Faces of Black Africa: The Enemy of the Libyan Revolts

In the absence of live television feed of the events in Libya, television shows on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360) took to getting information over the phone by anonymous Libyans. The message that was being repeated by their informant(s) was that Libyans were being targeted by “Black People” or African Mercenaries.  This means that the automatic face of the ‘enemy’ became the dark-skinned non-Arab people from Africa. Indeed there were reports of people from Sub-Saharan Africa that were raiding houses but there were also reports of Africans from Morocco, Chad and Tunisia (who may look more like Libyan) hired as mercenaries as well. It seems though that reporting of the 'sub-Saharan' enemy was most salient to report (and loop) before a proper, and thoughtful analysis could be made on the profile of the enemy. Whilst I appreciate the media outlets attempt at reporting the movement ‘as it happened’ (unlike the case with Egypt where Al Jazeera was the only station in that country from the beginning), this move proved to be problematic because it served to indiscriminately single out all the dark-skinned people  ‘the enemy’. This contributed the targeting this demographic. Libya is comprised of both dark-skinned and light skinned Libyans (See:Black Africans in Libya). It is also host to a number of Libya also hosts dark skinned and light skinned Africans from various countries in Africa. Thus social constructs of color and ethnicity can be problematic because there are no clear lines between color and ethnicity; many dark-skinned Africans can be Arabs and many light skinned Africans can be non-Arab.
 

Many dark-skinned Africans have been living in Libya for a long time. This consists of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) embassy workers,  students, workers from private companies and the majority that are migrant workers. The foreign migrant workers were already facing resentment in Libya due to labor competition with Libyan citizens. So when 'Black Africans' were openly and repeatedly being singled out as the enemy on major international networks, this exploited color- based divisions within Libya. Although it was not the networks reporters that were reporting this information themselves, it needs to be noted that when news media allow an avenue for people to name an ‘enemy’ (particularly ethnic minorities) they fuel an already volatile situation. There is a clear difference between informants saying on air that “people from Niger  or Chad are shooting us” and looping statements based on color like, "the Blacks are killing us"  which creates sensationalism. The former is more likely, result in Libyans making a greater effort in trying to identify who is a member of that particular group through more probing questions, the latter is more likely to result in being targeted based appearance. This can be compared to the attacks on minorities in America after September 11^th where naming Arabs as ‘the enemy’ resulted in regular Americans targeting all “Brown peoples” (American and non-American alike) based on visual appearances. Americans did not distinguish between Indians, Saudis, Koreans, or other groups. They targeted all people that looked like what they thought members of the ‘the axis of evil’ looked like. This is what began to happen in Libya, we soon saw hundreds of dark-skinned Africans begin to get killed by mobs of angry Libyans that were upset that African mercenaries were hired to kill them. Most mobs under such conditions will kill first and ask, “Are you a mercenary or migrant?”, later.

In one some cases, dark-skinned  and/or African Libyan citizens were killed because people started viewing them as ‘the enemy’. It even led Gaddafi (albeit not in a position to make moral judgments) to state that Libyans are both Black Africans and Arab Africans in his speech.  In one particular case, footage of alleged mercenaries were captured and uploaded on you tube. This video depicts the bodies of ‘alleged African mercenaries’ displayed in public in front of the mob quite reminiscent of the lynching of African-Americans in the South. What is particularly problematic in this case was that bodies were that of Black Libyans mistaken for Black African non-Libyans. Furthermore, the video has been placed on many websites that link to  the You Tube footage. In an increasingly globalized world that uses social media, footage in one country is easily accessible in another country. This raises greater need for sensitivity on how the deceased bodies of African people have been historically displayed in the media, (and now using social media and user generated content). On one newspaper that reproduced this footage, somebody who actually recognized the one of the people killed and left this comment:

“Submitted by Fazzani (not verified) on Wed, 23/02/2011 - 10:28.

I am very sorry to see these clips. One of the guys in the seen is black Libyan "not from other African countries" His family lives in EL Mansoura village in Elwadi shatty district. About 200 KM from Borack Ashhati. ( Borack AL Shatty is about 700KM south of Tripoli). I have not got permission to put his name here. Hope his family will see this and they will clarify....” Source: France 24

This type of images, particularly for the friends and family of the deceased, are insensitive towards people who are victims of mob injustice.  When the victims face and identity are so clear, their lives are devalued as human beings. It also raises questions whether these images would still be on YouTube (I flagged it two days ago) or the web pages of news outlets like France 24 or even ‘gone viral’ if the victims were not from Africa or the ‘global south’. It propagates the stereotypes of violent and 'savage' Africans particularity since similar violent images from the global North are often filtered or taken off line.  I have yet to see a comparable video where the deceased is a member of a non-African country on You Tube.  In another report, 70 dark-skinned African migrant workers that had been working with an international company in Libya were massacred at the site of their employment because they were dark skinned whilst all other workers were spared. These were obviously not mercenaries since they were clearly working but Sub-Saharan Africans continue to be targeted in Libya in this way. What has noticeably absent from CNN which first  eagerly aired reports on ‘Black African ‘ mercenaries, were follow up stories about dark skinned Africans (both Libyan and other African immigrants) being targeted and killed by Arab or light skinned Libyans. Perhaps if they dedicated equal time to this type of story, it may have not made all Black Africans automatic victims.  Sub-Saharan Africans are now trying to leave Libya in droves in fear of their lives but many are unable to leave. They are the most vulnerable group in Libya at the moment and face genocide.

As noted in: Africans Revolt in the Middle East: How Egypt's Revolts Won't Impact Africa , the separation of Arab and Sub-Saharan Africa is problematic for Africa as a continent.  Class divisions have lead to Arab Africans suppressing Black Africans (including Black Libyans), due to the existence of class divisions based on color. The division between North African and Sub-Saharan Africa has manifested in the violence that we have seen in the past few days. It has lead to a situation where mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa, have not been able to unite around Libya’s attempt to overthrow an oppressive regime. Instead we see easy recruitment of willing mercenaries from sub-Saharan countries that may not necessarily view Libyans as Africans with common oppressions. It should also be noted that some of the mercenaries have been unwilling participants having been forcibly recruited by the Libyan regime. The future relations of Africans from the North and South will face challenges due to this incident because it will widen the divide. There needs to be greater effort for North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans to recognize their common continental history as Africans to mitigate xenophobia between the two entities.

Africans Revolt in the Middle East: How Egypt's Revolts Won't Impact Africa

The narrative of Egypt’s protest by the west has been void of Africa and void of an analysis on its implications for Africa. Egypt is often cited, together with South Africa and Nigeria as the strongholds in Africa. In fact, Egypt was instrumental in the creation of the African Union (AU) and its neighbor Tunisia, is home to African institutions like the African Development Bank. Yet, it appears that the narrative surrounding the peoples revolts in North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt) are being covered as if they bear no consequence or effects for African nations in the continent that they belong to. It is certainly appreciated that the revolts will have effects on Middle Eastern countries like Jordan and Yeman, but it should be appreciated that we cannot pretend that it does not affect Sub-Saharan Africa. We can certainly not expect current African leaders to make bold statements about the revolts in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt because it has consequences for many their own leaderships. In fact, the African Union has stood in the background as they meet at the 2011 African Union meeting and continue to discuss the fate of another dictator, Gbagbo. Instead, we are confronted with a string of CNN experts on Middle East that have been summoned for a political analysis, but have yet to hear CNN (or any other major network in the US) inquire about the African Union’s position on the revolts or any opinion on what this means for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, there has been no mention on how these revolts will affect its immediate neighbors, Sudan and Libya. Sub-Saharan African countries have many historical, political, cultural, and economic similarities with the North African countries (including a shared land mass), yet there is the continued popular western tendency is to separate North Africa from sub-Saharan Africa. This sentiment manifests in the types of narratives and coverage we are hearing from the western media and politicians about the revolts.

The perception that somehow Africa is a homogenous continent and that all Africans are Black, Christian, or non-Arabic, non-Muslim is an underlying assumption used in denying North Africa's connection to the rest of Africa. The other factor centers on an unwillingness to attribute ancient Egyptian civilizations advancements to the continent of Africa because of the euro-centric belief that there were no advancements in Africa by Africans prior to European contact (hence, North Africans are not African). The argument is that North Africans have ‘Middle Eastern” cultures, but at what point does “middle eastern culture” simply become “North African culture or African culture in the North Africa?”.  The current social construct of the Middle East has been inconsistent, irrational, and problematic for many. North Africans should be able to claim a double heritage of being African countries with Middle Eastern heritage. It is possible for a continent to have multiple cultural groups in it.  As an example, the East Asian country of China and the south Asian country of India are both in Asia but have different cultures but share some similarities as Asian countries. Similarly, the countries of Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, may have ‘Middle Eastern’ cultures, but also have strong African roots that are similar to countries like Sudan, Nigeria (which both have a large Muslim populations), Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya. Egypt and Sudan's histories have intertwined for years. Instead of trying to separate the continent, we (particularly, the west) should allow space for duality for these countries. We should be looking at North African and Middle Eastern cultures as having the same cultures as opposed to trying to separate North Africa from sub-Saharan Africa. Whether one likes to admit it or not, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Western Sahara and Sudan are African countries and their histories are part of the history of Africa.

The practice of western governments supporting African dictators is not unique to North Africa, it has happened in many African countries. In the age of internet and Wikileaks though, its harder for them to deny propping up dictators. Particularly, those that do not have the support  and interests of their people. Egypt and Tunisia are not the only African countries that suffer high inflation and unemployment under dictators. This is happening in other countries throughout the continent like Zimbabwe, Gabon, and Senegal. The difference is the west tends to think that African people, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, only revolt because they can’t get along with others from a different religion or ethnic group (“tribalism”). Africa’s problems are not only about race, ethnic groups, or ‘tribes’- economic injustice is usually an underlying factor that takes form in ethnic tensions. Africans across the continent struggle for economic a political justice and this plight is not unique to North Africa. Africans all over the continent are seeking fundamental changes. The events in North Africa will have consequences in Africa (See: Fire in the Arab World: A real lesson for African politicians).  In fact, according to political scientist Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ethiopia’s government has issued a complete blackout on coverage of the Tunisian riots to its public for fear of it spreading to its borders. One wonders if this year will mark a second revolution for many African countries - a peoples' revolution where all the people of Africa will take back their countries from dictators and send them packing to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia seems to be a popular destination for dictators. Another infamous African dictator, Idi Amin, went to Saudi Arabia to seek refuge just like Ben Ali did, and this is the potential destination for Mubarak. So when Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali left power, the revolution was not just a Middle Eastern story, it was also an African story. As noted in an article by Alemayehu G. Mariam, “The Tunisian people's revolution should be an example for all Africans struggling to breathe under the thumbs and boots of ruthless dictators.” Similarly, the revolt about economic injustice is an African story. 

So as the African Union meets in Ethiopia this week to discuss events on the continent, two of its long standing leaders may not be represented. African leaders are already dealing with the repercussions as they sit to discuss the current protests in Gabon. Already, we are seeing revolts of over 5,000 people in the Gabon revolts that started Tuesday, January 25th, 2011. In  surprising move, the opposition leader, Mba Obame declared that he is the winner of the contested 2009 elections and is the legitimate president.  During the 2009 election, there were riots in Gabon over the election results that soon died out. Obame this week cited Ivory Coast and Tunisia during a rally, saying "history was on the march". In this case though, it is clear that Obame is the figurehead of the revolts and that it may not be a grassroots movement but a politically led one. Other African Presidents like Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal have stated that he is not worried about a revolt occurring in his country because he would be able to suppress it. Nevertheless, there is evidence that African leaders across the continent are paying close attention to the events in North Africa because it has real consequences for Africa. However, coverage of the revolts and its effects have not been inclusive on its impact on sub-Saharan Africa even though Egypt is in Africa.

It was interesting to hear CNN’s “Facts about Egypt” being reiterated by CNN presenters that included a historical accounts of Egypt void of colonialism. CNN reporters are repeatedly citing that Egypt’s economy was under “foreign control” until 1953. By ‘foreign control’ they are indirectly referring to colonialism and are clearly glancing over the effects of foreign economic control over and neo-colonialism had on Egypt’s economy. True, it is not the only reason for wealth not trickling down to its masses, but my argument here is that one cannot just ‘glance’ the fact that the period of foreign control they are referring to  was colonialism, and colonialism is a part of the history and legacy in every African country (including Ethiopia, albeit not being colonized). When anti-colonial struggle were being fought on the continent, it was the people of the African continent that worked together to overthrow imperialism on the continent. It was not a Middle Eastern anti-colonial movement that came in to liberate North Africa; it was African people living under similar conditions jointly seeking self-liberation.  Not acknowledging Egypt’s colonial legacy or its connection and leadership in the continent robs Egyptians of their history in a subtle but meaningful way. Africans have long struggled for freedom over several years. The forms of governments that are in power in contemporary Africa have their roots in colonialism and the African experience. The North African revolts need to be analyzed given richer insight inclusive of the African historical experience.

African Presidents Step Down, Pack Up, and Head Home to Retire!

Since Independence from the undemocratic rule of the colonial governments, many African countries have gone through less than five presidents over a time span of roughly, 50 years. It is very rare that an African leader decides to step down, pack up the state house, and head to their village to retire. They tend to die in office (naturally or via assassination), fall victims to coups, or escape to foreign countries due to imminent threats on their lives. The recent events in Ivory Coast surrounding Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down is the most recent example of an African leader clinging to power undemocratically, but it also touches on the wider issue of the unwillingness of many African Presidents in African democratic and non-democratic countries to admit defeat and/or step down. African leaders have had a poor record of stepping down over the past few years. Notorious leaders that are holding on to power today include Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Omar Bongo (Gabon) and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt). In fact, the situation is so dire that a Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim, has offered a monetary incentive for African presidents to peacefully leave office as an incentive for relinquishing power when their time is up through the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation has been trying to rebrand Africa through influencing good governance and through rewarding sucessful leaders with an award and money. For many, stepping down poses the risk of being held accountable for past deeds, primarily for ‘disappearance’ of opposition leaders and public funds. When handing over power to someone outside one’s own 'kitchen cabinet', political party or ethnic group, or geographical area, many African leaders know that they need to appoint someone that will not persecute them for their misdeeds whilst in office. Usually, this encourages and establishes the use of coups as a guaranteed or proven method of handing over power. Otherwise many African citizens have to rely on 'waiting' for the often long and protracted death of a dictator. Africa's longest dictator, Bongo, ruled Gabon for 42 years.

There are however, a few African Presidents or dictators have managed to step down peacefully. Notably, these were Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Kamuzu Banda of Malawi. When Nelson Mandela stepped down as President in 1999, after five years as President, he set a precedent in South Africa for Presidents from that country, to continue to step down. Since Mandela, we have seen a succession of Presidents in South Africa after the dictatorial rule of the apartheid regime. In stepping down, he sent a message to the African and International world leaders South Africa was going to continue down a democratic path. Likewise, he showed African citizens in various countries that their own leaders should be able to step down. With few skeletons (if any) in his political closet, it was easy for Mandela to step down. He had no ‘disappearing’ opponents or ‘disappearing’ public funds during his presidency. In the case of Jerry Rawlings, Rawlings took power by means of a coup and ruled as a dictator, from 1981-1992. During this time, he liberalized politics, held elections, was elected in a 1993 fair general election, re-elected in 1997 and retired by 2001 when his term concluded.

In the case of Malawi, Kamuzu Hastings Banda was Malawi's first President but after elected to office, he consolidated his power, had a long and brutal reign but still stepped down after he agreed to a referendum that was held 1993. Banda is touted as one of the worst dictators in Africa in the terms of brutality and acquired wealth yet, despite the nature of his regime, he stepped down after a referendum that ended three decades of totalitarian rule. When Malawi’s Catholic Pastors issued a pastoral letter highlighting the abuses they saw in the country by the Banda Regime in 1992. This was followed by a call towards multi-party state in the same year by Chafuwka Chihana. The Muslims in Malawi joined forces with the Catholics and other Christian groups to work towards change. University students at University of Malawi also began to call for change resulting in the temporary shutdown of the university. The Malawi Army, who may have been the only force in a position to organize a coup during his reign, also appeared to be serving the interests of Malawian law and order and did not attempt a military takeover of power. Through Operation Bwezani, they disarmed his network of unofficial security, the Malawi Young Pioneers, in a peaceful disarmament process. This was followed by referendum in 1993. When Malawians voted for change to multi-partisim, Banda, in spite of his hegemony (which included 33 years of rule), did not try to cling to power. He stepped down after he was stripped of power and helped newly emerging opposition parties and the church through the transition in preparation for the country’s first general elections. It is important to note that Banda was tried for the Mwanza Four murders, where four opposition leaders were killed in 1965 but acquitted due to lack of concrete evidence and his advanced age. Banda, like Rawlings, lived peacefully amongst his people after their presidencies.

Although Malawi’s situation may have some different dynamics since Malawi has negligible ethnic and religious divisions, has had no wars, and a series of civilian presidents, the presence of which may compound political situations in other countries; the case of Malawi may stand as an example to other countries with dictators like Banda that peaceful transitions are possible even after extended periods of dictatorial rule (See: Video on Malawi's Peaceful Transition) . Since Banda stepped down without resistance, Malawi has seen two Presidents in since 1994, and the sitting President is also expected to step down as well. It is important to note that both Malawian Presidents have made attempts at extending their rule thorough the introduction of a third term, but these constitutional amendments have been successfully quashed through constitutional means in Malawi parliaments. Malawians are not prepared to go back to extended or life Presidents like that had under Banda. Malawi's current President, Bingu Mutharika has indicated that he plans on stepping down. As the current chair of the AU, he has also been vocal in encouraging Gbagbo to step down.

Although, the majority of African leaders cling to power, we need to closely examine the exceptions to this rule so that we don’t brand or lump each country unfairly. Also, so that African leaders and citizens see that stepping down is an option and is possible. Mandela, Rawlings and Banda all stepped down without their own resistance albeit having different lengths of rule and/or operating different societal conditions. Mandela did so in a newly democratic country backed by a new constitution; Rawlings began to introduce democratic principles after his coup, adopting a more democratic constitution and setting the stage for him to withdraw; and lastly, Banda did it whilst operating under a completely undemocratic and totalitarian country shroud with political controversies. Hopefully, Gbagbo, his supporters and the Ivorian people, can learn from these recent precedents regardless of what political stage they are in. One also hopes that when their own terms are up or when faced with defeat, the now vocal African leaders that are currently calling for Gbagbo to step down, follow suit by packing up, going home, and returning to their own mansions in their village. 

** To add to the list of presidents that have stepped down in Africa, I would like to add that Julius Nyerere also stepped down in 1984. See: http://www.nathanielturner.com/juliuskambaragenyerere.htm 

The Truth About Corruption in Africa

The concept of "corrupt Africa" has been a central theme permeating all sectors of the African world from the private sector to government. In fact, it is generally agreed by Africans and Non-Africans that corruption is a problem in Africa that often times seems insurmountable. Most people in the world in Africa and outside of Africa have internalized the legend of the corrupt African leaders. I call it legend here, because like a legend, the concept of the corruption in Africa takes on this form as it is often not objective, nor is it always completely based on the facts.

The majority of Africa's citizens are against corruption. Africa's citizens have been told repeatedly by the Western leaders, the World Bank, UN and other independent non-governmental organizations that corruption is the major reason for their not getting more programs, business, development and/or more loans. They have also been told that their leaders and their officials have an uncanny predilection towards white collar crime. So today, Africa's everyday citizens support anti-corruption candidates in elections and continuously long to get rid of corruption in their society. Almost all elected African leaders now run on a platform of stamping out corruption within their government. They understand that African people are tired of corruption and want to see change in this area. Corruption committees are formed and charges are filed against low profile citizens. On occasion, higher ranking government leaders, particularly from the opposition, are also brought down on corruption charges. Many African countries are making strides towards fighting corruption. According to Nigerian finance minister, Ngozi Ojonjo-Iweala, the data from the World Bank shows that there has been a decrease in African levels of corruption in recent years, but this is not often talked about in popular media. In spite of any efforts made to combat corruption or the levels of corruption, in 'Brand Africa', corruption is a word that has become synonymous with Africa.

Whilst I agree that corruption exists at different levels in Africa, it must first be stated that corruption is not something that is uniquely inherent to Africans and African leaders. Second, that there are different levels of corruption that exists within a country and continent. Third, that corruption doesn’t is not strictly an internal affair. Finally, that my arguments are not meant to absolve the responsibility that African countries should take for their own actions.

A large part of place branding requires follow through - one must certainly clean their own house in order to tell visitors about their clean house and in order to invite them in. I also think we should consider that not everyone else's house is clean but that this doesn’t deter them from trying to shape a 'clean' or positive image. For example, certain levels of corruption exists in US, but the US government doesnt make it its sole objective, nor does it stop them from marketing themselves to the world as a country thats relatively free from corruption. No country is free from corruption. True, rebranding African countries shouldn’t consist of a series of empty promises otherwise it diminishes the brand, but what is key is to draw out the positive and accurate realities of a nation as a basis. In other words, African countries and its citizens should not be blindly accepting and internalizing corruption as an automatic part of their brand, hence culture, without considering the reach and depth of the corruption or rethinking the validity of the label.

Corruption happens every day, all over the world at different levels but African corruption is always mentioned as a factor inherent to Africans. As if somehow, Africans are more morally corrupt than inhabitants of other nations. Other nations or leaders are often citing the example of African corruption as part of the 'Africa Problem'. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, noted in a speech at the TED conference, that it is not often mentioned but one needs to consider that African leaders do not act by themselves when corruption occurs. There is involvement from someone in the host country. Often, when large some of monies are being smuggled out of Africa, there is a law being violated in recipient country. Nigeria’s government has now put together a task force together with the World Bank that is slowly recovering African money that is being held illegally in foreign bank accounts (See: Okonjo-Iweala's TED presentation).


In reading the book, 'African Culture & American Business in Africa: How to Strategically Manage Cultural Differences in African Business' by Emmanuel Nnadozie which is a guide for American businesses doing business in Africa, Nnandozi notes that the oft cited reason of 'corruption' as a valid hindrance for companies and countries not being able to invest in Africa in fact, is not legitimate. He notes here that the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China are ranked high on corruption indices but still benefit from favorable international business and trade relationships. Yet, in the case for Africa, the same  foreign companies or countries will cite corruption as the reason that businesses hold back investment in for Africa. It is clear through this, that the perception of corruption in Africa is not positive and that double standards may exist here.

In addition, the data I found for the Transparency International's Corruption Index 2009 and Nation Master's 2009 further corroborates this analysis. From this data, it can be noted for example that Russia, Brazil and China rank the same or above countries like Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Burkino Faso, Senegal, and Ghana on the corruption indices, respectivley. Yet, there is a tendency by non-Africans to refer to African countries always being more corrupt than any other region. There is also tendency for Africans to believe the legend of the corrupt Africa without needed scrutiny. In fact, it is interesting that in the Transparency International data, it indicates that although regionally, both the Middle East/North Africa and the Newly Independent countries in East Europe (Russia, Georgia, Belarus etc...) where more corrupt then African countries, Africans actually perceived themselves to be the most corrupt of all regions. In contrast, the aforementioned countries perceived themselves as less corrupt than African countries when in fact they were more. Whilst the variables they use to define corruption by these two organizations may come in to question, the general patterns we see from the surveys show that the popular legend of the corrupt African country is not true for all African countries. It also shows that the perceptions of corruption in Africa are higher than the realities. These poor perceptions mean that some level of brand management is needed by individual nations for internal and external customers to view their brand as less corrupt hence lowering current negative perceptions.

Many countries outside of Africa have problems with corruption. Corruption is not unique to Africa. Although the levels and frequency may vary, if other countries can manage their 'corruption' brands in spite of their own internal corruption issues, so can African countries. They do need to follow through on consistency though so that anti-corruption is not just an empty promise. I think there is a need for Africans in Africa and abroad to reevaluate where countries realistically stand on factors like corruption. There is also a need not to streotype all African countires by taking the measure of corruption in one country and applying them to all the African countries. On certain issues like corruption, we should pull out the positives for each country, and then work from there to project accuracy if we are going to manage our places and products, and this may take a certain level of Afro-optimism. It may also mean debunking the legend of African corruption.

Corporate Irresponsibility, Extraction, And The Nigerian Oil Spill

The world recently watched a minute-by-minute play on the oil spill in the Gulf, but the inhabitants of the Niger-Delta region in Nigeria have been watching minute-by-minute oil spills for the past 40 years. As the world watches every single step taken by BP to clear up the oil spill, the Nigerians watch  rivers already flowing with oil due to lack of any clean up effort, giving the Gulf region a precedent of the damage that can occur, and leaving them little room to speculate about what may lay ahead for the Gulf. Large oil producing MNC's like Shell, have been spilling oil in the region with little regard for the environmental guidelines. According to the BBC, there were over 7,000 spills, large and small, between 1970 and 2000 which amounts to an estimated 13 million barrels of oil. According to News Desk article,  'Niger Delta Oil Spills Dwarf BP, Exxon Valdez Catastrophies',  Idris Musa, head of Nigeria’s oil spill response agency, said "an additional 2,405 spills by all major oil companies in the region have occurred since 2006." The discovery of oil in this region has been a nightmare for the 31 million living in the area. This has caused the pollution of water, land and air in this region. The Ogoni are the dominant ethnic group that live here and over the years, they have watched their fisheries depleted in the oil-rich area, catapulting them in to a life of hunger, disease and poverty. Although human rights groups and Nigerians have protested about the disregard of enviomental guidelines here, little improvements have been achieved. Shell, for example, has blamed sabotage for the oil spills and denied responsibility.



The oil spills in this area are a result of a mixed combination of  factors including an aging oil infrastructure, corroding pipes, and sabotage by thieves or rebel groups. Whilst Shell may not be responsible for every single oil spill, instead of making attempts to clean up the environment,  they have been using evasive tactics when it comes to Nigeria. Shell, which controls the majority of the oil industry in Nigeria, defends itself by claiming that 85% of spills are caused by sabotage instead of corroded pipelines and poor infrastructure. It seems like corporate social responsibility for Shell, is confined to select geographical locations -  Niger-Delta is not one of them. Nigerians that have resorted to protesting against the company and the government but have been met by paid armed Shell employees, and by a government clamp down, labelling protesters as mere rebels. A womens protest group protesting Exxon, was once met with armed gaurds who beat and assulted the protesters. In fact, the Niger-Delta conflict that arose in the 1990's centers around the struggle between the Ogonis and Ijaw people and the oil companies. They feel that they are being exploited and also want to see oil profit trickle down to their communities. Although, many regard their plight  and the civil war in Nigeria to inter-ethnic ('tribal') conflict over control of resources, their struggle is not simply about 'warring tribes' that dislike eachother fighting for oil. According to Walter Rodney in his book, 'How Europe Underdeveloped Africa' "...to accept such a contention would mean extending the definition of tribe, to cover Shell Oil and Gulf Oil!" In what some term, 'blood oil', there are definitive corporate roots in the development of the oil spills and oil crisis. In spite of a boycott by activists against Shell, and a call from the US and UN for the company to correct its wrongs, it also seems like there is more talk than action and the poor, as usual, will lose out.

While it’s easy to lay blame only on Shell and MNCs, we need to consider the role that the Nigerian government has played in branding the Niger-Delta area as a place for oil extraction and not oil investment.  Nigeria is a member of OPEC, and one of the top oil producing countries. Nigeria is the fifth largest exporter of oil to the United States and the largest producer in Africa. The government gets about 80% of its profits from oil. It turns a blind eye to the wrong doings of Shell, and in exchange, Shell keeps the governments purses filled with oil money. In  a blatant display of loyalties, Nigerian government went as far as hiring a former Shell employee as the minister that overseas the oil sector. With recent progress, it makes, one wonders what image or brand Nigeria is trying to portray to the world about itself and its people. The stereotypical Nigeria or the new Nigeria under Goodluck Jonathan, that's trying to shake and rebrand its negative reputation and leave it behind them. The President, incidentally, is of Ijaw ethnicity, born in the Niger-Delta and has been able to stabilise the area in terms of attacks so far. He also has a degree in zoology and has worked for the environmental protection department. Hopefully, these factors and his desire to maintain good international relations (particulary with the Obama administration), will spark an interest in cleaning up, both politically and environmentally, the Niger-Delta crisis.

The rebranding of Nigeria began a few years back through the launch of the the Nigeria Image Project in 2004.  It was taken a step further in 2009 with a campaign to rebrand Nigeria. According to Robin Sanders of Galaxy television, the aim is to "not only aimed at improving Nigeria's image in the international community, but to position her as a good destination for tourism and investment in Sub-Saharan African." In the controversial documentary, "Welcome to Lagos", the Nigerian government is shown making progress towards trying to rebrand itself as a government concerned about the welfare of its people. They are seen cleaning up the streets for Lagos from loiterers, landscaping the city, implementing a sanitation and 'clean up' day once a month, and razing shanty towns which they cite as a breeding ground for crime and disease. Its actions in the Niger-Delta  region the past few years however, are a sharp contradiction from the country that its trying to become. A government needs to put its people first, and send out the message that it thinks all of its people deserve clean air, water, and land. Only when the Nigerian government is able to send a consistent and paternalistic  message through actions that protect its people from the big oil companies, only then it can truly realise the transformation that it seeks as a rebranded nation. Only then can we truly say that we see an image change in the country, a new Nigeria. Right now, Shell enjoys an extractive relationship with Nigeria, making other areas of development investment challenging.  One cant attract long lasting foreign direct investment with a system of extraction. The manner in which Nigeria is letting Shell treat its people is also the manner in which other people will treat Nigeria as a nation.

In a surprising  move though, the government did slap Shell with a fine of over $100 million in punitive damages for oil spill damages in Rivers State, Nigeria, which Shell has been violently protesting, claiming that such a fine will effect its future $40b  investments in the area. Claims which are ludicrous since that amount is really minuscule in comparison to the profits oil companies gain. The amount of money BP is spending for the Gulf oil spill fund alone is $300b dollars, an amount which people criticized BP for because it pales in comparison to the profits it earns. Shell should be prepared to shell  out more for its consistent history of abuses and violations in the area. The oil industry is very lucrative and 'black gold' is a commodity that the world relies on. Oil producing countries, in essence, are in a position where they can make demands on the companies that rely on oil. Cleaning up after an oil spill is a  socially and environmentally responsible demand to make and the Nigerian government should begin make better efforts. The chances of MNCs actually pulling out of the country are very slim since its a lucrative commodity.What we must do now is sit and watch to see if this fine will be paid or if the case will disappear in the system. It is also important to note that in spite of all the revenues earned by oil, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), is unable to meet all its financial obligations which indicates that some of the oil revenues have also somehow disappeared in the system.

Since the Nigerian oil crisis can be seen as a precedent to the damage and abuses caused by oil companies, we also hope that other countries take heed and learn from it. American media attention is certainly keeping BP honest in the Gulf but unless  there is this type of pressure, many coporations will continue to neglect enviromental law for profits. They will continue to place profits over people.  They will continue to let pipes erode, spills to occur, and people to suffer... It certainly is the right time for Nigeria to move forward in making demands from the oil companies. Uganda is going to be an oil producing country in the next 5 years and may become an unwelcome competitor for Nigeria. It will also provide the oil companies with alternatives. I only hope that Uganda take the necessary precautions so that they don't create another Niger-Delta crisis in Uganda. Uganda will need to make an effort to brand its oil sector as investment and not extraction through greater controls. The discovery of oil should be able to uplift a country in to wealth and not impoverish it. With Libya, we have seen it taking several decades before their oil money has really began to create wealth in the country and trickle down. Under Gaddafi's new course for Libya, many of the recent public works and infrastructure developments have been long overdue. In certain aspects, for countries like Malawi, where their is evidence of oil but also where oil in Lake Malawi has not been fully explored, it may be a blessing in disguise. None of the Malawian Presidents have made oil drilling in Lake Malawi central to their economic goals perhaps its diverse population of Cichlids has been the lakes saviour. What will be the saviour for the crisis in Niger-Delta? Perhaps, the discovery of new energy sources.

African Citizenship for African-Americans

Presidents from 12 African nations and private sector African American leaders began considering a proposal to grant dual citizenship to African-Americans in hopes of increasing  investment and interest in Africa at a summit in Abuja, Nigeria in 2006. The event was hosted by the Sullivan Foundation and included  former US President Bill Clinton and World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. The summit considered granting either: Africa-wide citizenship through the African Union, Regional African citizenship, or individual country citizenship. Since that summit, there has been other campaigns by African Americans for African countries to allow dual citizenship on grounds that they are members of the diaspora and originally from Africa. They feel it will help them gain a better sense of cultural identity, thus healing the wounds of separation from Africa and giving an opportunity for mutual collaboration. African Americans, under this plan, would be allowed to travel freely to African, own property, and start businesses.

In  past discussions, problems arose over identifying which countries African Americans could legitimately lay citizenship claims to. However, since technologies have improved, DNA testing has allowed several African-Americans to trace there roots back to select countries. In Teresa Watanabe's article, 'Called back to African by DNA', she highlights how celebrities like Isaiah Washington , have traced back their roots to Africa and are contributing to their ancestral lands. Isaiah became a citizen of Sierra Leone, after finding that he is a decedent of the Mende ethnic group and has since been contributing towards the development of the country. Likewise, many other Americans are seeking their African roots: Chris Rock- Cameroon, Whoopi Goldberg - Guinea Bissau,  and Oprah - Liberia (Kpelle ethnicity). The brothers that made up the 80's band, "The boys", moved to the Gambia a few years back and now operate music studios from Gambia . Under their new name, Suns of Light, they continue to produce music for both US (New Kids on the Block, Akon) and Gambian artists from their studio that is based in Gambia. They hope to promote Gambian music overseas (Interview: A Chat With 'Suns of Light'). Despite many calls from African Americans to have dual citizenship offered to them, many African countries have not taken any extra steps towards this other than encouraging such a move. 

Allowing dual citizenship would provide a sense of ancestral identity for African-Americans. It will also increase ties and trade between America and that respective country. In the sense of nation branding, it would make Africans appear warm, friendly, accepting and sympathetic towards the history of African-Americans. It would also be beneficial in carrying African culture to America using American born citizens. Oprah's much publicized school in South Africa may have been built in South Africa in part, due to her belief that she was of Zulu origin. As a celebrity, she has helped bolster the image of South Africa  through her link with the school. No amount of advertising money can buy they type of publicity she brought for South Africa in choosing to build her school in that country. Even for the non-celebrities, people with dual citizenship can influence their families, churches, employers etc.. to invest, visit or work with a particular country. These dual citizens would help promote culture and development. In essence, it sounds like this would be a win-win situation.

So far, Ghana is the only country that legally allows for dual citizenship for African-Americans. Currently, there are an estimated 5,000 African-Americans living in Ghana. Other countries have been more hesitant. Perhaps, this is a more difficult move for those African countries that do not allow for dual nationality for their owned citizens that acquire citizenship in another country, or are born abroad to citizens. Perhaps landlocked countries that had fewer slaves feel that there is less linkage to African-Americans or perhaps there is the larger question involved as Anor, editor of Asante magazine aptly notes, "Just because your genetics show you came from a place, should that mean you can lay claim to that group of people or place now?".

With Africa being the cradle of the humanity, essentially, anyone in the world could lay claims to African citizenship. Yes, some may feel inclined to dispute these distant claims using color lines, but does color define what it is to be African? Whilst I understand the plight for African-Americans in terms of self identity, I feel that African countries should tread cautiously in providing citizenship to large numbers of people that are distantly linked to the continent. One needs to consider the current image of Africa in the Americas. For example, a large number of African-American still have the 'Tarzan' image of Africa, and want little do do with the continent. Whilst some do not hold these perceptions, they are so pervasive to the point that they may inadvertently manifest in later dealing with Africa. Whilst we hope that African-Americans that discover their roots will have the desire to help improve the situation of their newly found cousins, we cannot assume that every African-American has good intentions and need to take protective measures.

If there is to be any dual citizenship, what I would propose, is to take the route of India. India's diaspora is widespread and includes many Indians living abroad that have been in foreign land for generations. What they have done is introduced a new status quite like dual citizenship only with more limited privileges than what one would normally associate with dual citizenship. Like in the case of African-Americans, many Indians living abroad are many generations removed from India. In South Africa for example, the people of Indian origin have been there since the late 19th century and early 20th century. In the 1800's many were sent to South Africa to work on the plantations as indentured servants (many involuntarily and on life contracts). South Africa hosts the largest population of Indians outside of India (about 1 million) and in some cities, like Durban, they are the largest ethnic minority (See: Indian South Africans). Given India's situation, it would be problematic for India to incorporate that many people of Indian origin in to their already large population as full citizens. Instead, the government of India decided to grant the status of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) as a way to tap in their diaspora.  Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) of certain category who migrated from India and acquired citizenship of a foreign country other than Pakistan and Bangladesh, are eligible for grant of OCI. It is commonly known as ‘Dual Citizenship’ but Indian constitution technically does not allow dual citizenship. It is more similar to a 'special status' visa. Their benefits include: life long multiple entry, multiple purpose visas, exemption from reporting to Police authorities for any length of stay in India; and the right to work, study, visit, or own property (except in the acquisition of certain agricultural or plantation properties). People that hold OCI status may not vote or hold Indian passports. They may also not occupy constitutional posts such as President, Vice President, Judge of the Supreme Court or legislative posts (See: Passport and Citizenship - Dual Nationality)

In drawing parallels with India, in Africa's case, African-Americans living in the U.S are also several generations removed, and also did not migrate purely from their own free will. A status similar to OCI would be suitable and perhaps more palatable for African leaders rather then conceding dual nationality with the same rights as a citizen. I will call the new proposed status 'Overseas Citizenship of Africa (OCA)'. Like the India's version, and OCA status would not concede the right to vote, change legislation, or hold high ranking government posts.It would make provision for multiple entry, land ownership (with restrictions), and the right to work, study or visit for an undisclosed period of time. It will hence facilitate trade, cultural sharing, and mutual understanding without the fear that exists in granting full citizenship rights to large groups of wealthy, and perhaps politically or culturally influential people (African-Americans are collectively the wealthiest population of black people). It would, in essence provide most of the benefits African-Americans are seeking from Africa, and it would provide Africa with most of the benefits they seek from the African-American diaspora.
 
Perhaps the biggest divergence from the Indian version that Africa may face with this level of integration, would be the language barrier. Unlike our Indian counterparts, Indians in the diaspora still largely speak or at least understand their mother tongue. African-Americans do not. Since language is a reflection of ones culture, I believe a requirement should be included that stipulates that person applying for OCA status, be required to speak at least one African language at the basic level. According to anthropological theory, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language determines culture, and thought process. It would be beneficial for African-Americans to thus understand the language so that they can better understand the culture. If citizenship is granted at the local level, than it should be the predominant language of that country that is required. If it is regionally based, than it should be a language of that region. At AU level, then any language should suffice.
 
Since the discussions of dual nationality for African-Americans started a few years back, I am sure that it will be a while before other African countries follow in the footsteps of Ghana. There are other factors that way in the minds of African leaders that prevent them from moving this forward. A major one would be justifying granting this type of status to African-Americans for countries that do not allow for dual citizenship for their own nationals that acquire foreign citizenship, nor for foreign born children to citizens. In this brave new highly globalized world, I feel that African leaders should be able to make bold decisions that are not carbon copies of western citizenship and immigration laws. A form of OCA status may be the way forward for brand Africa.

President Obiang of Equatorial Guiniea to Rebrand himself

A few days ago, the president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, met briefly with Anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Cape Town, South Africa. They discussed various issues concerning Africa and perhaps, touched on religion.  He went in to the meeting a caterpillar, and half-an-hour later, emerged a butterfly, outlining to the world a 10 year plan for Guinea-Conakry that would lift that country out of poverty, propagating it to new democratic heights. Guinea-Conakry, as it is sometimes know to distinguish it self from Guinea-Bissau, is the only Spanish-speaking country in Africa. It is also the host of the 2011 African Union meeting which will bring the leaders of Africa to its back yard. So whats in Obiang's back yard?

According to Slate author, Peter Maass, Obiang's back yard includes a three decade rule, corruption, repression, and oil money that did not trickle down to the masses. Their have also been rumours of spending-The situation in Guinea-Conakry has contributed to a mass exodus of Guineans migrating to Spain over the past few years. Arguably, Maas claims that Obiang is the worst dictator in Africa's history, surpassing that of the notorious Robert Mugabe. Yet, we rarely here about this man nor about oil-rich Equatorial Guinea. Perhaps, its because Equatorial Guinea lacks the drama of the land dispute issue in Zimbabwe that sent millions of white Africans to flee Zimbabwe, paving the way for land redistribution that  captivates western audiences who are still recovering from the discovery of white Africans. Media hardly reports about the on-goings of this small central African nation. Well, now this President who has gone virtually undetected by Western Media wants to put his country on the map, spread his wings and fly. He wants to distance himself from his current image as a corrupt, oppressive leader and become a progressive peoples president.

Obiang is so committed to rebranding himself and his country that, according to New York Times by Celia Dugger in African Leader Hires Adviser and Seeks an Image Change, he has hired an American lobbyist, Lanny J Davis, to help him with his image. He has entered in to a one year, $1 Million  contract with Davis, who has an extensive network in D.C and has worked with high profile clients like Bill Clinton. So it was in Cape Town last week, in front of heads of states,  including Bill Clinton himself, that Obiang announced his New Deal for Equatorial Guinea. This new path includes transparency and a goal to be  'just like the U.S'.



Yet this move has been met with much criticism. Cynics argue firstly, that a leopard can not change his spots. Secondly, that he has not accepted blame for all the human rights abuses and Third, that $1M is a hefty price tag for a nation where people live for less than a dollar a day. Is it possible that in his later years, he wants to be remembered as a hero to his people and not villain? Is it possible that he just wants prosperity for his country? Perhaps, their was a touch of Obama mania (yes we can!) or an instance of divine intervention as he met with the Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Every once in a while, we see caterpillars emerge out of their cocoons as butterflies. I believe that if this president has made change a part of his agenda, we should give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves us wrong. I say to the nay sayers, perhaps quite idealistically, that people have the capacity to change sans, civil war. In recent history, we have seen other leaders in Africa like Banda (Malawi) and Gaddafi (Libya) embrace transformation.



In examining Libya, Gaddafi has taken active steps in paving a new road for Libya-literally. He is building super highways and improving the infrastructure for his people, and has set out on a pan-Africanist mission of uniting Africa under one banner. He has attempted to rebrand himself, going as far as admitting fault for the Pan-Am airways hijacking that he previously denied, in order to make amends with the rest of the world. Few in the west though are impressed by Gaddafis new image, and shake his hands at arms length. Although Libya is still under Gaddafis rule, I think it is important for us to accept these achievements. In Malawi's case, under political pressure, self proclaimed 'life President' Banda, stepped down in the 90's, to allow for multi-party elections. It is important to note that he was not re-elected. Banda, perhaps due to his old age, let Malawi change from a one party state to a multi-party state after being the sole president from 1964. So contrary to popular belief, change by African heads of state is possible, regardless of motivation.



If the first step in solving a problem is admitting that there is a problem in the first place, than in Obiangs case, that's part of the problem. Vehemently denying all allegations that have plagued his presidency, makes for a less convincing platform of change. According to the advice from his new image consultant needs to admit to a few wrong-doings, and as his new advisor has told him, win elections by a slim majority instead of a large majority.  Thus far, he is allowing  the Red Cross to come in and investigate human right abuses as a start, but many still doubt his sincerity. Davis has come under criticism too for accepting this role and being a 'stooge' to the president. Both Davis and Obiang are being criticised for taking advantage of the people of the country since his salary is coming from their government. On this matter, I would like to point out that whilst one should never take advantage of ones people, there shouldn't be an expectation of a discounted price because his client is African. Davis is working in his professional capacity. If that's the price that he charged Bill Clinton, than that is what his services are worth. Also, in the long run, if spending that 1 million dollars, is an investment in to Guinea's future in terms of building networks that will lead to favorable development projects, then it is money well spent.


The idea that African leaders should somehow be immune to spending money on items with high tag prices is a delicate one. I understand that in some instances, a leader will spend money on premium products while money could be used by the poor, but I also understand that in a socially stratified capitalist society, their is always going to be those that have, and those that do not. This is not to say I condone the wanton spending habits of some leaders, but to say that, unless Davis offers a 'developing country discount' for his services, for what Obiang wants to achieve, that is the going rate.  I recall an incident where South Africa was hosting several heads of state at a state dinner a few years ago. On the menu where lobsters, shrimp etc.. The media began to report on the lavish nature of the event due to the menu choice in light of the poverty in Africa. What they failed to do was to adjust for South African standard of living since South Africa enjoys ample access to water, the cost of a lavish dinner for head of state in S.A would nowhere be the same as it would overseas. Yes, it is more expensive than an ordinary dinner but since South Africa was hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, they had to make a menu befitting of the guests. Let us keep this in perspective by highlighting that Washington DC is also home to one of the highest population of homeless people in Washington D.C. yet, when the President holds his state dinner, we do not hear, in the same news story that, 'Washington DC is also home to thousands of starving Americans', yet we somehow think it is acceptable for them to mention a state dinner in South Africa and comment on the poor in that country.



No one can predict if this latest move by Obiang will be a move that will benefit the country in the long run or if K street can help him rebrand his image. In addition to Davis, Obiang has hired PR firm, Qorvis Communications and a security firm to help guard areas of national aquatic resources. We should help the people of that country by creating a less hostile environment for presidents in Africa seeking change and giving them room to come out of their cocoon's and let the change manifest. Rome was not built in a day, and we can not expect Obiang to change over night. Understandably,  with his past record, he also has personal interests that he has an invested interest in safeguarding. Obiang cannot change his past record, and the world should not forget it either but, if Obiang is committed to change and is taking steps towards this, than we should be enablers of Equatorial Guinea's change.