|
Weep
for Africa, not Saddam
By Tony Iyare
At this time
of great tribulations for Saddam Hussein, 66 and the Iraqi people,
my heart continues to bleed. Like all genuine lovers of peace in
the world, I feel revolted by thoughts of his eventual guillotine
by the jubilant American forces. Whatever their charade about a
free and fair trial, Saddam is already guilty as charged. Any trial
can only be a whitewash. A man who is captured, harassed, psychologically
down and treated like a cow, can hardly get a free trial. I don’t
want to remember the double face cry of those who wish to bring
the Iraqi strongman before an International War Crimes Tribunal
and argue against same, for any of their citizens. And for those
of us here who have chosen to pop wine at the humbling of the former
Iraqi president, we may be heralding the ultimate ruination of humanity,
now reeling under the weight of pax America.
Those
who prefer to rejoice at Saddam’s imminent Golgotha should remember
the memorable lines of Angela Davis. When they came for a Christian,
I did not put forth my hand because I was not a Christian. Then
they came for a communist, I did not put forth my hand because I
was not a communist. And by the time they came forth for me, no
one was there to put up his hand for me. Enlisting in the euphoria
to crucify Saddam would mean a tacit consent to the abrasive erosion
of the values, culture and vision of different peoples of the world.
We have made the invasion of Iraq and the humiliation of its former
president possible by the acquiescence over the murder of Congo’s
Patrice Lumumba, Chile’s Sylvanus Allende, Mozambique’s Samora Machel
and Angola’s Eduardo Mondlane. We have also endorsed the virtual
movement of the world to insanity by refusing to raise a finger
at the subversion of Ghana’s Kwame Nkurumah, Panama’s Manuel Noriega
and so many leaders who fell via the siege of the CIA. Without knowing
it, we are saying good bye to the sovereignty of the nation states.
As scholars,
we may be compelled to redefine the concepts of democracy, morality
and ethics. I am not oblivious of many International Relations scholars
who conceive foreign policy in an amoral sense, but fear that the
world may be moving away from a collective resolve to protect even
the semblance of independence of fragile and weak nations. The definition
of democracy as government of the people, by the people and for
the people appears to have worn out and no longer suffices. Since
the beginning of the US aggression on Iraq, I have had problems
separating good from evil, the terrorist from the freedom fighter
and the democrat from the dictator. We have been wrong when we drive
ourselves on western paradigm, thinking democracy means periodic
election, multi-partism, freedom of movement, freedom of speech,
right to life and so on. An important grain is that it must not
be offensive to the US. Underscored in whatever is dangled by any
country as democracy, is that the interests of America and the West
must not be trampled upon.
That’s why Nigerian
leaders who smothered the peoples’ vote and massively rigged the
2003 election can enjoy the luxury of hosting the Commonwealth Head
of Government CHOGM, while Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe who’s accused
of the same crime could be excluded simply because of his backlash
on white farmers. Were the Americans to have the leeway to clear
countries for CHOGM, I doubt whether anyone would have had the effrontery
to exclude General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan who has provided
the launch pad for the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted by my 10-year old son to explain why President George
Bush has made good his avowed resolve to smoke Saddam in his hole,
I’ve had to go through several twists and somersaults. We are seeing
a throw back to the era when crude force was simply right.
The side stepping
of the United Nations reminds only of the defunct League of Nations,
which was prostrate and spineless in enforcing any multilateral
action. Those who made merry at the demise of the Eastern bloc can
now see the danger of unbridled Americanism presented by uni-polar
balance of power. The lot of the African continent in this debacle
remains grim. Who will stop the Americans if they decide to couch
a re-colonisation move in Africa in the guise of civilising the
natives once again? But more importantly, the prospect of the continent
achieving the targets outlined in the Millennium Development Goals
MDGs in 2015 as global attention is on Iraq is bleak. I have always
pondered at the obvious double standards in handling issues in Africa,
a continent enmeshed in a raging blood bath. It is unfortunate that
with the spectre of conflicts, malaria, poverty and HIV/AIDS ravaging
the continent, it is receiving only scant attention. As American
and other Western companies intensify their scramble for reconstruction
contracts in Iraq, the talk about Africa will fade.
Although the
actors prefer to talk glibly of the decline of Africa in global
attention and funding, the continent is already suffering from the
focus on Iraq. This is borne out from the ease with which the World
Food Programme WFP was able to raise $1.6 billion in three months
to feed 27 million Iraqis. Five days after the WFP started the campaign
for food aid, the US donated a whopping $260 million, Germany chipped
in $6.5 million while Canada gave $4.2 million. By June all donors
had pledged the full amount for Iraq. Conversely, the WFP’s long
standing campaign to raise $1.8 billion to feed 40 million in Africa
has only garnered $800 million. Africa Recovery, a journal of United
Nations Department of Public Information quoted WFP’s Executive
Director, James Morris as describing donor responses to Iraq and
Africa as double standard. Why do international donors “routinely
accept a level of suffering and hopelessness in Africa, we would
never accept in other parts of the world”, Morris asked rhetorically.
The situation in Ethiopia where some 12.6 million people are threatened
by starvation should particularly prick the conscience of the donors.
The $79 billion
approved by the American congress for Iraq war and reconstruction
last April is enough to meet the cost of HIV/AIDS treatment in low
and middle-income countries for 10 years, according to UN estimates.
But the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
has only raised $2 billion since it was started in 2001. While the
US has used the World Bank and IMF to block the campaign to write
off the debts of many African countries, it is leading the campaign
to write off Iraqi debt estimated at $130 billion. The US is mounting
pressure on its main creditors-Russia, Germany and Kuwait to either
write off or reschedule the debts. Its Treasury Secretary, John
Snow says the “Iraqi people cannot bear the burden of current debt
levels”. The debts owed by poverty stricken sub-Saharan Africa,
which was estimated at $204 billion by 2002 is yet to receive this
unique American attention. Added to the woes of Africa is the decline
in official aid to agriculture, which has fallen from $4 billion
to $2.6 billion in the last decade.
The drop in
Foreign Direct Inflow FDI to Africa to $7 billion in 2002 from its
peak of $13.8 billion in 2001 is equally not cheery. FDI is also
not expected to rise beyond $7 billion in 2003, dimming hope of
recovery of Africa’s battered economy. Iyare is Editor-in Chief
of The Gleaner news online.
|
