many African countries most elections are believed to be rigged in favor of the incumbent president; leaving polls to be hardly free or fair even if they are regard as being so. Similar cases have been witnessed by Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Ivory Coast leading to political unrest in these countries, and the forging of marriages that never were. Ivory Coast knew how unworkable these marriages (Unity Government) are and the negotiators between Gbagbo and Ouattara noted clearly that a “marriage” was a non-starter.

‘In these countries, post election violence has destroyed the lives of many people, mostly the poor and vulnerable, taking away their wealth, health, livelihoods and in some cases their lives.

Black Looks reports on yet another two lesbians raped and murdered in South Africa. Since writing the above post, another sister was found raped and murdered, Nqobile Khumalo from Kwamashu township in Durban and a young transman was also raped in Pretoria. South Africa is now a warzone for the LGBTI community:

‘Today is the 17th anniversary of South Africa’s independence but for Black lesbians there is little to celebrate as today we learn of the rape and murder of yet another young sister. The Constitution debated and formed to protect all South Africans has failed the majority of South Africans. It has shamefully failed the most vulnerable people in the country and in particular young Black lesbians. The body of Noxola Nogwaza was found on Sunday morning. This is just 4 weeks after the body of 20 years old Nokuthula Radebe was discovered and which has not even been reported in the media. The pain of these brutal attacks grows and my heart goes out to their family and friends. May both Nogwaza and Nokuthula Rest in Peace’.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Sokari Ekine blogs at Black Looks.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News. 2011-05-12, Issue 529
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/73163