Dorothy-Grace Guerrero and Firoze Manji (ed) (2008) China’s New Role in Africa and the South: A search for a new perspective. 
Back Issues
Pambazuka News 364: Congo's rape and sexual violence: UN's delinquency
The authoritative electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa
Pambazuka News (English edition): ISSN 1753-6839
With nearly 500 contributors and an estimated 500,000 readers Pambazuka News is the authoritative pan African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing cutting edge commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs, development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa.
To view online, go to http://www.pambazuka.org/
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE – please visit, http://www.pambazuka.org/en/subscribe.php
CONTENTS: 1. Announcements, 2. Features, 3. Comment & analysis, 4. Pan-African Postcard, 5. Letters
Support the struggle for social justice in Africa. Give generously!
Donate at: www.pambazuka.org/en/donate.php
Highlights from this issue
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Zimbabwe violence alert
FEATURES: Stephen Lewis looks at rape and sexual violence in the D.R. Congo and the U.N.
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS:
- Awino Okech on continuing violence against women in Kenya
- Doreen Lwanga on peace without justice in Uganda
- William Gumede on Mbeki's AIDS policies
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD: Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem on Zimbabwe as an African responsIbility
LETTERS: Readers' comments and announcements
Announcements
Zimbabwe: Violence alert
2008-04-22
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
Our member organisation, the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ Zimbabwe) issued two Daily Media Updates over the weekend which we attach here. Firstly, Update no. 31 of 19.2.08 notes that the government controlled papers continue in ‘their cheerleading role for ZANU PF’. The second, Update no. 32 issued on 20.4.08, states that “While the privately owned ‘Standard’ was reporting a widespread campaign of violence against MDC supporters that has claimed as many as 10 lives so far, the ‘Sunday Mail’ and ‘Sunday News’ (20/4) continued to passively report on the country’s political crisis as normal electoral procedure in the nine stories they carried.”
We refer you to ‘Bill Watch’ produced by Veritas and released on 18.4.08 and containing more information and linkages to other sources of information. Please follow the link to the Kubatana website to access this: http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/legisl/080418veritas.asp?sector=LEGISL&year=0&range_start=1
In relation to the issue of the re-count of votes, the Institute for Democracy in Southern Africa (IDASA) has today, 21.4.08, released a Guide to the Delay in Zimbabwe election results The Inconvenient Truth. The guide follows what IDASA describes as confusion amongst the media and several political analysts as to precisely what ought to have happened after people went to the polls in Zimbabwe on March 29. IDASA notes that confusion could have been avoided by referring to the Electoral Act. They conclude that ‘SADC observers left before the announcement of the results and were not present to witness the vicious retributive campaign unleashed by ZANU PF’. IDASA concludes that the ‘excuses’ given by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for the delay in releasing the presidential results evokes scepticism. Please see the full report at: http://www.idasa.org/
Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report on Saturday, 19.4.08 about the setting up, by ZANU PF, of ‘torture camps’ and how opposition voter have told of beatings and intimidation. HRW reports that torture and violence are surging in Zimbabwe and that ZANU PF is using a network of informal detention centres to beat, torture and intimidate opposition activists and ordinary Zimbabweans. To access the report, please follow the web link below: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/19/zimbab18604_txt.htm
In further reports of violence we attach an Alert, issued on 19.4.08 by the Murewa Community Development Trust (MCDT) about how the war veterans and youth militia have set up detention centres which are being used to torture opposition and human rights activists throughout the communities around Murewa district, 75km east of Harare in the province of Mashonaland East.
The Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum released a Press Statement entitled ‘Every Day of Inaction is a Crime against the People of Zimbabwe’. The statement notes growing concern about the escalation of retributive violence perpetrated by the Zimbabwe state security forces and paramilitaries against civilians across the country. They recommend a number of actions to be taken by SADC, the African Union, the ANC and the South African Government.
Further to the reports about the Chinese ship carrying arms for Zimbabwe, IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms, have launched an on-line petition. We refer you to the following link where you can sign the petition: http://www.iansa.org/stoptheshipment/stoptheshipment.php
Finally, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban ki-moon, arrived in Accra Ghana on Saturday 19.4.08 for the 12th UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). In an ‘off the cuff’ remark, he referred to various crises in Africa, including that in Zimbabwe, and noted that he intended to raise the issue during his meetings with regional leaders over the weekend. His full comments can be read via the following link: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp
Features
Congo's rape and sexual violence: UN's delinquency
2008-04-15
Stephen Lewis
Stephen Lewis argues that the level of rape and sexual violence in the Congo is an act of criminal international misogyny, sustained by the indifference of nation states and the delinquency of the United Nations.
Today is a day that has largely – and rightly – been given over to Dr Mukwege and his astonishing and heroic work in the Congo. Driving the work is the endlessly grim and despairing litany of rape and sexual violence. All of us assembled in the Superdome talk of V-Day and the Vagina Monologues. In the Congo there’s a medical term of art called ‘vaginal destruction.’ I need not elaborate; you’ve heard Dr Mukwege. But suffice to say that in the vast historical panorama of violence against women there is a level of demonic dementia plumbed in the Congo that has seldom, if ever, been reached before.
That’s the peg on which I want to hang these remarks. I want to set out an argument that essentially says that what’s happening in the Congo is an act of criminal international misogyny, sustained by the indifference of nation states and the delinquency of the United Nations.
Dr Mukwege and others have said time and time again that the current saga of the Congo has been going on for more than a decade. It’s important to remember that this is a direct result of the escape of thousands of mass murderers who eluded capture after the Rwandan genocide, thanks to the governments of France and the United States, by fleeing into what was then called Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The wars and the horror that followed have been chronicled by journalists, human rights organisations, senior representatives of the UN secretary-general, the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs, the Security Council, agencies, NGOs internationally and NGOs on the ground, and in the process accentuated and punctuated by the cries and pain and carnage of over five million deaths.
The sordid saga ebbs and flows. But it was brought back into sudden, vivid public notoriety by Eve Ensler’s trip to the Congo in July/August 2007, her visit to the Panzi hospital, her interviews with the women survivors of rape, and her visceral piece of writing in Glamour magazine which began with the words ‘I have just returned from Hell’. Eve set off an extraordinary chain reaction. Her visit was followed by a fact-finding mission by the current UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs who, upon his return, wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times in which he said that the Congo was the worst place in the world for women. Those views were then echoed everywhere (including by the European parliament), triggering front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and a lengthy segment on 60 Minutes by Anderson Cooper of CNN.
Largely as a result of this growing clamour against the war on women in the Congo, and the fact that Eve Ensler herself testified before the Security Council, the UN resolution that renewed the mandate for the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo (MONUC, as it’s called) contained some of the strongest language condemning rape and sexual violence ever to appear in a Security Council resolution, and obliged MONUC, in no uncertain terms, to protect the women of the Congo. The resolution was passed at the end of December 2007.
In January 2008, scarcely one month later, there was an ‘act of engagement’, a so-called peace commitment signed amongst the warring parties. I use ‘so-called’ advisedly, because evidence of peace is hard to find. But that’s not the point: the point is much more revelatory and much more damning.
The peace commitment is a fairly lengthy document. Unbelievably, from beginning to end, the word ‘rape’ never appears. Unbelievably, from beginning to end, the phrase ‘sexual violence’ never appears. Unbelievably, ‘women’ are mentioned but once, lumped in with children, the elderly and the disabled. It’s as if the organisers of the peace conference had never heard of the Security Council resolution.
But it gets worse. The peace document actually grants amnesty – I repeat, amnesty – to those who have participated in the fighting. To be sure, it makes a deliberate legal distinction, stating that war crimes or crimes against humanity will not be excused. But who’s kidding whom? This arcane legal dancing on the head of a pin is not likely to weigh heavily on the troops in the field, who have now been given every reason to believe that since the rapes they committed up to now have been officially forgiven and forgotten, they can rape with impunity again. And indeed, as Dr Mukwege testified before Congress just last week, the raping and sexual violence continues.
The war may stutter; the raping is unabated.
But the most absurd dimension of this whole discreditable process is the fact that the peace talks were ‘facilitated’, or effectively orchestrated, by MONUC, that is to say by the United Nations. And perhaps most unconscionable of all, despite the existence for seven years of another Security Council resolution, number 1325, calling for women to be active participants in all peace deliberations, there was no-one at that peace table directly representing the women, the more than 200,000 women, whose lives and anatomies were torn to shreds by the very war that the peace talks were meant to resolve.
Thus does the United Nations violate its own principles.
Now let me make something clear. In the nearly 25 years that I’ve been involved in international work I’ve been a ready apologist for the United Nations. And I continue to be persuaded that the UN can yet offer the best hope for humankind. But when it goes off the rails, as is the case in the Congo – as is invariably the case when women are involved – my colleagues and I, in our new organisation called AIDS-Free World, are not going to bite our tongues. There’s too much at stake.
What makes this all the more galling is that in many respects, the UN is the answer. Those of you who intermittently despair of ending sexual violence should know that if the UN brought the full power of its formidable agencies to bear, tremendous progress would be made, despite the indifference of many countries. But therein lie these cascading levels of hypocrisy.
You heard today about the collective UN campaign to end rape and sexual violence in the Congo - 12 agencies united in this common purpose. But with the exception of some magnificent UNICEF staff on the ground, of whom Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF, has every right to be proud, the presence of the other UN agencies ranges from negligible to non-existent. This is all largely an exercise in rhetoric. Even the UN Population Fund, ostensibly the lead agency in the Congo, is pathetically weak on the ground and on its own website talks of the problems of funding.
It does induce a combination of rage and incredulity when the UN tries to pawn itself off as the serious player in combating sexual violence when the record is so appallingly bad. In fact, it could be said – indeed, it needs to be said – that the V-Day movement and Eve, relatively miniscule players by comparison, have probably done more to ease the pain of violence in the Congo than any one of 11 UN agencies. Who else, I ask you, is building a City of Joy, so that the women who have been raped can recover with some sense of security and become leaders in their communities?
Is there an answer to this collective abject failure of the international community to protect the women of the Congo? There sure is, and the answer sits right at the top. The answer is the secretary-general of the United Nations.
I don’t know who is advising the secretary-general on these matters, but he’s being led down a garden path soon to be strewn with ghosts that will haunt his entire stewardship and leave an everlasting pejorative legacy. I know how the UN works. I’ve been an ambassador to the UN for my country, the deputy at UNICEF, an advisor on Africa to a former secretary-general, and most recently a ‘special envoy’. In the incestuous hotbed of the 38th floor of the UN secretariat, where sits the secretary-general, critics are scorned, derided and mocked. And exactly the same will happen to me. But I want all of you to know here assembled that it need not be.
If the secretary-general were to exercise real leadership against sexual violence instead of falling back – as his advisers have suggested – on statements and rhetoric and fatuous public relations campaigns, he could turn things around. What in God’s name is wrong with these people whose lives consist of moving from inertia to paralysis?
The secretary-general should summon the heads of the 12 UN agencies allegedly involved in ‘UN action’ on violence against women and read the riot act. He should explain to them that press releases do not prevent rape, and he should demand a plan of action on the ground, with dollars and deadlines. He should equally summon the heads of the ten agencies that comprise UNAIDS and demand a plan of implementation for testing, treatment, prevention and care for women who have been sexually assaulted, with deadlines. I’m prepared to bet that UNAIDS has never convened such a meeting, despite the fact that the violence of the sexual assaults in the Congo create easy avenues in the reproductive tract through which the AIDS virus passes. Dr Mukwege talks of increased numbers of HIV-positive women turning up at Panzi hospital.
The secretary-general, taking a leaf from Eve Ensler, should insist on a network of rape crisis centres, rape clinics in all hospitals, sexual violence counsellors, and Cities of Joy right across the Eastern Congo, indeed, across the entire country. The secretary-general should demand a roll-call, an accounting, of which countries have contributed financially to ending the violence and in what amounts, plus those who have not, and then publish the results for the world to see so that the recalcitrants can be brought to the bar of public opinion. (By way of example, how’s this for a juxtaposition? Over the course of more than a decade, the UN trust fund to end violence against women has triumphantly reached $130m. The United States spends more than $3bn per week on the war in Iraq.)
But there’s more. The secretary-general should launch a personal crusade to double MONUC’s troop complement. The protection provisions for women in the new so-called peace accord cannot be implemented with current troop numbers, large though they may seem.
And finally, the secretary-general should pull out all the stops in getting the UN to agree that the Congo is the best test case for the principle of the ‘responsibility to protect’. Heads of state universally endorsed this principle at the UN in September 2005. It is the first major contemporary international challenge to the sanctity of sovereignty. It simply asserts that where a government is unable or unwilling to protect its own people from gross violations of human rights, then the international community has the responsibility to intervene. That responsibility can be diplomatic negotiation, or economic sanctions, or political pressure or military intervention – whatever it takes to restore justice to the oppressed. The principle was originally drafted with Darfur in mind, but it is equally applicable to the Congo. We have to start somewhere.
The secretary-general has a tremendous challenge. He has the opportunity, the wherewithal, the influence and the majesty to save thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of women’s lives, physically and psychologically. And once the process began in earnest in the Congo, it would spread to all dimensions of violence against women everywhere.
To whom else is such an opportunity given? The secretary-general has said that violence against women is one of the gravest issues of our time. Well if that’s the case, surely he can understand that speeches aren’t enough. And if he truly believes what he says, then let him stake his tenure on it. I believe that the struggle for gender equality is the most important struggle on the planet. Ban Ki-moon should say to the 192 countries that make up the UN ‘either you give me evidence that we’re going to prevail in this struggle or you find yourself another secretary-general’.
‘Ah,’ people will say, ‘Lewis has finally lost it’. I don’t think so. We’re talking about more than 50 per cent of the world’s population, amongst whom are the most uprooted, disinherited and impoverished of the earth. If you can’t stand up for the women of the world, then you shouldn’t be secretary-general.
Alas, I guess I know whether that will happen. We’ve already had signals. Last autumn, in an unprecedented initiative, a high-level panel on reform of the UN recommended the creation of a new international agency for women. The recommendation was based on the finding that the UN’s record on gender has been abysmal. If that agency comes into being, headed by an under-secretary-general, with funding that starts at $1bn a year (less than half of UNICEF’s resources) and real capacity to run programmes on the ground, issues like violence against women would suddenly be confronted with indomitable determination. The women activists on the ground, the women survivors on the ground, the women activist-survivors on the ground, would finally have resources and support for the work that must be done.
But the creation of the new agency is bogged down in the UN General Assembly, caught up in the crossfire between the developed and developing countries. The secretary-general could break that impasse if he pulled out all the stops. He and the deputy secretary-general make speeches that give the impression that they support the women’s agency. In truth, the language is so carefully and artfully couched as to gut the agency of its impact on the ground were it ever to come into being. Again, the advisers read the tea leaves in a soiled and broken chalice.
This weekend has been filled with hope in the struggle to end violence against women. Thoughtful, decent men have come to the fore on this very platform, and women from so many countries have made the case for sanity in words that are moving and compelling in equal measure. I have chosen to link the Congo and the UN because as Eve said at the outset, the Congo is the V-Day spotlight for the coming year, and the UN can truly break the monolith of violence. We just have to apply unceasing pressure so that the issue is joined rather than manipulated.
I don’t have Eve’s rhythm and cadence. But I cherish a touch of her spirit, a lot of her anger, and a microscopic morsel of her trusting love, commitment and courage that will one day change this world.
*Stephen Lewis,is the co-Director of AIDS-Free World. These remarks were delivered at the 10th Annual V-Day Celebrations, New Orleans, 12 April 2008.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Comment & analysis
Kenya: Violence against women continues
2008-04-15
Awino Okech
Following Ann Jones' "The War against Women in Africa" http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46280 and Marie Claire Faray-kele's "D R Congo: Women – Violence in war and in peace" http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/46610 , Awino Okech looks at continuing violence against women in Kenya even as peace returns.
On January 5th 2008, after I successfully managed what I will term as a quick escape from Kisumu one of the hardest hit areas (at the time) with the Kenya’s post election crisis; I arrived into a fairly placid Nairobi. The bars were full of people, this in comparison to shut establishments in Kisumu. Middle class Nairobi was mingling as usual! As I ventured into one of these watering holes I was obviously perturbed. What struck me then and continues to date is the fact that this crisis turned everyone into a political pundit. ‘We’ all have theories, ‘we are all close to the source, ‘we’ all know the latest information and ‘we’ all know how best to defeat the latest political nemesis. In fact, these very pages of Pambazuka have been awash with analysis from Kenyan and African civil society experts speaking about cabinet sizes and their fiscal implications, comparative analysis of Zimbabwe and Kenya, not to forget analyses of the Kenyan accord, its longevity and projections. However, one thing misses – it is missing from our national discourse, it is missing from our pan African engagement, it is missing from our arm political pundits and we are all quickly dismissed for a focus on the real politik which is more engaging. This is not the ‘gender’ factor, this is the basic fact that women and children continue to be traded, abused and defiled for the sake of basic commodities such as food and survival in their communities, in the internally displaced people’s camps and basically in their country, while we trade theories about the composition of the next cabinet and who is clean and who isn’t?
According to the Kenyan Red Cross, as of 27th February 2008, 268,300 people were displaced, while official government statistics place the dead at 1200 as of this same date owing to post election violence. Most of this data remains highly generalized with the oft cited case of the Eldoret church where 35 people were burnt alive, most (my emphasis) being women, as the only case thus far publicized of disaggregated data. The Nairobi Women’s Hospital – Gender Recovery Centre (GRC) the only centre of its kind in East and Central Africa provides the following data. Over 80% (356) of the cases that they treated at the centre were sexual violence related. Of these 80%, 93% of them were adult women survivors with the rest accounted for by children and men. 9% were of physical assault, 7% domestic violence related cases and 4 % were of indecent assault .
While efforts were made through various well wishers, donors, local and international organizations to set up crisis centres across the country, what this invariably pointed to was the dearth in systems and structures across the country to respond to cases of sexual and gender based violence in a specialised way. The GRC’s report goes on to attempt an analysis of the perpetrators, indicating that most survivors spoke of gang rapes with other cases being opportunistic rape, particularly of women during robberies. Taking cognisance of the inadequacy of facilities and personnel, the numbers and the typologies provided above could potentially be higher and may vary from place to place.
The violence that rocked Kenya in the aftermath of the disputed 2007 presidential elections brought to the fore an already well known phenomena – sexual and gender based violence (SGBV). The violence that was witnessed in the country is not new, what may have been new is the magnitude, intensity and spread. An examination of the 1992 – Molo Clashes, 1997 - Likoni clashes and other land/ethnic clashes (Wagalla massacre et al) that have chequered the history of Kenya, reveal that the site on which these conflicts have been staged has been on women’s bodies and their person. In the aftermath of the 1997 clashes, a woman resident at the Maela camp where women were frequently raped by security personnel when they left camp in search for food or for work as day labourers noted: ‘even though we knew this was likely to happen we continued to work because our children were hungry and we had no choice’ (Amnesty. 2004).
Violence against women is a well acknowledge weapon of war; a tool used to achieve military objectives… many forms of violence that women suffer during armed conflict are gender specific both in result and nature (Amnesty. 2004)’. While this is treated as a fact, energy is often directed towards establishing the perpetrators, financers and sustainers of clashes with little energy or time devoted to the gendered dimensions and repercussions of the conflict and by this we mean the impact of clashes on women. It begs the question – where are our priorities – where is our focus? Where is our focus in Kenya, where is our focus in the continent and where is our focus in the pan African movement?
In 2007, on the eve of national women’s day in South Africa Thabo Mbeki fired Nozizwe Madlala- Routledge who was considered one of the few ministers who would turn around the health ministry and specifically repair the damage done by the Mbeki government with its stance on AIDS. In that same year (and on the eve of women’s day) two black lesbian activists were murdered (and there have been many) in Soweto, Johannesburg in what was clearly a hate crime. As far as my follow up of the case goes, the perpetrators have not been brought to book. As feminists (I was resident in South Africa at the time) we were all hard pressed to recognise the gains and the need to ‘celebrate’ women’s day but the more defiant amongst us loudly proclaimed there was nothing to celebrate.
Our ‘policy explosions’ in the continent – sexual offences acts, domestic violence bills and all have had no effect on the lives of the ordinary woman in Khayelitsha, Mathare or Katsina. Operation Murambatzvina came and went. My ‘older’ feminist sisters will tell you this was/is not the first time in Africa’s post independence history when governments have sort to rid their cities of ‘filth’ and filth here reads not only the informal settlements that Mugabe wanted resettled but unsavoury women. A colleague who travelled home to Harare in the aftermath of this operation was arrested for walking unaccompanied; in Kenyan speak ‘she was loitering with the intent to commit … and the Kenyan police would add their charge’ Uganda recently (March 2008) banned a gathering of commercial sex workers arguing that their filth should not be spread to the rest of the country. Well, this is one of the oldest professions in the world. Nigeria is on the verge of passing an indecent dressing bill where necklines must be two inches or less from the shoulders and the waist of a female over 14 must not be visible.
When we loudly call for the prosecution, disarmament and naming of those who committed crimes against humanity during Kenya’s post election crisis, I dare say we are much more concerned with those who murdered, than those who are displaced and who are living with the wounds (psychological, physical and otherwise) for having been violated for being a Kenyan and much more specifically for being a woman. We run the risk of indicating that murder was the greatest crime during this crisis. Are we speaking about out survivors of SGBV with the same fervour that we are so concerned about the number of cabinet ministers? As the African continent continues to bludgeon women’s human rights (quietly, since we are not paying attention to it) on the sidelines and erode years of African feminist activism (intellectual and otherwise) under the guise of morality and re-instating the moral fibre of the African society, where is the pan African human rights movement that so eloquently analyses the unity of Africa, the solidarity with Zimbabwe and the afro-china partnership?
As I conclude what may be considered a rant and rave by yet another feminist, the final nail to this coffin was driven by one of Kenya’s local media attempts at including women’s voices to the post election crisis in a programme at 10 o’clock in the night – who is awake at that time to engage with those issues? Where is our focus? Let us engage squarely with the consequences and sites of our political battles, our long term continental and national issues that have consistently been staged on women’s bodies and their person. Let us engage with who is most affected by the fact that the rains are delayed or that they are displaced and cannot plant. Let us engage with those who bear the burden of production, reproduction and sheer survival. Let us engage in a much more nuanced and sophisticated analysis of the so called impact of the oversized cabinet, its constitution, the accord, our truth and justice commissions and the existence of our survivors of post election and current violence.
Let us re-focus!
*Awino Okech is a feminist activist and researcher currently living Nairobi, Kenya.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Mbeki’s AIDS Denial – Grace or Folly? Part I
2008-04-16
William Gumede
In this Pambazuka exclusive look at William Gumede's "Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC", we serialize in five parts Gumede's chapter on Mbeki and the controversies surrounding his AIDS policies. Be sure to look for parts two through five in the upcoming Pambazuka issues.
For too long we have closed our eyes as a nation, hoping the truth was not so real. For many years, we have allowed the HI virus to spread, and at a rate in our country which is one of the fastest in the world. – Thabo Mbeki, 9 October 1998
Now ... the poor on our continent will again carry a disproportionate burden of this scourge – would if anyone cared to ask their opinions, wish that the dispute about the primacy of politics or science be put on the backburner and that we proceed to address the needs and concerns of those suffering and dying. – Nelson Mandela, 13 July 2000
It is important that we recognise that we are facing a major crisis and that we want to invest as many resources as we did when we fought against apartheid. This is not a state of emergency but it is a national emergency. – Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 30 November 2001
As his international AIDS Advisory Council met for the first time, Thabo Mbeki mulled over the words of Irish poet Patrick Henry Pearse: ‘Is it folly or grace?’
Notwithstanding the conclusions of mainstream scientists almost a decade before, Mbeki set up the council to examine both the cause and most effective way of treating acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in developing countries. His ‘folly’ in reopening the debate on what causes AIDS rather than focusing on practical ways to curb the pandemic sweeping Africa was roundly condemned. ‘Stop fiddling while Rome burns,’[1] chided Desmond Tutu, former Archbishop of Cape Town. But AIDS denial is not the exclusive province of presidents. Mbeki’s controversial health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, enthusiastically prescribed an alternative therapy that sounded more like a salad dressing than treatment for a sexually transmitted disease that kills around 600 South Africans a day[2].
After years of foot-dragging and obfuscation, the South African government finally rolled out antiretroviral drugs that could save the lives of millions at state hospitals two weeks before voters went to the polls in April 2004.The long-awaited plan to distribute ARVs to an estimated 5 million people had been approved in November 2003, but due to what officials claimed were ‘capacity constraints’, patients had to wait another five months for the first drugs to reach them.
Few were surprised when AIDS activists questioned the government’s timing and motives. ‘Even though we welcome the roll-out plan, we have mixed feelings about whether the government reached a turning point because of elections, ’said Tembeka Majali of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), the country’s most vocal and visible AIDS activist group.
Before the limited public roll-out, fewer than 20000 South Africans were taking ARVs, as only those with expensive private medical insurance could afford them. Zackie Achmat, head of the TAC and the country’s best-known AIDS activist, only started taking ARVs towards the end of 2003 after refusing for years to avail himself of the life-giving drugs until the government agreed to offer treatment through the public health system.
Leading black gay activist Simon Nkoli,a close friend of Achmat, died in 1998 after contracting AIDS-related thrush. He was among the millions who could not afford the drugs, and at his funeral Achmat announced that he was launching a campaign to make ARVs available to poor South Africans.[3] He had learnt that a single dose of the generic version of fluconazole, used to treat thrush but not sold in South Africa because of international patent laws, cost just eighty cents.[4]
Government blamed lack of efficacy, potential toxicity and high costs for ARVs not being made available at state expense, but scientific evidence indicates that the drugs are highly effective against mother-to-child transmission of HIV and, at least in the short term, the benefits appear to outweigh the risks.
In Europe, North America and Brazil, ARVs have reduced mortality due to HIV/AIDS-related illnesses by between 50 and 80 per cent. In South Africa, two critical barriers remain to the widespread availability of these life-saving medicines and a possible nett saving on the health budget in the long run: lack of political will, and resistance on the part of patent holders to generic competition.
Pharmaceutical companies are protected by intellectual property rights policed by the World Trade Organisation from the manufacture or import of cheaper versions of their drugs. The corporate view is that high prices are necessary to recoup research and development costs.
However, generic anti-AIDS drugs are sold in India for a quarter of the price charged by the big pharmaceutical companies, and have the added advantage of Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC combining three drugs in a single pill that has to be taken twice a day. The Western ARV protocol requires patients to take up to twelve pills – all produced by different companies – a day, at different times, some with water, some without. Despite the obvious advantages of a simplified regimen, South Africa succumbed to pressure from the West and opted for the more expensive and complex therapy in its limited ARV roll-out.[5]
Private health care in South Africa makes up around 70 per cent of the total national budget, yet only about 7 million of the country’s 44 million citizens can afford private health insurance. The rest depend on government services. Until 1999, medical aid funds were allowed to cherry-pick their paying members, and typically accepted young, healthy, low-risk candidates.
The poor and unemployed were generally excluded due to the high premiums, and relied on the state for health care. An Act of Parliament put a stop to the rejection of certain candidates by insurance carriers, but most South Africans still cannot afford the astronomical costs of private care.
Drug costs are a significant factor in the national health budget. Only medication that is included on a list of essential drugs is available within the state system, and generics are encouraged where possible. When no generics exist, the health department buys in bulk from the pharmaceutical industry via a tender system. Drug companies have fiercely resisted parallel imports of cheaper generics, insisting that their patents be respected.
The social, economic and health consequences of AIDS for South Africa are devastating. Particularly harrowing has been the rise in the number of orphans and the emotional impact on millions of children who will grow up without parents. Not only are crime and social instability destined to follow in the wake of the pandemic, but current and future demands on the state coffers are astronomical. In alliance with COSATU, the SACP, churches and social organisations, the TAC has been at the forefront of attempts to shift government’s head-in-the-sand AIDS policies. The cabinet plan released in November 2003 promised that government would establish a network of centres for distribution of ARVs, beef up efforts to prevent transmission of the virus and increase support for families affected by HIV/AIDS.
The cost of offering treatment to all South Africans with AIDS by 2010 was estimated at between $2.4 billion and $3 billion a year. The cabinet cited the lower costs of ARVs as a major factor in the decision to go ahead with the roll-out, noting: ‘New developments pertaining to prices of drugs, the growing body of knowledge on this issue, wide appreciation of the role of nutrition and availability of budgetary resources [had] allowed government to make an enhanced response to AIDS.’[6]
But why had it taken so long to reach this point?
In the heady days following the unbanning of the ANC, little attention was given to AIDS. Although alarm bells were ringing, South Africa’s collective political focus was on the delicate and engrossing negotiations for a democratic dispen- sation. The apartheid regime had been deaf to calls for action, seeing AIDS largely as a disease that affected gays and blacks, constituencies the previous government was not particularly interested in, and was most prevalent among migrant workers from the southern African region.
AIDS was not high on the first democratic government’s ‘to-do’list either. The ANC alliance’s priority was trying to hold the fractured country together while getting to grips with governance, delivery and the economy. AIDS was one among many seemingly less urgent problems.
Given South Africa’s combustible social mix – a large migrant population, people displaced because of apartheid, the breakdown of traditional family bonds, a labour system that keeps men away from home for most of the year – it is hardly surprising that AIDS struck with such devastation. But when the full realisation sank in, there was first denial, then perplexity, and finally escapism, as confronting the situation became mired in foolish debate over what had caused the pandemic in the first place.
During his term of office, Nelson Mandela effectively ignored AIDS, avoiding the subject on the grounds that, in his culture, an elder did not publicly discuss sexual issues.[7] Since then, he has recognised the severity of the problem and become deeply involved in efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.
When Mandela assumed the presidency of the ANC in 1991, SACP general secretary Chris Hani and future health minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma were the ANC’s most vocal harbingers of a looming crisis.[8]As deputy president, Mbeki barely mentioned AIDS, except for allusions in a couple of speeches to the disease being as great a threat as poverty in the new South Africa.
In fact, the AIDS time bomb threatened to decimate the world’s youngest democracy unless vast resources were made available to defuse it, but the initial response of the ruling elite was ‘this isn’t happening to us ... it cannot be as bad as people say’.[9]
But it was.
The ANC in exile had held a number of meetings on HIV/AIDS, and the first paper on the disease published in South Africa in 1985 forecast that it would remain largely confined to male homosexuals, as had been the case in America and Europe up to that time. In the same year, the government appointed an AIDS advisory group, followed six years later by a network of training, information and counselling centres.
In 1992, the ANC’s health secretariat, the government, non-governmental organisations, AIDS service organisations, representatives from business, trade unions and churches, and a diverse group of concerned individuals set up the National AIDS Coordinating Committee of South Africa (NACOSA). In the spirit of the CODESA talks, it was instructed to reach consensus on a national AIDS strategy for the new South Africa.
Their plan, adopted in July 1994,recommended the pooling of large amounts of money from government and donor organisations for expenditure on countrywide education and prevention programmes.
First, however, an AIDS infrastructure had to be established. The centrepiece was a special directorate in the department of health, and the government also appointed a ministerial AIDS task team, headed by Mbeki. Awareness campaigns and support for an HIV vaccine initiative followed.
By early 1996,it became apparent that the plan was full of holes. Much of the intended funding was diverted by the Treasury to more pressing needs, while money that was allocated to the health department remained unspent as the AIDS plan was buried by competing priorities in a health system in transition. Many of the AIDS policy targets were never attained.
Public controversy followed revelations that a hefty chunk of the AIDS budget – R14.27 million – had been spent on Sarafina II.The musical production by acclaimed playwright Mbongeni Ngema was designed to raise AIDS awareness among African youth,but the critics panned it as an ineffective and costly failure in terms of relaying the anti-AIDS message. Worse, it emerged that normal tendering procedures had been bypassed in awarding Ngema the funds, and the production was scrapped in midstream.
The resulting scandal strained the bond between government and AIDS activists. Opposition parties, the media and many NGOs unleashed a barrage of attacks on the health minister, who withdrew into a defensive shell. Government and Ngema claimed the criticisms were anti-government, anti-black and racially inspired,and on the eve ofWorld AIDS Day in 1996,activists and health workers denounced the entire National AIDS Plan as a shambles, greatly angering both Dlamini-Zuma and Mbeki.
The furore erupted just as the gloss of freedom was starting to give way to grassroots anger over non-delivery and thwarted expectations. Acutely sensitive to criticism, especially when it emanated from the ANC camp, political home to most of the AIDS activists, the government lashed out in anger. At the party’s national conference that year, President Mandela railed against NGOs that stood in judgement of government.
The dust had hardly settled when a new AIDS scandal broke out.
*William Gumede is the author of Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC. * This article is the first part of a chapter in the second edition and is published with the kind permission of the author. His latest book, "The Democracy Gap - Africa's Wasted Years", will be published later this year.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Buying peace in Uganda
2008-04-15
Doreen Lwanga
As Uganda tries to find peace and justice, Doreen Lwanga grapples with the questions: Is there a price that is just too high? Can there be peace without justice?
It is horrifying that there are certain people in favor of buying peace supposedly to convert warlords into civilians, by giving them either monetary or political to lay down their arms and rejoin the society that they have traumatized and destroyed for decades. Several voices including those who call themselves human rights activists so loudly support reconciliation with rebel groups, and many have created their careers out of “negotiating with rebels” and reconciling with warlords. To me this brings back the question…whose rights matter anyway…in the campaign for peace? Most importantly, how did we get there –buying justice from warlords?
In Uganda where I am from, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) under the leadership of Joseph Kony have managed to turn themselves into innocent victims of a ‘greed’ political leader –President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (M7). Many Ugandan political commentators and “peace activists” argue that President M7 sought to score political points when he forwarded a case against Joseph Kony and the LRA senior commanders to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Opponents of this ICC indictment of Kony and his senior commanders argue that it has sabotaged transition to peace in Uganda—particularly in Northern Uganda which is the hardest hit by the war between the LRA rebels and the Uganda government for more than 20 years. But is this allegation really true or is Kony simply scoring apologists pity? A look back into history of the peace process shows that the LRA rebels had not laid down their arms when President M7 referred Kony to the ICC. They were still kidnapping, maiming, abducting, raping and destroying entire livelihoods in Northern Uganda. Now the same group is comfortably pausing as peace spokespersons on behalf of the people of Uganda.
On the BBC Africa Today Podcast of Friday 07 March 2008, Dr. David Matanga, LRA Head of Delegation and Spokesman had this to say, “….Ugandans have said, they do not want the ICC…they want peace now. They do not want to hear Mr. Ocampo (ICC Chief Prosecutor) speaking everytime. He is not Ugandan. We are Ugandans. You think only White justice can work….”
Since when did the LRA start speaking on behalf of Ugandans? Interestingly, overtime the LRA voice on international airwaves is overshadowing that of the elected leader and spokesperson for the people of Uganda –President M7. One wonders whether his silence on the LRA issue proves previous observations; that he forwarded the Kony case to the ICC to score political points. First, President M7 went internationally public to the ICC when he needed international legitimacy for his regime, and now he chooses silence regarding the LRA issue to score national points as a ‘man for peace’.
Fortunately for the LRA, they have a platform larger than the people of Northern Uganda whose livelihoods they have destroyed. I happened to be in Kampala around November 2007 when negotiations between the LRA negotiation team and the Uganda government were taking place. A friend of mine was also participating in closed-door negotiations at Hotel Africana with included several LRA senior officials, officials of the Uganda government and members of civil society organizations. My friend asked if I had a camera to take pictures of them, and thanks to my ‘prying and tourist’ nature I had one with me. The meeting was followed by evening tea with lavish hors d’oeuvres, as is the culture with most of Ugandans large NGO and government meetings held in hotels. For my political mind, it was an opportunity to engage in ‘investigative conversations’ with the LRA team and put out some questions that have bothered me about this LRA peace negotiation.
I paused the question to my friends whether it was really justifiable to spend money on rebels? That the government can use taxpayers’ money to dine, house, transport and maintain the lifestyles of rebels in 5-star hotels around Kampala. Yet the taxpayers can neither get a decent public transport system nor proper sewage disposal in their neighborhoods. Secondly, I was shocked to see people designated as rebels walking around Kampala freely with bodyguards without being arrested by security forces. My naivety has always made me believe that rebels are unwanted people and need to be controlled and prevented from mixing with the civilian public. Even people in Northern Uganda whose lives have been most destroyed do not get this kind of protection but are instead tucked away in squalid internally displaced people’s camps. Joseph Kony can demand mobile phone airtime and the government readily sends it to him. Alternatively, the so-called humanitarian agencies operating in Uganda quickly pick up the tab to facilitate the lavish lives of Kony and his rebel gang in the name of ‘negotiating peace’ for Northern Uganda.
Amazingly my ‘human rights friends’ are comfortable with this modus operandi. Why should we buy peace from Kony and his rebels when we have failed (and objected) to hold them accountable for crimes against humanity, crimes against natural justice or crimes against peace? There is no evidence that buying peace creates peace, a popular international diplomacy game played mostly by the United States. It has not worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Somalia, and it will not work with Northern Uganda. On the contrary, buying peace and feeding rebels/paramilitary groups has prolonged wars and destruction in Cambodia, Horn of Africa, Sudan, Colombia, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. Already, Kony recently put his foot down and refused to sign the peace deal with the government of Uganda on Thursday April 3 2008 in Juba reportedly because he was sick. Yet he is not ashamed of putting up continued demands for ‘freebies’ at the expense of Ugandans. Since we have taken the lowest moral ground by feeding rebel groups, why not go ahead and ‘sniper their leaders’ as a tool for peaceful transition. It happened to reknown UNITA rebel leader, Jonas Savimbi, and now Angola is on the road to peace with many refugees returning home. If not, then we should use the Charles Taylor approach, track down warlords and forward them to international justice. It makes no sense buying peace with mobile phones, airtimes or political positions for those who have destroyed livelihoods and generations in the name of justice for warlords.
*Doreen Lwanga is a PanAfricanist who writes about African security and regionalism.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Pan-African Postcard
Justice for Zimbabwe regardless of the West
2008-04-22
Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem
Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem argues that "there is nothing revolutionary in perpetuating personal rule in the name of liberation" and therefore Africans have a duty to see electoral justice in Zimbabwe regardless of where the West stands
A couple of weeks ago it was the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther king Junior. He remains relevant even for generations that never knew him largely because the great injustices and oppression of his days which he confronted with nothing more than exemplary moral courage to take a stand against unjust power. Those injustices still continue to mutate not only in the US but across the world. That's why the words and example of martin Luther King Junior continue to echo as a source of inspiration to all those who speak truth to power. One of his many quotable quotes that I like is: "evil triumphs because good men refuse to speak up". We have to forgive the absence of gender sensitivity in the emphasis on 'men' as typical of the age but it does not deter from the import of the statement. Good people must speak up in the face of injustice no matter the consequences They obligation is not just to speak up it must extend to taking whatever action one is able to.
Zimbabwe and President Mugabe is a situation we cannot in all good conscience continue to pussyfoot about anymore. It is indefensible that one man, no matter his contribution to the country, should be holding the people to ransom. I know that a tree does not make forest. I am quite aware too that Mugabe alone is not responsible for the situation. There are many interests hiding behind him. It is even conceivable that in spite all the rhetoric and masochistic belligerence that the old man has become an executive prisoner trapped in a power system he pioneered which now has him cornered without escape route. This kind of structural analysis is important but it risks underestimating human agency and individual responsibility. Its primitive determinism may even be used to justify any situation rendering intervention impossible. If individuals are not important why do we have heroes and heroines? Why do we have leaders? We are neither zombie not automatons who behave in a predetermined way. Choices are made and unmade by human beings therefore accountability is first and foremost individual. Mugabe is no longer part of the problem of Zimbabwe: he is now the problem. The choice that he makes or not make can either help resolve the crisis or accentuate it. If he decides to step down there will be no body who will force him to remain in office. Neither the v dreaded Security services nor the aged ZANU-PF nomenclatural can force him to remain in the presidential palace. The fact that he has not taken that option is a deliberate personal choice just as his one man contest for candidacy of the party has always been his choice.
It is simply wrong and unacceptable that weeks after the March 29 general election the result of the Presidential contest is yet to be declared. Meanwhile there is a recount of the declared Parliamentary results! Even those who were willing to overstretch their good will to Mugabe must be finding it ridiculous or running out of excuses. Some of them continue to beg the issues further by forcing parallels with other botched elections. They point out that it took 6 weeks and the Supreme Court to declare Bush President of the USA in 2001. why should an avowed Pan Africanist leader vomiting all kinds of anti imperialist attacks be defended by Washington's non standard? They also point at the two months it took before the final results of the 2005 controversial elections in Ethiopia could be released. I am surprised they are not even saying that Mugabe is better than Meles who jailed those who defeated his party! Why should Africans always judge themselves by looking down instead of looking up to higher standards? Other people's bad manners and the hypocrisies of others should not justify the mischief making by Mugabe and his hirelings.
They have now shot themselves not just on the foot but all over the body by this syndicated circus. Whatever the outcome now they are losers because most reasonable people have concluded that they have tampered with and are still tampering with the result. Even if they declare the MDC as winners people will still say it is because of delayed shame or fear of consequences.
It is really sad that President Mugabe who is probably one of the better (if not the best) prepared leader for the job should end like this. He has 7 degrees (not honorary) for goodness sake! A man who acquired a mosaic of degrees in an academic cocktail of humanities and social sciences disciplines and also led one of the most successful liberation movements in Africa could not be accused of arriving in state house by accident. But he is ending his rule and life as a tragic figure hanging on and increasingly sounding and behaving like a man trapped in a time warp. It must sadden all Africans and good ammunition to all enemies of Africa who believe that nothing good comes out us no matter how well and promising the beginning was.
Unfortunately for Africa when one of us fails it is blamed on all of us. No one will blame Americans and other westerners for all the atrocities of George Bush. No one will even blame Brown for Blair's evil fraternity with Bush and other Europeans will quickly wash their hands clean of him. Yet these same people use Zimbabwe and Mugabe to beat our heads all the time. Consequently many Africans whether Presidents or peasants have become defensive about the situation. The fear of not being seen as echoing London and Washington has policed many of us into silence which ZANU-PF/Mugabe hard liners have harvested as popular support among Africans . While it maybe true that many Africans identify with Land reform (including grabbing it from the descendants of settlers who had violently grabbed it from Africans in the first place) and hale Mugabe's anti imperialist posturing we must be painfully aware that the conflicts in Zimbabwe goes beyond Land. It is high time we are more proactive in saying to the old man : thanks for the Land but enough is enough of your personal rule. It is dodging the issue to be constantly saying he is not the only one. Tripoli, Kampala, Douala, Addis Ababa, Luanda, Liberaville , Conakry and other places have long term rulers who really have to be looking at life outside of state house. However the fact that there are other culprits does not mean that those caught should not be dealt with. President Mugabe still has opportunity to exit with some dignity but it requires a level of selflessness and patriotism that may be lacking in him at the moment.
There is nothing revolutionary in perpetuating personal rule in the name of liberation. How many more Zimbabweans have to die before we stop blaming our leaders, the AU, SADC, COMESA, etc? What can you do wherever you may be to show concrete solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe? The workers of South Africa who refused to allow arms from China meant for Harare to be offloaded in the Durban port have shown the way. Their Mozambican comrades have done the same. Now the arms are heading for Angola and the workers of Angola need to also be clear that they will not be party to arming a regime destroying its own people. How can a country that cannot feed its citizens be importing arms? If our governments cannot act what about us in whatever symbolic way possible?
We need to rid ourselves of the anti western default reflexes we have internalized that makes anyone being attacked by the West, is ipso facto, African nationalist and anti imperialist hero or heroine. It is moral cowardice and politically irresponsible for us to hide indecision and inertia behind anti Western postures. London, Paris, Brussels or Washington and New York should not be our moral compass. We need to judge ourselves by higher standards . We have to stop watching our shoulders to see where London or Washington stands before taking a standard on matters of principle. It is is time to speak out and stand up for what we believe in.
*Dr Tajudeen Abdulraheem writes this syndicated column as a concerned Pan Africanist.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Letters
Africans beware of British Airways
2008-04-14
Ayodeji Omotade
On the 27th of March 2008 at about 12:30pm, I boarded the British Airways flight BA75 and I went straight to seat 53C. On getting to my seat, there were noises from an individual being forcibly restrained but who was not visible because some police officers and some plain clothes people held him down. The noise continued for more than 20 minutes and I was concerned because the individual was screaming in agony and shouting in pidgin English "I go die" meaning, I will die. I pleaded with the officers not to kill him and my exact words were "please don't kill him". The British Airways staff said that the officers were doing their jobs and that nothing was going to happen. The noise became louder and other passengers started getting concerned and were complaining especially about their safety. Eventually, a member of the cabin crew announced that the passenger was going to be removed and the passenger was removed from the plane and we all thought that was the end of the situation.
Five minutes later, two members of the cabin crew arrived with about 4 police officers and told me to get off the plane. I asked what the matter was and they said that I was not going to travel with the airline because the cabin crew thought I had been disruptive by questioning the noise being caused by the person that was removed. I pleaded with them that I was going for my brother's wedding and that I had all his stuff with me. I was dragged out of the plane as if I was resisting arrest. As we got to the corridor that linked the plane with the terminal building, I was slammed against the wall and made to sit on the floor. I was still pleading with them telling them that they had completely misunderstood me and that I was only complaining about the situation regarding the disturbances caused by the deportee they were trying to restrain and subdue. I was on the floor for about 20 to 25 minutes. Another passenger was brought to the corridor as well and he was also pleading with the officers. I was later put in the back of the police van at about 1:50pm and I was locked up there for about an hour or more still handcuffed.
I was formally arrested approximately 2:30pm and my rights were read to me. Before the arrest in the van, I managed to reach for my pocket and brought out my mobile phone. I made some phone calls to my wife, sister and a friend while the low battery sign was on because I was all alone and still handcuffed. I was later driven to the police station where I was formally checked in. I was in police custody for almost 8 hours and later released on bail after the interview with the duty solicitor and the detectives. I had £473.00 on me which was seized as well as £90.00 sent to my mother in-law from my sister in-law and £1,050.00 given to me by my cousin who is a doctor for the upkeep of his parents in Nigeria. All the money together was £1,613.00. I was told that I would appear in a magistrate court to prove the money was not meant for crime or proceeds of crime. The officer told me that they will like to see traceability and that I needed my payslips and bank account detailing my payments and withdrawals as well as my cousin's payments and withdrawals. I was released but without the money. I made my way to terminal 4 and arrived there at about 12:30am but the British Airways kiosks were closed. I was directed to the staff room and told them that I wanted to rebook my trip to Lagos. A lady told me to give her my ticket and she stated that British Airways has banned me from travelling with them indefinitely and that only the managers can use their discretions because I was a `disruptive passenger'.
I requested for my 2 piece luggage and she told me that the section will be opened later at about 5:30am and I will be escorted in to collect them. I slept on the chair and waited till about 5:30am and attempted to rebook my ticket but was told that British Airways refused to take me. I decided to go and pick up my stuff and I was told that my luggage were missing. I was handed a form with reference number LONBA90924. At this point, I became totally stranded because I could not leave without my luggage because it contained my brother's wedding suit, shirts and accessories. I was on the phone with my wife and she wanted to book an alternative flight that departs at 10:15am so that I could make it for the wedding. This was not possible because British Airways refused to disclose where my luggages were and did not remove my luggage from the flight when they called the police to arrest me. On Monday 31st of March, I appeared at the Magistrate court but was told that a decision was made about the £1,613.00 that was seized from me. The police had been granted a further 90 days to hold on to the money pending their investigation. I was given the officer's details as DC Webster 0208 721 9141. He requested 12 months bank statements and 6 months payslip to prove that the £473.00 that belongs to me was not proceeds of crime and also requested that the £1,050.00 that was given to me by my cousin for his parents should also be traced to my cousin's 12 months bank statement and 6 months payslip. DC Webster has promised to write me detailing these requests.
Still on Monday 31st of March 4 days after I was taken off the plane, I made extra efforts to find out the whereabouts of my 2 piece luggage (LONBA90924), because they have not been sent to my address as promised by calling the lost baggage section at 13:44hrs and spoke to a man called Neil who said that, it is difficult for them to trace my bags and that there is a strong possibility that they might be in Lagos. He suggested that I should call back in 24 hours. My bags were returned on Friday 4th of April. One week and one day after the incident. One of the bags was destroyed and the other was intact. I have wriiten to British Airways to complain and asked for my refund but I have not received anything from them yet.
I will not want to believe that the authorities involved in the situation deliberately or cleverly punished me unnecessarily out of frustration for not being able to restrain or subdue a deportee or that I as a fee paying passenger was accused of affray with violence when I was voicing my concerns about the disturbances caused by the deportees. I never mentioned any abusive or swear words neither was I physically threatening anyone. My luggage mysteriously was lost and I have been banned on all British Airways flights without a chance to say my part of the story to redeem myself. 200 passengers were asked to leave the flight because they expressed displeasure regarding the disturbances caused by the deportees and the officers trying to restrain him. My ticket was even refused to be endorsed by BA to enable me to fly with another airline.
I need full compensation of my loss and also a letter of apology from British Airways.
Time for Uncle Bob to retire!
2008-04-22
Malawi
The man, hero, fighter, Obert Mugabe is old. Its time for him to go and leave power to either those in his party or to those who win. He dealayed a bit, and his party has to loose power, fighter or no fighter humans are not anybody's property, not in the new era.
We are in the 21st century, with PhD's and what else, and we can not let people like Mugabe use the past to hold us to ransome. We have our own past, but we cannot stay home forever.
Tell your uncle its safe for him to go. He can even leave the party to his niecs and nephews, as long as they can win elections. Some tried, and others intend to. But people cannot be taken for granted and fed on lies, not even your own children. Loving Mugabe is not a sin, but forcing him on people and blaming colonialism is. The colonialism I know has nothing to do with propping dictators like mugabe as an altanative.
How long are we going to balme Arabs and westerners for our current problems. Why do allow corruption, by taking bribes from those we say we hate? And put on western clothes and learn the Romans and greecs heritage? We are worst hypocrites, you know. The ones who like they want to defend us are commiting genocide, abuse our women and economicaly rape us.
Think about it before you answer!
Zim: Nkomo or Mugabe?
2008-04-22
Newton Sibanda
I would like to commend Bill Fletcher for his well articulated article on Zimbabwe [http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/47437]. Quite enlightening. However, I would like to correct his wrong impression that Robert Mugabe was the main leader of the liberation movement in the then Southern Rhodesia. The reality is that the main leader was Joshua Nkomo and the decisive war was fought by his ZAPU party. Mugabe is in afct not a big name in the true and genuine liberation history of Zimbabwe. But he has a record of being a skillful chancer.
Fahamu - Networks For Social Justice
www.fahamu.org
© Unless otherwise indicated, all materials published are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For further details see: www.pambazuka.org/en/about.php
Pambazuka news can be viewed online: www.pambazuka.org/
RSS Feeds available at www.pambazuka.org/en/newsfeed.php
Pambazuka News is published with the support of a number of funders, details of which can be obtained at www.pambazuka.org/en/about.php
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE go to:
pambazuka.gn.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pambazuka-news
or send a message to editor@pambazuka.org with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line as appropriate.
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Pambazuka News or Fahamu.
ISSN 1753-6839