INTERNATIONAL LABOUR IVORY COAST:
FREE BASIL MAHAN GAHÉ:

Free Ivory Coast union leader Basil Mahan Gahé!
********************
The following appeal is from the international union confederation the IUF.
*******************
On April 26, Basil Mahan Gahé, general secretary of the national trade union center Dignité, was arrested at his Abidjan home and taken into detention. The union office was sacked, and many union officers have gone into hiding. Since then, the IUF and other international and national trade unions, including the Ivory Coast's national center UGTCI as well as the Director General of the ILO, have contacted the government authorities to demand his release and guarantees of his physical wellbeing.

To date, the government has refused to respond, or even to disclose the charges on which he is being held. Basil Mahan Gahé's only contact with the outside world has been a brief visit from the Red Cross.

Act now! - use the form below to send a message to President Ouattara (with copies to Ivory Coast embassies in France and Belgium) calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Basil Mahan Gahé.
*******************
The Letter: Please go to this link to send a message to the President of the Ivory Coast
*******************
To Mr. Alassane Ouattara, President of Ivory Coast
(copies to the Ambassadors of Ivory Coast in Belgium/France)

Dear President Ouattara,

On April 26, Basil Mahan Gahé, general secretary of the national trade union center Dignité, was arrested at his Abidjan home and taken into detention. The union office was sacked, and many union officers have gone into hiding.

According to our information, he is being held by police in the Williamsville quarter of Abidjan

We are deeply concerned for his safety and physical integrity, and by the government's failure to date to respond to numerous interventions on his behalf, including from the Director General of the ILO. Basil Mahan Gahé's detention is a violation of international law and of your own commitment to national reconciliation, and I accordingly demand his immediate and unconditional release as well as firm guarantees for his physical safety. I will closely follow your government's actions in this regard.


Yours sincerely

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS GAMBIA:
FREE GAMBIAN JOURNALIST EBRIMA MANNEH:



The following call for solidarity comes from the Care2 Petition site. The "African media foundation" referred to below is undoubtedly the Media Foundation for West Africa who have been protesting his imprisonment for some time. Some time means four years as Manneh was originally disappeared in 2006. You read all about Mannah's case and also numerous other struggles for freedom in West Africa at the Media Foundation's website. Molly found the site to be quite interesting and worth recommending.
EMEMEMEMEM
Free Gambian Journalist Ebrima B. Manneh

The exact reason for journalist Ebrima B. Manneh's arrest is uncertain, and the Gambian government denies knowledge of his whereabouts, but it's widely believed he is detained by the government as a prisoner of conscience.

Manneh's arrest was supposedly by the Gambian government, though they deny any involvement. Reports of the arrest cite several possible reasons for his imprisonment. It's unclear which reason is correct, but all of them point to the fact that Manneh is detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression.

An African media foundation has petitioned the Gambian government to answer questions about Manneh's disappearance, but so far they have remained silent.

Don't let the Gambian government cover up Ebrima B. Manneh's whereabouts after his murky arrest for a practicing a universal right. Tell the Gambian President Dr. A.J.J. Yahya Jammeh to release Manneh immediately.
EMEMEMEMEM
THE LETTER:
Please go to this link to send the following letter the President of Gambia.
EMEMEMEMEM


letterTarget: Dr A.J.J. Yahya Jammeh, President of Gambia
Sponsored by: Care2.com
The exact reason for journalist Ebrima B. Manneh's arrest is uncertain, and the Gambian government denies knowledge of his whereabouts, but it's widely believed he is detained by the government as a prisoner of conscience.

Manneh's arrest was supposedly by the Gambian government, though they deny any involvement. Reports of the arrest cite several possible reasons for his imprisonment. It's unclear which reason is correct, but all of them point to the fact that Manneh is detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression.

An African media foundation has petitioned the Gambian government to answer questions about Manneh's disappearance, but so far they have remained silent.

Don't let the Gambian government cover up Ebrima B. Manneh's whereabouts after his murky arrest for a practicing a universal right. Tell the Gambian President Dr. A.J.J. Yahya Jammeh to release Manneh immediately.
Dear Dr. A.J.J. Yahya Jammeh,

The exact reason for journalist Ebrima B. Manneh's arrest is uncertain, but evidence suggest he is imprisoned by your government for an act exercising his right to freedom of expression.

Multiple parties, including Manneh's father, fellow journalists, the Media Foundations for West Africa, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have asked your government to answer questions about Manneh's disappearance, including his current whereabouts. The government issued a statement saying they were not involved in the arrest and didn't know Manneh's location, despite reports that he was escorted into a hospital by police. Now, after ECOWAS issued a statement saying that Manneh's right to liberty and fair trial were violated, and asking the government to release him, restore his human rights, and repay his damages, the government is silent.

The story behind Manneh's arrest may be unclear, but one thing is certain: no one should be imprisoned for exercising the universal right to freedom of expression. I urge you to release Ebrima B. Manneh immediately.

Sincerely,
[Your name here]

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

OBAMA'S WARS:

Here's a little piece shamelessly stolen from the Anarkismo website. In this piece author Wayne Price gives his opinion about how anarchists should react to what, to true believers, may seem like a "betrayal" on the part of the Obama administration of the hopes that they had placed in this one man. To say the least such "hopes" (and fears) were the beliefs solely of the ideological left and the ideological right. Most ordinary Americans knew very well that, in electing their Emperor, they were doing just that...electing their Emperor whom they trusted to preserve the general balance of power in the world (and more importantly correct some serious domestic imbalances). The way in which the Roman Empire progressed from Roman or Latin Emperors to provincial Emperors and finally to "barbarian" Emperors should be instructive. Through all these changes the Roman Empire remained...the Roman Empire, whoever was at its head.

Personally I am undecided about how I view the following essay. Mercifully, my own opinion, and any other anarchist's opinion in North America is very much beside the point. There are few countries in the world (Spain, France ?, Italy ?) where anarchists are in a position to speak to even a small (5%) of the general population and receive a respectful hearing. In this vacuum anarchists far too often fall back on the sad leftist habit of trying very much to appear "right" instead of being effective. The history of developed countries (and underdeveloped ones as well) is littered with a history of "brilliant analyses" (some of which were correct and some of which were grossly wrong without their adherents ever admitting it). The question about "what to say" and, most importantly, "when to say it" is not even on the horizon of North American anarchism. For myself I hope that I will live long enough to see this change. I see no reason why other countries cannot follow the lead of Spain, whatever the advantages of the Spanish anarchists, especially those of the CGT. If we ever achieve the happy state of actually having at least a small amount of influence then the question of what authors such as the following are saying is "politic" would assume a much greater importance than whether they are (provisionally) right or (provisionally) wrong.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama's Imperial War - An Anarchist Response:

by Wayne Price
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Obama's Imperial War
An Anarchist Response

The expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan is not due to the personal qualities of Obama but to the social system he serves: the national state and the capitalist economy. The nature of the situation guarantees that the system will act irrationally. Anarchists should participate in building a broad movement against the war, while raising our political program.

In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.

After 3 months of consultations and deliberation, President Obama has announced that he is going to do what he had promised to do during his campaign for president—namely to expand the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not have been inevitable (since he broke many of his campaign promises already, such as ending overseas prisons, openness in government, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a health care plan which covers everyone, an economic plan for working people, etc.). But it was probable.

As has been pointed out, his stated reasons for the war do not make much sense: in order to get out of Afghanistan, the US will send more troops into Afghanistan. The US needs to fight Al Queda, even though there are now only about 100 Queda militants left in Afghanistan; the Queda base is mostly in Pakistan (which Obama slurred over by speaking of “the border”) but the US will not be sending troops there (just secret attacks by drone missiles and CIA operatives). More generally, the US supposedly has to strengthen the resolve of the government of Pakistan…by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The US hopes to win over the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending more non-Muslim, only-English-speaking, troops, which is sure to antagonize the people of the region. In 18 months, the US forces are supposed to transform the Karzai regime from one of the most corrupt, incompetent, and illegitimate states on earth, to a stable government (never mind a democracy). The effects of the mistaken US policies of 8 years can be reversed in 18 months (on the assumption that US forces will really “start” to withdraw in 18 months; promises are cheap; the US is still in Iraq). All of this is simply unbelievable and it is hard to think that an intelligent man such as Obama believes any of it.

Why then, really, is the US sending more troops into the region? Closer to Obama’s thinking are the expressions in his December 1, West Point, address, when he announced his program, where he spoke about the US as a global power with an economy which competes on the world market. Thus he remarked that “competition within the global economy has grown more fierce….Our prosperity…will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the past.” Implicit in these statements is an awareness that the US is no longer the economic power it was “in the past.” While still having the largest national economy, the US is now a de-industrializing debtor nation, losing out in world competition to Europe and Asia. This has been made worse by the global Great Recession, which has exposed the decay of the whole international capitalist system. The US ruling class, its layer of rich people, is not happy about this.

So they turn to the one asset they still have, which is the mighty military force of the US state—more powerful than any potential combination of opponent states. By throwing its weight around, the US hopes to re-achieve world dominance, or at least to slow its decline in world power. Obama reminded his listeners that the US has long been the dominant world power. “Our country has borne a special burden in global affairs ….More than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for six decades…” This is modified by the hypocritical words,”But unlike the great powers of old, we have not sough world domination.” He can say this because the US has not ruled through open “ownership” of colonies (leaving aside Puerto Rico and a few other places) but by economically dominating the world market, so that all must buy and sell on the US’ terms (“neocolonialism”). But whenever “necessary,” this has been backed up by military force, as shown in two imperialist world wars and a large number of invasions of smaller, weaker, nations.

Therefore it cannot accept being kicked in the teeth by small groups of terrorists living in caves, nor let petty dictatorships thumb their noses at the US. Nor can they afford to let regions which dominate the world petroleum supply fall into chaos, or at least outside of US rule, given the centrality of oil for the capitalist industrial economy. This includes both the Middle East and Northwest Asia (which may have important oil pipelines go through it). (Molly Note- "Northwest Asia" already has several important pipelines. I assume the author refers to 'Central Asia' )

Irrational behavior will result from being in situations which cannot be rationally dealt with. The US ruling class must try to dominate the world, economically and therefore politically and militarily, due to world competition. But it cannot dominate the world and is losing out in international competition. It must try to control the oppressed nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but it cannot control them. The result is a contradictory and irrational foreign policy. This was apparent under the stupid George W. Bush, with his ideologically fanatic advisers. It is still obvious under the intelligent and reasonable Barack Obama.

The result is likely to be disastrous (as it was in the Vietnam war, also waged by moderate Democrats—in fact most US wars have been waged by Democrats, starting with World War I). In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, many people have been killed or wounded or their lives disrupted—mostly the nationally-oppressed people but also many US soldiers. Now very many more will be killed. Not to speak of the wealth which will be destroyed, both in the attacked countries and in the US (Obama says the war will cost $1 trillion).

And in the background is the threat of nuclear war—not only does the US have nuclear weapons but so does Pakistan and its long-time opponent and neighbor India. Also, in the same region, the US is threatening to attack Iran, for supposedly working toward nuclear weapons, and there are similar threats by the US ally Israel, which does have nuclear weapons. Will nuclear bombs be used in the near future? I doubt it; but time marches on and sooner or later they will be used. (The Bush administration made an effort to make smaller “bunker-blasting” nuclear bombs, which could be used in small wars such as in Iraq. These would have erased the gap between nuclear and conventional weapons. I do not know where this stands at the moment.) Liberals have called on the US to lead a world-wide crusade to abolish all nuclear weapons. Obama has given lip service to this idea, but nothing will come of it because the US state cannot give up any of its power to threaten the rest of the world.

We revolutionary anarchists must oppose these wars will all our might. While the system cannot stop making wars, it can be forced to end particular wars. This can be done by raising the price which the state must pay for that war. If the capitalist politicians feel that young people are becoming radicalized and militant, that labor is becoming restless, that soldiers are potentially mutinous, and that the local peoples will not stop resisting--then they will finally decide to end the war (as in Vietnam).

We should participate in broader “peace” movement, joining it in its mass marches and demonstrations. Often we radicals get tired of demonstrations, seeing how little they accomplish; but we should not forget how exciting they can be for newer layers of antiwar activists. However this does not mean that we cover up our program. In particular we must oppose the leaders of this movement (liberals, social democrats, and Marxist-Leninists) for their capitulation to the Democratic Party. For years now, they have held back the movement by focusing on electing and supporting liberal Democrats.

We need to point to those who have the real power to end the war: the soldiers and other military forces and the working class. There has been increasing discontent among rank-and=file military and their families about the war. We should have a positive attitude toward this, as opposed to a moralistic superiority toward ordinary soldiers, who are usually victims of the poverty draft.. Similarly, there has been much discontent with the wars among working people and their families. We can at least support the idea of strikes against the war, war production, and the transportation of war material. We should oppose any use of the war as an excuse for union-busting or wage-lowering.

The force most directly opposing US imperialism in these regions are the people. We should make clear our solidarity with the nationally oppressed people (who are mostly workers, peasants, and small businesspeople). We should defend their right to resist US aggression. We should not be “neutral” between the mightiest imperial power and the oppressed people of Afghanistan. But this does not require any support or endorsement for any particular organization or leadership. We are certainly not “for” the Taliban, which is viciously misogynist, anti-labor, and statist. We do not want them to get their state again. However, that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide, not for the US state nor for Western anarchists.

We should be willing to work with anyone who will oppose the wars, while openly expressing our own program: the end of the state, of international capitalism (imperialism), and of all forms of oppression.

@@@@@@@@@@

Here is another article that comes Molly's way via Anarkismo but was originally published at the African website Pambazuka News. It lays out what are tghe likely plans of the US Empire in the next imperial field of action-Africa.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama moves ahead with AFRICOM:
Concerned over the supply of oil to the US and a supposed need to continue the global 'War on Terror', President Barack Obama has essentially maintained the militarised approach to Africa that was the hallmark of his immediate predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, writes Daniel Volman. The escalation of AFRICOM (United States African Command) activities, argues Volman, underlines a troubling commitment to an approach based on might and dominance, one entirely at the expense of promoting sustainable economic development and democracy.

In his 11 July 2009 speech in Accra, Ghana, US President Barack Obama declared, 'America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.'

And yet all the available evidence demonstrates that he is determined to continue the expansion of US military activity on the continent initiated by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and dramatically escalated by President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. While many expected the Obama administration to adopt a security policy toward Africa that would be far less militaristic and unilateral than that pursued by his predecessor, the facts show that he is in fact essentially following the same policy that has guided US military involvement in Africa for more than a decade.

The clearest indication of President Obama’s intentions for AFRICOM (United States African Command) and for America’s military involvement in Africa is provided by the budget requests for the 2010 financial year submitted by the Departments of State and Defense to Congress in May 2009. The State Department budget request – which includes funding for all US arms sales, military training, and other security assistance programmes – proposes major increases in funding for US arms sales to a number of African countries through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme. The budget proposes to increase FMF funding for sub-Saharan African counties more than 300 per cent, from just over US$8.2 million to more than US$25.5 million, with additional increases in funding for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Chad (US$500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$2.5 million), Djibouti (US$2.5 million), Ethiopia (US$3 million), Kenya (US$1 million), Liberia (US$9 million), Morocco (US$9 million), Nigeria (US$1.4 million), South Africa (US$800,000) and the Africa Regional Program (US$2.8 million).

The same trend is evident in the Obama administration's request for funding for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. The budget request for the IMET programme proposes to increase funding for African countries by nearly 17 per cent, from just under US$14 million to more than US$16 million, with additional increases for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$950,000), Chad (US$400,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$500,000), Djibouti (US$350,000), Ethiopia (US$775,000), Equatorial Guinea (US$40,000), Ghana (US$850,000), Liberia (US$525,000), Libya (US$250,000), Mali (US$350,000), Morocco (US$1.9 million), Niger (US$250,000), Nigeria (US$1.1 million), Rwanda (US$500,000), Senegal (US$1.1 million), South Africa (US$900,000) and Uganda (US$550,000).

The Obama administration also proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The 2010 financial year budget proposes to increase funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership – from US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to US$20 million in 2010 – and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$10 million in the 2010 financial year.

It also includes US$42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords (CPAs) in southern Sudan, US$10 million to help create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, US$21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo and the rehabilitation of the military base at Kisangani), and US$3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad and the Central African Republic.

And it includes US$67 million to support the African Union mission in Somalia, along with a request for US$96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for the GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) – which provides training and equipment to a number of African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities – and the Obama administration has requested US$96.8 million for ACOTA activities in the 2010 financial year.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s budget request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programmes contains US$24 million for Sudan to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan and to assist programmes to stabilise Darfur by providing technical assistance and training for southern Sudan’s criminal justice sector and law enforcement institutions as well as contributing to UN civilian police and formed police units in southern Sudan and Darfur. It also includes funds for police reforms in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); for training, infrastructure, and equipment for police units in Liberia; to operate the American-run International Law Academy in Gaborone, Botswana; and to create a Regional Security Training Center for West, Central and North Africa.

And the Obama administration is also asking for funding to be provided through the INCLE programs for the first time to provide security assistance to countries participating in the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$970,000), Cape Verde (US$2 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$1.7 million), Ethiopia (US$500,000), Gambia (US$450,00), Ghana (US$500,000), Guinea-Bissau (US$3 million), Liberia (US$8 million), Morocco (US$2 million), Nigeria (US$2 million), Sierre Leone (US$250,000), Sudan (US$24 million), Uganda (US$385,000), and the Africa Regional Program (US$4.5 million).

The Obama administration also proposes to increase funding for counterterrorism programmes. These include the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program – which provides training to countries throughout the world – the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification, Secure Comparison, and Evaluation System Program – which supports identification and watch listing systems to 18 countries (including Kenya) – the Counterterrorism Financing Program, which helps partner countries throughout the world stop the flow of money to terrorists – and the Counterterrorism Engagement Program, which is intended to strengthen ties with key political leaders throughout the world and 'build political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared counterterrorism challenges'. The Obama administration’s budget request requests increased funding for Kenya (from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$8 million in the 2010 financial year), for South Africa (a new programme for US$1 million), and the Africa Regional programme (from almost US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to more than US$20 million in the 2010 financial year).

The Obama administration proposed 2010 budget for the Department of Defense requests US$278 million in operation and maintenance funds to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration is also requesting US$263 million to provide additional manpower, airlift and communications support to AFRICOM. In addition, the administration is requesting US$60 million to fund CJTF-HOA operations in the 2010 financial year and US$249 million to pay for the operation of the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and for facilities modifications, along with US$41.8 for major base improvement construction projects.

The administration has requested some US$400 million for Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) programmes, some US$200 million for Security and Stabilization Assistance (Section 1207) programmes, and some US$1 million for the Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund. This money will be used primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for emergency training and equipment, the services of personnel from the State Department and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi and Afghani armed forces, but it will be available for the use of AFRICOM as well.
The administration’s budget request also contains US$1.9 billion to buy three littoral combat ships and another US$373 million to buy two joint high speed vessels, ships that will play a crucial role in US Navy operations off the coast of Africa. In addition, the administration has requested US$10.5 million to pay for naval deployments in west and central Africa in the 2010 financial year and another US$10 million for naval operations in east Africa.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to Nigeria during her tour of Africa in August 2009, she met with Ojo Maduekwe, the foreign minister, and Godwin Abbe, the new minister of defence. In her remarks after the meeting, she was asked what the US government intended to do to help the Nigerian government establish stability and security in the Niger Delta. 'Well, the defence minister was present at the second larger meeting that the foreign minister convened,' she said, 'and he had some very specific suggestions as to how the United States could assist the Nigerian government in their efforts, which we think are very promising, to try to bring peace and stability to the Niger Delta. We will be following up on those. There is nothing that has been decided. But we have a very good working relationship between our two militaries. So I will be talking with my counterpart, the secretary of defense, and we will, through our joint efforts, through our bi-national commission mechanism, determine what Nigeria would want from us for help, because we know this is an internal matter, we know this is up to the Nigerian people and their government to resolve, and then look to see how we would offer that assistance.' Thus, in addition to the security assistance programmes in the budget request for the 2010 financial year, the Obama administration is now considering providing even more military support to the Nigerian government for use in the Niger Delta if the current amnesty programme collapses, as many analysts expect, and the government resumes military operations against insurgent forces in this vital oil-producing region (which produces 10 per cent of America’s total oil imports).

Another indication of the Obama administration’s intentions are provided by its decision to expand US military involvement in Somalia as well as its decision to continue the Bush administration’s policy of unilateral military attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in that country. In June 2009, a senior State Department official (presumed to have been Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson) revealed that the Obama administration had initiated a programme of indirect military support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia (the internationally recognised government of the country, although it only exercises control over a small part of the capital, Mogadishu) and a few other towns in the southern part of the country).

According to the official, the US government was providing funding to the TFG to finance weapons purchases and had also asked the governments of Uganda and Burundi, which have deployed troops to Mogadishu under an African Union mandate to protect the TFG, to transfer weaponry from their own stockpiles to the armed forces of the TFG in exchange for promises that the US government would reimburse them. In addition, the US government made its base in Djibouti available to other governments for them to provide military training to the armed forces of the TFG.

During her visit to Kenya in August 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US government would 'continue to provide equipment and training to the TFG', stating 'very early in the administration, I made the decision, which the president supported, to accelerate and provide aid to the TFG'. She went on to declare that al-Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group fighting to overthrow the TFG, was 'a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda and other foreign military networks' and that they 'see Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism'.

'There is no doubt', Secretary Clinton stated 'that al-Shabaab wants to obtain control over Somalia to use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near.' Thus, 'if al-Shabaab were to obtain a haven in Somalia, which would then attract al-Qaeda and other terrorist actors, it would be a threat to the United States.'

The US government arranged for the delivery of an initial supply of approximately 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition worth approximately US$10 million to the TFG between May and August of 2009 from the stockpiles of the African Union peacekeeping force, along with between US$1 million and US$2 million in cash to the TFG to finance its own arms purchase, and the delivery of another 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition over the following months. A number of other governments – including Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and France – are also reported to have sent military personnel to the US base in Djibouti to provide military training to TFG troops.

According to a report by the Associated Press, American officials 'say the US military is not conducting the training and will not put any forces in Somalia'. Other countries were conducting the training, the Associated Press reported, because 'the [Obama] administration is making a concerted effort to avoid putting any American footprint in Somalia, which would risk alienating allies and add to charges by Islamic extremists of a Western takeover.' However, it has since become clear that most of the arms and training has been transferred to al-Shabaab, either by Islamic militants who had infiltrated the TFG military forces or as a result of the sale of the weapons and ammunition on the black market.

Then, in August, US Special Forces troops attacked and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an alleged al-Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 as well as other al-Qaeda operations in east Africa. The US Special Forces troops carried out the attack from onboard several helicopters that had been launched from a US Navy warship off the Somali coast, using machine guns and automatic assault rifles to strafe a convoy of four-wheel drive vehicles carrying Nabhan and his retinue. Following the initial assault, the helicopters landed so that their troops could seize Nabhan’s body for positive identification. It is likely that the Obama administration will conduct further military operations in Somalia since, in the words of Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, the deputy commander of AFRICOM, 'the threat posed by al-Shabaab is something that we pay very, very close attention to.'

And in October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali that was delivered on 20 October 2009. The package – valued at US$4.5 to US$5 million (2.3 billion CFA) and which includes 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment – is intended to enhance Mali's ability to transport and communicate with internal security (counter-insurgency) units throughout the country and control its borders. The security assistance package is officially known as the 'Counter Terrorism Train and Equip' (CTTE) programme. Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.

In addition, between April and June of 2009, 300 US Special Forces personnel were deployed to Mali to train Malian military forces at three local bases and, according to Lt Col Louis Sombora, deputy commander of Mali's 33rd Parachute Regiment (which was the recipient of the new US military aid package), more than 95 per cent of his soldiers have received US military training. And in early November 2009, US Air Force Brigadier General Michael W. Callan, vice commander of the US Air Force Africa (the Air Force contingent based in Europe and dedicated to AFRICOM), visited Mali along with other US military personnel in order to inspect local military forces (including the 33rd Parachute Regiment) and tour local military facilities.

According to Lt Col Marshall Mantiply, defense attaché at the US Embassy in Bamako, 'we are working with the Mali ministry of defence on a ten-year plan' to enhance the country's military capabilities.

The aid package to Mali is just the latest instance of America’s growing military involvement in the Sahel region. In his testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Africa hearing on 'Counter-terrorism in the Sahel' on 17 November 2009, Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson identified Mali – along with Algeria and Mauritania – as one of the 'key countries' in the region for the US counterterrorism strategy. 'We believe that our work with Mali to support more professional units capable of improving the security environment in the country will have future benefits if they are sustained', he stated.

It is clear, therefore, that President Barack Obama has decided to follow the path marked out for AFRICOM by the Clinton and Bush administrations, based on the use of military force to ensure that America can satisfy its continuing addiction to oil and to deal with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups, rather than to chart a new path passed on a partnership with the people of Africa and other countries that have a stake on the continent (including China) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights in Africa and a global energy order based on the use of clean, safe and renewable resources.

This is the consequence of two factors. To begin with, President Obama genuinely believes in the strategy of the global 'War on Terror' and thinks that Africa must be a central battlefield in America’s military campaign against al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. Many analysts believe that terrorism does not constitute a significant threat to America’s national security interests and that it would be far more effective to treat terrorism as a crime and to reduce the threat of terrorism by employing traditional law enforcement techniques. But, as demonstrated by the president’s decision to escalate US military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali, the Obama administration is determined to use military force instead, despite the fact that – as US military analysts argue – this only helps to strengthen terrorist groups and jeopardises other US security interests.

And with regard to America’s growing dependence on African oil supplies, President Obama understands the danger of relying upon the importation of a vital resource from unstable countries ruled by repressive, undemocratic regimes and the necessity of reducing America’s reliance on the use of oil and other non-renewable sources of energy. But, for understandable reasons, he has concluded that there is simply very little that he can do to achieve this goal during the limited time that he will be in office. He knows that it will take at least several decades to make the radical changes that will be necessary to develop alternative sources of energy, particularly to fuel cars and other means of transportation (if this is even technically feasible). And he knows that – in the meantime – public support for his presidency and for his party depends on the continued supply of reliable and relatively inexpensive supplies of gas and other petroleum-based energy to the American people, more than any other single factor. In the event of a substantial disruption in the supply of oil from Nigeria or any other major African supplier, he realises that he will be under irresistible political pressure to employ the only instrument that he has at his disposal – US military forces – to try to keep Africa’s oil flowing.

Professional military officers also know that the repressive, undemocratic regimes upon which the United States relies to maintain oil production are likely to fail and that they are almost certain to find themselves sent into combat in Africa – whether they like it or not – if this leads to a major disruption of oil exports, and are already working on plans for direct military intervention in Africa. Thus, in May 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command conducted a war game scenario for Nigeria during war game exercise that it conducts each year at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The scenario – set in the hypothetical year 2013 – was designed to test the ability of the United States to respond to a crisis in Nigeria in which the Nigerian government fragments and rival factions within the Nigerian military begin fighting for control of the Niger Delta, creating so much violence and chaos that it would be impossible to continue oil production. The participants concluded that there was little the United States could do to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict and that, in the end, they would probably be ordered to send up to 20,000 American troops into the Niger Delta in what the participants clearly recognised would be a futile attempt to get the oil flowing again. The fact that the participants in the Nigerian war games decided to go public with this information suggests that they believe that this scenario is likely to become a reality in the near future and that their only hope of avoiding this is to tell the public in the hope that this will prevent the order from being issued.

But the professional military officers who would actually have to lead their troops into Africa are not the only people who understand that America’s reliance on the military to solve the energy dilemma and the threat of terrorism is a dangerous mistake. Members of the US Congress are also increasingly sceptical about this strategy and are beginning to give AFRICOM the critical scrutiny it deserves. Moreover, a number of concerned organisations and individuals in the United States and in Africa came together in August 2006 to create the Resist AFRICOM campaign in order to educate the American people about AFRICOM and to mobilise public and congressional opposition to the new command. The Resist AFRICOM campaign will continue to press the Obama administration to abandon its plan for AFRICOM and to pursue a policy toward Africa based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa, international cooperation, democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is a specialist on US military policy in Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than 30 years.
Related Link: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/60921

ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS/INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-SOUTH AFRICA:

LATEST EDITION OF ZABALAZA:

Zabalaza is the publication of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front, a platformist organization in South Africa. Zabalaza is also the source of one of the best online anarchist libraries in the world, all available in downloadable pdfs. Here is the announcement of the latest edition of their magazine via the Anarkismo website.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Zabalaza No.10 Now Available:
The Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) is pleased to announce that issue number 10 of our organ Zabalaza: A Journal of Southern African Revolutionary Anarchism is now available. Unfortunately, however, we are unable to upload it to our website Zabalaza.net at present. Please therefore contact us at zacf [at] zabalaza [dot] net if you would like us to email you the PDF, which you can then print out and distribute. Alternatively check Zabalaza.net regularly as it should be available for download soon. Individual articles will also be published on Anarkismo.net as time goes by.

In this issue:
Southern Africa

«Editorial by Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF)

«Unite Against the Minority, Then Unite Against the Majority? (Zambia) by Malele D. Phirii, Zambia

« The Jacob Zuma Cargo Cult and the “Implosion” of Alliance Politics (South Africa) by Michael Schmidt (ZACF)

«A Bitter Taste to the Sugarcane (Swaziland) by Michael Schmidt (ZACF)

«Four Tools for Community Control – Part I: “Mutual Aid” (Southern Africa) by Stefanie Knoll (ZACF)

«Zimbabwe’s Party-Political Stitch-Up - How the Zanu-PF/MDC Deal Ignored Civil Society by Jonathan P. (ZACF)
Africa

«The Anarchist Movement in North Africa: 1877 - 1951 by Michael Schmidt (ZACF) & Lucien van der Walt

«Socialists and Gaullists Haunted by the Ghosts of Genocide (Rwanda) by Guillaume Davranche (Alternative Libertaire), France
International

«Jalan Journal: A New Asian Anarchist Voice is Born with introduction by Michael Schmidt (ZACF)

«30th Congress of the National Confederation of Labour (France) by CNT-F

«Hamas, the Left and Liberation in Palestine by Sevinc (Workers’ Solidarity Movement), Ireland

«Interview with Ilan Shalif from Anarchists Against the Wall - Israel/Palestine

«A Hot Winter in Greece by Stefanie Knoll (ZACF)

«Something Smells Different in Cuba by Movimiento Libertario Cubano, with introduction by Michael Schmidt (ZACF)

«Imperialism, China and Russia by Pier Francesco Zarcone (Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici), Italy

«Against Political Terror in Russia, We Mobilise! by the International Secretary, Alternative Libertaire, France/ Belgium

«Change We Need: An Anarchist Perspective on the 2008 US Election by North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC), USA, with introduction by Michael Schmidt (ZACF)
Theory

«Tangled Threads of Revolution: Reflections on Anarchist Communists: A Question of Class by James Pendlebury (ZACF)
Related Link:

http://www.zabalaza.net

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-SOUTH AFRICA:

SUPPORT THE LANDLESS PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT PROTEA SOUTH:

The following appeal for solidarity is from the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front. It comes via the Anarkismo website.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Defend the Landless People's Movement/ Protea South 8:
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front Call for Solidarity
Defend the Landless People’s Movement’s (South Africa) Struggle Against Forced Removals!Defend the Struggle for Basic Service Delivery!

Defend the Protea South Eight!

On Sunday 1st March 2009 two Landless People’s Movement (LPM) organisers with whom the ZACF is associated were arrested in Protea South, Soweto after the LPM delivered a petition from the Protea South community to their ward councillor regarding various issues and stating their concern around the prospect of their being forcefully removed to another location far from where they currently live and work.

After the petition was delivered there were minor disturbances and altercations with the police, and six youth from the informal settlement were arrested. The two LPM comrades were arrested a short while later, despite the fact that they were no longer in the vicinity when the disturbances took place.

We believe that the LPM comrades arrested: Maans van Vyk, a libertarian socialist who participates in a Soweto-based anarchist study circle facilitated by the ZACF; and Maureen Mnisi, a long-time community organiser with whom the ZACF has good working relations and who had previously organised for us to do two Red and Black Forums (anarchist educational workshops) in Protea South, are being targeted and victimised for their role as LPM activists and community organisers.

The LPM has, for a long time now, been waging a struggle against the forced removal of the informal settlement of Protea South to Doorenkop, which is far away from where they currently live, from where their children are schooled and where the few community members who are fortunate enough to have a job work.

There is currently a gentrification process underway in Protea South, and the middle-class community members who own bond houses there are concerned that the informal settlement is bring down their property values. Because of this they have started circulating a petition to have Maureen Mnisi removed from Protea South because they believe that with her gone resistance to forced removals will be quelled and the rest of the informal settlement could then be relocated to Doorenkop.

On Wednesday 25th March 2009 Maureen, Maans and the six other arrestees will be appearing in court on charges of public violence, assault, GBH, intimidation, and illegal gathering and the people in the bond houses in Protea South, the middle-class, will be presenting their petition as evidence against our comrades. Given the severity of some of the charges our comrades the accused could face prison time.

To show our support with comrades Maureen and Maans, and the poor people of Protea South informal settlement, the ZACF is calling on all social movements, left-wing organisations, progressives and our sister organisations and anarchist contacts abroad to do everything they can to support our comrades before Wednesday 25th March.

Maureen, as a single mother of five, is finding it particularly difficult to continue her struggle in defence of the poor when she is being victimised and feels that her life and that of her family is at risk. She would appreciate any messages of support to reassure her that what she is doing is right and to give her the courage to continue.

The ZACF supports the demands of the Protea South LPM as follows:

* All charges against Maureen, Maans and their co-accused be immediately
withdrawn
* The immediate cessation of any plans for the forced relocation of the Protea South
informal settlement to Doorenkop or any other location
* Respect and observation of the people’s right to choose whether or not they want to stay in Protea South or move to Doorenkop or any other location
* Free basic service delivery in Protea South and all poor communities in South
Africa

We appeal to everyone to please send messages supporting the demands outlined above to us on or before Tuesday 24th March so that these can be presented as evidence in defence of the accused.

All messages of solidarity and support, and endorsement of these demands to be sent to the ZACF at zacf [at] zabalaza [dot] net and to Luke Sinwell, a researcher and activist working with the LPM, at LSinwell [at] yahoo [dot] com

We call on our comrades also to phone in, fax and/ or email messages of protest against the way the South African government is repressing popular social movements and legitimate protest in South Africa to their local South African embassies and consulates and, where possible, to picket these. Please send copies of any such messages and reports or photographs of pickets to the addresses above.

Words of advice or solidarity can be expressed to Maureen Mnisi directly on: 0 27 (0) 82-337-4514and to Maans van Wky on: 0 27 (0) 79 267-3203

For more information on the events which led to the arrests please see the following:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12417http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12382
Defend the Landless People’s Movement Struggle Against Forced Removals!

Fight the Criminalisation of Social Movements and Legitimate Service Delivery Protest!

Defend the Protea South Eight!
Related Link: http://www.zabalaza.net

ANARCHIST MAGAZINES:

ZABALAZA NUMBER 9 NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE:

Zabalaza is the theoretical journal of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front, a platformist group active in South Africa. The journal always contains some mighty fine writing, and Molly highly recommends that you check out the general website for one of the best collections of downloadable anarchist pamphlets available on the net.

..........................

Zabalaza: A Journal of Southern African Class Struggle Anarchism, Issue No.9:

Issue number nine of the theoretical journal of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front is now available online.

In this issue...

Southern Africa:

* Workers, Bosses and the 2008 Pogroms

* “Ba Sebetsi Ba Afrika”: Manifesto of the Industrial Workers of Africa, 1917

* Ninety Years of Working Class Internationalism in South Africa

* Unyawo Alunampumulo: Abahlali base Mjondolo Statement on the Xenophobic Attacks in Johannesburg

* Xenophobia, Nationalism and Greedy Bosses: An Interview with Alan Lipman

* Interview with Two Libertarian Socialist Activists from Zimbabwe

Africa:

* Kenya’s Troubles are Far from Over

* Will EU troops stop the Central African cycle of violence?

* Brutal Repression in Sidi Ifni (Morroco)

International:

* Obama and Latin America: a Friendly Imperialism?

Theory:

* Anarchism & Immigration

* The Poison of Nationalism

* Nostalgic Tribalism or Revolutionary Transformation?: A Critique of Anarchism & Revolution in Black Africa

A PDF version of the journal can be downloaded here: http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/sapams/zab09.pdf

ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-ZIMBABWE:

ZIMBABWEAN ANARCHISTS ON THE CRISIS IN THEIR COUNTRY:

The following interviews with two anarchists from the country of Zimbabwe has been republished from the platformist Anarckismo site. The original source is the South African platformist Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front site. Once more anarchism is spreading worldwide. The following gives an unique anarchist perspective on the recent events in Zimbabwe.

.............................

ZACF interviews two libertarian activists from Zimbabwe

by Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front

A member of the ZACF poses the same set of questions to two activists from Zimbabwe.
The first interviewee, Biko Mutsaurwa, is an anarcho-communist from the Uhuru Network and facilitator for the Toyi Toyi Artz Kollektive in Harare. The second interviewee is Comrade Fatso, AKA Samm Farai Monro, a cultural activist and artistic facilitator for Magamba! The Cultural Activist Network.

The interviews were conducted in Johannesburg on 21st of June, 2008 - the day before MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai announced his decision to not participate in the June 27 presidential election run-off.

Interview with Biko Mutsaurwa, anarcho-communist from the Uhuru Network and facilitator for the Toyi Toyi Artz Kollektive.

Conducted in Johannesburg on 21st June 2008 by the ZACF.
ZACF: Have you heard about the regime's alleged 3-stage election scheme ("electoral cleansing", falsify the vote, declare a state of emergency)?

Biko: About the regimes intentions to outrightly rig the Zimbabwe electoral outcome I could say that i am convinced merely from watching the regimes reactions to the 29th March elections results that Mugabe has refused to accept that he was defeated in that election. The state media has continued to propagate the myths that there was no election winner. So I’m clear that their intention was to rig the election. With regards to how the regime is actually intent on cleansing after the elections, decimating the middle lay of activists within the Movement for Democratic Change I could say that I have second hand information, actually I got it from my mother who was forced-marched to a ZANU PF rally this Wednesday, 18th June 2008 where war veterans from the Zimbabwe Liberation War Veterans Association addressed that rally and they came to say that they were not there to campaign but they were there to inform the people that ZANU PF was not going to accept the electoral victory of MDC and also that they were going to come back to beat up the residents of Chitungwiza, where I stay with my family, primarily because Chitungwiza has been traditionally voting for the MDC.
ZACF: Can you tell us something about conditions on the ground in Zimbabwe, the extent of repression etc.. We'd like to hear about something else other than the repeated arrests of Tsvangirai & other MDC big-shots.
Biko: The arrests of senior MDC leaders comes in the wake of ZANU PF’s realisation that this time around the MDC leadership is prepared to call upon the masses of Zimbabwe to rise up and defend their vote using peoples power.The specific incident that gave rise to this awakening in terms of ZANU PF’s realisation was Tendai Biti’s announcement of the parallel voter tabulation result on 30th March. The arrests are merely a signal that ZANU PF is going to incapacitate the higher MDC leadership and later decimate the middle-layer MDC leadership that is community organisers so that there is no organised resistance in the wake of ZANU PF’s rigging of elections but also, which is much widespread, there have been very serious instances of ZANU PF militia in the rural areas mutilating the bodies of murdered MDC activists. A case in point is a very close friend of mine, Comrade Tonderai Ndira, who was a community organiser but also - in the wake of what is happening - was agitating for the armed self-defence of the oppressed communities particularly in the rural areas. He was murdered in one of the rural areas by the Central Intelligence Organisation in the remote rural district. His brother could only recognise him by a wrist band that he wore. That is the extent to which ZANU PF is prepared to deal with ordinary people. There are so many numerous names of people that have been murdered by ZANU PF.
ZACF: And the economy: hyperinflation, availability of food & other basic necessities, unemployment are common knowledge. Perhaps you have some comments on the origin of the economic crisis?
Biko: The ZANU PF regime came into power masquerading as a socialist party. It had as part of its ideological tradition the Stalinist conception of revolution. By 1991 even workers rose up against the ZANU PF dictatorship but by then it had consolidated its power and by 1990 ZANU PF had ceased to event act as a pseudo-leftist party and it outrightly embraced the right wing policies of the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, by adopting the economic Structural Adjustment Programmes.The revolution that is currently underway in Zimbabwe is a revolution that has been sparked by the peoples reaction to the adverse effects brought about by the economic Structural Adjustment Programmes of the 1990s. By 1999 we see the formation of the MDC, and the rest is history.
ZACF: What is the role of the MDC? Have they handled things well or badly? Again, historical comments on how they've blundered in the past might be helpful.
Biko: The MDC emerged in 1999 from the initiatives of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions as a workers party, but by the year 2001 it had been hijacked by middle class intellectuals and capitalists and therefore became a cocktail of ideologies. There have been a big number of mistakes that have been committed by the MDC. The MDC has not aligned itself towards the working people in terms of its economic policies. The MDC continues to look outwards towards foreign direct investment from imperialists nations and multi-national corporations as the way forward for rebuilding the decimated Zimbabwean economy. But in terms of strategy and tactics I believe that this time the MDC has learnt from its mistakes of not agitating for peoples power, but what remains a very serious weakness at this particular point is the inability to prepare the masses for an uprising. Yes its good enough to have the leadership calling for people to get into the streets, but its not good enough because you need to have the people prepared through training, through regular actions with regards to bread and butter struggles that people are going through, because only through action can people attain confidence in using action as means to liberate themselves, which is the only way for Zimbabwe.
ZACF: Can you tell us a little about the current state of resistance & prospects for the future; whether resistance is organised primarily or only by MDC or whether there’s other resistance; the trade unions movement, civics etc.?
Biko: The Zimbabwean pro-democracy movement has been infected by a disease that we call the ‘commodification of resistance syndrome’. There are a lot of NGOs getting a lot of money from imperialist nations but they are not organising concretely where the masses of the working people are. The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions remains a militant organisation but it has been weakened by the high rate of unemployment. Our belief as the Uhuru Network is that the key focal point is organising in communities where the majority of working people are, and here we see the very significant role of the combined Harare residents associations, but we feel that the hierarchical structure of most of these organisations organising in the communities is an impediment to the workers and poor people organising themselves in a manner that actually embodies the new forms of organisation that we envision for a new Zimbabwe.
ZACF: Have you read an article by Dale McKinley of the APF on the strategy of resistance for Zimbabwe? And what were your thoughts?
Biko: I have read articles that comrade Dale wrote in response to a discussion that had been initiated by comrade Oupa Lehulere of Khanya College with regards to the centrality of the industrial working class proletariat contrasted to the role of the social movements organising in communities. I think by and large he does to an certain extent balance the role of social movements in communities with the industrial working class. What I’m not clear about is what kind of organisational structure comrade Dale argues for, because one of the major impediments that I myself have experienced in terms of organising is that workers are usually disempowered by the vanguardist politics of the revolutionary parties and the hierarchies in terms of central command, for example when organising strikes. So I can’t really say that I understand what comrade Dale would argue for in terms of structure, but that would be a key concern for me.
ZACF: Please tell us a bit about the regime's methods of repression. How far does it depend on firearms etc; how important is the Chinese connection in terms of arms trade etc.? Can you confirm whether or not the infamous arms shipment got through to Zimbabwe?
Biko: The shipment was actually confirmed to have been received by a minister in the regimes cabinet, so the shipment is in Zimbabwe now. It is also another thing though that the fascist regime is prepared to use all means of violence, firearms are central to that to suppress any resistance. So firearms are key. ZANU PF years ago trained youth militia under the National Youth Service Training Programme and those militia are currently on standby and will be unleashed after the elections for the cleansing of activists. Currently what they are using are the youth structures of their party which are by and large very active in all the various wards of the country. The police and the army were the first to perpetrate repression and violence and this we saw in the pre-29th March period and also of significance is the large number of activists who have been murdered, middle layer leaders within the MDC, who were actually murdered by members of the army during Operation Command which is in charge of running the country. The army the police and the CIO.
ZACF: What about the repressive forces receiving training in Korea?
Biko: It is very key because I’m in fact aware of a number of places, particularly in Harare’s Milton suburb that are being used as training centers by not only Korean but also Chinese military personnel to train ZANU PF cadres in methods of torture. This I can confirm because I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes.
ZACF: How long is it actually going to take to get rid of Mugabe, and what happens then? A government of national unity or the MDC? What kind of policies will such a government adopt? Is there a danger of a return to neo-liberalism; and what can be done to resist this?
Biko: Frankly I am not a firm believer in parliamentary politics as a tool for the liberation of the working and poor people, so I’m pretty much indifferent to what is going to happen after Mugabe because what is clear to me is that the working and poor people in Zimbabwe are not ready to take control of their lives because they have been brainwashed by the ideology of the ruling class. The MDC, if assumes in power - which I would say will happen in the next year or so if peoples power and the resistance is organised properly - will pursue neo-liberal polices. The only positive thing that I can see about an MDC government is slightly broadened democratic space within which I think revolutionary organisations, activists and movements can operate much more flexibly to fight neo-liberalism.
ZACF: What about the role of other regional and international powers, such as South Africa, UK, US, and China? Economic interests, inter-imperialist rivalries, links to government & opposition etc.
Biko: Central to efforts by the international community to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis has been South Africa, particularly Thabo Mbeki’s role as the mediator of the Sadc initiated dialog. Thabo Mbeki I think is by and large motivated by the South African state’s sub-imperialist interest in the economy of Zimbabwe. I think also key to understanding his relationship to ZANU PF is the relationship between the ANC, as a party, to ZANU PF. We must also understand that Comrade Mbeki, if I might call him a comrade (laughs), was educated - or his education was financed - by ZANU PF; he was staying in Harare at the hospitality of Robert Mugabe, and when he goes to meet Robert Mugabe he meets him as his superior in terms of the nationalists as a movement. The role of the West and the UK is motivated by the failure of the ZANU PF regime to resolve the land issue in Zimbabwe and also the question of ownership of means of production, which is central to the struggle. The United Kingdom, as a state, harbors a hope that they might be able to reverse the loss of the estates and perhaps companies or economic interests in Zimbabwe as a result of Mugabe’s pseudo-leftist parties if an MDC government comes to power. The US is an imperialist nation whose motives around “resolving” international problems is purely economic. They would want to open up the economy of Zimbabwe to the multinational corporations that come from that particular state. So they do not have the interests of the Zimbabwean people at heart. In terms of the international community helping with the resolution of the crisis it can only be people to people solidarity; poor and working people, revolutionaries and organisations - similar minded - in various countries all over the world rendering solidarity to the Zimbabwe people with the interests of the empowerment of poor and working people in Zimbabwe.
ZACF: What can you say about Thabo Mbeki, and do you think that Jacob Zuma will be any better when he comes to power?
Biko: The relationship with the Zimbabwean state if ZANU PF is in power will clearly be acrimonious because Jacob Zuma appears to be the new favourite puppet of the West in light of his ability to hoodwink the trade unions - Cosatu as a movement - into supporting him. It has become clear I think to most of the imperialists that Jacob Zuma has the popular support of the people but he is clearly another puppet in terms of his relations with companies, the capitalists, and arms dealers and he won’t have anything to offer the people of Zimbabwe, the ordinary masses; but he will be, after Mbeki, the imperialists next favourite puppet in terms of how their strategies are implemented within the Southern African region.
ZACF: In terms of international solidarity, what can we do? Who is helping in SA and elsewhere?
Biko: The transportation workers union I think signaled the direction that workers need to take, unlike what we have seen - even though Cosatu has been militant at times - but we have seen a lot of talk-shops around what’s going on in Zimbabwe. But I think concrete action along the lines of what SATAWU did in stopping the shipment of arms is the next direction.
ZACF: Any comments on the recent so-called xenophobic pogroms in South Africa? Anything about Zimbabweans who fled the pogroms back across the Limpopo? How significant is this from a Zimbabwean point of view and what does it say about the South African government and people?
Biko: Firstly I’d like to register my understanding of the fundamental causes of the xenophobic attacks which I think are primarily rooted in the rate of unemployment currently obtained in South Africa, which is a direct result of the capitalist economic structure that the South African state is pursuing, and also the artificial food shortages which are superficially created by the global capitalist complex in order to initiate a hike in prices. I think those particular causes resonate with the situation obtaining in Zimbabwe and do point to us having a common enemy, which is capitalism. It is particularly disappointing though that the xenophobic attacks also point towards and indicate to us the lack of understanding of each others struggles that we as working people face, which we have to overcome in order to be able to overcome the system. The impact of people fleeing the xenophobic attacks and coming back to Zimbabwe has on one hand the effect of bolstering the vote of the MDC, because clearly those people are people who are disaffected by the ZANU PF regime. But it has also tragically had the effect of worsening their plight because the violence that did obtain in that short period in South Africa is incomparable to the violence being perpetrated by the ZANU PF regime back home, and these people are primary targets because most of them did flee after some resistance activities and it is like throwing these activists back into the lion’s den, and this is the tragedy of our situation.
ZACF: There are rumors that MDC agents could actually have acted as provocateurs and brought about these attacks in order to cause Zimbabweans to flee back home and therefore bolster their support during the elections. Do you think this is a possibility, or do you think its the South African government trying to divert responsibility?
Biko: Whilst I cannot really comment with confidence about what really happened in South Africa as I was in Zimbabwe I am inclined to believe that third force conspiracies are really something to drive us away from the responsibility that the ANC government has towards the poor and working people in South Africa which is the fundamental cause. Like I said before the MDC is actually a cocktail of ideologies and is a party that cuts across class; most of the influential people in the MDC are not really pro-working people so it is actually possible that people whose interests do not lie with the working people might be able to have their buddies to influence this but I would much rather focus on the role that the polices pursued by the ANC government have had on the xenophobic attacks.
ZACF: What role do you think nationalism might have played in these attacks?
Biko: Capital is globalised, the capitalist in Jo’burg is able to send huge amounts of money to Harare in seconds whereas the peoples’ movement is restricted by these borders, and that people are forced to recognise these ideological constructs limited to the ruling classes propaganda with these geographical zones and I think that has been key to shaping the thoughts that we have seen manifest in this very tragic way during the xenophobic attacks. And I think that our role as progressives and revolutionaries is then to try to share the ideas that we uphold of a world that has no borders, and I think that is the way forward in addressing xenophobia across the world.
ZACF: Any messages to the international anarchist movement? Any appeals or suggestions for how the international anarchist movement can support the struggle in Zimbabwe and help the advancement of anarchist ideas there?
Biko: Firstly, ahoy comrades and we appreciate the efforts that the movement has been receiving so far. We as the Uhuru Network have significantly benefited from our relationship with the ZACF in terms of the literature that we have managed to get and also the experiences that we share with comrades. Currently the realisation that we need to remind each other that the anarchist movement is a very small movement within the broader leftist movement but also within the pro-democracy movement and that our true anarchist comrades are at risk, especially when we have levels or repression such as are obtaining in Zimbabwe. We need to constantly communicate, interact, share experiences and also information about actions happening because when shit hits the fan it is only an anarchist that will be able to give appropriate solidarity to a fellow anarchist comrade.

Toyi Toyi Artz Kollektive

Interview with Comrade Fatso AKA Samm Farai Monro, cultural activist and artistic facilitator for Magamba! The Cultural Activist Network, Zimbabwe.

Conducted in Johannesburg on 21st June 2008 by the ZACF.
ZACF: Have you heard about the regime's alleged 3-stage election scheme ("electoral cleansing", falsify the vote, declare a state of emergency)?
Fatso: I heard of this plan, I think I read about it in the media and its obvious that they’re going ahead with the first two. At least there definitely is electoral cleansing going on, in the sense of getting rid of opposition support from the rural areas, where the majority of voters are, and also getting rid of any local election observers and poll monitors. And on declaring a state of emergency; its quite likely that’s something they could do in the build up to or straight after the elections. All they’d need is a peaceful demonstration or even less they could once against fabricate stories of supposed conspiracies, and I wouldn’t put that beyond them.
ZACF: Do you think this is an accurate understanding of Mugabe's intentions and, if so, will he pull it off?
Fatso: I think what is likely is they will rig the elections. They’ve shown they don’t give a damn about even the foreign observers; there have been two people shot in front of Namibian election observers a couple of days ago. If they don’t declare a state of emergency a very likely scenario is that, after winning, they’ll patch together a government of national unity which would be more in the sense of absorbing the MDC and then slowly taking it apart as it becomes part of the government, which of course ZANU PF would run.
ZACF: Can you tell us something about conditions on the ground in Zimbabwe, the extent of repression etc.. We'd like to hear about something else other than the repeated arrests of Tsvangirai & other MDC big-shots.
Fatso: What’s going on on the ground is the abduction, torture and murder of grassroots activists from across the board. Mainly MDC activists are being targeted but also those from Women of Zimbabwe Arise, from the National Constitutional Assembly, different movements have also been targeted. Four bodies of MDC activists were found a few days ago. They were from Chitungwiza, which is the biggest township in Harare, and they had been abducted, tortured, beaten and murdered. And there are also political prisoners. WOZA’s leadership has been arrested and is being held until after the elections. What ZANU has now started is that dictatorial trend of taking political prisoners, which it didn’t necessarily do in the past. Those are some of the things that are happening.
ZACF: And the economy: hyperinflation, availability of food & other basic necessities, unemployment are common knowledge. Perhaps you have some comments on the origin of the economic crisis?
Fatso: Everyone knows about the hyper inflation and that we’re moving into the trillions. You have to spend trillions of dollars on certain basic things. Economically there has been a decline, really since the 1990s, with the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programmes and the commercialisation of parastatals, the removal of tariffs on Western imported goods and the removal of subsides that supported local industry. All of this was World Bank backed Structural Adjustment Programmes which led to the average worker being twice as poor in 1995 as they were in 1980, it led to a large amount of school drop-outs, it led to increased unemployment and worse wages. So the economic decline really started more in the 1990s, and that’s something that doesn’t get reported on that much in foreign media. And of course then this precipitated Mugabe fighting against those demanding economic justice; the workers and students. Mugabe fighting against them by using the land issue, and beginning to repress his opposition and destroying the economy in order to entrench their patronage system; so there’s been a steady decline since the mid-nineties until now.
ZACF: What is the role of the MDC? Have they handled things well or badly? Again, historical comments on how they've blundered in the past might be helpful.
Fatso: I give respect to MDC for having fought the struggle and for having risked so much. I do think that strategically they’ve made mistakes, and their relationship with the people hasn’t always been as direct as it should have been and their information hasn’t gotten out as much as it should have. I do respect them still for putting themselves in the forefront of the struggle, but I think also that there has to be a lot more coordination with the civics and social movements.
ZACF: Some people have criticised Tsvangirai for having spent so long outside of Zimbabwe, trying to muster International support instead of providing leadership on the ground. Any comments?
Fatso: I think it was, on the one hand, a wise idea for him to leave the country and drum up support in the region. I think he achieved a lot within Sadc. Definitely he achieved quite a few breakthroughs with Sadc heads of state in getting them to support the peoples’ side of what’s going on in Zimbabwe, but I do think he stayed out for too long and peoples’ hopes started dissipating. And he is now back - I think he came back a bit late - but he is now back and he obviously always has risks of arrest and assassination on his head. You’ve seen what they’ve done to Tendai Biti the Secretary General, who is one of the key players and one of the brightest minds in the MDC. By taking Tendai out of the game they have definitely dealt quite a harsh blow to MDC.
ZACF: Can you tell us a little about the current state of resistance & prospects for the future; whether resistance is organised primarily or only by MDC or whether there’s other resistance; the trade unions movement, civics etc.?
Fatso: I think there’s various types of resistance, MDC’s is one form. Amongst the civics I think the most powerful movement is Women of Zimbabwe Arise, a very powerful social movement made up of women, which focuses on social justice issues, takes to the streets where necessary, believes in direct action and is a national movement that has got sections all over the country. And then there are other forms of resistance. There are the civics, and there’s those like ourselves that use arts and culture in the struggle. We’ve got our network Magamba! The Cultural Activist Network, and we put on different resistance shows as ways of keeping peoples inspiration high, giving people that food for resistance. I think there are different forms of resistance that happen and no, its not at all exclusively the MDC.
ZACF: At the Southern African Social Forum in 2005 you had a performance in Harare Gardens that was openly critical of the regime, in broad view of everyone, yet there wasn’t any state repression metered out against people that participated. Is that because of the high profile of cultural activists, or what do you attribute that to?
Fatso: It’s a difficult one. They do come and threaten and monitor; they monitor our performances, they call us up afterwards to interrogate us informally. Sometimes they probably think their presence is enough to stop people coming, and sometimes their presence does stop some people coming into our shows. We’ve had that before, where people said “No I’m not coming in because I know those guys, I know what they’re capable of”. But their strategy is also to censor the arts, I mean my album has been banned. They’ve given a blanket silence in all state media meanwhile the non-state media has given it very good reviews -of course, its a resistance album - but they censor those who don’t support them.
ZACF: Please tell us a bit about the regime's methods of repression. How far does it depend on firearms etc; how important is the Chinese connection in terms of arms trade etc.?
Fatso: The regime will always resort to using arms and especially right now, in the build up to elections, there are more reports of people being shot. The soldiers and Youth Militia are all being used in an attempt to destroy the peoples will. With regards to the Chinese, there has been an important connection there; they have provided everything from police vehicles, baton sticks, army vehicles, arms and the like. So there is a definite connection.
ZACF: Can you confirm whether or not the infamous arms shipment got through to Zimbabwe?
Fatso: I’ve got no specific information of on that.
ZACF: How long is it actually going to take to get rid of Mugabe, and what happens then? A government of national unity or the MDC? What kind of policies will such a government adopt? Is there a danger of a return to neo-liberalism; and what can be done to resist this?
Fatso: One never knows how long it will take to get rid of Mugabe, but I do think its the final days of ZANU PF. I don’t think they can go on much longer. I think a form of government of national unity is what would come about, even MDC have talked of this; that there is such polarisation in Zimbabwe that the MDC alone may not be able to take all the people with it. So there is likelihood that if the MDC was to form a government of them bringing in certain elements of ZANU PF, more reformed so-called progressive elements. There are progressive aspects to what MDC wants to put in place; they talk a lot about a people-based economy and people-centered constitution, but it needs to be seen in practice because one problem with Zimbabwe is that there’s a big likelihood that, in a new, independent and free Zimbabwe, that in order to get foreign investment a lot of the country and its resources will be sold off to foreign investors and foreign corporations. That would be a very quick-fix way of bringing money into the economy, but of course we’d end up seeing resources being in the hand of foreigners and Zimbabweans not benefiting. So I think that’s one think to look out for, and another is getting into debt. We have a huge illegitimate foreign debt that we should not pay. Some of it was incurred by Rhodesia and the rest was incurred by ZANU PF and none of that should be paid back; its illegitimate. The policies that should be put in place should be policies that focus more on social and economic justice, and I think that if those kind of policies don’t start to be put in place then people, because the democratic space would technically be larger under the MDC one would hope, people will still have that knowledge and tradition of the basic struggles for water, the basic struggles for food that formed a lot of the core struggles during our struggle for democracy today and would hopefully be able to continue the struggle for social and economic justice. I don’t think it ends with MDC being in power, I think freedom is never fully attained and a lot of the movements will morph into new movements and new movement will be born and the struggle for peoples basic socio-economic rights will continue.
ZACF: What about the role of other regional and international powers, such as South Africa, the UK, US, and China? Economic interests, inter-imperialist rivalries, links to government & opposition?
Fatso: I think a new Zimbabwe will be a prime picking ground for South Africa, the UK, US and also I think its very important for any government in place to be aware of what progressive policies have to be in place and not selling off the country and its assets, because Zimbabwe had the second biggest industrial base in the region with self-sufficiency in food, and that’s something which has to be reestablished without selling it out to the foreigners.
ZACF: What can you say about Thabo Mbeki, and do you think that Jacob Zuma will be any better when he comes to power?
Fatso: I think Mbeki has been an absolute dismal failure in being the Sadc appointed mediator. Zuma’s statements have been progressive, but then he’s also someone who is known to be a populist and known to ride on popular waves of popular thinking. So his statements and the new ANC leadership’s statements on Zimbabwe have been much more progressive than anything we’ve heard from Mbeki and his ANC, but the proof of it will be in the action rather than in the public statements.
ZACF: In terms of international solidarity, what can we do? Who is helping in SA and elsewhere?
Fatso: I think a lot of Zimbabwean people were very empowered by the regional solidarity that came about from the civics especially in South Africa around the arms issue, Cosatu affiliated trade unions refusing to offload, refusing to transport the shipment. The South African Litigations Center taking the boat to court. I think that was very powerful civic solidarity; the South African government had nothing to do with it. That was showing how social movements and civics can be a powerful force for good within society. So I think actions like that where social movements take the forefront, don’t wait for governmental action, I think that’s important. Many forms of solidarity can happen; even in the concert today when people walk in they will sign individual letters addressed to Thabo Mbeki on Zimbabwe, and those will be sent to him. So different forms of awareness raising, different forms of solidarity are key in struggle.
ZACF: Any comments on the recent so-called xenophobic pogroms in South Africa? Anything about Zimbabweans who fled the pogroms back across the Limpopo? How significant is this from a Zimbabwean point of view and what does it say about the South African government and people?
Fatso: I think what its shown is what happens after more than ten years of elitist policies within South Africa that have lead to a blossoming so-called black diamond middle class and a hugely growing economy but a population where 40% are unemployed and most of the people live in absolutely squalid conditions. That should be a wake-up call. The neo-liberal policies that have been in place have not worked, they’ve benefitted the rich and not the poor and that should be a wake-up call to the ANC about what policies its putting in place. And at the same time, from our side, a better Zimbabwe means a better South Africa in the sense that we won’t have all these refugees coming over to South Africa if we didn’t have the crisis in Zimbabwe in the first place.
Comrade Fatso

Magamba! The Cultural Activist Network
http://www.zabalaza.net/