Political unrest has been widespread in Ethiopia since May elections that took the opposition close to securing a surprise victory over the ruling party. Last week, violence swept through the capital Addis Ababa as security forces cracked down on those participating in actions to protest the election result. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem calls for calm on both sides.

Since the May general elections in Ethiopia the country has been gripped by conflict. The country is only slowly returning to normal after a week long stay away called by the opposition who believed that the government robbed it of victory through unfair means. Both in June soon after the elections and now, several people have been killed and many more imprisoned.

While elections are supposed to indicate where the wishes of the people reside and both winners and losers are expected to respect the results, it is not often that easy in situations where neither is prepared for the result. Sometimes defeat can sound like victory and sometimes victory can be interpreted as defeat if the cost is too high. Both scenarios are playing themselves out in Ethiopia. The opposition has reason to be jubilant because in spite of the fields not being level they gained victories - some of them highly symbolic - against the ruling EPRDF.

In Ethiopia it is clear that neither the ruling EPRDF nor the two main opposition alliances, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF), were prepared for the results and the obligation that the results impose on them in a democratic setting.

For the first time since the EPRDF came into power 15 years ago it faced a more challenging and credible electoral opposition. It lost all the seats in the capital to the opposition and lost to the opposition in other regions in particular the Amhara region. Its immediate response was to see the result as a challenge to its authority. It was obvious that its political and security intelligence misinformed it about its popularity. It was clear to most observers that after 15 years the EPRDF has become vulnerable. As the likelihood of an armed overthrow of the regime has diminished even among the country's largest nationality, The Oromo (who have been the longest military opponents of the EPRDF), peaceful resistance and democratic opposition has grown.

As it happened to other post revolutionary regimes across Africa whether in Zimbabwe or Uganda, the longer the EPRDF stayed in power the less 'grateful' people became for its liberation struggle. Uganda is the more obvious parallel. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, like President Museveni before him, became a former revolutionary turned free-market reformer with new best friends in Washington, London, Brussels, and other patented capitals of what he would (before) have called, rightly, 'centres of imperialism'. Like other Clubbers in the now ageing 'New generation of African Leaders' Meles is a very fiercely intellectual leader who is able to stoutly articulate and defend his positions.

Again. like Uganda, Ethiopia is heavily dependent on aid but somehow the EPRDF until recent years managed to stave off Western intervention in its political affairs. A kind of dual mandate partnership (familiar to Ugandans) developed whereby Meles pursued neo-liberal economic policies of the IMF/World Bank and the dominant western powers gave him a huge discount on internal political matters.

But acceptance in the West also comes with its own conflicting demands and expectations. It is always the case that the more our leaders become popular abroad the less they are at home and the more complacent they become about their domestic constituency - hence they are ill-prepared to think of any possible defeat.

The opposition on the other hand - after overcoming initial timidity, lack of clarity or better alternative socio-economic policies - begin to unite in opposition. Some people will just want change for the sake of it. Younger generations also emerge who now take the gains of the past as their starting point - not the ceiling on what is possible. This is where former revolutionaries in power become reactionaries, taking political opposition to be treason, shooting demonstrators, jailing leaders of the opposition and generally punishing the people for not voting wisely (i.e. electing them in perpetuity).

The opposition too, having spent too long in opposition is often unprepared for its victories and reacts either too triumphantly or with selective de-legitimation. The former exaggerates how close they believe they have come to seizing the state house while the latter makes them to always query the result only in areas where they did not win.

A process of mutual demonisation ensues between an insecure government humbled by the polls - especially losing in the capital where the government is based - thereby becoming psychologically an occupying force. The opposition on the other hand suffers the delusion that its control of the centre and a few cities also mean that it is de facto government and is often tempted to behave so by unleashing 'people power' which is often met by a government show of power. This situation needs statesmanship and leadership to break the impasse. The tragedy for Ethiopia so far has been the absence of such vision. The government needs to accept that those who voted against it have neither committed any sin or crime while the opposition also have to accept that those in power are not from Mars but fellow Ethiopians with whom they have political differences. There cannot be meaningful dialogue if the government uses guns and prisons as its first weapon of choice and the opposition regards the government as illegitimate.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem visits Khartoum for the first time in eleven years. In 1994, Sudan was at the height of Islamist rule, but now the hotel halls are filled with international NGO staff and Southern rebels struggling to change from their battle fatigues to fancy suits. There are many challenges ahead for peace in Sudan – not least of which are the expectations of the masses – and the new order will have to go beyond a change of uniform or the swapping of army camps for fancy hotels.

I was in Khartoum last week attending a conference of the regional organisation, Inter Governmental Agency on Development (IGAD), on building consensus around a peace and security strategy for the sub region. It was a follow up to a previous meeting early this year conveyed by IGAD with the support of the Addis based Inter Africa Group.

For many years IGAD has been synonymous with two of Africa's long running conflicts that have now been negotiated: Somalia and Sudan. Both have taken several years but IGAD leaders, supported by the African Union and other international actors have been very patient and persistent.

That patience paid off in the formation of a Government of National Unity for Somalia but unfortunately the government is yet to take the full reins of power in Mogadishu. The prospect for lasting peace in Somalia is also seriously in doubt given the increasing consolidation of self-rule in Somaliland.

However the Sudan negotiations, through Machakos and Naivasha, culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army / Movement (SPLA/M) and the Government of Sudan and the inauguration of a Government of National Unity with power sharing between the South, North and Centre and some representation for other parties.

While there is a lot of confidence that the peace may hold despite the unfortunate death of the charismatic 'strong man' of the SPLA, John Garang only three weeks after assuming office as the first vice president of Sudan, there are continuing concerns that Sudan's peace is not comprehensive enough given the continuing death and suffering in the Darfur region, where the Government of Sudan continues to aid and abet its Janjaweed militia allies in their attacks on mainly Black African Darfurians.

So both peace agreements that IGAD is justifiably proud of are not perfect. However this alone should not deny the organisation cautious optimism about its capacity to be a collective regional instrument for promoting regional integration and development and to be a forum for peaceful resolution of peace and security issues concerning the peoples of the region.

The conference was an attempt to document the often informal processes that led to the peace negotiations, reflect on the experiences and build consensus on a vision for the future. The conference can claim a modest success on this initial sharing of perspectives. The consensus document agreed after the three-day meeting - that brought together academics, think tanks, CSO activists, policy makers, diplomats, and foreign friends of IGAD –points to continuing engagement by IGAD within a framework of a people-driven and people-friendly regional integration vision.

While peace and security issues are of utmost importance, participants agreed that they are not just for inter state relations of governments or armed groups alone: The vision must be broadened to embrace human security and wider engagement of all stake holders. IGAD has to look at other aspects of regional integration that can promote wider peace in the region: regional citizenship, promotion of democratic governance, protection of human rights, informal linkages through social groups, students, women, youth, education, development of regional infrastructure, etc.

While the IGAD meeting was the reason I was in Khartoum, my main interest also included seeing for myself how the transition is shaping up - especially since the death of Comrade John Garang. The last time I was in Khartoum was 11 years ago. I had gone there to persuade the original NIF government of Dr Hassan Al Turuabi and General Omar Al Beshir to participate in the 7th Pan African Congress. They were angry with us for inviting Dr Garang and 'treating him like a head of state' when they considered him then a 'dangerous rebel'.

Arriving in Khartoum I could not help recalling the Chinese prayer 'May you live in interesting times'. If Garang was not dead I would have met him, holding court in the Khartoum Hilton, as the Vice President of the country with the same people who did not even want him at a Pan-African gathering a few years before. By coincidence it was the same hotel I was put in by the Government in 1994. Of course the atmosphere now and then were completely different.

In 1994 Sudan was at the dizzy heights of its Islamism, the NIF government reveled in its pariah status in the west and even considered it some kind of chivalry for Allah. The composition of those then milling around the Hilton was different. I remember there was a big American delegation of the Muslim-Christian Council led by Nation of Islam people, and other Islamist delegations from one country or the other across the world, all guests of the government.

But now the Hilton is dominated by: BINGOs, RINGOs, UN types, consultants, business wheeler-dealers and other assorted vultures of peace out for a grab of the peace action. But the most important residents in the hotel are the new SPLA/M elite looking every inch out of place. They reminded me of Miles Collines Hotel or Meridien in Kigali in 1994 after the defeat of genocide or the Intercontinental Hotel in Kinshasa after the exit of Mobutu.

You see the new rebel elite, recently made ministers in cities they had left several years earlier or never entered. The ones that fascinate me most are the former rebel commanders, in their new suits, usually ill-fitting because they are more used to their jungle fatigues. It is always amusing to watch these commanders trying to become civilians. Soldiers do not walk they march! So you see these big guys in their fancy suits and many of them with bulging inside pockets. There is also the problem of learning the new pecking order because you do not want to offend the new Big Men (and their few Big Women) who have become Honorable this, Excellency that, etc.

But beyond all this it was mixture of 'sadness and joy' returning to Khartoum. Sad that John Garang who had done so much to bring about this change was not there, but happy to see his colleagues continuing the struggle. Everyone I spoke to and commiserated on the death of our dear comrade left me with those comforting words "aluta continua'. They need this spirit if they are to make peace meaningful for southern Sudanese people and the generality of Sudanese.

Peace dividends must go beyond the exchange of military uniforms for smart suits; or from make-shift camps to the comfort of 5 star hotels and ministerial villas. There are just too many challenges ahead. First, there are the huge expectations of the masses that now that their 'boys' are in power their conditions will improve. This is a tricky one because the South has known only war and therefore the only industry is crude military-industrial in nature.

Two, many Southerners displaced by the war in northern cities, especially the millions in Khartoum, are hoping to escape the indignities of second class status in the north for the south where the SPLA and allies will be in charge. What work will they do? Where would they live?

Three, those remaining in Khartoum will need symbolic and practical measures that will begin to reduce their feelings of second class stature and apartheid type discrimination. How can one explain why most of the manual laborers digging around Khartoum in the many construction sites in a booming newly enriched oil country are Southerners? Why are most of the waiters, bellboys, cleaners etc in the Hilton of Negroid extraction? These are uncomfortable questions but they cannot be avoided if peace is to make sense to all these marginalized peoples.

Four, as it stands now the peace deal seem to be mainly between the north and the south with the assumption that both Beshir's wing of the NIF (a.k.a National Congress Party) and the SPLA/M will remain firmly in power both in Khartoum and Juba. So what will happen to other marginalized groups such as SPLA/M 's former allies in the NDA, rebel groups in Darfur and others that may also restart hostilities?

There are many other challenges but one vital one I have to mention is the question of a referendum due half way through the six year transition. I have no doubt in my mind that an overwhelming majority of southerners will vote for independence. Indeed one has the feeling that Dr John Garang was probably the only person left in the movement who still believed in a united 'New Sudan'. His death meant that the last ‘one nation’ Sudanese southerner has died and the road now (no longer if but when) leads to an independent Southern Sudan.

I know this conclusion is difficult to accept for many Pan Africanists but we have to ask ourselves what kind of unity we are building if citizens cannot feel or be treated equally in their own country. An optimistic half way house may arise if the Government of Sudan can demonstrate through genuine good will, real remorse and real actions during this fist phase in the transition that it has indeed changed. I am not naturally a pessimist but I have my doubts if the extremist core of this regime really wants peace in the Sudan or wish to devour their enemies in phases. It may be the case that the transitional period offers opportunity for a trial separation with a certain divorce after the referendum.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

September was a bad month for Nigeria. First Chima Ubani, 42, director of the country's premier human rights NGO, the Civil Liberties Organisation, died in a car crash. Then, veteran activist Dr Yusuf Bala Usman died on September 24. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem remembers the lives of two extraordinary activists and calls for their spirit of struggle to be remembered.

The past week has not been a good one for the endangered species of committed progressive people in Nigeria. In the middle of the week there was the tragic death, by yet another road accident, of Comrade Chima Ubani,42, director of the country's premier human rights NGO, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), a foremost defender of the poor, and a shining star for consistency and total commitment to the struggle for the liberation of the ordinary people in the face of the successive autocratic military regimes of the 80s and 90s in Nigeria and the creeping elective dictatorship of Obasanjo since 1999.

Ubani died in an accident between Maiduguri and Kano in the north-east part of the country, where he had been part of the key leaders of civil society and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) mobilizing support for a successful series of national strikes across the country against yet another increase in the price of petroleum products. His body was returned to Lagos on Saturday.

That same day (Saturday 24 September, 2005) yet another tragedy struck at the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, with the death of a senior comrade, veteran struggle activist, radical historian and organic intellectual in the tradition of Frantz Fanon and Amilcar Cabral: Dr Yusuf Bala Usman.

Many people outside of Nigeria may not have known him personally but more would have become aware of him by reputation and remember and mourn the sad loss. It was an inconsolable weekend. For my generation of student activists Bala Usman was the icon of our times whose radical scholarship and political activism caused us to ask very uncomfortable questions about the kind of knowledge we were being taught and the society we were living in.
The 70s and 80s were full of epic battles and the cold war was at its peak. In Africa, the liberation of Southern Africa, including the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau on the West coast, Zimbabwe and South Africa from settler regime and apartheid were prominent on the agenda.

The struggle against neo-colonialism was also intense and anti imperialist struggles were being waged across the underdeveloped world from Africa through Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. These were days before donor-driven formalized struggles that have today turned many revolutionaries into ‘resolutionaries’. They were periods when imperialism was called its proper name and not disguised under euphemisms like globalisation, friends or partners!

Bala and his peers of equally committed scholar-activists from across the continent who were teaching in various universities in Nigeria in those oil boom days opened our eyes and ears to the world around us and inspired us to believe that we can change it for the better.

There were many radical scholars, some of them exiles and refugees from the Idi Amin and Obote 2 regimes in Uganda, including Prof Yolamu Barongo, the indomitable Okot a P'itek and Ocello Oculi. There were others like Yusf Bangura, AB Zack Williams and others. There were radical scholars from the Diaspora too like Dr Patrick Wilmot who was later deported from Nigeria by the Babangida regime. People Like Ali Mazrui were regular guest lecturers on Nigeria's campuses, trailing one controversy or the other. By no means were all the radical lecturers only Africans or people from the Diaspora.

The high point of this was the Centenary of Marx conference held at Ahmadu Bello University in 1983. Some of the sectarian political and intellectual battles that were to decimate the left forces can be traced to this period. Bala was very prominent in these debates and enjoyed for many years the status of first among equals. He was born into the royal house of Katsina in northern Nigeria and did not have to do anything to survive. He could just have demanded and be given anything he wanted by way of personal pleasures and riches by virtue of being a royal and growing up at a time when the Emirs held sway.

Bala could have combined his royal spoon with his academic erudition and choosen to be part of any government or ruling clique across the country and feed fat on the sweat and blood of the people of Nigeria. But Bala chose to side with the masses. He became a traitor to his class. He committed class suicide and remained a revolutionary throughout his life. He could have checked out of the country like many of us (some voluntarily, some of us stranded, and others through coercion or for tactical /strategic reasons) but he did not. He believed that he was best able to contribute directly from the home front.

Whatever political or intellectual disagreements anyone may have developed with Usman in a life steeped in struggles on many fronts, even his worst critics will pay him the tribute of saying he remained true to his convictions.

Nigeria is indeed made more impoverished both intellectually and politically now that the loud and very clear and thunderous voice of Bala will no longer be there to speak unpleasant truths to power in a potentially great country damned by successive little-minded leaders impervious to any knowledge that could go beyond their noses.

It is perhaps befitting to a life of struggle that Bala's last public duty that many will remember for its high drama was at a conference last month called by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on corruption. Bala was one of the participants. President Obasanjo was the chief guest and he addressed the audience with his usual monologue and holier-than-thou pomposity.

At intervention time Bala was on the floor and he, as was characteristic of his fearless and fierce intellect took on Baba Iyabo (Father of Iyabo, as Obasanjo is also known in Nigeria) and tore into the empty shrines of his timid anti-corruption crusade and leader-centric governance. As we all know, Obasanjo is such a big 'democrat' that he cannot understand or continence anyone disagreeing with him.

He ordered his security goons to seize the microphone from Bala. Somehow the security heavies could not find the over 6 feet tall Bala who was standing with a microphone in a hall full of all the high and mighty in Nigeria. The conclusion of many was that even the security guys were sympathetic to Bala's lampooning of President-Know-All.

That was Bala Usman: Bold, full of guts and fearless before those who think of themselves as our lords and masters. Of course the hypocrisy of conspicuous grief after death of a public figure is already suffocating the country. The President was one of the first to send condolences on the two departed comrades declaring one “a brilliant young activist” and the other “a statesman”. It is customary to pray for the departed: May the spirit of Bala and Chima remain restless and continue to haunt us to continue the struggle for which they lived and died actively serving.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Hurricane Katrina could become a catalyst for global cooperation if only the US would learn from the disaster that it is co-tenant in the world and not a landlord. In the meantime, writes Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, Africans have a duty to show solidarity towards the victims of the natural disaster.

I have never really understood how Hurricanes are named and by whom. The scale of the devastation of New Orleans means that anytime one hears the name Katrina, images of mass suffering will readily come to mind.

Second week into the natural disaster we are nowhere near a common understanding of why the world's richest and allegedly most powerful country appeared prostate before the forces of nature. A bigger part of the controversy is based on a number of questions.

One, how natural was it if it had been long forewarned? Two, could it have been prevented? Three, if it could not be prevented should the communities not have been better prepared to deal with the consequences? Four, what was the level of culpability of local, state and federal officials in making the consequences of the disaster even more tragic either by acts of omission or commission, actions and inactions? But above all is the question of political accountability and responsibility for the consequences of the disaster.

George W. Bush, self-appointed saviour of the world, gung ho macho-militarist and prophet of pre-emptive action in far-flung places around the world either did not see the Hurricane under his nose or did not have any missiles to throw at it.

He has rightly been criticised for his reluctance (yet again) to get out of his holiday bed. But this slow reaction has become typical of Dubya. The man has been such an executive truant that he simply could never be found where he is supposed to be. Even when 9/11 (that he hijacked as his life's purpose and regime-defining issue) happened Bush was missing and remained in hiding for several days.

The rest of the world has continued to watch with both horror at the devastation and subdued bemusement and incredulity at the ill-preparedness of the Americans in the face of this tragedy. If it was in some third world country (especially Africa) there would be loud cries (no more louder than those from Washington) about irresponsible leadership.

There are three immediate lessons that I see. The first lesson is a very simple one. Every one of us, in emergencies, need help, rich or poor, big or small. Who would have thought that less than a year after the tragedy of the Tsunami that devastated several countries mainly in South East Asia and parts of East Africa, some of these countries including Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia would be coming forward to offer help to the USA!

The second one is that natural disasters do happen and can happen to any country. It only proves that we inhabit the same world even if some countries may deceive themselves that they are God's Landlords on earth. There is no territorial sovereignty over natural disasters.

The third lesson has to do with being humble and never saying never. As in a popular soap, the rich also cry and the poor also laugh. Last September, a Category 5 hurricane devastated Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. Cuba evacuated 1.5 million of its citizens before the storm. Consequently even though many homes were destroyed not a single Cuban died! The USA does not have all the answers to both its problems and global challenges. It can and must learn from others whose system it may like, whose leaders it detests but who have better knowledge and experience than the US in managing emergencies.

The other aspect of the disaster has to do with what it teaches us about America and the American way of life, its self-image, the projection of global military power and the reality inside the country.

The controversies are still raging as to whether racism or class are the main reasons why Bush and the US establishment have responded so shoddily. Personally I do not think it is a case of either or and I do not believe that one reason alone can explain the situation. It has to be a combination of reasons at the heart of which both class and race are fundamental factors.

America does not care about its poor people. This is not unique to the US ruling class since so many rulers do not care about their poorest, as most Africans will attest. However America as the richest country on earth is expected to look after its own. If it cannot why should anybody in the world accept its claims to wanting to solve other people's problems for them?

The truth is that the American dream has always been a self rationalization ideology for the rich. It has always been a harvest of huge nightmare for the poor and underclass in the system. Structurally and historically a disproportionate majority of these groups are of African-American origin therefore they bear greater part of the suffering. I am sure middle class African-Americans, with their 4-by-4’s, wider social networks beyond New Orleans and credit cards got out of harm's way as quickly as their white counter parts, but the bulk of their poor cousins had nowhere to go and perished in their thousands. Even those who could go elsewhere could not do so in good time because poverty had already condemned them to inadequate and vulnerable housing that Katrina gulped up at its first deadly kiss.

As a predominantly black place the majority of the victims would be black. Therefore race cannot be far from the surface. Indeed so black is the face of suffering globally that many people, including many Africans, initially thought the pictures were from yet another blighted African country. The shock was that these are pictures from America. Africans are known for their generosity, solidarity and kindness in the face of extremes of adversity but somehow we have not responded predictably to the tragedy in New Orleans despite the obvious connection. Are we so numbed by it that we are also shocked into delayed reaction or have become inured by familiar suffering that we cannot be bothered any more?

This is not just about African government’s responding. It is about African leaders in the diaspora too. It is not about Africans in Africa alone. It is about global Africa, at home and abroad. Where are we at this hour of need for our peoples stranded in New Orleans? We have to show that we as Africans have a duty to care and take the obligation seriously. That solidarity comes in different forms. America needs the rest of the world even if it was initially reluctant to ask for it. It has no missile shield defence system against natural disasters.

One good that may come out of this could be a grudging restoration of American faith in global institutions like the UN whose humanitarian agencies (in spite of general criticisms) are better equipped to deal with these type of emergencies. If the US learns from this disaster that it is a co-tenant, not the landlord of the world, then this tragedy could become a catalyst for global cooperation that may make the suffering of the people of New Orleans not to have been in vain.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, missing in Nigeria for the last five weeks, discusses the aspirations of the continental powerhouse to African and international leadership. Despite its stated intentions, the country just doesn’t seem able to get its act together, he writes, using as examples Nigeria’s loss of the African Development Bank presidency to Rwanda and its quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

I must begin this piece with a thousand apologies to my readers for the spasmodic and epileptic appearance of this column in the past five weeks. It would have been easier for me to advise my editors and readers that I was going to be on holiday for X number of weeks. But as a 'good African' the idea that I should be on holiday was anathematic to the cultural instinct.

Whether peasants or presidents we are programmed to work till we die even if the evidence of the work may remain scanty. If you suggest to an African that he/she should go on holiday he/she starts suspecting that you want to get rid of him or her! Annual leave and a period set aside when you throw caution to the winds and just relax are anathematic to many Africans, rich or poor, urban or rural. Our lives are a kind of permanent emergency needing constant urgent attention. Therefore we keep trying to fit in permanent work without break – as well as the numerous immediate and extended family demands on our time and endless socio-cultural, multi tasked economic coping mechanisms in addition to endless community, and village must do activities!

The other and perhaps more pressing reason has to do with the objective fact of where I have been in the past five weeks: Nigeria. Somehow the country is not synonymous with holidays! The hassle and tussle of survival in Africa's allegedly No 1 country and self-declared super power is one that will task the best spirits of the most eccentric adventurer. As regular readers of this column will know, over the past five years when I became a legal visitor to Nigeria again - after more than a decade of being 'wanted' by the various caricatures of leaders - whenever I am in Nigeria this column is never regular. All kinds of objective and subjective circumstances conspire to make this column less than regular whenever I am in the country. Hence the various editors (whose papers carry this column) have developed a kind of 'Nigerian discount' for my lapses in beating deadlines. The amazing thing is that I have written this column without failing from all kinds of places before, including blighted war torn Eastern Congo, remote places in Burkina Faso, on French keyboards in a Café where people spoke only French or local languages I did not understand; and also from newly liberated post Genocide Kigali. Nigeria is on the face of it not at war but not a peace therefore everything is a daunting obstacle race!

Yet this is a country that has proclaimed since independence from the British in 1960, its 'manifest destiny' not only to lead Africa but Black people wherever they may be in the world. The irony is that many Africans or even African countries are not disputing this putative leadership. They only wished that Nigeria were able to lead effectively. If anything stands in the way of Nigeria it is its own self-doubt and its inconsistencies that is undermining its claims to leadership.

Take the example of two out of many issues currently occupying the chatters of foreign policy minded academics, policy wonks, sections of the media and some civil society activists: Nigeria's recent loss of the Africa Development Bank (ADB) presidency to Rwanda and Nigeria's quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

The national pride was greatly hurt that 'little Rwanda', despite not having majority African support in most of the tortuous stages of the ADB presidency contest, defeated Nigeria in Tunis after a deadlock in Abuja.

A number of things counted against Nigeria, which my Nigerian friends are unwilling to come terms with. One, the country's influence does not go far beyond Abuja itself. If you bring people to Abuja you can have your way but outside of it they may change their minds. Two, Nigeria is too complacent in its diplomacy, believing that its case is 'too clear.' Three, this complacency makes its officials to believe that the country is the only selling point whoever the candidate is. Four, Obasanjo's obsession with external validation was once again proven to be pointless. He bends over backwards (often against national instinct for anti western independence) to please America in particular and the West in general yet when it matters their own geopolitical interests dictate clipping Nigeria's wings in Africa and building sub regional counter checks. Five, it is not only the West that is interested in cutting Nigeria to size. There are many seemingly friendly African countries who desire the same though they may not openly articulate this. South Africa is an obvious candidate in this category. So is Egypt, Libya, and many other pretenders to leadership of Africa. There are smaller and less resourced states who cannot make such claim but play the bigger or better resourced African states against each other, buttering their bread in all ways and most of the time going for the highest bidder. It’s a kind of cash and carry diplomacy.

Post apartheid South Africa has many reasons to be grateful and friendly towards Nigeria but it also has many reasons to check mate Nigeria's regional influence as it seeks its own economic and strategic interests on the continent. It wants business with Africa's largest market but also contests the leadership claims of Africa's sleeping giant. No amount of personal rapport between leaders and diplomatic niceties can hide these contradictions. Nigeria's folly is in believing that 'there is no problem.'

Six, and perhaps more importantly under Obasanjo, Nigeria has developed a more personalised diplomacy around 'Baba' and whatever whims catch his erratic moods. Professional, well-trained and experienced diplomats of which there are many in Nigeria's foreign ministry have been relegated to mostly onlookers or undertakers for a very interventionist and domineering presidency. It is very clear that Obasanjo believes he is his own best foreign minister in addition to being the best in everything Nigerian! The ‘Babacracy’ (or is it ‘BabaCRAZY’?) that undermines Nigeria's nascent democratic order has been extended to foreign affairs, making it impossible for anybody to have any positive influence unless Baba allows them.

There are many more reasons that Nigerians need to wake up to if they are going to realise many of their assumed and oft repeated diplomatic and strategic goals in Africa and the world. Otherwise they will forever be beaten by so called small countries backed by larger interests.

And this is where Nigeria's immediate foreign policy goal of securing one of the two anticipated African seats on the UN Security Council in the ongoing UN reform proposals also runs into serious troubles. If Nigeria has its house in order no African country would be bold enough to challenge its claim - rather they would be clamouring for the second seat. However, even in West Africa where Nigeria claims to be the sub regional power, Senegal is also in the race. If Nigeria cannot have the unanimous support of its own backyard why should it expect the unanimous endorsement of the rest of Africa?

The atmosphere is so charged that many of my Nigerian friends and comrades have lost all kinds of objectivity in assessing their situation and think I must be a traitor to be raising doubts about the country's ineffectual claims to continental leadership when it cannot even lead itself. Some even suggest that I have lost touch and I have no right to comment on Nigerian affairs because I have been away for so long from the country.

Yet what we are debating is not domestic affairs but international affairs. They need to persuade others not themselves but somehow this detail is lost in the petty nationalist jingoism that clouds these discussions. And they wonder why 'foreigners' cannot accede to their claims! If they claim that because a Nigerian lives outside of the country he or she has no right to talk about domestic politics they should at least have consistency in their own logic by being a little bit humble when discussing matters outside the borders of Nigeria. The 'foreign' Nigerians may have more to share with them by way of how others see Nigeria, which is far different from how many Nigerians see their country, its potential, place and role in both African and global affairs.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Who would have thought that exactly three weeks after the historical and momentous occasion of the inauguration of the transitional government of national unity in Khartoum we would be mourning the death of the vice president of Sudan, under that peace agreement , Dr John Garang . In less than a month, the huge hope and expectations raised by the peace agreement (signed in Naivasha, Kenya , in January ), negotiated for several years and culminating in the inauguration of July 9, seem to be doomed .

The predictable riots in Khartoum mostly by grieving southerners and the even more predictable high handed response by the Sudan security forces only serve the cynicism of many people both inside and outside who have always believed that peace between the north and south, meaning Arabs and Africans is not possible.

Between July 7 and 9 the whole world watched the outpouring of emotions on the streets of Khartoum and other parts of Sudan as John Garang arrived for the innauguration of the transitional government. Little did we all know that the millions that turned out to welcome the newly rehabilitated rebel leader to a city he last visited 21 years ago and the many more who turned out on July 9 for the inauguration and saw him take the oath of office as the first vice president of Sudan were saying good bye to Dr John.

Like most people, when I first learnt of the disappearance of the helicopter in which Dr. Garang was travelling I immediately suspected foul play. It was a hope against hope between Saturday evening and Sunday evening when it was finally confirmed that the aircraft had crashed and there were no survivors.

The immediate consensus from many quarters was that foul play was unlikely. This quick verdict further fuelled one's suspicions. Before a definitive verdict was declared there should have been an investigation first. There were two reasons why many people believed the 'no foul play' explanation. One, Garang was travelling from Uganda, on one of President Museveni's aircraft flown by Ugandan crew. Since Museveni has been the closest regional ally of Garang it is inconceivable that he would have been party to any conspiracies against his long term comrade. The other reason I believe is that nobody wants to contemplate foul play because the peace process in which everyone has invested so much material and political resources for many years both regionally and internationally will be dead. Therefore fear of failure and desperation for victory dictates giving the benefit of the doubt.

Both reasons are not enough for us to suspend all disbelief. If you are an Arab chauvinist (as there are many among Sudan's ruling elite) who did not believe in sharing power with African Sudanese and who have spent all your live demonising Garang the January peace accord and Garang's swearing in on July 9 was a day of defeat for you. If you were also a Southern chauvinist who believe that peaceful coexistence with your Arab neighbours was not possible then Garang will be a traitor as far as you were concerened.

Between both groups killing Garag would have been on the cards but which of them had the means? Also If you were planning to take your revenge what other circumstance will give you the best cover for your dastardly act and a fool proof alibi than Garang travelling to his foremost allied country and in that country's aircraft manned by its citizens, to mount your counter attack? Even Agatha Christie could not have constructed a more perfect murder . Therefore while we are assured that Garang was under the safe care of his Ugandan allies, who will guarantee us that there were no enemies lying in the jungles of kidepo and environ as the helicopter headed for Lumbek? As for the other reason about wanting peace at all cost it has thrown blinkers in the eyes of many of us . While I am prepared to agree that the top leadership in Khartoum , i.e . Omar Al Bashir and Ali Osman Taha, may mean their commitment to peace we cannot say the same for some of their generals.

Those fervently opposed to the new peace deal do not need the permission of Khartoum to carry out there anti peace efforts. While they may be allies of Khartoum and could have been aided and abetted by them, Khartoum may not be able to control all their efforts. We have curent examples among the Janjaweed elements in Darfur who began as allies of Khartoum but now operate beyond the control of their former masters. Another pertinent example is the Sudan – Uganda deal that even gave Uganda right of hot pursuit into Sudan territory against the LRA. More than two years later LRA is still very much operating in Sudan with the connivance of sections of the Sudanese military and security establishment. Who is to say the same type of fifth columnists were not at work in the border regions of Uganda, Kenya and Sudan last Saturday?

We welcome Uganda's immediate setting up of an investigation panel and call for joint effort with the Government of Sudan, IGAD, and the African Union and international community to independently investigate the crash in order to assure those who are extremely doubtful that it was an unfortunate accident . The same was said of Samora Machel's crash but we know better now. Until we have the report of that panel it is difficult to say a proper goodbye to comrade John Garang . That will come later. For now one is full of why and who type questions. Before you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist please let me share an anecdote with you. A Schizophrenic Man was accused of being paranoid and he retorted to his accuser: "The fact that I may be paranoid does not mean that there is no one conspiring against me."

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, our regular columnist, reflects on Norway’s decision to suspend some of its aid to Uganda as a result of faltering democratic reforms. It’s interesting that the West is only now starting to express concern over Uganda after treating President Yoweri Museveni as its ‘darling’ for many years, points our Abdul-Raheem. Museveni’s response of rejecting foreign interference and claiming that the Ugandan electorate should decide on his third term is also questionable. Why didn’t he reject foreign interference when it worked in his favour and why didn’t he consult the electorate when the World Bank and International Monetary Fund came knocking on his door?

Norway has cut some Aid to Uganda reportedly in protest against the 'slow pace and direction of democratic reforms' in the country. The Norwegian Ambassador to the country, Tore Gjos, put a sum to this displeasure at "mishandling of the democratic process'' at a whopping amount of $4 million which is ten percent of total Norwegian Aid to Uganda. The British government earlier in April took a similar line when it withheld $9.5 million in budgetary support to the Uganda government.

It will not be surprising if one or two more so called Donor countries took similar action. But they will be merely symbolic. It is important to note that both the British and the Norwegians talk about 'withholding' not canceling their Aid altogether. So the opposition need not congratulate itself that its campaign against Museveni is succeeding.

No doubt the withholding of Aid has something to do with the stated displeasure at the zigzags in the transitional politics of the country from a virtual one party state to a formal multi party system. The irony is that return to multi-partyism canvassed by both the opposition parties and donor friends of the President for many years - especially after the first ten years of division of Labor between them and the President - is exactly what Museveni has come round to. Is it now a case of not heading the advice: 'Be careful what you pray for, you may just get it'!

From 1986 to 1996 as a reward for bringing Uganda up from the backwaters into a 'positive' role model through macroeconomic reforms Museveni was given a huge discount on the usual democratic conditionalities beloved of Western countries when it pleases them. For being the apostle of IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment policies he was more or less allowed to shape the politics of the country in his own image. He left the economy to them and they left the politics to him. He became the darling of the west and Kampala a must destination for Western delegations desperate for some good news from Africa or wanting to feel good about themselves.

However the romance has gone bad for many reasons. One, Uganda is no longer the single success story it used to be. Just look at the stories about Mozambique today and you wonder if you were not talking about Uganda of the 1990s. Two, almost all African countries have accepted the reactionary neo-liberal orthodoxy that proclaims that there is no alternative to the market. With so many of them prostrating before imperialism there is no need to be specially disposed towards one particular state or leader.

Three, imperialism has only permanent interests, not permanent friends. This is something that African and other Third world leaders always miss. They think they are so close, so popular and well liked in Washington, Paris, London or Brussels and delude themselves that they are indispensable. They are as dispensable as disposable towels in a toilet. When their Western patrons are tired of them they turn off the tap. The same people who praise them to the heavens as 'the best leader possible' 'the savior of the country', 'the best they can offer' or 'without him there will be chaos' will turn round to condemn them in the direct opposite of those praises.

Four, one of the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet bloc is a more positive environment for democratic politics to take root in many countries. While the West is not necessarily interested in democracy but continuing domination / exploitation, in recent years they are becoming more sophisticated in trying to give democratic legitimacy to their domination through some legitimate domestic processes. Partly this is because civil society in the West itself demands that their governments support what they preach although where their interests are more threatened like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, they do not shout so much. Also domestic pressures in many countries challenge the West's hypocrisy and double standards but also make democratic claims on their rulers. However for the many Banana/Ugali republics in Africa their shouts are much louder and impact more direct.

President Museveni and his supporters have generally reacted in two predictable ways. One, they consider the threats of cutting Aid or withholding such and critical comments on the political transition as unacceptable foreign intervention. Their second counter is a seemingly democratic one. All the political issues, they argue, are to be decided by 'the people' therefore it is undemocratic for foreign countries to think they know better than the Ugandan electorate.

In principle both counters are legitimate but the politics is not. Uganda and President Museveni enjoyed so much foreign patronage and basked in it for so long that it is too late in the day to start decrying foreign intervention. They are not opposed to foreign intervention in principle as long as it is on their side. They obviously think that the saying 'those who pay the piper dictate the tune' does not apply to them.

The second argument about letting the people decide is the most unconvincing of the various populist responses from the NRM. They did not ask the people of Uganda when they went to the IMF/World Bank and prostituted themselves to all kinds of donors and foreign interests in the name of inviting investors to Uganda and building a middle class, so why now ask the people to decide only when you have contradictions with your friends? It is not every time that people vote that there is democracy or even a democratic outcome. Even Hitler came in through the ballot box.

The bitter truth though is that after this process is all over the same donors will crawl back to the state house in Kampala bearing their Greek gifts and the president will make his usual jokes, pet talks and foreign rounds and things will return to business as usual. It happened in 1996 and 2001 and who says it will not repeat itself even in the changing circumstances of 2006?

The NRM has succeeded in creating an opposition whose internal bickering and inconsistencies make many to fear them more even when they are alienated from the government. The opposition must learn from the experience of other pro-democracy groups in Africa like Senegal where it took more than forty years and an alliance of 17 opposition parties to get rid of Abdu Diouf or Ghana where Jerry Rawlings' party was fought to a standstill and eventual surrender through consistent battles within democratic spaces opened up through a constitution that he had orchestrated to perpetuate himself or his party if self -succession failed.

Or just look across to neighboring Kenya where after several years of squabbles and internecine warfare, once Moi was not in the picture the opposition was able to get rid of KANU. In both Ghana and Kenya it was important that the long-term ruler was not standing in the election. This is where the removal of limitation on presidential terms in Uganda posits different challenges for a coalition of opposition parties. As long as the President is standing it may be extremely difficult but as the Abdu Diouf experience in Senegal shows, it is not impossible.

What unites all three examples is the continuing engagement by the political parties within the skewed and unbalanced political field but at the same time niggling away at the authority of the ruling party. They did not achieve their victory through boycotts and I do not see how Uganda's anti-NRM groups will use boycott to get rid of Museveni and the NRM. How can they boycott a referendum simply because the government is on the same side. Why bother about the reasons of the NRM instead of concentrating on their own intentions for supporting a return to multi-party democracy? Why boycott the referendum and then contest the election to follow?

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is at a loss for words over the current Live 8 and G8 attention for Africa. “It is like being offered a handkerchief by the same person who is beating the hell out of you,” he writes, preferring to focus his attention on the just-concluded African Union summit of heads of state that took place in Shirte, Libya. It was at this summit, he argues, that decisions about he real future of Africa were being made.

How I wish I could write this article from beginning to end without mentioning the G8, Tony Blair, Geldof or any of the other busy bodies running around like headless chickens claiming they want to help Africa. I will try and try very hard.

One of the difficulties with becoming flavour of the moment is that you forget what you want for yourself as others divest you of the power to help yourself. Everybody loves Africa now and is going to desperate lengths to show why they are our new best friends!

It is like South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. Suddenly we could not find any supporters for the loathed apartheid system anymore both inside and outside of South Africa. Even the Boer Nationalist Party that institutionalised apartheid became anti apartheid. Everywhere Mandela went powerful politicians in powerful countries in Europe and America who had shielded the apartheid regime from international sanctions and prevented censure of the racist regime in multi lateral forums including the UN Security Council, Commonwealth, EU, etc were all queuing up to have their pictures taken with the Great Madiba. They all reinvented their political CVs to show how all along they had been fighting for his release and an end to apartheid. One of the worst of this latter day friend of South African Liberation was Margaret Thatcher, who as British Prime Minister resisted any criticisms of apartheid South Africa, invited Botha on a state visit to London and described the ANC as a 'typical terrorist organisation like the IRA.'

Africa is in a similar situation now. It is difficult to know how to react to this sudden show of concern for a people that have been so marginalized and humiliated for such a long time. It is like being offered a handkerchief by the same person who is beating the hell out of you.

After last Saturday's multi-city parties the whole world is now programmed to look up to eight white men in dark suits meeting in far away Gleneagles, Scotland, to save Africa. None of them is an African.

Yet a much bigger assembly of another powerful group of people, all of them heads of state from across Africa, were meeting in the Libyan city of Shirte deciding on the future of Africa without a similar focus in the global media.

It is these people through their action and inaction who have the power to change things for the better or worse on this continent. Anybody who really cares about helping Africa needs to know what these group of unfortunately, all men, have been saying to themselves.

The fifth ordinary Summit of the Assembly of the African Union has just ended in Shirte. The leaders amongst other pressing issues had to address themselves to the dances for poverty and pledges for action from outsiders about Africa. They welcomed the initial debt relief package for developing countries out of which 15 African countries will benefit. However they called for universal debt cancellation that benefits all African countries, not just a select few.

This is a logical consensus given previous experience of African countries scandalously competing among themselves about who is more connected in Washington, London or Paris. Individually they sold out but collectively we may regain some dignity and credibility. They have to avoid being played against each other. The separate deal for debt relief for Nigeria is potentially one of those divide and rule tactics. It may limit Nigeria's capacity to talk on behalf of Africa and also neutralise it in bloc negotiations, whether in the WTO or in the IMF/World Bank. My own suspicion is that they have agreed to throw this carrot at Nigeria as an advance compensation for her not to get the much-coveted UN Security Council permanent seat, which will more likely go to South Africa.

Significantly, the AU summit did not dwell so much on aid but rather called for the abolition of unfair trading rules that rig international trade against Africa and asked for a clear timetable for the abolition of these subsidies. One can see that the African leaders are not taken in by various pledges on aid and rather want us to trade our way to prosperity instead of being aided to remain dependent. This contrasts with Prophet Blair's breakthrough in getting a calendar on aid targets. The AU is saying we need some fair-trade not some aid.

These are the messages that the African leaders invited to the G8 as side salads will be taking to Gleneagles. I really wish that these leaders would stop ridiculing themselves by appearing like an NGO lobby group at the Summit of Rich White Men. From next year they should have a face-to-face summit to review any progress on mutually agreed targets. After all that is what the mutual accountability principle in the African Peer Review Mechanism is all about. It is about us judging ourselves and also mutually judging each other with our so-called international partners.

Apart from the response to the G8, the AU summit made numerous decisions on a variety of issues that have direct impact on Africa and Africans in more of a way than anything a group of ageing rockers and an exclusive club of white men will do for Africa.

One of those defining issues is the call by the Brother Leader, Muammar Gadaffi, which President Museveni immediately supported, for an all-African Union government and a dismantling of all barriers to freedom of movement for Africans across Africa. While many dismiss this as hasty and too ambitious I would like to remind them to rewind to the reaction to Gadaffi's call for an acceleration of the integration process through a review of the OAU charter at an Extra ordinary summit in the same city of Shirte in September 1999. Then as now the idea was initially dismissed as far-fetched but within three years we had the African Union. Its institutions are now taking shape and at this summit the Libyan leader was upping the stakes for the AU to rise up to the next phase of the struggle for unity without which we will remain beggars and vulnerable to extra African powers. There is no point in asking the rich countries to open up their markets to us when we close ours against each other. We cannot sustainably globalise without Africanising.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reports on a week-long commemoration of the life of Walter Rodney, held in Guyana. Rodney was assassinated on June 13, 1980, but continues to be remembered for his principled politics, philosophy of human and self-emancipation, leadership by example and commitment to the masses.

On June 13 it was exactly 25 years since the assassination of the Guyanese scholar-activist, Walter Rodney. To commemorate his life the Walter Rodney International Commemoration Committee headed by Professor Horace Campbell and their local counter parts in Guyana organised a week long series of groundings across the country that culminated in the unveiling of a memorial plaque and opening of a public park around the spot where Rodney was assassinated on June 13 1980, by a remote controlled bomb.

The government of Burnham Forbes claimed that a bombing device he was carrying, allegedly to attack the central prison where some of the activists of his party, Working Peoples Alliance of Guyana (WPA) were being held, killed Rodney. This official lie could have turned his assassination into a perfect murder but for the fact that his brother, Donald, was with him in the fateful car and survived the explosion. A state security operative, Smith, was fingered as the perpetrator of the dastardly act. He was quickly spirited out of the country to French Guyana where he died a few years ago. The murder trail did not begin or end with Smith. Burnham Forbes regime and his party, the PNC, bears responsibility for the assassination and the cover up since then. It is sad that 25 years after the assassination and thirteen years since the PNC was replaced as governing party by the PPP no closure has been brought to the Rodney assassination.

The commemoration was not about Rodney's death but a celebration of his principled politics, philosophy of human and self-emancipation, leadership by example and consistent practice. It was also about Rodney's life-long commitment to the masses. Participants came from several countries and continents including the Caribbean, Europe, North America and Africa. Many of them were people who knew and worked with Rodney and others were those who were influenced by his writing.

Prof. Ali Mazrui was there as was Prof. Loxley. Both of them were at Makerere University when Rodney was at the University of Dar Es Salaam. In a very generous appreciation -despite ideological and political differences with Rodney - Prof. Mazrui paid tribute to Rodney and recounted with great humour and truthfulness the famous Mazrui-Rodney debate at the Great Hall of Makerere University, where for many years Mazrui was the leading academic.

Rodney's widow, Patricia, and their three children: Shaka, Kanini and Asha (the last two were born in Dar es Salaam) were there. Pat and her two daughters (one a medical Doctor and the other a human rights lawyer) were in Guyana for the first time since Rodney's assassination. Shaka (who is in business in Barbados) had been home before in the early years of the PPP government when he staged a hunger strike to force an inquiry into his father's assassination. The government did set up some commission, which soon fizzled out.

At the official opening, Dr Patricia Rodney gave a comprehensive appreciation of her late husband as a human being, imperfect but an ordinary man who did extra ordinary things. It was highly emotional to hear Pat sweeping through their trials and tribulations from Guyana to the UK to Jamaica to Tanzania back to Guyana in 1974 and leading to Walter's assassination 6 years later. The meeting recognised, applauded and saluted Pat's courage, determination and comradeship with Rodney. Often we treat our 'heroes' in isolation of their private lives and forget about their family lives and loves. Sometimes it is as if they died with the hero. Patricia was not just a wife to Rodney but a partner and comrade in arms. The way she has raised their children after his tragic death at a very young age of only 38 is a testimony to her fully shared commitment with Walter that a different world is possible.

For many Africans Walter's legacy remains his influential and seminal book: ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’. A book that was published when Walter was only 29 years old having secured his PHD at the age of 24! By whatever standard -whether professionally or politically - Rodney was an exceptional person whose influence will continue among all struggling peoples desiring a different world and working to make it possible.

In ‘How Europe Undeveloped Africa’ Rodney laid bare the historical process through which Africa became the mess that we see all around us. He established that there was nothing natural or God ordained about the processes. They were man made and therefore changeable by act of human will and determination. He showed how Africa developed before contact with Europeans through slavery (400 years) and colonialism (100 years); what happened under slavery and colonialism and how both led to Africa contributing to the development of Europe while Europe was under developing Africa in the same process.

Rodney was not just a brilliant academic but also a committed political activist who put his knowledge at the service of the masses wherever he was. He was a scholar who proved through his life that the true test of knowledge was a proven capacity for action. Whether in Jamaica where he began his academic career or Tanzania where he became internationally prominent or in Guyana where he returned (initially to teach but the government withdrew the appointment when he arrived) Rodney was part of all the struggles around him.

In Dar, which was then a centre of progressive ideas, Rodney was part of the ferment, supporting the struggles and at times offering critical inputs. He made friends and comrades of many leading radical intellectuals and liberation fighters of the time and influenced generations of students. I wonder though what Rodney would have said to some of his comrades like President Museveni, who have captured state power and instead of building socialism and a new society have made their peace with imperialism and free market.

Sadder still, what would Rodney have made of Tanzania of today where the term Ndugu is more out of jest than the camaraderie of the past, a place where Uhuru "now has a new name …..mobitel" as caricatured in a an advert for mobile phones I saw a few years ago on the streets of Dar.

When he returned to Guyana and he was denied his professorial post at the University he turned to independent research, publishing the first volume of his definite ‘History of the Guyanese Working Class’. He showed how whether Indian or African, the Guyanese workers were exploited first by colonialists and later successive ruling elites - be they African or Indian. From that analysis he sought a solution in building an alliance of workers across the race and ethnic divide. That was how he and other progressive elements formed the Working Peoples Alliance whose aim was social transformation of Guyana. That political stance and his popularity across the divides made him a number one enemy.

But the remembrance has shown that though Rodney is dead his ideas and example continues to live on. It was very symbolic that one of the highlights of the activities was an all-night cultural extravaganza, ‘Rhythm for Rodney’ which was held in Burnham's former house where he and his henchmen were waiting for the news of Walter's assassination on that fateful evening on June 13 1980.

The theme of the groundings was ‘A different world is necessary' but it is not only necessary it is possible. The people of Guyana and other Caribbean states simmering under not so hidden racial bigotry and sectarian politics need Rodney's non racialist pro-people politics; Africa needs his non mercenary scholarship and political commitment to the cause of the masses while the world need his message of love for all humanity and optimism about the capacity of ordinary folks supported by organic intellectuals and other progressives to change their conditions for the better.

In addition to many practical resolutions and action points agreed on the final day of the groundings, we adopted two important resolutions. Both of them were directed at the Guyanese people and government but those outside can lend their support through active solidarity. The first resolution asks that Rodney's contribution to Guyana be recognised statutorily by him being declared a national hero.

The second resolution supported the call by Patricia Rodney and their family for a closure to be brought to the assassination through an International Commission of Enquiry. Without truth there cannot be any hope of reconciliation. You can support these calls by writing letters to the President of Guyana or any Guyanese High Commission, Consulate or other diplomatic mission near you. You can urge your foreign minister or Heads of State/ Government to raise these issues with their Guyanese counterparts at various multilateral diplomatic forums where they meet. As another Caribbean radical intellectual activist, CLR James used to say: " There is always something that can be done". Keep Rodney alive by doing something today.

* Visit the Website of the Walter Rodney Commemoration Committee for full reports of the Groundings and also other groundings across the world and related activities:

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem expresses concern that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s focus on Africa is going to be yet another Shakespearean tale, "… told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Instead of Blair preaching to the rest of the world about Africa let the British government challenge other Western and richer countries by showing good example through confession and remorse and then tangible concrete action that shows that it has its mouth in tandem with its pocket.

Britain has adopted Africa as a centrepiece of its Foreign Policy this year. In his usual missionary approach the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has re branded himself from being the Secretary of State for America into Prime Minister for Africa. It was in this Africa mode that he went to America, earlier this week, to try to exact some concessions from his bully buddy, Bush. Blair's mission was to persuade Bush to buy into his three-pronged Africa programme: More aid, debt cancellation and international trade reforms. He arrived in Britain on Wednesday with a few million dollars in pledges from the Americans towards drought relief in the horn of Africa. There was also a promise to consider 100% debt cancellation for some 32 countries in Africa.

British NGOs and antipoverty campaigners have already condemned Bush's crumbs to Blair as miserly and far below the multi billion aid begging bowl Blair is expecting the rest of the richer countries to contribute to before their rich men's club meeting in Gleneagles next month. Bush defended himself by drawing attention to the fact that he had trebled aid to Africa already and given 15 billion dollars towards HIV/Aids in Africa. Of course what he did not say is that even more dubious than under the cold war, American aid is now more tied to compliant regimes in Africa no matter how unpopular they are with their peoples. This as long as they are on the side of his war without end in the name of international terrorism. Most of his AIDS money will actually be beneficial to American pharmaceutical companies and their very expensive medicines because the Americans are opposed to cheaper derivative drugs from India, Brazil, China or South Africa. Also the administration believes only in abstinence campaigns and it is prisoner to faith-based (meaning Christian fundamentalist) groups and lobbies. This means that what Bush gives with one hand is immediately taken with the other through his big business and religious sponsors.

As a Bush-Blair cynic I am not really surprised at the games being played by these global con men but unfortunately there are still too many people both in Britain and outside who still believe that Tony means well and somehow he can persuade Bush and the rest of the world to do right by Africa. My position is that instead of Blair preaching to the rest of the world about Africa let the British government challenge other Western and richer countries by showing good example through confession and remorse and then tangible concrete action that shows that it has its mouth in tandem with its pocket.

Even if he has now succeeded in getting Bush to use nearly the same language as him on debt cancellation this is where it stops. The devil as they say is in the details. The Bush people want debt cancellation to be paid for by the lending multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. This may mean that money pledged for relief of poverty will be diverted to debt cancellation. In plain language: No new monies on the table just a recycling of what is already available. In biblical terms it means robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So where does this leave Blair and his big plans for Africa? Nowhere really. While he has put high premiums on persuading his American bosses the truth is that other G8 countries are not really singing their hymns from the same book as him. Germany, France and Japan have their own priorities and would not be lectured to by a British Prime Minister on his way out of No 10 Downing Street. Blair may be seeking his international legacy via Africa but both the German Chancellor and the French President are also seeking their own legacies too, and Africa may not play big in their calculations.

Also this premium on Washington ignores other multilateral creditors to Africa such as the Africa Development Bank which in many cases, is a bigger lender of development loans to many African countries. African countries still hold a majority stake in the bank. Why is Blair not canvassing them for support on his debt right off? It must be his patronising assumption that once Europe and America agrees which African dares oppose? Two weeks ago Blair's people made a big play on the EU countries agreeing to double aid to Africa as yet another major breakthrough. This will be done by 2008. But the same EU was already committed to making AID 0.7% of GNP for thirty years and renewed this pledge 5 years ago through the Millennium Development Goals of the UN. Are we to celebrate their promising to reach 0.50% when they promised 0.70% 30 years ago?

My concern is that this Blair focus on Africa is going to be yet another Shakespearean tale, "… told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Africans must stop looking outside for our progress. Our salvation is within us. We are our own liberators.

Does that mean there is nothing outsiders can do to help us? No, there is a role for others but we cannot adequately take advantage of other peoples' help if we have not decided what we want to do for ourselves and how we want to go about it.

When Bob Geldof was challenged about why he is organising a concert for Africa 21 years after his first one and there are no African musicians apart from Yousof N'dour, the pathetic response from one of his spokespersons was that he did not have African musicians in his address book. This from a man who is regarded as Mr Africa globally merely shows how Westerners regard Africans as objects of their sympathy rather than agents of changing their own situation.

We have to summon the courage to stand up to these new missionaries in Africa represented by western humanitarian NGOs and politicians like Blair and ‘Globatricians’ like Bob Geldof. Their 'good' intentions must match our aspirations. We should do it together where possible, do it alone where necessary but at every stage we should have the veto, not them. We cannot outsource our progress and development. To borrow a phrase recently used by my Good Ndugu, Firoze Manji, Editor of Pambazuka News: Nothing About Us without Us.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]