NATO's Libya blitzkrieg and the coming colonial wars

The scale of the ongoing tragedy visited on Libya by NATO and its allies is becoming horribly clearer with each passing day. Estimates of those killed so far vary, but 50,000 seems like a low estimate; indeed the British Ministry of Defense was boasting that the onslaught had killed 35,000 as early as last May. But this number is constantly growing. The destruction of the state’s forces by British, French and American blitzkrieg has left the country in a state of total anarchy – in the worst possible sense of the word. Having had nothing to unite them other than a temporary willingness to act as NATO’s foot soldiers, the former ‘rebels’ are now turning on each other. One hundred and forty seven were killed in in-fighting in Southern Libya in a single week earlier this year, and in recent weeks government buildings - including the prime ministerial compound - have come under fire by ‘rebels’ demanding cash payment for their services. $1.4billion has been paid out already - demonstrating once again that it was the forces of NATO colonialism, not Gaddafi, who were reliant on ‘mercenaries’ - but payments were suspended last month due to widespread nepotism. Corruption is becoming endemic - a further $2.5billion in oil revenues that was supposed to have been transferred to the national treasury remains unaccounted for. Libyan resources are now being jointly plundered by the oil multinationals and a handful of chosen families from amongst the country’s new elites; a classic neo-colonial stitch-up. The use of these resources for giant infrastructure projects such as the Great Manmade River, and the massive raising of living standards over the past four decades (Libyan life expectancy rose from 51 to 77 since Gaddafi came to power in 1969) sadly looks to have already become a thing of the past. But woe betide anyone who mentions that now. It was decided long ago that no supporters of Gaddafi would be allowed to stand in the upcoming elections, but recent changes have gone even further. Law 37, passed by the new NATO-imposed government last month, has created a new crime of ‘glorifying’ the former government or its leader - subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Would this include a passing comment that things were better under Gaddafi? The law is cleverly vague enough to be open to interpretation. It is a recipe for institutionalized political persecution. Even more indicative of the contempt for the rule of law amongst the new government - a government, remember, which has yet to receive any semblance of popular mandate, and whose only power base remains the colonial armed forces – is Law 38. This law has now guaranteed immunity from prosecution for anyone who committed crimes aimed at ‘promoting or protecting the revolution’. Those responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha - such as Misrata’s self-proclaimed ‘brigade for the purging of black skins’ - can continue their hunting down of that cities’ refugees in the full knowledge that they have the new ‘law’ on their side. Those responsible for the massacres in Sirte and elsewhere have nothing to fear. Those involved in the widespread torture of detainees can continue without repercussions - so long as it is aimed at ‘protecting the revolution’ - i.e. maintaining NATO-TNC dictatorship. This is the reality of the new Libya: civil war, squandered resources, and societal collapse, where voicing preference for the days when Libya was prosperous and at peace is a crime, but lynching and torture is not only permitted but encouraged. Nor has the disaster remained a national one. Libya’s destabilization has already spread to Mali, prompting a coup, and huge numbers of refugees - especially amongst Libya’s large black migrant population - have fled to neighbouring countries in a desperate attempt to escape both aerial destruction and lynch mob rampage, putting further pressure on resources elsewhere. Many Libyan fighters, their work done in Libya, have now been shipped by their imperial masters to Syria to spread their sectarian violence there too. Most worrying for the African continent, however, is the forward march of AFRICOM -the US military’s African command - in the wake of the aggression against Libya. It is no coincidence that barely a month after the fall of Tripoli - and in the same month Gaddafi was murdered (October 2011) - the US announced it was sending troops to no less than four more African countries - the Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. AFRICOM have now announced an unprecedented 14 major joint military exercises in African countries for 2012. The military re-conquest of Africa is rolling steadily on. None of this would have been possible whilst Gaddafi was still in power. As founder of the African Union, its biggest donor, and its one-time elected Chairman, he wielded serious influence on the continent. It was partly thanks to him that the US was forced to establish AFRICOM’s HQ in Stuttgart in Germany when it was established in February 2008, rather than in Africa itself; he offered cash and investments to African governments who rejected US requests for bases. Libya under his leadership had an estimated $150 billion of investments in Africa, and the Libyan proposal, backed with £30 billion cash, for an African Union Development Bank would have seriously reduced African financial dependence on the West. In short, Gaddafi’s Libya was the single biggest obstacle to AFRICOM penetration of the continent. Now he has gone, AFRICOM is stepping up its work. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan showed the West that wars in which their own citizens get killed are not popular; AFRICOM is designed to ensure that in the coming colonial wars against Africa, it will be Africans who do the fighting and dying, not Westerners. The forces of the African Union are to become integrated into AFRICOM under a US-led chain of command. Gaddafi would never have stood for it; that is why he had to go. And if you want a vision of Africa under AFRICOM tutelage, look no further than Libya, NATO’s model of an African state: condemned to decades of violence and trauma, and utterly incapable of either providing for its people, or contributing to regional or continental independence. The new military colonialism in Africa must not be allowed to advance another inch. By Dan Glazebrook

Coventry wonder boy from Burundi

Gael Bigirimana was walking to the supermarket with his brother to buy some milk when he spotted Coventry City's academy training facility.

The following day he went there and asked for a trial. Slightly bemused, the coaching staff looked at the smiling yet determined 11-year-old with the broken English and explained that the club did not just take on young players who turned up unannounced. He would have to be scouted like everybody else.

Running home afterwards, having left details of the school he attended and buoyed by the promise that somebody from Coventry would come to watch him play, Bigirimana was surprised when a member of the coaching staff stopped him.

"They asked if I had all the equipment, boots, shin pads and stuff like that," Bigirimana told BBC Sport. "I said 'yes' but I did not. They said they saw me running fast but to tell you the truth I was jogging.

"The next day they gave me a trial. It was near the end of the season but they took me on for the following campaign. It must have been a miracle."

Miracle or not, seven years later the 18-year-old has just been named the Football League Championship Apprentice of the Year for a season in which he has made a significant impact at the struggling second-tier club.

He has so far played 21 times for the first team after making his debut against Leicester in August and quickly became a cult figure among the club's supporters with a series of skilful and wholehearted performances in the centre of midfield.

"He has a good touch and has shown a maturity beyond his years," said Sky Blues manager Andy Thorn. "He has acquitted himself well."

Performing in such a pivotal position in a struggling side is a big responsibility for somebody in their debut season and Thorn is candid enough to admit that the youngster's form started to tail off. Bigirimana has not played for the first team since their match against Southampton in January. Even so, he had made enough of an impression to reportedly be the subject of a recent approach from Championship rivals Burnley, who wanted to sign the youngster on loan.

Bigirimana himself sounded philosophical when asked about his return to the youth side after a prolonged taste of first-team action.

"Football is full of disappointments," he explained. "Each one must make you a better player. Besides, the youth team are pushing for the league title and it is great to be able to help my friends there."

This upbeat, selfless attitude is part of the reason why players in the younger age groups look up to him. He told me that one of the things he needed to work on is developing a selfish streak in front of goal. He has infuriated his coaches at times this season by passing to a team-mate when he should have gone for goal himself. When I asked him about his ambitions he talked more about wanting his team-mates to succeed than listing any particular aspirations for himself.

He has regularly volunteered to visit schools in the area to talk to the younger pupils about his story and I imagine it must make for gripping listening because Bigirimana's journey in life sounds like the plot for a Hollywood script.

He is a refugee from the war-torn African country of Burundi who came to England in 2004. His mother arrived first before Gael followed with his father, two brothers and a sister.

Back in Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi, he played football at every opportunity, barefooted, on the streets. Prior to his arrival in England he lived briefly in Uganda and had his first experience of wearing boots and playing in a structured competition.

He had not been at Coventry City for more than a handful of training sessions before he approached the coach and asked to be moved to a higher age group. He explained that he was not finding his own group challenging enough.

It quickly became obvious that the boy from Burundi was a gifted footballer who loved to entertain and played with a freedom that endeared him to those around him. However, it was equally apparent that he understood the value of hard work.

"His determination to achieve manifests itself in his being the first at training and the last to leave," said Coventry academy manager Gregor Rioch.

Bigirimana is a deeply religious man who believes that everything that has happened to him is part of God's plan. The setbacks have been designed to make him stronger. He clearly has a huge determination to overcome any obstacles in his way.

This season he has attended extra sessions with the club's education officer on a Thursday afternoon to catch up on the studies he has missed as a consequence of his involvement with the first team. It is the sort of application that helped earn him his Apprentice of the Year award and should stand him in good stead for a successful career.

Thorn told me Bigirimana can have a "massive, massive future in the game" and added: "Gael's is an amazing story and just shows with the right dedication, work ethic and commitment what you can actually achieve."

As Bigirimana walked off the stage in London on Sunday evening clutching his award he had a huge grin on his face; don't bet against it being the last.

Story Credit: Paul Fletcher's Blog

Why Good news about Africa is bad for business in Western Media

Ever wondered why Western coverage of the entire continent of Africa is usually a steady stream of bad news - poverty, wars, famine, 'starving Africans', AIDS, corruption, Western 'aid', bureaucracy, mob justice, tribalism - leavened occasionally by a bit about wonderful nature (love the safaris!) or football, or how warm the people are and how they keep smiling in spite of the poverty? Or even if this bad news might actually be reassuringly good news to some people, and who these people might be? Well, here's a paragraph from an article we just came across that got us digging for more:

Between May and September 2010 the ten most-read US newspapers and magazines carried 245 articles mentioning poverty in Africa, but only five mentioning gross domestic product growth, yet, according to the McKinsey Quarterly, Africa is “among the world’s most rapidly growing economic regions,” and, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, poverty rates throughout the continent have been falling steadily and much faster than previously thought.

We're willing to bet that if someone did a survey of European newspapers' coverage of Africa the findings wouldn't be much different.

Is there poverty? Of course there is? Is there corruption at high levels? Yes, indeed. Are there wars going on? Yes. Yet, regardless of the story, if you dig deeper into most reports on Africa and you're quite likely to find that the society you're reading about isn't quite as bleak as the story you're reading is trying to make out. And sometimes the report isn't merely an exaggeration, it's just plain wrong: remember the commentary CNN posted to accompany Vice Magazine's video about 'Ghana's e-mail scan gangs'? Or how, for years, Kibera kept being referred to as Africa's biggest slum with a million inhabitants until a population census in 2009 revealed a figure of 194,269? Most people don't have the time to dig deeper, so an entire continent becomes a place of nothing but misery. And if that is the case then there must be something wrong with Africans, mustn't there?

Now, why would Western journalists persist reinforcing the beliefs of their readers, instead of challenging these readers with the reality of whichever part of Africa they are reporting from?

In the Columbia Journalism Review, Karen Rothmyer puts forward the following explanation in her article Hiding the Real Africa - Why NGOs prefer bad news:

... the main reason for the continued dominance of such negative stereotypes, I have come to believe, may well be the influence of Western-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international aid groups like United Nations agencies. These organizations understandably tend to focus not on what has been accomplished but on convincing people how much remains to be done. As a practical matter, they also need to attract funding. Together, these pressures create incentives to present as gloomy a picture of Africa as possible in order to keep attention and money flowing, and to enlist journalists in disseminating that picture.

She goes on to explain that journalists rely on aid organisations for the information on which to base their stories, and since it's in the interest of aid organisations for stories about the continent to consist of nothing but bad news, guess where your average aid worker in Africa is going to take a journalist in search of a quick and simple story?

Graham, based in Ghana, has this to say in a recent post on his blog Critical Point:
Societies work hard to justify their own existence. The rich countries attempt to convince their citizens, and citizens from other parts of the world, of the superiority of their system. They are steadily winning the battle to convince us that theirs is the only way to live. The need for new homogenised markets is the driving force behind this fiction.

The media corporations often belittle other ways of living, ignoring their own self-destruct mechanisms and failing to point out the benefits of alternative systems. In this context, the denigration of Africa is essential for getting Africa to come into the world-wide market, to persuade Africans to desire every bit of consumerist nonsense produced and to convince the rich country’s own increasingly atomised, individualised citizens, that their work-driven, stressful, isolated lives were the destiny the whole of humanity had been striving towards since we first waddled out of the sea.

In a piece entitled Good News Stories About Africa Are Bad For Business, the Ghana-based writer/blogger Fiona Leonard has some suggestions for Western journalists reporting on Africa, at least if they have the faintest desire to get to the heart of stories and paint a truer and clearer picture of reality for their readers/viewers. They are:

Geography
Africa is a continent, not a country, so stop writing about it as if it were. Be specific, and use reference points that people can understand to show just how far apart and how different one country is from another.

Why Are 'We' There?
Instead of writing with the suggestion that the West is "giving" Africa anything for humanitarian reasons, call a spade and spade and admit that foreign governments are investing; aid is tied to trade, aid is tied to long term economic imperatives, some of which are embarrassingly commercial - like wanting access for mining companies. Others have direct social implications. For example, investing in another country's health system has global implications.

Why do people behave the way they do?
There is always a reason why people behave they way they do; it may be cultural, historical, emotional or personal, but there is always a reason. Don't just take what you see at face value, and don't simply accept the first superficial explanation you hear. If you want to understand the nuances of any situation keep digging.

[A Western journalist who does not have the time, patience or inclination to get to the root of whatever he or she is reporting on and look for information that contradicts his or her first impressions will end up with a narrow, context-free story similar to the one they'd have produced had they written it in their bedroom in New York or London. In other words, they'll confirm their own prejudices and those of their readers.]

These are summaries of Fiona's suggestions, so I would urge you to read her complete article, not only to get the full gist of what she has to say but also because she refers to a blog post in the New York Times by a journalist who is clearly troubled by the way Western journalists write about Africa - his post is titled How Should We Cover Africa - and explains why even 'concerned' journalists get it wrong.

WHY POOR REPORTING IS BAD FOR AFRICA
Africans, wherever they live, are not immune to the cumulative effect of these misrepresentations, distortions, incomplete stories and skewed reporting, not even those who live on the continent and have the benefit of a fuller, more complex picture, so eventually many simply start to believe that Africa must be inferior in every way, and if this is true then Africans must be inferior, too. It makes some Africans ashamed to be African, it erodes their confidence (which makes it more difficult for them to deal with non-Africans on an equal footing), makes them take less pride in their culture, and it makes them feel they ought to emulate the American/European econimic system and way of life in every respect, even when this emulation proves to be disastrous. Foreign = good, African = bad. Full stop. If you're a kid growing up with this belief in the air you are basically screwed. Actually, if you're an adult and you believe this, you're screwed, too, because self-loathing is a downward spiral, at least until something jolts your consciousness and knocks some sense into you.

It gives non-Africans a picture of Africa that affects their perceptions of and relationships with Africans, whether they are aware of this or not. I don't think I need to elaborate on why this is a bad thing.

It hurts Africa economically, affects investment in the continent and also the way non-Africans do business in Africa. At a very basic level it does nothing for the tourism industry of any country: On the one hand it puts anywhere in Africa low down on most people's holiday list, so who knows how many potential millions are lost to each country's economy as a result? Or when tourists do visit an African country some automatically assume that any local way of doing things that isn't quite the same as the way things are done back home must be wrong. As someone commenting on Graham's blog wrote, this leads to some very odd remarks like the American lady she overheard complaining that Ghana has too many languages. On the other, it discourages the tourism industry from developing anything beyond the parameters of foreign tourists' expectations of Africa: they want safaris and carved elephants? Ok, safaris and carved elephants all the way. On another level it encourages Westerners doing business in Africa to treat Africans as lesser, baser human beings, and to do things they'd hesitate to do elsewhere - such as being willing to pay bribes or dumping toxic waste without worrying about the consequences.

According to Karen Rothmyer it also has 'the potential to influence policy. “The welfare model [of Africa] is still dominant on the Hill and in Hillary Clinton’s world,” according to van de Walle. Among corporate officials, says Catherine Duggan, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, the perception is still that “Africa is where you put your money once you’ve made it somewhere else.”

Karen's article end on this realistic note: ... in the end, it will probably take sustained economic progress to break the current mould. Sunny Bindra, the Kenyan management consultant, recalls that in the 1980s, “Japan got attention because it was whacking the US. It’s the same with India and China now.” Until that happens, a sick African woman in labor will continue to be treated as poverty porn, and most Africans will have to starve in order to make it onto the evening news.

And that's spot on. Remember how 'Made in China' used to be a sign that a product was crap? Or how the Japanese were seen merely as 'funny' people with 'bizarre' game shows, good for a laugh on the Clive James Show? Look who's laughing now, and it certainly wasn't PR that shifted the balance.

Article Credit: This is Africa

Bullets rule Africa!

Stophira Sunzu scored Zambia's ninth penalty of a heart-wrenching shootout to give the Chipolopolo (Copper Bullets) an 8-7 victory over Ivory Coast in the Africa Cup of Nations final at the Stade de L'Amitie in Libreville.Congratulations to the boys in Orange and Green, as well as to the tournament organizers, CAF, and hosts Mali and Gabon, you made the continent proud. Thank you to the participants for a great tournament, especially to the Chipolopolo boys who have just shown that if there is a desire and a determination to win, then winning does happen. let's take this mentality to the next world cup and break into the semi-finals if not the finals for the first time ever.

Photo Credit: AP