The R/Evolution in Malawi May Not be Televised, But it May be Tweeted!

The coverage of the protests in Malawi by the foreign (non-Malawian) press has left some Malawians wide-eyed and more cognizant of the international media climate. When the protests initially began on July 20th, 2011 (dubbed 20/11), the internet was ablaze with information from Malawians on the ground, in the diaspora, and friends of Malawi. In addition, many Malawians posted updates from various cities in the country providing eye witness accounts of the events as they were occurring.  These early reports proved to be vital for those seeking updates on the nationwide protests on both sides of the political spectrum due to limited coverage on Malawian Broadcasting Channel (MBC) & Malawi Radio which continued with its regular line-up that day. Private domestic mass media outlets like Zodiac Radio, Malawi Voice, Capital FM, Radio Joy, Nyasatimes and others were also successfully doing their utmost to provide detailed up-to-date coverage to the world until they started experiencing broadcasting difficulties. Due to their interrupted service, media coverage was left to private Malawian blogs, and the Malawi online community (including Facebook and Twitter) for parts of the day. A chronological account of the some of the postings can be found on the blog haba na haba. The protests began to 'trend' on Twitter - South Africa before they made the news headlines. Ordinary Malawians had proceeded to tweet directly to BBC, Anderson Cooper, CNN, and Sky News during the course of the day to ensure that international attention would be brought on the demonstrations. By day two, Malawi protests began to 'trend' as a hot topic on Google. The online community engaged directly with programs like BBC- Have Your Say (BBCHYS) and France 24, acting much like a watchdog to ensure that the international media was going to cover the protests and was going to cover it with accuracy.

This revolt was unprecedented for Malawi. Malawi has historically had a reputation as a peaceful country. It is a country that has enjoyed relative peace within its borders since its liberation struggle and subsequent independence in 1964. Even during Malawi's attempts to topple the regime of the infamous dictator Kamuzu Banda, during the 1993-1994 protests for multiparty state, there was relative peace. Banda who ruled the country for the 30 years as a dictator, finally conceded to the will of Malawian calls for multi-party rule as the protests against his regime grew, and held a national referendum. He stepped down peacefully, conceding defeat in the election, and assisted in ushering the transition where he could. According to the 2010 Global Peace Index  by the Institute of Economics and Peace, Malawi continues to be the second most peaceful country in Africa (Botswana being the first) and 39th in the world out of 155 countries. Being a country that has not seen war or wide scale violence within its borders, Malawi has also been a haven to refugees from troubled countries like Mozambique and Somalia. It is also host to Zimbabweans escaping Mugabe's reign. Malawi has been long known as the "Warm Heart of Africa" due its friendly people, tranquility and rustic appeal. It is a country where virtues like tolerance, non-violence, humility and community ("I am because we are") are encouraged through the four cornerstones of the nation, 'unity, loyalty, obedience, and discipline'. Hence, when a group calling themselves, 'Concerned Citizens' which comprised of civil society, the opposition, NGO's and citizens called for a national day of peaceful protest, this was what was intended and expected (Read: Malawi's Peace at Test). Malawians were not initially calling for 'democratically' elected Mutharika to step down. They wanted a change in the attitude of his administration. Attempts had been made by the opposition to engage with the Mutharika administration prior to this, but many Malawians felt that the administration had not adequately addressed concerns. A diverse group of Malawians, including professionals, students, laborers, rural and urban dwellers, and opposed political parties (collectively known as the 'Red Army'), all joined forces to air their grievances and to let it be known to their government and the larger world, that they wanted their concerns to be addressed.

President Bingu Mutharika had had a prosperous first term and was rightfully given much credit for moving the country forward economically. During his first term he had many successes in which Malawi was called the fastest growing economy. The GDP of Malawi had grown at an annual rate of about 7% (peaking at 9.8% in 1998), Malawi became a food donor nation (proving food Aid to Zimbabwe), FDI increased and the Kwacha remained stable. He was touted as an inspirational and democratic leader by many. He was also regarded as a welcome change after the unpopular Muluzi administration that many argued ruined the country’s economy. During his second term however, many argue that his political and economic ideology began to become more distant from that of the population. Malawians in general began to have grievances about the downward growth in the economy characterized by lack of forex and fuel. Other grievances that the anti-government protestors wanted to bring attention to were:  increased media regulations for newspapers and national radio/TV; a series of unpopular bills that Malawians claimed eroded checks and balances; Mutharika's increasingly close relations with the Mugabe regime; guaranteeing academic freedom and reinstatement of university of Malawi lecturers, an unpopular flag change who's implementation the public felt they were not involved in; the government consolidation of power through the injunction bill and other laws, including the general  direction the country was heading. These grievances were the highlighted in a 15 page petition that Concerned Citizens  say they they presented to the President via the City councils. It included  in 20 actionable points some which were printed in the national paper, The Nation on July 18th. The Pro-government group also highlighted their concerns on the same day in The Nation paper.

The immediate precursors to the protests were the forex and fuel crisis and the diplomatic row with Britain that resulted in the loss of budget support. Earlier in the year diplomatic tensions grew when a cable from Chocraine-Dyet, the British Ambassador, was wiki-leaked. Dyet had expressed concern to his government over Mutharika, accusing him of being 'intolerant' and of being an 'autocrat'. Accusations that Malawians on the ground were already making due to the change in direction that they felt they were witnessing in a once popular administration. Mutharika felt these accusations were unfounded and declared Dyet persona non-gratia, ordering him to leave the country within 48 hours and asking the UK to send a replacement. Subsequently, a diplomatic row began between Malawi and its former colonizer that resulted in UK ordering the Malawi ambassador to UK to leave (including revoking (arguably) the most coveted invitation - the wedding dinner party for popular British royals 'Will and Kate'). More importantly for Malawians, it resulted in UK cutting aid (budgetary support) for Malawians. Other European countries like Germany (perhaps in solidarity with the UK) followed suite. The World Bank also denied aid to Malawi citing budget problems. The Malawi government than began to take austerity measures that included increasing taxes on the poor (via taxes on bread, flour and milk etc...) and on newspapers. It also included the unveiling of a new aid-free 'zero deficit' budget (ZDB). This budget proved to be unpopular by many Malawians though, and was further compacted by unprecedented fuel and forex shortages. Malawian frustrations continued to grow. They were however not able to air their frustrations due to an unpopular 'injunctions bill' which sought to remove the ability for citizens to 'arbitrarily' get injunctions against the government and the introduction of a fee-for-protest that government said would cover government resources during protests. Civil society argued that protesting against the economic woes was a right and not a paid privilege. Due to debates over the 'right to protest' brought about by injunctions, it was not clear on the morning of the planned protests if they would actually occur. 

When the stories were first being broken by international media, they left much to be desired by Malawians due to misinformation some were providing. Part of this information, understandably may be due to communication from professional journalists on the ground being limited due to an order for them to stop reporting abut the protests. Since a number of issues had led to the protests, singling out one issue was not seen as an accurate analysis. Malawi's protests were about the economy and governance (Read: Economic Situation Analysis). Some newspapers reported that Malawi was on strike due to the stoppage of foreign aid by Britain and that Malawians were protesting for commencement of foreign aid alone which is an explanation too simplistic to explain the situation. However, it is important to note that many Malawians do not want to be dependent on 'dead Aid' as an economic policy. They support a 'trade not aid' agenda but they just do not agree that the new ZDB should be sudden or reactionary. Instead, they were calling for it to be strategically and proactively planned over time so that it doesn't hurt the economically vulnerable. In response to the growing problems, Malawians felt that the president had not addressed the issue adequately. Of particular was discontent was the reaction to the fuel crisis that was affecting the bottom line of small, medium and large businesses. It was also affecting dinner plates as maize mills, fishing boats etc... also rely on fuel. With regards to the fuel shortage concerns, Malawians were being told by MERA (Malawi Energy Regulation Authority) to 'get used to it', rather than being given measures MERA was taking to address the shortages which would have been more palatable. Malawi's concerns were and are largely economic at their base - bread and butter issues that don't fall too far from the bread and butter issues that were facing north African countries. A clear difference was that Malawians, at the time were not largely calling for Mutharika to step down until much later in the protest since he is not a dictator and is legitimately serving his term. Closer to home, a country that had watched the economic demise of 'Great Zimbabwe' under the hands of Robert Mugabe, was afraid to see the same happen to them. There was a genuine fear by some in Malawi that that Mutharika was trying to turn Malawi into 'another Zimbabwe' economically (Read: analysis from Zimbabwe standard). It was economic woes that made protesters frustrated but It was the failure for peaceful dialogue and /or measures (governance) being taken to address the economic crisis that made ordinarily passive Malawians take to the streets. Governance issues were brought about because Malawians felt their economic issues were not being addressed adequately - the sleepy giants had risen.

On the day of the protests, Red Army Malawians wanted to make sure that their voices were heard and make clear their grievances. The demonstrations began largely peaceful with people posing for photos in their 'Red Army' gear and singing the national anthem (see: photo and video footage of protests on haba na haba). Some even took to South African style Toy-toying.  Initially, most Malawians were not calling for Mutharika to resign (he is not a dictator after all but was democratically elected and Malawians wanted to see Mutharika serve out his term (some still do). They wanted their concerns to be heard and to be dealt with. As the day progressed however, and protestors clashed with the police because they were allegedly met with 'extreme force' by the police, more demonstrators began to call for his resignation and /or impeachment and become agitated. They waited to hear Mutharika address the nation in his public lecture (that was planned for the same day), but many felt that the issues they wanted to hear in the lecture were not addressed on the first day which lead to more frustrations. Additionally, many of the leaders of the protests were not available to direct the progression of the protests (some had been allegedly arrested, and the whereabouts of some members of the official opposition where unknown). Without proper direction and with aggression by the police, and pro-government supporters holding their march simultaneously, the peaceful protests then began to get increasingly violent.

Prior to the violence, amongst the major international media, there was a single story on Aljazeera that acknowledged that the protests would occur. There was no coverage on the websites or taglines (at bottom of broadcasts) of BBC, CNN, SKY or South African based e-news. Once the protests turned violent, there were reports from Reuters, an hour show on BBC, and coverage on Al Jazeera, BBCHYS, BBC, enews, and lastly CNN. It is important to note that Sky news does not appear to have covered the story at all on either day, and enews only covered it once Reuters had covered it on day two.  Al Jazeera appears to be the first of the big broadcasters to have the protests covered as part of their headline news, including live footage. What is also notable is that most news outlets get their news from the same sources, so if an organization like Reuters provides misinformation, this information is spread ten times fold. This is why it is important for Africa to have news broadcasters like e-news exercise more agency in selecting stories that are relevant to them. As an example, the events in Malawi would have a direct impact on South Africa so it would be in their best interest to cover any disturbances in neighboring countries first, and not with everyone else. e-news has an opportunity to fill a gap in the reporting of issues concerning Africa and in the approach to reporting about Africa.

Of particular concern was that when the 'peaceful protests' for sound economic policies and good governance were not being covered until they turned violent. The message behind the protests began being obscured on international news between fevered attempts to capture the death tolls.  No doubt, Malawi’s protests were probably seen as 'normal African political unrest in a turbulent African country' and not deemed newsworthy until violence occurred. They also seemed reluctant to report protests as long as they were peaceful - it doesn’t sell newspapers nor attract viewers. Once lives were being lost however, the wider media picked up on the story because it may have fit in to the more comfortable newsworthy stereotype 'death caused by political unrest in violent Africa' which is more suitable for their bottom line. Some went as far as reporting that Malawi wanted to topple their 'dictator', Mutharika which is a comfortable narrative (particularly after the Arab Spring) but an incorrect one. These claims prompted some in the Malawi online community to start defending their estranged leader against the onslaught of foreign misreporting - One person on twitter that was part of the red army tweeted that " they are reporting that Mutharika is a dictator ... Mutharika is not a dictator" .

The Malawian online community at first was solely was working frivolously to get the protests covered by sending information about the protests to journalists from BBC and France 24 that asked for it as its own journalists faced challenges in reporting the protests. They then started working frivolously to get accurate information covered. At one stage, when BBCHYS allegedly reported that there was 'Xenophobia in Malawi', appalled Malawians around the world posted "there is no Xenophobia in Malawi" on their Facebook wall (prompted by online newspaper The Malawi Voice's Facebook Page) until BBCHYS - Facebook made an official statement denying that they reported misinformation (Read: Malawi Voice article on Xenophobia in Malawi). Instead, they reported that an Asian Malawian caller concerned that Asian owned shops were now being looted had said it during the broadcast of the BBC show. From most accounts though, the shops that were targeted were those of close business allies to Mutharika and people that Malawians felt had unfairly benefited from business relationships with the president. In addition, the cars and houses that been burned down also largely those of pro-government supporters. Malawians also took to offence when the news outlets began referring to the protests as merely 'riots' a word that denotes anarchy. Hence, implying that Malawians had decided to get up and start looting the country out of anger and to protest through destruction rather than first seek dialogue. As the violence grew, most Malawians on both sides of the political spectrum began to discourage the violence (from protestors and police), looting and destruction that occurred.

For two days, pent up frustrations from both pro-government and anti-government supporters were released on the once quiet streets in Lilongwe, Mzuzu, Karonga, Blantyre, Zomba, and Dedza in unprecedented nationwide protests. On the second day protests continued in Lilongwe and  Blantyre, albeit less violent. It is surprising that in a nationwide violent protest of 14 million, 'only' 18 reported deaths occurred- this may not have been the case in another nation faced with a similar situation. It is important that reporting of the protest in Malawi occurred, but media must take heed to report with accuracy as opposed to pre-written narratives about African riots, dictators, and causeless violence. Furthermore, not much credit (if any) has been given to the contribution of technology during what some have dubbed the 'African Fall'.  During the Arab Spring protests, too much credit was given to the same technologies. There is something to be noted in the way international media may approach the way they source information about sub-Saharan Africa. Whilst technology penetration has not reached the same extent as other regions, there has been an evolution in sub-Saharan Africa with regards to disseminating information. Many were not looking at the impact of the online community (individuals and organizations) were having or considering if cellphone messaging played a role like they did in Kenyans political unrest a few years back. A much richer analysis on the role of technology on information and democracy in Africa would be warranted because technologies are changing grassroots organization in sub-Saharan Africa as well. With increasing media outlets online, they have access to people on the ground, which has been beneficial in some of the reporting on the Malawian events, but more can be done in this era to ensure that African protests, weather pro or anti-government are covered - and are covered accurately. Case in point, there was probably more press on Malawi's problems with Mutharika in the past few years, than there was on Malawi’s success with Mutharika during his prosperity years.

The Tribalism Myth in Sudan: Why Can't Africans 'Just get Along'?

At the dawn of the newly independent South Sudan, some news reports on Sudan have explained that Sudan experienced ethnic cleansing and/or genocide resulting from 'tribal' warfare. It seems that this popular concept of 'tribal warfare' is widely understood by the viewing audience as well as widely accepted. However, it is important to remember that the word 'tribe' itself is problematic. 'Tribe' is a contested term due to its inconsistency in meaning [See definitions on dictionary.com or wikipedia], hegemonic affiliations, and stereotypical tendencies. As an example, the term 'tribe' presents inconsistencies in terms of location, numbers, and settlement types. Tribes are often restricted to select geographic areas like Africa (but not Eastern Europe) or amongst select nations within a geographic area like Native Americans (but not to Vikings). There is no consistency in number (aggregate) either but 'tribes' are traditionally thought of as a small group. Hence, this becomes problematic when 'tribes' can consist of millions of people or make up the majority of the nation. As an example, the Shona make up the majority of ethnic composition in Zimbabwe so do they numerically qualify as a tribe?. 'Tribes' are also often thought of as people that wander like the nomadic Khoi San or Masaai. In anthropology, social "evolution" is measured (in rank order) by how people live. The idea here is that people "evolve" from hunter-gathers, bands, tribes, Chiefdoms, Cities, to City-States (nations) [See:Franz Boaz ]. Again, the Shona live in permanent settlements in towns, cities and states so do they qualify as a tribe? Once the Khoi San or Masaai become sedentary (set up permanent settlements) are they too no longer 'tribes'? There are a plethora of other inconsistencies with the use of this term, but where it becomes most problematic is when a fictitious, human construct like 'tribe' is then used to describe another construct like 'tribalism' and 'tribal' warfare and when tribalism is used to explain conflict. 'Tribalism' is rarely unpacked when it is mentioned but the term carries meaning and implications. Notably, that these warring 'tribes' 'just-cant-get-along' due to differences inherent between those two groups. These explanation rob the audience of a critical analysis on the situation at hand and create an image of a continent whose conflicts bare no cultural or historical roots of significance - they just like to fight. Historically, Africa as a continent has bared the burden of the 'tirbalism' and 'tribal warfare' brand so once ethnic conflict or tensions arise within her borders, 'tribalism' is often given as the reason (and an acceptable one at that).

It is important that coverage that seeks to explain the birth of the new nation of South Sudan is inclusive of the former Sudan's historical roots. Some of the coverage that I have seen about the situation in Sudan dates the beginning of its troubles in the 1960's when the country gained its independence. It is vital though that we do not brand the balkanisation of Sudan as simply due to 'tribal' conflict between African ethnic groups that just cant get along. Citing 'triablism' prevents a situation from being analysed due to the real socio-economic dynamics that underlies 'tribalism'. Notably, economic policies or bread and butter issues. In most instances where ethnic conflict occurs on the continent, there is uneven access to wealth or the power institutions in the country (judicial system, private business, government, education, etc...). In the case of Sudan, the South was deprived access to the aforementioned institutions. This was also the case in Rwanda and Kenya as well where we recently saw ethnic cleansing that had its roots in economic woes dating back to colonialism. During colonialism, it was often the practice of the colonial rulers to select a single ethnic group (usually a minority group) and give them (limited) access to some of the power institutions. After the Independence movements, nation building became challenging because the suppressed ethnic group became the dominant groups and this often marginalized (socially and economically) the minority groups. Hence, economic issues often are at the center of 'tribalism'. But focusing on 'tribalism' prevents people from getting to the root of the problem - economics, privilege and discrimination in multi ethnic societies.

Bringing disparate people together through force and unification processes whose differences outweigh their similarities has always been problematic. This is particularly evident through the examples of countries like Germany, where we saw Hitler's unification process lead to the ethnic cleansing of German Jews. A proper and complete analysis leading up to the genocide would include the overwhelming economic conditions that led to antisemitism in post Wiemar Republic Germany as opposed to viewing it myopically as Aryan Germans simply hating Jewish Germans for their Jewishness or 'tribalism'. In which case, the subsequent World War is arguably the largest display of tribalism in 20th century Europe! In East Europe, the balkanisation of former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia provides us examples of multi ethnic nations that were forced together that led to continual conflicts. Czechoslovakia was founded in October of 1918 as part of the Treaty of Versailles. It consisted of areas that were once a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that were ethnically disparate. The ethnically disparate Czechs and Slovaks had been forced together into one country and this arrangement was problematic from the onset. This resulted in the creation of the Slovak and Chech Republics in 1993. Yugoslavia was formed as a result of unifying the Serbs, Croats and Slovenias into one kingdom amongst opposition. Forced arrangements brought about underdevelopment, war, and ethnic conflict. Eventually, Yugoslavia balkanised, and became the independent countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia , and Slovenia.
The current balkanisation of Sudan is hence a formula that we have seen repeated in other parts of the world in recent history. In the case of Sudan, like most African countries, it had been formed at a round table of European nations at the Berlin Conference where all African countries were formed at the stroke of ink. Hence dividing countries based on external forces as opposed to internal unification processes. The problems that arose in the former Sudan are not unique to Sudan nor is the ethnic cleansing that resulted there inherent in the Sudanese people. Similarly, "tribalism" is not isolated to select groups of peoples. The notion of 'tribal' wars seems to be an explanation that is often used to describe conflicts in Africa without fully unpacking the unique situations, conditions, or historical references of that country. This is done by both reporters and journalists from the west and from the continent. All Africans have been told that they have 'tribes', (and everyone belongs to one) and hence 'tribalism' (a natural conflict between ethnic groups for no particular reason) exists therefore it makes 'sense' that since Europe does not have tribes (they have ethnic groups) they cannot have tribalism. Therefore longstanding European conflicts like the plight of the armed movement for Basque independence from Spain and France is not seen as 'tribal' warfare. Few comparisons are made between the conflicts in Africa and other conflicts in the world.

The history of the Dinka's in South Sudan has been a history of domination -largely for control of resources. They have been dominated by Egypt, England (colonization) and lastly, the South Sudan was 'dominated' by Northern Sudan whom contributed to its underdevelopment. In spite of the presence of oil and fertile soil in the area, during these occupations, South Sudan was left underdeveloped. As a new nation, it will face the challenges of nation building amongst people that historically have had little control over their own society and economy. They will need to build a national identity and establish a "South Sudan brand" and reputation as an independent country. But already, tale tale signs can be seen of domination from someone from within its borders. The new money in the country is of the new president as opposed to a neutral national symbol or an apolitical symbol.This move marks the beginning of South Sudan iconography, where its politics are bound to be centered along the lines of individuals (national political icons) as opposed to shared symbols and ideologies. There national brand or identity is likely to be centered on the current President, Salva Kiir Mayardir. One can only hope that this is not a true sign of what is to come and that the new administration will proceed on a path that is inclusive of all the peoples of the new South Sudan.

Tribalism, with all its meanings and justifications is a disputed and problematic explanation for a multi-ethnic nation's ethnic tensions. Now that the Sedans have split, one wonders if any tensions that arise will continue to be called 'tribalism' or if it will evolve to a newer term like 'cross border tribalism' or if it will be considered a battle between two opposing nations with histories and dynamics that need to be unpacked to understand its roots.

The African Journalist's Burden

The relationship between western media and Africa has always left a lot to be desired by continental Africans and African stakeholders. It has always been challenging to get proper stories about events, histories or people in Africa and this has creates a large void in quality reporting on Africa, often resulting in misrepresentation or wide generalizations. In his essay, “How to write about Africa”, Kenyan author and literary critic, Binyavanga Wainaina sums it up best with the words:

"Always use the word ‘Africa’ or ‘Darkness’ or ‘Safari’ in your title. Subtitles may include the words ‘Zanzibar’, ‘Masai’, ‘Zulu’, ‘Zambezi’, ‘Congo’, ‘Nile’, ‘Big’, ‘Sky’, ‘Shadow’, ‘Drum’, ‘Sun’ or ‘Bygone’. Also useful are words such as ‘Guerrillas’, ‘Timeless’, ‘Primordial’ and ‘Tribal’. Note that ‘People’ means Africans who are not black, while ‘The People’ means black Africans.

Never have a picture of a well-adjusted African on the cover of your book, or in it, unless that African has won the Nobel Prize. An AK-47, prominent ribs, naked breasts: use these. If you must include an African, make sure you get one in Masai or Zulu or Dogon dress " [Read full Essay from Granta].

What is surprising is that these approaches to writing about the continent are still prominent in many African media outlets (print, radio and television) whether it is written by Africans or non-Africans. As an example, in prominent Malawian papers, topics about aid from foreigners over other issues seem to dominate as well as opinions of those from the west. You’ll often see headlines like, “An American gives Blanket s to x” or “Scots say we need more x,y,z” where what is considered ‘newsworthy’ centers on the relationship between a named foreign national and unnamed ‘local’. Oftentimes their foreignness is emphasized above their qualifications or their knowledge on that topic. Malawian opinions from experts at times get side stepped particularly, when it s a story about aid, skill sharing, or knowledge transfer from the west to Malawi. In many instances the identification of the Malawian is seen as an insignificant factor in the story. Particularly when the ‘local’ is from the rural area, they get labeled, ‘a villager’ (or’ villagers’) and no particular time or effort seems to be taken in identifying this nameless person. This type of reporting sends clear messages that a villager’s identity is not significant. The same trends in reporting can be seen in other African countries.

Whilst this type of reporting about Africa is more prominent and frequent in the western media both historically and in contemporary reporting, when it occurs by African journalists in Africa it is more so problematic. The way African journalists present and represent events and people from their own countries needs to be considered because of the effects that it has on the African (and non-African) reader’s perception of African culture, history and events. It has profound effects on the populations that read the papers. It does need to be considered for some of these journalists the contribution of training programs by well intending western journalists through transnational journalist networks. Journalism ‘skills’ are transferred from the west that may include approaches to ‘how’ to write (and report) about Africa. It seems that these western approaches to writing about Africa are at times internalized by African journalists who reproduce the type of writing about Africa that Wainaina writes about.

Western media reporting (especially in the United States) is a reflection of the western institutions, politics and public policy towards Africa. As an example the coverage of the revolts in the North Africa [Egypt, Tunisia] were reported as events occurring in the “middle east” as opposed to Africans revolting against their leaders for democracy (some African media outlets also similarly reported the events solely as middle eastern news). This is in line with US foreign policy that regards North Africa as part of their middle eastern policy (this can equally be extended to US conglomerates that regard north African countries as part of their regional ‘Middle Eastern business unit). The relationship between western media and its institutions are explored in great detail in the book “Hardened Images: The Western Media and the Marginalization of Africa” by Asgede Hagos. Another contentious issue highlighted in this study is that western media tends to marginalize Africa. This means that some (not all) African journalist essentially participate in their own marginalization and in branding Africa in a generalized, unfavorable way.

The marginalization of Africa though western media has long been problematic for branding Africa as a place of despair and fostering a paternalistic relationship between Africa and the west. It has also propagated ideas like ‘the white man’s burden’ which reinforces other one-sided journalistic stereotypical reporting i.e. the archetype ‘great white savior’. The problem here is the danger of African journalists contributing to the marginalization of Africa through locally owned media channels creates greater legitimacy for the negative or stereotypical reporting. This means that Africans are only reading about Africa through one dominant hegemonic way due to the absence of credible international mass media venues that can accurately (and credibly) report about Africa . Although television media outlets like BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, France 24 cover African events, questions of depth, scope and neutrality of these outlets needs to be understood since they respectively, primarily cover the issues, interests, and events of their respective place (or ideological blocs). The television outlets also have more extensive networks, researchers and coverage interests outside of Africa. It is important to note that South African based e-news though has proven to provide the most extensive, neutral and non-biased news coverage about Africa. Like its counterparts, its primary interests, also center on its place of origin.

Although many journalists on the continent have timelessly continued to represent the continent in a neutral manner, greater awareness by some African journalists with regard to the story selection, word choices, and ideologies that represent the continent should be noted so that they don’t inadvertently contribute to its misbranding. There is much room for improvement on how Africa is presented in the media both in written and televised reporting. As journalism continues to grow on the continent, hopefully we will be able to sift through the journalistic techniques that we inherit from the west that may not present Africa in a favorable way and that extend western media hegemony.

Gbagbo and the Chocolate Factory: Power & Cocoa in the Ivory Coast

Over the years, Chocolate eggs have been placed in Easter baskets around the world in Europe, America, and other continents across the globe.  Chocolate has become a central part of some religious and secular practices during the month of April. Year round, it is used to make chocolate coins for Hanukah or Santa Claus (Father Christmas), for courting on Valentine’s Day, and it used daily to make food and beverages. Not much thought is given by the general public in the west on the African origins of most of the Cocoa they consume or the labor used to obtain that luxury. Instead, when people think of Chocolate, they think ‘Swiss’ or ‘America’ when countries like Switzerland, Germany, and America don’t grow cocoa. Ivory Coast happens to be the world’s largest supplier of Cocoa. This means that the money that Gbagbo is clinging to is being funded by local Chocolate Easter Egg hunts and addictions to high-end chocolate lattes. Needless to say, the chocolate industry is very lucrative and holds the Ivory Coast’s purse strings. Similarly, I would like to point out that the Ivory Coast holds the chocolate industry’s purse strings as well. This is evident in how the current political crisis has impacted on the chocolate industry economically. In recent months, we have seen how the political situations in Libya, Egypt and now Ivory Coast has impacted prices of various commodities around the world. Hopefully, these events have given a chance for Africans across the continent to reexamine (and reevaluate) their central roles in the global economy and how their products affect prices world-wide.  The recent political crisis in the Ivory Coast is a clear example of this. The crisis has resulted in the rise of cocoa prices which increased to a 32-year high as a direct result of the political situation. According to Bloomberg report, Cocoa prices in New York had risen as much as 34 percent since the disputed elections where Gbagbo refused to step down. Prices only fell for the first time this year on March 4, 2011 because there were signs that Gbagbo’s reign as CEO of this large 'chocolate factory' was finally coming to an end. This shows the impact that the Cote d Ivoire situation has on the businesses on an international scale.

This raises the question on how we value African produced commodities both in the raw form and manufactured form. Particularly those products that African countries have a monopoly in supplying like chocolate. Since roughly, 50 million people around the world rely on cocoa for their livelihood, this gives Ivory Coast a considerable amount of power. Whilst only a few people will draw the connection between Chocolate producing Ivory Coast and its role in the global economy, and the political crisis, it effects have a real impact on many. Three quarters (67%) of the world’s cacao bean production takes place in West African in countries like Ghana and Ivory Coast. Ivory Coast alone supplies 43% of the world’s cocoa. Many people in the Ivory Coast (or outside of it) may underestimate the impact the country has on global industries and economies, but is is now being made visible. Whenever a large supplier of chocolate like Ivory Coast, cannot provide a regular supply, it will have a ripple effect on buyers all the way up the supply chain. It will also affect all industries connected to chocolates (milk, raisin, nuts, and peanut butter).  If Cadbury (See: Cadbury: An Ethical Company struggles to ensure Integrity of its Supply Chain) or Hershey is not able to get a regular supply of cocoa, it will cost them more to make chocolate and hence the price of chocolate will go up worldwide. Regular consumers will feel this impact at grocery stores and restaurants. Thus large chocolate manufacturing countries have a stake in Gbagbo’s presidency and on undervaluing the importance of Ivorian Cocoa to their products.

When they restructured the world cocoa market in the 1990s, it left Ivory Coast with little real power over the market. The liberalization policies still don't benefit Ivory coast and have led to large companies having power in the industry (See: Global Restructuring and Liberalization: Cote d' Ivoire and the end of the International Cocoa Market).  Realizing the value to African commodities through their effect in the global economy and branding them will be beneficial to Ivory Coast. At this juncture in its economic history, Ivory Coast should be synonymous with chocolate even if it’s not producing a finished product. As a comparative example of the importance of branding raw products, Colombia’s coffee beans are known worldwide as quality beans in their raw form so any product that uses Colombian beans has added value and can fetch a higher price. Ivory Coast is producing more chocolate than any other country, and clearly, their ability to supply chocolate impacts the chocolate industry. Clearly, it should be able to set prices of Cocoa at a fair trading price. Ivory Coast is in a position to negotiate Cocoa prices. The Chocolate companies know the value of their product and of the Cocoa they are getting. The misnomer that large MNCs will simply and easily ‘go somewhere else’ has been used for years but it doesn't make good business sense and is not an easy feat. For businesses, there are large switching costs that they will incur, and getting a new large supplier would change everything from its pricing strategy, production costs, and may cripple that company. MNC’s have been encouraging countries to mass produce cocoa so that they can achieve economies of scale (drive prices for the consumers down due to large supply of cocoa). Even if they were to go somewhere else, will that new country will probably not be able to meet the demand without large investments in infrastructure that many times the MNC is not prepared to pay. It will also mean the end to unreasonably low cost chocolate for customers in the western market.

There are always economic reasons why MNCs enter a certain country initially (and it is clearly not for humanitarian endeavors). There is no cocoa grown in Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania (much less America or Europe) so Ivory Coast has a product that not many countries can supply at that price. Yet, for some reason this adage that African countries are interchangeable and have ‘little’ to offer the world of economic value is persistent and internalized by some African leaders. not knowing the value of their product in global terms affects their bargaining power.  There is little reason that Ivory Coast is not in a position to set price minimums so that chocolate money trickles down and can be used for schools as opposed to being used to employ child labor of children that can not afford to go to school. There is also an added need perhaps, for this country to brand itself as the ‘Cocoa Coast or Chocolate Coast’ internationally to help add value to their raw product as is the case with Colombian beans. This can trickle to other industries and create and/or ‘chocolate development’ or even ‘chocolate tourism’. This 'chocolate tourism' though should be done in a way that is progressive and does not result in continued abuse of chocolate farmers. In the event that an MNC does get supply ‘elsewhere’, then that country can concentrate on getting another buyer and/or diversifying its products to make more food products that can be consumed locally or regionally. If Ivorians are unable to ‘feed themselves’ working as laborers on cocoa farms,  we then need to question the real life benefits of these farms for them. Their labor is on this farm may be wasted and they may benefit more from selling and growing items that will sustain them or that they can actually eat.

The International Cocoa Organization  (ICO) and the World Chocolate Foundation (WCF) appear to be the foundations in charge of setting standards and guidelines for the cocoa industry. Unfortunately, the latter ‘chocolate police’ are primarily made up of MNC’s and the goal for businesses is to provide value for its shareholders.  In the case of the ICCO, Ivory Coast, Togo, Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon and Sierra Leone are all represented but I think it is also important for regional agreements to made so that work on common issues as a united front in the board. Ivory Coast used to have a Cocoa board (CSSPPA) that was dissolved in the 1990's that was powerful but was dissolved to make way for liberalization. Although this board may not have been perfect, it created some standards within the country and protected farmers at some level.  With no real representation, the question of who is really looking after the primary interest of the Ivory Coast needs to be raised?  Just like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, we can see how economic wealth and greed has played a key role in the chocolate industry. A few companies and people are getting rich from the labor of the hard working people in an exploitative way. Currently in these plantations, child labor, debt servitude (‘slavery’) and displacement of people still exists because of the chocolate industry (see: Chocolate Work or read: Chocolate Nations: Living and Dying for Cocoa in West Africa (African Arguments)). Cocoa does not fetch an economically sustainable price for the farmers who are the suppliers. Gbagbo and his supporters have benefited from this industry and this is evident in his unwillingness to step down. Gbagbo’s Ivory Coast has also not lead to the type of economic growth that the Ivory Coast has the potential to realize. The challenge will be to see how Mr. Ouattara’s Chocolate Factory will look like and if his presidency will mean change for the Ivorian people that rely on Chocolate for their livelihood. In his attempts to liberalize the Ivorian economy, we hope that he will set an agenda that helps Ivory Coast receive an equitable price for its Cocoa and that children will be eating cocoa instead of picking it.

"Going Native": Beyonce's 'Tribute' to Africa

Beyonce Knowles recently did a photo shoot where she wore dark make-up and African inspired clothing with the theme of "African Queen". The narrative surrounding Beyonce's recent photo shoot was that it was done to honor late Nigerian musician, activist and pan-africanist, Fela Kuti. However, this move was controversial and has had varied reactions in the United States and Europe. Some have argued that Beyonce was insulting African-Americans by donning 'Black Face'. Her make-up however, is distinctively void of the coal colored paint or the widening of the outline of the lips with white (sometimes red) make-up that characterizes 'Black Face'.  Others have commented that what she did was not mocking African-American history because she was paying tribute to Fela Kuti who is African and was honoring Africa. Whilst all the hullabaloo has been about how she is representing African-Americans, it is important to remember that she was not trying to represent African-Americans nor their history. Her intention was clearly to represent who she believes Africans are and what she believes Africans look like. This representation of Africa is should be a concern for Africans because it is projecting an image of African identity on Africa. It is reinforcing stereotypes about who Africans are, what Africans are supposed to look like, and alienating Africans who do not fit that image. Furthermore, it reinforces an image of what an African looks like to a world that already has a myopic viewpoint on African culture.

What is fundamentally missing from all the narratives that I have read, is an African critique of her move. After all, it is Africans she was representing and not African-Americans. Africans have little knowledge about the history of 'Black Face' nor what it means so they would not automatically associate the move with the history of 'Black Face'.  In fact, when I read  about the story in African press, they largely reproduced the arguments that African-Americans and American media were having about Black Face and how it affected Africa-Americans. The African press made no mention to the fact that she was passing judgment on Africans. Nor did they note that by painting her face dark, she is sending a message to the world that Africans are supposed to look a certain way. In examining Africans from Cape to Cairo, we should recognize that Africans are Asian, Caucasian and Black African and Brown African (including bi-racial and non-bi-racial Africans). They look like Cleopatra, Alek Wek, Charlize Theron, Thandie Newton, Winnie Mandela, or Mo Ibrahim. If Beyonce, wanted to honor Africa, and look like an authentic African, she could have done just as well in her natural skin color. If you go to Africa today, you will find Africans that look like Beyonce. what makes it equally problematic is that Beyonce has been to Africa but chose to represent an image of Africa, that persisted in her mind or the mind her entourage.

The MTV article: Experts react to Beyonce's Black Face, notes that the french are not aware of this American racial faux paux and that needs to be understood in the context of American history with African-Americans.  Since this is a plausible argument, we may need to understand it based on how France would interpret this given Frances own problematic  history with Africans. We need to recognize France is a country that has a large percentage of African immigrants and French Africans. They mainly come from North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc...) and  Franco-phone Africa (Cameroon, Senagal, Sierra Leone). France is therefore  certainly aware of what Africans look like and can not claim ignorance about the impact of statements and images about color. Whilst they may have not been aware of the cultural significance or ties to 'Black Face', they certainly are aware of Africans in their back yard. On the national stage, we can use the example of the high profile French national soccer teams that are largely made up of  people directly from the African continent or first generation children of immigrants. The teams have also been at the center of racial debates in France. If we assume that they were not commenting on America, then it leaves us no alternative then to look at it as a commentary about Africa. This means that the reflection was about Africa but  inadvertently insulted African-Americans due to Beyonce's American roots. Perhaps this move can be seen  as social reflection of how France views Africans which is equally problematic.


According to French fashion magazine L’Officiel's official response, "The series was conceived as using art and fashion in paying homage to African queens." Perhaps would have pulled it off better though, had they just left out the dark make up.  According to the magazine, "As for the artistic makeup, the inspiration came from several African rituals during which paint is used on the face. We find the images beautiful and inspiring". Maybe, but when you make rituals exotic and take them out of their cultural context it becomes problematic. When you combine this dark-make up with 'African War Paint' on her cheeks and lips, a leopard print jacket, and a necklace made of bone, it makes for a social commentary about African cultural identity. The outfit on its own may have  been  a less obvious way to honor Africa through the display of African inspired outfits.  Yet the the outfit on its own also makes Africans be seen as the 'exotic' other. Add the make-up, and it is an overt ill conceived photo-shoot that reinforces an idea of  'The face of Africa'. The magazines official statement reads, that is was a

"A return to her African roots, as you can see in the picture, on which her face was voluntarily darkened. All the pictures will be available in the collector edition, on sale at the end of this month."- L'Officiel Paris

According to the magazine Fela Kuti was the inspiration of the photo shoot. One wonders if the magazine had been doing a Pocahantas inspired shoot if they would ask her to wear Red paint on her face and if she would have agreed? Or if she was asked to do an Asian inspired theme, if she would paint her face yellow? It seems odd then that they would think that painting their face dark-brown was the optimal way of honoring Femi Kuti. Fela Kuti was a talented musician, pan-Africanist and a sympathizer of the Black Panther Party.  His mother, Funmilayo Ransome Kuti, was a teacher, Women's rights activist and Pan Africanist who was acquainted with Amy Jaques Garvey, and Kwame Nkrumah. His brother was an activist and medical doctor who built clinics. His cousin, Wole Soyinka is a Nobel Prize Laureate for Literature, writer and poet.  Lastly, his son, Femi Kuti is a famous musician in his own right. If L'Officiel or Beyonce wanted to honor Fela Kuti, I am sure that they would have been a plethora of other opportunities to able to honor him and/or who represent him in more profound ways. I am also quite certain that if they wanted to honor African art, they could have found other artistic ways of doing this.

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.