postcard from ajdabiya...

Ajdabiya, Libya: Children flash the victory sign while playing in a square

fotocred: Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty Images

And in the Red Corner... And in the Blue Corner...

This past Saturday I witnessed a spat on Twitter between President Paul Kagame and British journalist Ian Birrell. Kagame was featured in the Financial Times series Lunch With ... (insert name of African politician) in which he claimed that because the UN and the international community (i.e the West) had failed to act on the 1994 Rwanda genocide they had no 'moral right' to criticize him. Birrell tweeted that Kagame was 'despotic and deluded' with a link to the FT piece. Kagame, riled by Birrell's tweet and he immediately responded and you can read the whole exchange, thanks to View from the Cave. What's probably most interesting about this conversation is that it's probably the first time a President and journalist have had such a lively exchange on Twitter - praise be to Twitter for providing a platform for spontaneous engagement which would previously have been at a press conference, a chance meeting or something of that sort... Unlike other world leaders (or former) who talk to no one and probably have their PR staff tweeting news links and press releases like Barack Obama (@barackobama), Nick Clegg (@nickclegg), Jacob Zuma (@sapresident) and Ban Ki Moon (@secgen), Kagame, like Hugo Chavez (@chavezcandanga) actually does it himself and interacts with people.

What was different about this particular exchange is that its one of the few times Kagame's engaged with a critic and it comes on the back of a painfully boring but rosy You Tube World Leaders interview in which as 'Africa is a Country' rightly put it 'Kagame spins You Tube'. It was a PR exercise -soft questions with no further probing from an interviewer who although smart, funny and likable on other occasions, was not the best choice for this gig. Kagame's had this social media friendly Prez rep for a while now (also see this) but after seeing Saturday's exchange the cracks are beginning to show because Kagame's not entirely the affable, savvy guy he's appears to be online. Sure he has his pluses but not where the Congo or political opposition are concerned.

Kagame didn't actually answer any of the questions posed by Birrell about his government's silencing of political and media opposition. Instead it was a slinging match in which the foreign minister, Louise Mushikwabo also got involved. In a rather strange move, she protected her tweets the very next day as if it was an act of self-protection from a threat, but its an act of hiding. Doesn't she know protecting your tweets only restricts who can see them, but those already following you, can still interact with you and retweet your tweets for others to see? Restricting dialogue won't stop truth-seekers and critics, nor does it advance the democracy and openness which Kagame claims his government does, in the YouTube interview.

Apart from a self-censoring foreign minister and an angry President slain by a journalist and a global supporting cast of tweeters and bloggers (:0), another interesting thing to emerge out of this online spat was the reactions of Kagame's supporters which ranged from blind praise of Kagame to the 'British' lack of understanding  of the Rwanda situation to censure of a Western journalist for disrespecting an African leader. It goes without saying that the staunch Kagame supporters would say this, but when seemingly more open-minded Africans also pick on Birrell's Westernness and re-buff his use of the words 'despot and deluded' because they're not fit for an African leader, there is a big problem. Birrell's identity has nothing to do with the facts - that Kagame shuts down debate in Rwanda and has had Congolese and Rwandan blood on his hands since 1996 - and Kagame's Africanness doesn't make him immune to being called a despot. Why do we get so defensive about these terms? When people call Bush and Blair war mongers, genocidaires and war criminals there's no problem, but African leaders are untouchable because they're African? Screw that. I'm a previous sufferer still in recovery mode from Afro-centric syndrome; a state of mind which mainly afflicts Africans raised in Africa: we always defend our leaders against Others (i.e Westerners) in the name of Africanness, even if we're defending the wrong thing, because the defensiveness that comes from the Them/Us relation borne of colonialism and lived neo-colonial experience is so deeply entrenched in our psyche. Not so say this is wrong - but there are times when its completely justified and necessary to take up this position and there are times when it just isn't. This incident and in some defenses of the crimes of people like Mummar Gaddaffi, Omar Bashir and Robert Mugabe it isn't. Sorry.

Liberate Tate Shames BP

From Liberal Conspiracy: 

Yesterday at the Tate Britain [gallery in London], Liberate Tate (website) staged another of its headline-grabbing performative protests in the Duveens Hall of Tate Britain. A naked man lay down in the foetal position while several veiled figures covered him in an oil-like substance. The performance lasted for 87 minutes to commemorate the 87 days over which oil was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, beginning exactly one year ago today.

According to the Telegraph: BP spends over £1m per year sponsoring the Tate Britain, the British Museum, the Royal Opera House and the National Portrait Gallery.

*** 

If the London School of Economics could be shamed into cutting ties with the Gaddaffi regime, then the same should apply to the Tate and BP- not just for environmental reasons but for political reasons too. Unsurprisingly it has big stakes in Libya. Up to $900m (£545m) worth of initial investment deals was facilitated by Tony Blair when he renewed British relations with the Brotherly Leader of the Arab Jamaharihya. BP also promised to invest up to £20 billion over the next 20 years, in 2009, at a time when 200 Nigerians were on death row in Libya for immigration offences (and later released after diplomatic intervention by the Nigerian government) while Libyan citizens faced persecution or repression for various acts of civil disobedience.


Following the Brotherly Leader's threat to nationalize all the oil fields, its in Britain and BP's interests to ensure the Libyan revolutionaries topple Gaddaffi. But can the Tate, as a site that hosts creative expressions of cultural and political resistance in Britain and the world (like Ai WeiWei), really be associated with a corporation that operates on a profits before all else policy?


(As for the British Museum, well its a place that harbors stolen items so more than just cutting ties with BP, it needs to return the stolen goods, like the Rosetta Stone, on which the museum markets itself as a repository of 'world history'.)

copyright Immo Klink

see more pics here.

Is A Protest In Djibouti A Protest In The Arab World?

This is a map of most of the countries that belong to The Arab World, and while I don't think The Arab World can be defined by physical borders and states, the concept of The Arab World as a geopolitical space is still a useful one because of the links between the histories, economies and politics of these countries and it is also a definitive way of marking Arab presence in the world. Furthermore in an age where the single state empires are on the decline, a free and united Arab World could give a few crucial kicks to a dying juggernaut: U.S imperialism. 

Of the Arab countries in Africa that are revolting or have revolted against oppressive regimes, are: Algeria, Djibouti*, Libya,  Mauritania, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia excluding Somalia, Western Sahara and Chad. The protests in most of the revolting countries have received media coverage, but the protests in Djibouti and Sudan, to some extent, have not been represented as protests in the Arab World and yet the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have been heralded as the revival of a pan-Arab consciousness. While I don't dispute the claims of a pan-Arab revivalism and a new Arab century to be true and I sincerely hope that the solidarity of oppressed peoples of this region becomes permanently ingrained in the Arab psyche, there are certain exclusions and hierarchies that have to be addressed for the concept of pan-Arabism to be really meaningful and truly revived. For starters, showing some solidarity with protesters in Djibouti who like Bahrain is home to a U.S military base. (The only U.S military base in Africa.) The President of Djibouti like the royals of Bahrain are U.S stooges whose oppression of their people is overlooked because these leaders do the bidding of the U.S by hosting its military operations in their countries. Just as the Bahrainis are demanding political reform and that the presiding monarch steps down, Djiboutians are demanding that Ismail Omar Gulleh be removed from his seat in power and tear up his proposed constitution that would allow him to stand for elections for two more six year terms. 

However unlike Bahrain, but like Sudan, Somalia and Chad, Djibouti does not register on the radars of popular political discourses of the Arab World. When was the last time that a mainstream political analyst or well-known Arab activist commenting on The Arab World and the revolution effect mentioned Djibouti in the same breath as Morocco or Algeria or Egypt?

...

That's right, never. 

Why?

Controversial as it is to ask this, it has to be asked: is 'The Arab World Revolution' a racialized term, if 'the Arab revolutionary' is mainly represented by one type of people from specific countries -yet a. Arabs are a racial and culturally diverse people and b. The Arab World is composed of nations of diverse ethnicities (e.g Somalis, Berbers, Nubians)? Is the discourse of the Arab World Revolutions being framed by the media, in terms of geo-political relevance to Palestine and European interests - as this is largely where the definition of the Middle East originates? 

Although it is true, that despite the tragic deaths, the uprisings across the Arab World are a shiny, happy, power to the people moment; it is only a shiny happy revolution moment that refers to some, not all revolting Arabs. Like some exclusive world for the resource-rich (Libya), politically powerful (Egypt) and strategically located (Yemen), the idea of 'Arab World Revolutions' has the danger of re-affirming old hierarchies and exclusions if the term continues to be applied to some regions and not others. This unintentional selectivism / blindspot has to be challenged and reconstructed, within the media and the global public, so that when people talk of Arab World Revolution it includes all member states of the Arab World.

Djibouti may be an East African country with much stronger ties to the African countries on The Horn than Egypt or Palestine, but it is no less a part of The Arab World Revolutions. The brown and black-skinned peoples of Djibouti, as elsewhere are both African and (Yemeni) Arab, so why do serious political commentators either; ignore Djibouti or those that do, speak of the protests in Djibouti in singular terms - the same way Libya is reported as an Arab Uprising, Djibouti is an African Uprising. And yet both are Arab and African states. 

By speaking of them in their singular identities the two seem unconnected and yet through a pan-Arab (and pan-African) lens, there are far more political and cultural commonalities between the situations of these countries than there are differences.

*I recognize that Djiboutians by ethnicity are predominantly Somali, Afar and Asdoimara and most average people probably recognize themselves as part of The Horn than the Arab World, but my point is that the country has formal recognition as a part of the Arab World and a member of the Arab League. In times of distress, Djibouti has often turned to the Arab League for assistance (and the African Union). Why then is it a blindspot when people speak of Arab World Revolutions and why are people not moved to comment in the same way they do about the US naval base in Bahrain and the $1.5 billion in military aid that goes to Egypt every year from the U.S.? Djibouti is America's only base in Africa, how can thousands of protesters demanding regime change not raise the eyebrows of those who talk about 'changing' Arab World - U.S relations???

IMO, this is what happens when looking at this from a purely MENA countries perspective, some widening of gaze is needed to understand how deeply connected all these things are.

FYI: Wikileaks Cable on Blackwater in Djibouti (this story's been missed by mainstream media since Nov 2010 when the cable was released.)

Thank You

I'd like to thank everyone who's posted a comment, tweeted (@konwomyn) at me and RT'd or linked to my open letter. I'm glad most of you feel the same way I do about this issue. I'm tied up at the moment, but I'll be updating my blog over the weekend. Please keep posting your comments on my blog and I'll respond in due time.

About Those 'African Mercenaries', An Open Letter to Al Jazeera From Africa

Dear .......... (Insert name of media organisation and modify letter as you wish)

Dear Al Jazeera


I have decided to write this letter to you as you've been the channel I watch the most for informative coverage on events in the Middle East and North Africa. In many ways your coverage has been amazing and I sincerely applaud the unbelievably brave efforts of your journalists who had to work under very difficult conditions to cover events in North Africa. However I now write to you with concern at international media's coverage of events in Libya, particularly concerning 'African mercenaries'. I honestly don't have a problem with the term 'African mercenaries' because this is how Libyans probably refer to Black non-Libyans, but what bothers me is the way some of your tv anchors and field journalists continue to push this meme on air. For example on Sunday the anchor on Al Jazeera English, David (I didn't get his last name, he was an older man with an English accent hosting the news around 6 p.m GMT) said 'mercenaries are coming from Africa' ...but Libya is in Africa. As correction perhaps, the Al Jazeera website had an excellent Features article, 'In Search of an African Revolution' the very next day on Monday (21 Feb) addressing this very issue.


And yet your other journalists continue to refer to 'Black African mercenaries coming from Africa' (as with the 1p.m broadcast at the Egypt/Lybia border on 22 Feb with the courageous and brilliant Jamaal Elyshayyal) yet some of those mercenaries are also reportedly Arab and European. (RE: David Smith's column in Guardian UK) Understandably this may have been an unintentional oversight on the part of the news network as this is what Libyans on the ground are reporting, but I think continually pushing a singular narrative about a more complex story has the danger of reinforcing an African and Arab narrative that has an uncomfortable racial connotation to it. I am not accusing Al Jazeera of having a racial bias, far from it. I just feel its important for the network to be sensitive to how this issue plays out to an international audience of both Black Africans and Arabs when the full story is untold. 


Elsewhere, other Al Jazeera and international journalists who although tweeting in their personal capacity, tweet the news and again they repeat this 'mercenaries are coming from Africa' line. One has to wonder whether we're looking at the same map when we speak of Africa or is this some journo code-speak ordinary people are not privy to?



As reports are emerging, it seems to be that the 'mercenaries from Africa' are most likely from Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Tunisia and Guinea as well as South Africa and parts of Europe. So they are White, Arab, European and Black, not all Black Africans. They may not be from the Congo, maybe not from Somalia but almost certainly not Zimbabwe as some wild speculations claimed. Yes, there was no plane full of soldiers dispatched from Harare to Tripoli at 1 a.m (!) on Sunday morning - any well-educated Zimbabwean could have told these international journalists tweeting in their personal capacity that this 'witness account', as dubbed by Al Jazeera, was untrue. Of course AJE is only the messenger so you can't be blamed for what you can't verify and I don't blame you. But since this is an open letter I may as well post some info for other inquiring minds who'll stumble on my blog. For starters soldiers are not mercenaries, our history of mercenaries is mainly from the apartheid era, Mozambique's civil war and the Angolan war when White South Africans and White Zimbabweans (some of them were former Rhodesian soldiers) would use Zimbabwe as temporary base but they did not operate in Zimbabwe. Secondly today in Zimbabwe we have thugs (don't often use guns but often beat and rape) not mercenaries (skilled hit-men like Simon Mann (Equatorial Guinea plot)) that are busy with their own electoral campaign of violence, thirdly Zimbabwe's thugs* have no knowledge of Libyan terrain and finally Zimbabwe doesn't speak French. Sadly no amount of @'ing international journos on twitter could kill this rumor. But as untruths die in time, I sincerely hope that this untruth will die sooner rather than later. (see Smith's column)


Anyway about these mercenaries and Al Jazeera's role in coverage. As there have been suggestions that it is likely the 'African mercenaries' are from the above-mentioned African countries, I'd like to know why an investigative journalist couldn't be dispatched to these countries to find out how the mercenaries work - surely Chad, Tunisia and Niger are not as hostile to international journalists as Mummar Gadaffi's Libya. If not, could a Chadian Ambassador or Activist could be invited to Al Jazeera studios to share their view? How can the story of mercenaries be reported to the exclusion of Chad, yet Chad is the French and Arabic speaking nation where some of these hitmen are allegedly coming from?


It bears repeating that Chad is an Arab African nation. It is Libya's neighbor. As your coverage is mainly centered on the 'Arab World' its tempting to think that Chad is perhaps not Arab enough that it should be spoken of and not spoken to in news reports and analyses. I appreciate that this is a fast-developing story and there are many angles to cover, but the impact of events in Libya on security and political relations between these two countries cannot be so insignificant that it's not worthy of mention, can it? At the very least one would think, Idriss Deby must be having sleepless nights while the Arabs next door are revolting. He could very well be the next Arab dictator to go. Does the Chadian government not have an opinion on the fact that the Brotherly Leader, King of Kings of Africa is said to be using Sub-Saharan Arab Africans and Africans to kill North African Arabs? Oops I'm sorry, I meant Chadian gunmen are allegedly crossing the border to help murder protesting Libyans? And Niger? Is it too poor to mention? 0.12% of the people speak Arabic if that helps.


UNHCR is becoming increasingly concerned at the displacement and violence experienced by foreigners living in Libya, including the other one million plus legal and illegal migrants from different parts of Africa other than Egypt. In the interests of humanity, its only fair and right that Al Jazeera to report on the fate of these people as well as they have reported Egyptian, Turkish and Italian migrants returning from Libya. 


This isn't just an Arab story, its an African story and it's a World story too. It must be told as such, with its multi-layered, complex, tragic and heartwarming narratives including the all too-often forgotten voices of poor migrants and refugees of all hues, tongues, nationalities and faiths. 


Al Jazeera's code of ethics states that the organisation aims to: 

1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political over professional consideration.
2. Endeavour to get to the truth and declare it in our dispatches, programmes and news bulletins unequivocally in a manner which leaves no doubt about its validity and accuracy.


To me, this suggests that Al Jazeera strives to be impartial, give a voice to the voiceless and empower people to hold their governments and institutions to account. As the media organisation is becoming a leading player in international affairs, Al Jazeera has the chance to re-shape political and social discourses of our time, it has the potential to shift the centers of power from the traditionally empowered to the historically marginalized. Given that Al Jazeera wields this potential influence to enable a plurality of voices to speak, as a viewer, I don't understand why the Libyan Uprising being covered from a largely singular perspective. I feel that the story is still told from a West v Middle East perspective. Granted it is thankfully being told from the Middle Eastern side, but the speakers still remain the same. You promise to uphold 'fairness, balance' so it's fair to ask, when will other voices be invited to speak on this matter? Here's a suggestion, just for a day, in between field reports, you could have ongoing satellite conversations with diplomats from the UN, AU and Arab League battling it out with Libyan activists and bloggers who want to know where the real help is for Libya is, rather than going through a never-ending list of London and Washington's political and financial experts. I think that would be an 'unequivocal' display of 'fair and balanced' ethics, non?


If the Arab League, the EU and United Nations are being interrogated for their role in stopping the carnage in Libya, then the AU should be in the spotlight too. Its shameful that they have been silent on this issue and yet they, under Article 4 of the Constitutive Act, have a humanitarian responsibility to intervene in the affairs of a member state of the African Union when a crime against humanity is committed. Its funny but sad and infuriating that Al Jazeera spends more time discussing what the Arab League must, can or will do yet it can only issue condemnations and suspensions of Libya. None of these things will stop the carnage. The African Union has a peace keeping force that could help Lybia, that is why John Kerry of the Obama administration suggested this tonight (at about 7 p.m GMT 22 Feb), but the Al Jazeera anchor and Libyan analyst in the studio glossed over this and went back to discussing the Arab League and UN.
The news broadcast then switched to gathering views from around the world and South America, North America and Europe all had opinions. Nothing from Africa. Nothing from Asia. I laughed out loud, but inside I died a little and it hurt a bit. Is the Africa beneath the Sahara that irrelevant? Have African leaders, diplomats and UN representatives not been asked? Perhaps your Africa news desk is aware that the African Heads of Missions (AU) might be meeting in South Africa today. If its taking place it would be great if one of your correspondents in S.A could ask senior AU figures about the possibility of sending Lybia some of the peacekeeping troops that are partly funded by Gadaffi. As an African member-state, this is Libya's security investment so the AU should be pressured to get in there and save Libyans from the terror of this mad man and his sons. Please don't let the AU escape from responsibility because it doesn't fit the 'Arab World Revolutions' narrative. Right now Libyan lives matter more than pondering about 'new pan-Arab uprisings' and decoding Hillary Clinton and William Hague's diplo-speak.


I honestly don't mean to offend, but I'm a frustrated viewer who enjoys Al Jazeera's coverage and believes that the network has the ability to be the champion of the people. All people. As an African I was raised to see to the Continent as a whole with all its differences, contradictions and multiple identities, not to the exclusion of others. We are all Africans. The countries below the (sometimes imaginary) Saharan line may be the North's poorer half, but we matter too. In solidarity, the Lybian, Egyptian and Tunisian struggles are mine too as a young-ish person who lives under an oppressive regime. Including the Sub-Saharan Africans in this conversation would only further the North Africans cause as both the AU like the Arab League is a mixed club of despots and liberals all of whom have a case to answer to oppressed peoples on the whole Continent.



You can see a slightly longer version of this letter posted on my blog. A number of people have read it, shared it on twitter and some people, North Africans included, have commented on the post. I have also shared it on Twitter and have gotten a positive response thus far. I hope that despite, my cheekiness you will address my concerns. You may perhaps take comfort in knowing that I'm not singling out Al Jazeera, it's an across the board progressive media non-engagement with Africa as a whole and I will be writing open letters to the few revolutionary-inclined print media organisations that I've relied on for coverage as well.

I look forward to receiving a response from you regarding the concerns I have raised.

Thank you for reading my letter.

Yours Sincerely

A. Viewer

*'Zimbabwe's thugs' is not to imply that I am covering or defending for their brutality but a clumsy way of saying that their violence has been unleashed out on innocent, often defenceless people within the borders of Zimbabwe.
** This is the modified (supposedly better) version of a letter that I have now sent to AJE.

copyright : www.libyafeb17.com

Our Dear Brotherly Leader

pic jacked from the interwebs...y'know how it go

Colonel, Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, King of Africa:

Mummar Gadaffi

"I am very pained by what is happening in Tunisia...Tunisia now lives in fear ... Families could be raided and slaughtered in their bedrooms and the citizens in the street killed as if it was the Bolshevik or the American revolution ...What is this for? To change Zine al-Abidine? Hasn't he told you he would step down after three years? Be patient for three years and your son stays alive."

Gotta love him! He's just the funniest isn't he?

What a pity though! Now that Ben Ali's been ousted, Our Dear Brotherly Leader must be quaking in his camel skin boots, feeling all feverish and begging for his big boobed Ukranian nurse to wipe the sweat of his brow. Now that his very own pesky plebs have decided to go on the rampage and have housing riots for three days running now, Our Dear Brotherly Leader must not get much sleep at all. 'Will they be coming for me next?', he mutters in his sleep...or so they say. But no one threatens the Leader and get away with so, so, so there goes your YouChoob Libya! Try having your riots now with nowhere to upload your narcissistic videos of anarchy. And if anyone thinks of burning themselves like the other plebs next door, the Brotherly One will be there in a flash with his water canon! Zey do not him Big Brozzer for nuzzin'! And if any of the nation's wannabe heroes think to piss on his statue, deface a government building or even think of kicking a lamppost with thine Leader's image, may the curse of a thousand pins and needles sting them in the soles of their feet and may they leap around the city like a thousand lepers in a marathon with live bullets to make the slow ones go faster.