AU LEADER VISITS US

Tanzania: President Bush Meets with President Kikwete

	Email This Page Print This Page Comment on this article View comments Visit The Publisher's Site

The White House (Washington, DC)

PRESS RELEASE
29 August 2008
Posted to the web 29 August 2008

Washington, DC

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is such an honor to welcome a man I've come to admire a lot to the Oval Office, President Kikwete of Tanzania. He comes representing a great country. He also comes representing the African Union. And therefore, we've had a wide-ranging discussion about our bilateral relations, as well as the President has kindly given me a briefing on how he sees the different situations and opportunities on the continent of Africa.

Laura and I will never forget our trip to your country. First of all, it's a beautiful country. The people were so gracious and so friendly. And I came back to America telling our fellow citizens how proud they would have been to have seen the outpouring of affection for the American people, as a result of the American people's generosity in such matters as education, or HIV/AIDS, or the President's Malaria Initiative.

I am confident in saying to the American people that your money is being spent wisely and compassionately in Tanzania. And a lot of it has to do with the leadership of the President. He stood up and said, we've got a problem and I'm going to take the lead. And his government has been responsive to the needs of the people.

And, Mr. President, I can't thank you enough on behalf of the American people for your compassion and your leadership.

I also am looking forward to continuing our discussions on issues like Zimbabwe or Darfur. These are issues that the President is most familiar with. It's the President -- issues in which he has got good judgment about how to proceed on these matters.

And so, Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you here to the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT KIKWETE: Thank you. Well, thank you, President. First I thank you for the invitation. It's an honor for me; it's an honor for Tanzania; it's an honor for Africa. Well, I came here to say thank you on behalf of the people of Africa, on behalf of the people of Tanzania. You've done so much for Africa, so much for Tanzania. When you compare, no U.S. President has done so much for Africa and for Tanzania as you have done.

Our goal has been extended; it extends the horizons of the possibilities of economic growth in Africa. PEPFAR is helping us tackle HIV/AIDS scourge. Many lives -- many, many children now who were -- who would have been orphaned are no longer orphaned because of that. PMI has helped us so much in the fight against malaria. Many innocent lives of children -- women and children -- are being saved. And Tanzania is one of those examples of the great successes of PMI.

Malaria in Zanzibar has almost been -- is being eliminated now. In the past there used to be 50 percent cases being reported in hospital; now it's only 1 percent that's been reported in hospital, thanks to PMI.

There are a number of -- of course, our biggest challenge now in Zanzibar is how to sustain that success, because only 20 miles on the mainland, in Dar es Salaam, malaria is still there. So if people go to Zanzibar with malaria, then the problem is -- so our biggest challenge is how to sustain it. And we are working together with the PMI and CDC on how to respond to this kind of situations.

Of course, with the MCA again, the support you've given us to infrastructure development in the country, it's again -- it helps us build the capacity, to tackle poverty and economic development in the country.

So all that I can say really -- I came here to say thank you so much for the support. But of course, you saw it yourself when you came home, how the people came in huge numbers --

PRESIDENT BUSH: They were.

PRESIDENT KIKWETE: -- huge numbers. I was even amazed when they poured in the streets. There the issue was really to express their appreciation to the people of the United States for, again, the support you have been extending to our country.

Of course, we discussed the issues on the continent. We again, we thank you for your leadership. We'll continue to work together. Zimbabwe is a common problem. Darfur is a common problem. We are the front line; but of course, those of us who are on the front line always look toward -- look to the rear -- (laughter) -- to what you do to support us. And there has been such extraordinary support for us in the continent.

We continue to work together. I thank you, President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.

Relevant Links

Thank you all.

Zambia: President Dies

The Post (Buea)

24 August 2008
Posted to the web 25 August 2008

Clodette Ndanda & Ledi Akwo

After suffering from a stroke attack in June, at an African Union Summit in Egypt, Zambian President, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, died on August 19, in Percy Military Hospital Paris, France. He died at the age of 59.

According to BBC report, the announcement was made few hours after his death on Zambian State Television by Vice-President, Banda Rupiah, who is expected to take over as acting president of the country.

He also informed the Zambians that national mourning would last for seven days beginning from the day of his death, urging Zambians to remain calm and mourn their President with dignity.

BBC reports that on Monday, the acting President said, the Head of State underwent an emergency surgery, after his health suddenly deteriorated.

"President Mwanawasa's health has always been a problem even before he started his presidential mandate."

On December 8, 1991, Mwanawasa was involved in a serious traffic accident in which his aide died on the spot. He suffered multiple body injuries and was flown to Johannesburg, South Africa, for medical attention. He was hospitalised for three months. A lasting effect of the accident was his noticeably slurred speech.

Mwanawasa suffered a minor stroke in April 2006, barely four months before the general elections.On July 3, rumours made the rounds that Mwanawasa had died in a Paris hospital due to his stroke. As the rumours were spreading, South African President, Thabo Mbeki, called for a moment of silence in honour of Mwanawasa.

Zambian Minister of Information, Mike Mulongoti, speaking for the government, had dismissed the information as "false". The South African government quickly apologised for the misapprehension and expressed Mbeki's hopes for Mwanawasa's recovery.Banda gave an update of Mwanawasa's condition on July 24, saying that he was making steady progress in his recovery.

Uncertainty regarding Banda's optimistic updates was reportedly widespread.The Minister of Health, Brian Chituwo, speaking before the National Assembly on August 8, said that Mwanawasa's healing process will indeed be long due to the serious nature of his illness.

President Mwanawasa became prominent recently, because, he was one of the most critical African leaders of the divisive election in Zimbabwe. He said he sympathised with Zimbabwean opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai for diminishing from the run-off because of attacks on his supporters.

After pressing for Frederick Chilluba's immunity from prosecution to be lifted, the former Zambian President charged with stealing money during his term of office, Mwanawasa fell out with his predecessor, who selected him to lead the ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy, MMD.

Who Is Mwanawasa

Levy Mwanawasa was born in Mufulira, Northern Rhodesia as the second of 10 children in 1948 .He held a law degree from the University of Zambia and was married to Maureen Mwanawasa. He had six children, two from his first marriage and four with Maureen.

He worked in private law firms from 1974 until 1978 when he formed his own firm; Mwanawasa & Company.

In 1985, Mwanawasa served as Solicitor General in the Zambian government but he went back to private practice in 1986. After Frederick Chiluba was elected President, he appointed Mwanawasa as Vice-President in December 1991.

Relevant Links Central Africa Southern Africa Cameroon Zambia

Since 1973, he had been a practicing lawyer. In his most famous case, he defended former Vice-President, Lieutenant General Christon Tembo and others who were charged with plotting to overthrow Kenneth Kaunda in 1989.

President Umaru Yar'Adua Also becomes ill

Nigeria: 17 Days of Waiting for Mr President

	Email This Page Print This Page Comment on this article

Vanguard (Lagos)

7 September 2008
Posted to the web 7 September 2008

Ben Agande

WHAT started as rumour became a serious matter ten days after President Umaru Yar'Adua left Nigeria for Saudi Arabia in what official explanation said was a trip to perform the lesser Hajj, an obligation performed by Muslims but less known than the annual Hajj which every Muslim who has the capacity is expected to perform at least once in a life time.

After announcing the retirement of the top echelon of the military, the special adviser to the president on communications, Segun Adeniyi, had said the President was proceeding on to Mecca to perform Umrah.

Although he did not include the day Yar'Adua was expected to return, many observers in the President Villa believed that the President would be back in a matter of days since a scheduled trip to Brazil was just days away. But as people say, man proposes, God disposes. The trip to Brazil was cancelled and the exact date of Yar'Adua's return has since been a subject of speculation.

If the President had retired from politics after serving for eight years as the governor of Katsina State and gone back to teaching analytical chemistry at the Ahmadu Bello University Zaria as was being speculated before he was drafted into the presidential race by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the brouhaha that his continued stay in Saudi Arabia has generated would have been confined to his immediate environment and family. But from the moment he threw his hat into the ring, Yar'Adua has, like no other President in the history of Nigeria, had to have his medical record closely examined to the minutest details.

At the heat of his nationwide campaign to become the president, Yar'Adua had to break his campaign trail to dash off to Germany, where, as subsequent events proved, he had been a regular visitor to attend to his medical needs.

But for a man whom many agree is deeply reserved and emotionally reticent, the responsibility of making known to the Nigerian public the reason for his visit to Germany fell on the leadership of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, which many people believe poorly handled the information about his departure.

Three days into his trip, rumours about the deterioration in his health heightened so much so that it took a dramatic telephone call from Obasanjo which was televised and routed through a loud speaker for the anxiety of millions of Nigerians to be doused. Even after assuming office and severally assuring Nigerians that his health conditions were exaggerated, Yar'Adua has continually found himself in the public glare with questions being raised perpetually about his state of health.

Unfortunately, his ingrained reticence has tended to obscure rather than reveal his true strength.But, how did we get to this state where the nation was almost at a stand still with rumour making the rounds that the President's health has so much degenerated such that he was alleged to be on life support machine in a Saudi Hospital where, ab initio, he was said to have gone to, not on medical grounds but to perform a religious obligation? When news of Yar'Adua's indisposition in Saudi Arabia was first mooted by Saharareporters, the New York-based Nigerian website, the issue was only disclosed in hushed tones.

But when the same website reported and was later confirmed by officials of the Brazilian government that the planned state visit had been cancelled ("readjusted" in the words of the foreign affairs minister, Ojo Maduekwe), what was initially thought to be in the realm of speculative journalism" was gradually assuming the toga of truth. And, indeed, the issue could no longer be kept secret.

In deed, the concern by many Nigerians over the health of the President is borne out of two considerations; for many Nigerians, it is borne of a genuine concern that a President who struck a good cord with many Nigerians because of his perceived sterling qualities was being unnecessarily bogged down by sickness, while to the feeble political opposition, the "perennial" sickness of the President was a confirmation of their long held view that he ought not to have been there in the first place.

But, as if to compound the already complex issues surrounding Yar'Adua's health, there is scant information from official quarters on the true state of things. While the Minister of Information and communications, John Odey, and Maduekwe insisted that the president's long stay at the holy land and the cancellation of his planned trip to Brazil were nothing unorthodox, there were daily information which tend to create the impression that those saddled with the responsibility of managing the information of the President are either truly ignorant of the true position or are being economical with the truth. It would appear that the former appears to be more appropriate.

Relevant Links West Africa Nigeria

While there is a loud silence on the true state of the president's health and indeed whether he is in hospital, the rumour mill has found a fertile ground to thrive. In fact, the last week, rumour about the death of Yar'Adua was so strong that the Minister of Information had to issue a two- paragraph statement reaffirming that the President was "hale and hearty". As it was during his campaign to be elected as president, rumour about death is again a constant thing about our President. Unfortunately, there appears to be nobody in the mould of Obasanjo to call Yar'Adua on speaker phone to assure Nigerians that he is not dead.

Despite the assurances from Odey that the President is well, there is no let to the anxiety and rumour about his health in the land. The local media have been trying to outdo each other on who would bring out the biggest 'scoop'. While some reported that the President had had a kidney transplant and was on a life support machine, others said the operation had not been done as a matching kidney has not found. The confusion in the coverage of Yar'Adua's health underscores the confusion in the land about the true position of the President's health.

The question being asked is,since Yar'Adua has consistently admitted that he is a human being and can be sick, why has his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to seek medical help, been so shrouded in secrecy?

According to impeccable sources in the Villa, with the exception of the Vice President and some Presidency key officers, many officials in government are equally unaware of the true position of things which informs the apparent confusion in the land. Nothing demonstrates this truism than the vague explanation from key government officials that the President will come back as soon as possible."

And to demonstrate that all is well with Yar'Adua, news was passed around that having performed his lesser hajj, the President was due to come back to the country, Tuesday last week, to chair the weekly Federal Executive Council meeting for the first time in three weeks the following Wednesday.

Though there was high expectation in the larger society about Yar'Adua's return plan, there was no sign in the Presidential Villa that such return was imminent. The usual activities associated with presidential movement was non-existent and there was deliberate silence by key officials to say exactly whether the President would come back on Tuesday as reported or not. Not surprising, Wednesday came and went and the President was nowhere around the council chambers.

While Yar'Adua is away,activities in the Presidential Villa appears to have come to a standstill in the over fifteen days that he has been out. Instead, the rumour mill is waxing stronger and the media especially the web based news services are striving to outdo one another on who has the most "authentic" update on the president's health. But the question that has kept agitating the minds of many Nigerians is why would the president's men deliberately keep Nigerians out of the true position of Yar'Adua's health when the President, on several occasions, has openly admitted that his health is not in the best of state and as a human being there is nothing extraordinary about it?

Relevant Links West Africa Nigeria

The implication of the events of the last two weeks has done incalculable damage to the perception of Nigerians about their Presidency. The implication is that everything that emanates from such a government no matter how well intentioned might be taken with a pinch of salt. For a government that came in with so much goodwill, this is not the best way to be perceived. .

Zimbabwe: Hidden Hand Behind MDC-T's Intransigence

The Herald (Harare)

OPINION
6 September 2008
Posted to the web 7 September 2008

Harare

"The Bush administration said yesterday it no longer considers President Mugabe to be the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe and called upon the 'body politic' of his country 'to go forward and correct that situation'.

"We are continuing to work on what are some of the strategies that we can use to isolate Mugabe in the sense that he has to realise that the political status quo is not acceptable." He said the US and some European countries are working with the civil society in Zimbabwe, including human rights groups and private media journalists. -- The Washington Times, citing US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, August 21 2002).

WE begin with the passage from The Washington Times of August 21 2002 in order to put into context the direct link between US-UK interference in Zimbabwe's internal affairs and the continuing demand for illegal transfer of power by MDC-T as well as Morgan Tsvangirai's refusal to accept the mandate of "inclusive governance" which voters created through the March 29 harmonised elections and the subsequent presidential run-off election of June 27 2008.

In other words, there is a direct link between the external manoeuvres of the regime change forces led by the US and UK and the internal manoeuvres of the internal proxies of those same in the form of MDC-T and its NGO cohorts here in Zimbabwe. The demand for the illegal transfer of power comes from exactly the same voters. But the same voters hold the key to solving the same problems.

First let us examine the external manoeuvres by the US, the UK and the allies. Having failed to stage the coup d'etat which the US State Department called for on August 20 2002, the US, the UK and the EU in June 2008 sought to subvert Zimbabwe's constitutional and electoral process in order to achieve the same objective stated by the State Department on August 20 2002: The overthrow of the elected Government and the unilateral cancellation of the people's vote.

How exactly did these powers try to achieve this objective?

l First, the US State Department again rejected the sovereign mandate of Zimbabwe's voters in the 2005 parliamentary elections which all the participating observers declared free and fair.

l Second, Bernard Kouchner for the European Union presidency; Gordon Brown for the British Labour government; and Condoleezza Rice and Jendayi Fraser for the US government -- all stated in June 2008 that the only government of Zimbabwe they were willing to recognise was one led by Tsvangirai.

l Third, the same leaders sought to force Zimbabwe to cancel the presidential run-off, even though it was required by our Constitution. They wanted to force the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the voters to revert to the indecisive election results that gave the opposition a slight edge over the liberation movement, Zanu-PF.

l Fourth, when 80 percent of the presidential run-off vote went to President Mugabe, the same white powers denounced the result and demanded the installation of Tsvangirai of the MDC as President of Zimbabwe.

l Fifth, they successfully recruited at least three leaders in Sadc to agitate for the position of the UK, US and EU -- that is to urge Sadc and the AU not to recognise President Robert Mugabe as the legitimately elected head of state of Zimbabwe. It took the firm resolutions of AU and Sadc summits to silence those three heads of state.

l Sixth, and finally, the UK and US manipulated the G8 and the UN Security Council to invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter against Zimbabwe in order to obtain UN permission for a military invasion of Zimbabwe which the US and the UK had been contemplating since the days of their Iraq invasion in 2003.

These political and diplomatic manoeuvres by the US, the UK and the EU were packaged as aimed only at removing one man, President Robert Mugabe, in the very same way that the vicious and illegal economic sanctions against all the people of Zimbabwe have also been misrepresented as targeted against the same President and his so called "cronies".

Yet a close analysis of all the manoeuvres by the white powers shows that their aim is to cancel the will of the people and the emphatic results of the people's vote. This was the aim of Walter Kansteiner's declaration on August 20 2002 as much as it was the aim of all the pronouncements by Gordon Brown, Bernard Kouchner, Condoleezza Rice and Jendayi Fraser in June 2008. What these white racist powers have been saying since 2001 is that the aspirations and votes of the people Zimbabwe do not count. What counts are the interests of white Britain, Europe, North America and the proxy groups they have chosen to sponsor within Zimbabwe.

But Sadc, through the mediation efforts of President Thabo Mbeki, has recognised both the aspirations and the votes of the people of Zimbabwe as the only bases for legitimate governance.

Relevant Links

The people of Zimbabwe aspire to fully reclaim and use their once stolen land. The people of Zimbabwe aspire to secure and exploit the natural assets and human resources of their country. The people of Zimbabwe aspire to choose their trade and development partners in the world. And the people of Zimbabwe elected a multi-party Senate and House of Assembly to pursue and implement these aspirations and objectives through mechanisms of "inclusive governance" to be led by President Robert Mugabe and to be based on the results of the presidential run-off on June 27 2008. That is democracy at work.

Sadc has conveyed these aims and aspirations of the people to the AU and to the Non-Aligned Movement who have also endorsed them. Together, Sadc, AU and NAM have also succeeded in getting China, Russia, Vietnam and Libya to block the Anglo-Saxon attacks on Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council.

So far it would seem as if the Euro-American onslaught from Walter Kansteiner in 2002 to Bernard Kouchner in 2008 has been fully rebuffed by Sadc, AU, NAM and those members of the UN Security Council who are friendly to Zimbabwe. However, there is need for an internal spear to complement the external diplomatic shield against foreign intrusion.

The majority of the people of Zimbabwe, the true and intended victims of sanctions and destabilisation, hold the internal spear against the internal proxies of the external powers. Since the end of the presidential run-off election President Robert Mugabe and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa have been pleading with those who may have become proxies of the external powers against Zimbabwe without knowing the tragic implications of such collaboration. The two leaders have been advising all those who became prodigal sons or prodigal daughters, without much though, to come back home and affirm the unity of Zimbabwe and the wish of the overwhelming majority for inclusive governance, national unity and an immediate end to sanctions.

It is now September, a long way from June 2008, and it looks as if MDC-T has definitely not listened to the appeals of the two leaders. The following evidence leads to this conclusion and our readers must judge for themselves each of the following examples.

The unelected military leader of Botswana, Ian Khama, is one of the three Sadc leaders once recruited to divide Sadc over Zimbabwe and to help the UK and US governments to destabilise the country. Yet it is that same leader and that same country which MDC-T and its leader are now using as a financial, diplomatic and propaganda rear-base from which to divide and destabilise Zimbabwe on behalf of the British and the North Americans.

The external infiltration of Zimbabwe through Botswana is so rife that even the EU and US shooting list of Zimbabwean patriots is being circulated and implemented by the Khama regime and the Botswana Diocese of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa. One Reverend Archford Musodza frequently communicates with the regime change elements inside Zimbabwe.

In the run-up to the June 27 presidential run-off election Musodza wrote a letter to one Christine in which he assumed that MDC-T was going to bury Zanu-PF and President Robert Mugabe on June 27. He wrote the following astounding things, among many others:

"Once the old man, Mugabe is ousted, either by the ballot box or by the MDC-T's other plan as discussed over the phone, that will also be the end of (Bishop Nolbert Kunonga). Once MDC-T's Tsvangirai takes the reins, then all former white farmers are assured of a return to their farms. The church will be restored and we can mobilise all Anglicans to now vote for a Bishop of Zimbabwe from Britain who is not polluted.

"The British bishop will be mandated to return the Zimbabwean Church back (sic) to correct hands, the English Church with proper British ethos."

It is only MDC- T president Morgan Tsvangirai who is mentioned by name in the letter to Christine as deserving imperialist support in Zimbabwe. Several other persons (including one MDC-T Member of Parliament who is a prominent lawyer) are also mentioned. Former Selous Scouts agents remaining in Zimbabwe are also mentioned as among the forces, which will help Morgan Tsvangirai, consolidate power.

Some readers could argue that the Musodza letter to Christine is fake. This would make sense if we were relying on just that leaked letter to reach our conclusions.

But there are other indicators. Apart from the anti-Sadc Zimbabwe postures and activities of the Botswana English Church and the military regime of Ian Khama, there has been Morgan Tsvangirai's prolonged stay in Botswana after the March 29 harmonised elections as well as his campaign to reverse the result of the June 27 poll from Botswana.

Most recently there are disturbing allegations that at least seven MDC Mutambara MPs-elect were lured to Botswana just before their swearing-in and lured with foreign currency in order to make them vote with MDC-T.

The same media reports also reports also allege that the same seven MPs, after their swearing-in and on the eve of the opening of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe, decided to abandon the accommodation officially booked for them by Parliament officials.

They joined MDC-T MPs at the Meikles Hotel where they continued to consult on ways to achieve regime change, contrary to the idea of an all-inclusive government led by President Mugabe.

Then during President Robert Mugabe's official speech opening that Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe, about 20 or more opposition MPs disrupted Parliament on camera. It is alleged by legal experts that disruption of Parliament was clearly in violation of Section 21(schedule) of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, Chapter 2:08.

The fact that neither the opposition nor individual members have apologised for what happened at the opening of the Seventh Parliament is consistent with role of the opposition required by the UK, the US and the EU, but totally inconsistent with the expectations and aspirations of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe who want an inclusive government focused on reversing the damage caused by unilateral and illegal sanctions invited by the same opposition in 2000-2001.

It is therefore important at this stage in the history of the Anglo-Saxon onslaught on Zimbabwe for the media to alert the majority of the people of Zimbabwe to the dangers which the opposition continues to pose for this country.

l First, from its beginning in 1999, the opposition and its "civil society" NGOs have allowed the Anglo-Saxon powers to parade the same opposition as part and parcel of the illegal regime change apparatus and as an internal proxy of the white West. When the leader of the Mutambara faction of this opposition recently allowed a belated interview to tell the same white powers to leave Zimbabweans to solve their own problems, that was exactly when seven MPs from that faction allegedly deserted the faction and rejoined the intransigent MDC-T.

l Since late 2007, Zanu-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe have been urging the opposition to join them in denouncing and resisting the illegal, unilateral and racist sanctions invited upon the country by the same opposition back in 2000. The opposition continues to refuse to join Zanu-PF and the Government in this urgent effort.

Instead, a large number of officials and supporters of that opposition continued to lie about the reality of economic sanctions, choosing to define them as just travel bans. Morgan Tsvangirai, Learnmore Jongwe, Nelson Chamisa, Obert Gutu, Douglas Mwonzora, Rashweat Mukundu and scores of others have misled the people into believing that the sanctions were just travel bans meant to keep President Mugabe and a few of his "cronies" from travelling. The unashamed denials were made on television, although other footage already existed on ZTV and BBC, in which Morgan Tsvangirai and Fidelis Mhashu had openly begged the world, and especially South Africa, to cut off the flow of petrol, diesel, electricity, finance, trade and everything else of consequence going to or coming out of Zimbabwe.

It was only after the British Labour government, the US Republican administration, and the EU began to target and threaten specific multinational companies over Zimbabwe in July and August 2008 that Tapiwa Mashakada of MDC-T finally admitted on ZTV that the sanctions were real economic measures targeting the whole economy and the people and not just travel bans on a few individuals. Yet, even after that, the opposition has remained silent on the issue of sanctions here, while its supporters abroad openly celebrate the effects of those same sanctions on the entire population of Zimbabwe.

l In late 2002, NGOs supporting the MDC showed their support for Anglo-Saxon efforts to divide and destroy Zimbabwean society. They published a big document called "Is Zimbabwe on the Brink of Genocide?" They proceeded to answer their own question, indicating which alleged "tribe" was going to set up and massacre which other "tribe" using what issues and what means.

The MDC formations for their part helped the efforts of their NGO supporters by claiming that genocide was indeed an ongoing process in Zimbabwe, targeted against the opposition. How the MDC formations could be defined as a tribe or race subject to genocide remains beyond comprehension.

l During the opening of the Seventh Parliament, those members of the opposition disrupting the proceedings clearly shouted that President Robert Mugabe and Government had no right to honour Kirsty Coventry as a sports heroine of national and international stature who won gold and silver medals for Zimbabwe at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. It was in this part of their disruption of Parliament that the 20 or more MPs displayed the binary logic which the MDC-T has adopted from the rightwing who sponsored and founded the party.

The MPs shouted that, because Kirsty Coventry was of Caucasian ancestry, she could not and should not be hailed on behalf of the people by President Robert Mugabe and his Government. They went further to say that Kirsty Coventry belonged to them, to the opposition by virtue of her being of Caucasian ancestry.

This display of racist dualism has been an integral part of opposition thinking in Zimbabwe especially since 1999.

As a project sponsored by Anglo-Saxon powers, the MDC has adopted as one of its responsibilities the duty to erase the history of the African liberation movement by equating it with that of Nazism, fascism, apartheid and even UDI. The techniques used include what Naomi Klein calls recasting and conflating or conflation.

In recasting, the African land reclamation movement which seeks to enable the dispossessed African majority to reclaim their land which was once stolen by white settlers is presented as reverse racism which leaves no room for whites who are reconciled to Zimbabwe. But, in fact, this movement merely requires all Zimbabwean citizens of all racial origins to accept that the State now controls land on behalf of all.

The people and that all those who have reconciled themselves with the new Zimbabwe are entitled to queue for land on an equal basis and they shall be resettled. The sponsors of the MDC formations want the opposition to portray the land reclamation movement a racist war by Africans and against all the people of Caucasian descent.

This recasting erases the fact that Guy Clutton-Brock, a Caucasian Briton from Wales, was among the first Zimbabwean heroes to be buried at the National Heroes Acre. This recasting erases the fact that former East Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and former Soviet republics, together with China, were among the most faithful supporters of the African liberation movements of Southern Africa. This recasting seeks to erase the historical fact that it was President Mugabe who as Prime Minister in 1980 invited all Zimbabweans of all races to join the liberation movement in a process of national healing and reconciliation.

From the recasting, it becomes easy for the MDC formations and their white sponsors to conflate the interests of the few unreconstructed Rhodesians and Britons who rejected the hand of African reconciliation as if they are the universal interest of every Caucasian person who has ever lived on this planet. For it is only the few unreconstructed and defiant former Rhodesians and Britons who have so lost is because, by refusing to be resettled, they have refused to share that land with the dispossessed Africans.

The MDC formations are on the record claiming that the Daily News which used to be published by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe, was meant to be their mouthpiece.

It is from that mouthpiece that we find the roots of binary linking (in the MDC formations) which claims that President Mugabe, Zanu-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe cannot and should not honour a national star of Caucasian ancestry because "she is not yours; she is ours (MDC)." In other words, by virtue of her ancestry, Kirsty Coventry or any other white heroine or hero belongs to the foreign-sponsored MDC formations.

Proof of this binary logic and the assigned role of the MDC formations can be found in the Daily News, April 19 2002. R. S. Mazoyo published a letter entitled "White Presence in MDC gives Zanu-PF hallucinations". The writer claimed that white people began to sit in harmony with Africans for the first time in the MDC and because of the MDC.

From there it was easy to claim that the African land reclamation movement was merely an African revenge orgy against all white people. It was driven not by desire for justice, fairness and restitution but by sheer black hatred of whites. The Daily News, June 15 2002, published a lengthy letter by one Marko Phiri, which conveyed this conflated message: Mugabe's white hate gospel has failed to poison race relations. The writer returned to paternalistic Rhodesian language of the late 1950s, race relations, rather than revolutionary solidarity.

Then on March 26 2003, The Daily News took the recasting and conflation to extremes. The President, in an address to mourners at Heroes Acre, scoffed at British efforts to portray him as an African Hitler's reputation is one of over-running other people's countries and destroying other people's nations and institutions.

On the contrary, President Mugabe's only ambition was to enable the people of Zimbabwe to reclaim and control the territory and assets of Zimbabwe and nothing more. However, The Daily News of March 26 2003 turned the meaning of the President's remark completely up side down and inside out, declaring: "Mugabe equates himself to Hitler"

Relevant Links

This MDC mission on behalf of white Rhodesians and the Euro-American white right explains the remarks shouted by the rowdy opposition MPs and Kirsty Coventry. This consistent mission, dating back to the founding of the MDC, also suggests that the opposition may not improve its behaviour even if it signs an agreement with Zanu-PF. A piece of paper may not change the mission or the history of the MDC documented here.

A fresh view of history in East Africa

Rating

Neolithic stone tools from Machaga Cave, Zanzibar and right, one of the island’s attractions. Photo/FILE

By DANA APRIL SEIDENBERG

Posted Saturday, August 30 2008 at 16:09

WHO MIGHT HAVE GUESSED THAT broken bits of pottery, beads and bones dug up or found in caves and other sites around East Africa could change the way world history is currently viewed?

Yet today, a whole new generation of East African archaeologists are recovering artifactual remains that are radically reshaping the whole story of the Western Indian Ocean littoral.

Far from being an insignificant backwater, there is near-incontrovertible evidence that the area connected as it had been to Pharaonic Egypt, to ports around the Indian Ocean and beyond, had been pivotal to world trade.

This emerging new picture has been long in search of an author familiar enough with old documents as well as new discoveries of the past several decades to weave them into a text of lasting value.

Last month in Zanzibar, itself a centre of trans-oceanic trade going back to 3000 BC, I picked up The Unity of African Ancient History by acclaimed Tanzanian archaeologist Felix Chami at the Beit el Ajaib (House of Wonders) shop. True to its name, in between dusty displays of famous dhows and doors in miniature and battered Arab coffee pots, a wondrous treasure was to be discovered.

Who is Felix Chami and why is his new book so timely and significant? Dr Chami is perhaps Tanzania’s most prolific archaeologist, educator and theoretical innovator. While many different academics have written on aspects of East Africa in Classical Antiquity, his was an original approach to the subject at hand, written for the scholar and layperson alike.

The result is a persuasive work of synthesis that is part site-work, part contemporary academic history and part imaginative re-creation.

Chami constructs a large picture of continent-wide unity from which the book’s title is drawn.

A fresh explanation to East Africa’s coastal multi-ethnic mix revolves around a series of internal migrations over centuries to the area, relegating to the proverbial dustbin the old canard of consecutive invaders bringing sophisticated urban society to the backward people of the Western Indian Ocean.

It makes sense and is best thinking on the subject in years for understanding East Africa’s changing social landscape over the period 3000 BC to AD 500.

Referring to conventional wisdom on Ancient Egypt as the colonial paradigm so prevalent over the past 130 years, he summarises the archaeological record to date, also citing ancient and modern historians.

HERODOTUS, WRITING IN THE 5TH Century BC, already knew what it would take another 2,500 years to discover: that Egyptian Pharaonic civilisation, a constellation of unparalleled architecture, gorgeous statuary and complex cosmology remarkable for its time and for all time, had been the work of Africans.

Yet during the 19th century, Victorian academics under the spell of pseudo-science thought Africans incapable of producing institutions of such complexity and beauty.

Why? Social Darwinists particularly saw human evolution as linear — a direct line from, say, slithering lizards to the British aristocracy. Segued into ideas of white supremacy, these outlandish presuppositions with their destructive implications became convenient subtexts for imperial expansion and colonial racism.

PERHAPS MORE INSIDIOUS, the glorious civilisations of Egypt and Classical Greece had been built by Europe’s white ancestors. It was not until the l980s that Martin Bernal, a Briton working out of Cornell University, New York, produced a profoundly anti-establishment treatise subversively entitled “Black Athena.” He suggested that Ancient Egyptians were neither European nor white but rather Afro-Asiatic, a multiethnic integration of Africans and Semites that Chami interprets as simply another way of saying Africans of many hues.

Chami’s ambitious work is not just an easy armchair narrative of historical synthesis but the product of years of experience in the field and hence a valuable archaeological archive as well.
Cave sites on the islands of Mafia and Zanzibar have yielded remains of domesticated animals that have been dated to between 2800 and 800 BC.

At another cave site in Zanzibar, chicken and cattle bones have been recovered that have all been dated to between 3300 BC and O BC. As chickens were first domesticated in Mesopotamia (Modern Iraq), their spread, involving human agency, had reached East Africa in ancient times, probably as early as 3000 BC, the same time African cereals had crossed to Asia.

Also related to the 3rd millennium BC, the date marking the earliest occupation of Zanzibar, is a pendant of gum copal, derived from a tree grown in East Africa that was found in a grave in Mesopotamia, suggesting that contact between the two areas began from this period if not earlier.

About 40 kilometres into the interior in the Rufiji Delta region, pottery of Roman or Indian origin has been found — suggesting that East African trade links with Ancient Rome was not restricted to the Indian Ocean islands and littoral but had extended deep into the interior.

Potsherds from Mafia island identified as having originated in the Nile Valley and dated to 800-400 BC support early dates for trade between the Nile Valley and the East African coast.

A CARNELIAN BEAD FOUND IN a Zanzibar cave was thought to have come either from India or Egypt, while a glass bead found in the same cave is thought to have originated in India, the carbon-14 dating for this bead being 135 to 45 BC.

Also discovered at Mafia Island were more beads and pottery from India attesting to a brisk trade between the two areas as well as two glass beads of Mediterranean origin dated from 300 BC to AD 400.

Chami’s exhaustive work, though a gem, is unfortunately unpolished. A crack editor should have been called in to keep the texture and contours of this complex, invaluable narrative in harmony, on track and lucid.

The author’s anarchistic English, his meandering sentences and tedious repetition of ideas and phrases, the result perhaps of returning again and again to the manuscript after long lapses in time, leave the reader gasping for air.

Manuscripts produced everywhere demand serious attention by skilled professionals. In this part of the world, dilettantism in publishing scholarly work is a general problem that surely must be resolved before the area can become truly competitive in the industry.

It bears repeating that no scholarly work or for that matter journal and newspaper articles as well as works of fiction should be allowed to go to press without the expertise of experienced editors. Book jackets are also crying out for talented graphic designers to make them attractive.

Without the input of these too often unacknowledged professionals, Chami’s endeavour falls just a bit short of being the crowning achievement of a life’s work that it aspires to be, at those giddy heights of universal scholarly excellence on East Africa in antiquity waiting to be scaled once more.

UK firms losing business in Kenya to China, India

By CHARLES WACHIRA

Posted Saturday, August 30 2008 at 15:53

When Kenya purchased Toyota vehicles for its military forces, instead of the all-pervasive Land Rover, it signalled a seismic change — in effect ending the most favoured status enjoyed by imports sourced from its erstwhile colonial master the UK.

Another example is De la Rue, a UK-based printing and security firm that has uninterruptedly printed Kenyan currency since independence. It is fighting to retain its contract.

The administration of Mwai Kibaki broke with tradition, inviting other internationally recognised firms to bid for the job.

The London-based firm J&S Franklin Ltd served as a single-source supplier of uniforms and combat kits for the armed forces since Kenya “unshackled” itself from British colonial rule in 1963.

It has recently been blackballed by Kenya’s Department of Defence when its contract was terminated to the benefit of a Chinese firm.

Similarly, Brooke Marine and Vosper Thornycroft, two British companies that have exclusively supplied ships to Kenya’s navy since independence, have had to contend with the phenomenon of open tendering.

This change of fortune for British firms is captured in the official annual economic survey cobbled together by the country’s Ministry of Finance. In 2007, imports from the UK were worth Ksh29,414 million ($4.9 million) — compared to China’s Ksh45,668 million ($7.6 million) or India’s Ksh56,815 million ($9.5 million).

Compare this with 2001 during the peremptory reign of Daniel arap Moi. UK imports then totalled Ksh21,989 million ($3.7 million) while China was at a much lower Ksh6,792 million ($1.1 million) and Indian imports amounted to a relatively puny Ksh12,830 million ($2.1 million).

Since the replacement of Moi’s government in 2003, it has taken China and India three years only for their imports to Kenya to overtake those from the UK, formerly a premier source of imports.

“It is as a result of prudent decision-making that the Kenyan government opened up the country to the Far East, including Asian countries. As a result, Kenya has been able to access countries that provide better deals,” says Dr Gerrishon Ikiara, a former permanent secretary in the Kibaki administration and currently a senior lecturer at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Nairobi. “In the past, procurement of government goods was shrouded in mystery. Then political considerations mattered more than economic sense,” he said.

According to the economist, Asian countries offer competitively priced goods and services compared with the UK.

“Right now most of Kenya’s roads are either being refurbished or built anew by Chinese firms. And all our international airports are also being upgraded by Chinese owned firms. This is after going through the process of open tendering,” Dr Ikiara said.

Kwame Otieno, a senior researcher with the local think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), blames “the rigidity of the British system” as the fillip triggering the dip in British imports. The IEA is a non-governmental organisation that promotes debate on policy issues.

Related Stories

• Suspicion over new EAC trade deal with the US

“If a Kenyan, for example, wants to visit the UK, they face a lot of stringent requirements that act as a hindrance. But if they wish to travel to the Far East, China or India, the process is enabling and travel-friendly.”

Sources said the change in bilateral trade relations between the UK and Kenya is as a result of poor relations between the political leaders of the two countries in the recent past.

It is argued that Moi had very cordial relationships with occupants of 10 Downing Street in London. Successive British governments deliberately turned a blind eye to the excesses of his government.

As a result, firms with British ties continued to receive lucrative contracts at the expense of other countries.

The Kibaki regime has been upbraided harshly, particularly by local British envoys, for failing to tame corruption in high places.

Confirming the bad blood between the two countries, Sir Edward Clay, British envoy from 2001 to 2005, was in early 2008 officially declared persona non grata by the Kenyan government.

Brown threat to boycott EU-Africa summit

By John O’Doherty

Published: September 19 2007 23:28 | Last updated: September 19 2007 23:28

Tensions over Europe’s policy on Africa have come to a head after Gordon Brown said he would not attend a crucial EU-Africa summit in Lisbon in December, to protest the attendance of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe.

“President Mugabe is the only African leader to face an EU travel ban,” the prime minister said in an article in Thursday’s Independent newspaper in the UK. “There is a reason for this – the abuse of his own people. There is no freedom in Zimbabwe: no freedom of association; no freedom of the press. And there is widespread torture and mass intimidation of the political opposition.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Labour moves to curb UK poll spending - Oct-31Cameron steps up pressure over EU treaty - Oct-15Westminster blog: Lib Dems axe Sir Menzies - Sep-24Matthew Engel: Storm tears limb from oak - Oct-10Brown seeks to learn from past disasters - Sep-28Bolton wonders whether poll is imminent - Sep-28Mr Brown said he believed that Mr Mugabe’s presence would undermine the summit, diverting attention from the important issues that needed to be resolved. “In those circumstances, my attendance would not be appropriate.”

European diplomats had been quietly hoping that Mr Mugabe would not attend the summit.

However, several months ago the 53 members of the African Union made clear to José Socrates, Portugal’s prime minister, that they would boycott the summit if the EU did not allow Zimbabwe to attend.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is believed to have told a meeting of EU foreign ministers earlier this month that Mr Brown would not attend the summit if Mr Mugabe was invited.

The announcement that Mr Brown is to boycott the summit will come as a blow to Portugal, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU and has made the success of the summit a priority.

The EU is keen to increase co-operation with Africa on issues of immigration and development as China steps up its investment in the continent.

The Lisbon summit is to be the first of its kind since an EU-Africa meeting in Cairo in 2000. Attempts to hold another summit in 2003 were derailed by the possibility of Mr Mugabe attending.

This latest setback presents the hosts with an excruciating choice – either blacklist Mr Mugabe and risk a boycott by other African countries, or allow Mr Mugabe to attend and risk the absence of Britain and perhaps other European countries.

Dr Watson’s racist findings and Africa’s chronic slide

October 30, 2007
One of the world’s most prominent scientists, Dr James Watson who shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule in 1962 burnt his fingers when he tried his hand at the hot potato of race and intelligence.

Dr Watson claimed that “most tests” had shown that overall Africans were not as intelligent as people of European descent and that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” He later apologised “unreservedly” for the comments adding that “there is no scientific basis for such a belief!”

Sadly, Africans always come at the tail end of most important aspects of human development and progress, somewhat lending credence to the purveyors of the racially prejudiced idea that attributes intelligence -or the lack of it- to race.

Many stand on these premises and claim that perhaps Africans would have been “better off” if the colonialists had stayed on “a little bit longer” to see through their dubious project of “civilising” the supposedly backward Africans. The proponents of this argument sneer when challenged by those who assert that colonialism and its effect on governace, was the bane of Africa’s progress.

They point to the fact that many other parts of the world such as Asia and the Americas whose (occupants are not predominantly black) were also colonised at some point but have come off much better than (black) Africa.

Because, Africa was one of the last places to be colonised, by the time the colonialists came to Africa they had learnt great lessons from their abortive experience elsewhere and perfected the art of colonisation. They knew that colonialism would never be acceptable as a permanent condition and would at some point in time be resisted by the “natives.” They had to be shrewd. Ways were devised to gain eternal control and that the continent would be in a state of everlasting dependence and chaos.

A global economic system was perfected to ensure that the South (Africa) perpetually provided raw materials for processing in industries based in the North (Europe) at a minimal cost.

To access lucrative markets, unfeasible standards were set such that African finished products found it impossible to gain entry. The territories in Africa that were not colonised would later suffer this consequence and end up like the rest of the continent– economies with uncertain and insufficient economic bases.

Furthermore to fit into this arrangement, Africans were disadvantaged since they had to abandon their language (and culture) as a medium of communication in trade, education and daily operations, for predominantly English and French. A good percentage of their life time would be spent trying to learn and “catch up;” with their European counterparts as a necessity.

When colonialism ran out of fashion, power was handed back to the “wrong” people ie “democratically elected” fellows (the Obotes) instead of kings and chiefs who “owned” it at the onset of colonialism, in “republics” which were in effect different nationalities that were hastily and haphazardly merged. The contentions between nationalities would feature prominently in the politics of the continent with disastrous consequences.

Naturally these “democratically elected” leaders were resisted. They in turn dug in to protect their new found privilege of power. They fell back onto their tribes mates whom they could trust for their protection and perpetuation. (The concept of Generals coming from one area is no accident). Politics and leadership became a game of one tribe displacing another and trying to hang on as long as possible.

With this came along the evils of sectarianism, and corruption since recruitment was not on merit. Inefficiency, low motivation and productivity set in because being at one’s best did not guarantee promotion in ones field of expertise. Knowing the right people, did. The military coups of the late 60s and the early 70s funded by the dynamics of the cold war, stifled democracy, free thought and created an atmosphere of perennial fear and uncertainty which was definitely not conducive in bringing out the best of Africans.

It sparked unending devastation, with a good amount of the (productive) human resource (16-45 years) wasted either as refugees or as “combatants” practicing the art of destruction and not construction. Foreign aid and its high interest became inevitable yet in real terms encroached further on the continent’s resources, since most of it is either stolen or goes back to the donors as payment to expatriates tied to it.

The continent’s revenues ended up in unproductive defence expenditure instead of research, education, health, infrastructural development and investment and yet these are the aspects that would set a favourable environment and Africans would function and be judged correctly.

Many Africans and blacks, who have had studied and worked in (European) environments that cherish merit, invest in human resource, value and pay fairly for the input of individuals and their ideas, plus create an atmosphere of certainty, security progress and development have shot holes in the idea of race and intelligence.

France; Let them be killed

By ZACHARY OCHIENG

Despite France’s persistent denial of its role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which left close to a million people dead within 100 days, a new book says Paris had knowledge of the impending slaughter. The Role of France in the Rwandan Genocide, a 330-page work by Daniela Kroslak, published by Hurst and Company of London, explores the historical and contextual background of the Rwandan genocide and French involvement in Africa.

The book goes further to explore the often raised questions: What advance knowledge did Paris have about preparations for genocide? Was the French diplomatic and military establishment capable of stopping the preparations for and commission of the genocide?

Francois Grignon, International Crisis Group Africa Programme director, says the book is, “A superb job of looking systematically at French responsibility in the Rwanda genocide. From a research point of view, Kroslak provides the best analysis I have read of the motivations behind Operation Turquoise.

“The book also provides key insights into French policies at the UN in New York and during the Arusha negotiations. The argument is strong, well presented and unbreakable.

“But this book also goes much further than just explaining the disaster of French policy and proving French responsibility. It presents a fundamental set of questions regarding international responsibility and action against mass murder, which are still relevant 13 years later.

“It is not an anti-French diatribe, and that’s why it is strong. It is balanced, and also highlights in conclusion the contradictions and inadequacies of America and Britain’s post-genocide policies.”

After the Holocaust, the victorious allies pledged “never again” to allow genocide. This promise, enshrined in the UN Convention on Genocide, stipulates a responsibility to prevent genocide or mitigate the suffering of its victims.

In this regard, the author asks: To what extent can external actors, such as the French government, be held responsible for not preventing or not suppressing genocide in Rwanda and how can this responsibility be evaluated? Why, almost 50 years after the signing of the Genocide Convention, did the outside world remain passive while Hutu extremists perpetrated genocide against the Tutsi minority and Hutu moderates in Rwanda?

“French involvement in Rwanda was marked by a close relationship between French and Rwandan authorities. As part of the Francophone grouping of states, Rwanda represented an important ally in the pursuit of Francophone interests in Central Africa.

“With reference to a military co-operation, therefore, it was no surprise that then French president Francois Mitterand did not hesitate to help the Rwandan regime against a rebel invasion,” Kroslak writes.

By providing a comprehensive and critical analysis of France’s role in Rwanda from 1990 to 1994, the author reveals that France was indeed well informed about the deteriorating situation in Rwanda prior to and during the genocide.

She writes: “It was heavily involved on the ground and maintained good relations with the elites that eventually committed the genocide. Furthermore, it possessed the capability to intervene — politically and militarily — on behalf of those who were victimised by the government.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS and interviews support the argument that the French government bears responsibility for its inaction in relation to the prevention and suppression of the genocide.”

Kroslak writes that the analysis of diplomatic correspondence and government statements from October 1990 to March 1994 shows that the deterioration of ethnic relations was an issue that preoccupied French officials in Kigali and Paris.

The propaganda campaign waged against the Tutsis and the political opposition did not go unnoticed. In a diplomatic cable of December 19, 1990, then French ambassador to Rwanda Georges Martres, stated, “The rapid deterioration of the relations between the two ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi... leads to the imminent risk of a slip with harmful consequences for Rwanda and the whole region.”

According to Kroslak, further evidence of the French government’s knowledge concerning the worsening situation is found in the correspondence of its military attache in Kigali.

In two messages, Col Rene Galinie informed Paris about the worrying state of affairs in the country. As early as October 12, 1990, Col Galinie said that, “This conflict will end by degenerating into an ethnic war.”

Twelve days later, he branded the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) as foreign invaders, and predicted that if the RPF tried to gain power, this would “in all likelihood lead to a physical elimination of the 500,000 to 700,000 Tutsis inside Rwanda by the 700,000 Hutus.”

Despite this prediction, Col Galinie aligned himself behind the government rhetoric, namely that the Tutsi invaders were out to re-establish the political power they lost in 1959.

Another French official, General Jean Varret, the head of the military co-operation mission to Rwanda from October 1990 to April 1993, on his arrival met the Rwandan Col Rwagafilita, who explained the Tutsi question to him thus: “They are very few, we will liquidate them.” Kroslak further argues that Kigali’s diplomatic community in general was concerned about the deteriorating situation.

On December 19, 1990, the ambassadors of France, Belgium and Germany and the representatives of the European Union in Rwanda jointly prepared a report warning that, “The rapid deterioration of the relations between the two ethnic groups — the Hutu and the Tutsi — runs the imminent risk of terrible consequences for Rwanda and the entire region.”

The author says, “Considering these various communications and statements from the early days of the civil war, one can plausibly argue that the French government was aware of the ingredients for an explosive mix in Rwanda. President Mitterand was informed about the dangerous situation, but believed that the tide would turn. After all, that is why the French troops were there.”

Besides the French government’s own sources of information regarding the preparation of the genocide, there were also external sources, including reports from inside and outside Rwanda, appeals from civil society, as well as concerns voiced by journalists and researchers.

Kroslak admits that it is difficult to be categorical that this information reached the French government and its representatives. However, she adds that there are strong grounds for assuming that reports in the public sphere would be known by Paris, especially considering the French government’s interest in Rwanda. Further information was available to the French government via its seat on the UN Security Council and its role in the UN.

After France had pushed for a peacekeeping mission for Rwanda, as agreed by the Arusha Accords, this force provided yet another pool of knowledge from which the French government could draw.

ACCORDING TO THE ARUsha Accords, the UN had to play a significant role in the Rwanda peace process. The agreement provided for a neutral international force that would assist with the implementation of the peace agreement.

In New York, France was heavily involved in the drafting of Resolution 872, which created the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (Unamir). Once it was established, Unamir’s reports revealed that the situation was increasingly worrying in Rwanda, and that the force commander had to passively watch this spiral towards genocide.

“Probably the most famous document in the months preceding the Rwanda genocide is the so-called Genocide Cable, written by Unamir’s force commander Major General Romeo Dallaire on January 11, 1994,” writes Kroslak.

“This cable notified UN headquarters of an informant who revealed that the Interahamwe trained men in camps and that the personnel were able to kill up to 1,000 Tutsis in 20 minutes,” the author adds.

THE INFORMANT SAID HE was told to register all Tutsis in Kigali for them to be killed. He also disclosed plans to kill Belgian soldiers (which subsequently happened on April 7), which would be followed by the Belgian battalion’s withdrawal.

A cable of January 12, 1994, told Paris about the situation: “The information obtained by Unamir is serious and plausible. In fact, several pieces of evidence show that arms are actually distributed to certain elements of the population.”

But the French government ignored this. Although France, with its troops, representatives and intelligence services on the ground was far better informed than Unamir, it could also draw on the reports of Unamir.

Although information was available about the threat to exterminate the Tutsi, there was no reaction by the French permanent representative to the UN Security Council concerning the increasing violence.

The French presence on the ground in Rwanda gave France certain knowledge of the situation, which other Security Council members never obtained.

The French government ignored warnings such as the one voiced by the UNHCR special delegate to Rwanda, Michael Moussali, who expressed his unease in late February, by predicting a bloodbath if the political stalemate was not overcome soon.

Kroslak writes that, “All this while, the French had the military capability to prevent the genocide. The troops on the ground could have taken advantage of their position to influence the regime or place certain conditions on the assistance provided.

“Furthermore, proper attention could have been given to the candidates being trained by the French. Better co-operation between French troops and Unamir during the last months of 1993 might also have helped to uncover arms caches and protect citizens at risk.”

Politically, the French government’s presence in Rwanda and its close relationship with the Rwandan government was bound to influence Juvenal Habyarimana’s regime.

By refusing to condone the extremist measures being instigated by the elites, Mitterand could have forced through a change in policy. After all, Rwanda was heavily dependent on France’s support, financially, economically and militarily.

JUST AS THERE WERE NO SERIous efforts to demand that the elites adopt a less extremist attitude, there was hardly any reaction to the news of the many massacres committed prior to the genocide. “Despite the fact that the creation of documented structures of violence (death squads, death lists, and later, hate propaganda inciting violence) provided warnings of a potential genocide, the French government remained silent,” Kroslak writes.

The French government should have shown its disapproval because the massacres and the repression were themselves designed, in part at least, to probe the resolve of the UN and other international actors.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, former UN special representative to Burundi, says, “These killings were all little tests of how the international community would react.”

During its heavy involvement in Rwanda, Paris tolerated racist propaganda speeches, such as the one made in November 1992 by Leon Mugesera, a close confidante of Habyarimana, promulgating anti-Hamitism.

No pressure was put on the government to curb such speeches.Although Paris adopted a rhetoric of democratisation after the 1990 La Baule conference, its support for democratic opposition parties in Rwanda was limited.

More effort could have been made to foster its influence and importance within Rwandan society.

“Attempts to openly encourage democracy were limited to some token statements from the embassy and from Paris. Instead, the French government equated an ethnic with a democratic majority,” writes Kroslak.

The author argues that the French government had several other opportunities to avert the killings in Rwanda. The most obvious measure would have been a more critical and open attitude towards the French public concerning its dealings in Rwanda.

Opening up these dealings to public scrutiny might have thrown up a debate about French engagement in Rwanda, which might in turn have altered the attitudes of officials in Paris and even in Kigali.

The French government still refuses to acknowledge the fact that the RPF force was made up of refugees that had fled Rwanda a generation before and was not committing an “external aggression” in any normal sense.

If the French authorities had had a more balanced attitude towards the RPF, and the refugee issue in general, their military support for the Habyarimana regime might have been less wholehearted.

The Rwandan president might in turn have been more willing to negotiate with the RPF and have realised that a negotiated settlement was the solution. But the backing of Paris made him and his allies too self-confident.