MEMO ON FRANCE: (Submitted at the French Embasy in SA.(written for SDF SA electorial District:-unpublished)
INTRODUCTION: France has stood her self out as the main stumbling block to the African renaissance, as evidenced by her deeds and position in the dilapidating political situation in Africa. Due to economic necessity, the lack of natural resources, pushed the French to look for greener pastures out of Europe. And with the help of the Portuguese explorers who had been to Africa and found the abundant wealth that lay beneath, France resorted to seeking economic revitalisation from Africa. Aware that Africa could one day be liberated, the French in their habitual tricky and domineering manner decided to make their new-found African colonies a part of France and called it la France d?autre mer. This will ensure these colonies remaining a part of France. Africa thus became their plantation and the Africans, their workers. With the wave of independence that swept through Africa in the early 60?s, the French were forced against their will, to grant independence to their ?Plantation?. This independence was granted with conditions that will make these countries to forever pay ?Feudal dues? to sustain the impoverished French economy as a price for their thinking of becoming sovereign states. These conditions have pushed the former French and French related colonies to a pathetic situation wherein economic and political chaos, Gross human rights violation, poverty, dictatorship, autocracy, nepotism, regionalism, tribalism, and all the other inhuman vices are the order of the day. This probably explains why she would rather peg the CFA Franc to the French Franc so as to control international trade in all these countries, which include: - Benin, Togo, Senegal, Côte d?Ivoire, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Chad, Central African Republic, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso ? A few years ago the situation in these countries was so deplorable. For example; a letter from Côte d?Ivoire to neighbouring Sierra Leon had to go through France. A simple phone call from Cameroon to her next door neighbour Nigeria had to be exchanged in France. France sells to them even their basic necessities like water and light tapped and processed in these very countries, at the most expensive prices one could imagine. They have set up companies like Societé Nationale D?Electricité (SONEL), National Electricity Company, which operates, in almost all-former French colonies. One might wonder why a Multinational company of this nature should be called ?National? and not ?International?. The ?National? refers to France, one would suppose. Just as an illustration of this imperialistic exploitation, this company SONEL buys electricity from Nigeria and sells it to next door Niger Republic for 20 times the cost price. Worst of all, it is sold to the country that provides the river, which generates this electricity, and has an economy far weaker than that Nigerian. How could they be milking a starving cow, if not to kill it. These French neo-colonies are the poorest countries in Africa today. They are rich in human and natural resources, but their economies are drained off completely by France. We as Africans are requesting the French to give Africans the chance to choose their own political policies and affiliations for it is only by so doing that we can have a taste of complete independence and genuine democracy. FRANCE AND HER FORMER COLONIES The independence that France frailly gave to her former colonies has proven to be just a rubber stamp. This could be seen by the firm grip that France still has on the economic and hence political matters of her former colonies plus Cameroon. This is a bid to continue fistulating wealth out of these countries. France is the one who determines who should be their leaders. These leaders need to meet up with one criterion ? be puppet and stooges to the French. A real abuse to democracy. The prevailing chaotic situation in almost all-French speaking African countries is just an illustration of the negative effects of the remote French presence. The Rwandese genocide in 1994, which saw the massacre of thousands of Tutsis and Hutu moderates, was masterminded by the cellule Africain de l?Elysée. This genocide was a move to avert the democratic process that would have brought to power Tutsi elite (with solid English backgrounds). A war prepared by Denis Sassou Nguesso with the solid assistance and backing of ELF AQUITAINE (a French oil company) led to the ousting of a democratically elected nationalist president, simply because he advocated the nationalisation of most companies in the Congo (Brazzaville), most of which were French exploitative companies. This war was faced by international condemnation, the UN and the EU hence called for economic and diplomatic sanctions to be executed on Nguesso and other dictators in Africa (predominantly in French speaking African countries). France came in to protect Nguesso asking that the embargo be let in her hands since she was in a better position to sanction Nguesso and the others. These sanctions however a yet to be implemented. How can France, a country in Europe be in possession of a land title of almost half of the Chadian capital Djamina. When religious sentiments and extremism plunged Algeria into a catastrophic crisis that saw the massacre of thousands of Algerians and other nationals, we expected France to play a lead role in looking for a solution to this crisis, Algeria being a former French satellite territory. France however failed to do this. The French dealing with the former Apartheid regime in South Africa by selling arms despite the economic and diplomatic embargo levied on them by the international community, is an evidence to the French quest to stop the ANC (an African Movement) from liberating the African from oppression. President Chiracs statement during his visit to SA that President Mandela shouldn?t intervene in solving any domestic chaos in any former French colony in Africa without the permission of France is seen as another move by France to impair the realisation of an African sovereignty. The obsession of the French government with a weaker economy to lend money to South Africa with a stronger Economy could be a trick by France to put South Africa in the same ?dairy-cow? position as the French speaking African countries. This thus justifies the French assertion that Africa is a baby still to be breast-fed. L?Afrique est un bébé à qui il faut tout le temps donner du lait. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the French Ministre de la Co-operation said President Kabila was not fit to be the leader of the Congolese people and that he was just a leader of warriors. This statement served as an open cheque for the already withdrawing rebels who saw it as a reason to continue trying to oust the government in place. After former military Dictator Babangida annulled the presidential elections in Nigeria, which Moshood Abiola was alleged to have won, an election that was universally seen to be free and fair, the West came out to condemn the Babangida regime except France, which Babangida hailed. This only elucidates that France could not stand seeing another African Giant going through the democratisation process. President Eyadema of Togo who came to power through a bloody and the first coup d?états in Africa, after haven been in power for more than 30 years, he organised and rigged elections in a sham of a democracy, which maintained him in power. A French official said Eyadema was the only hope of political stability in Togo. Why? Probably because he guaranteed the continuous exploitation of Togo?s phosphate. Successive French presidents have always declared that Africa is not yet ripe for democracy and that it was a mere luxury to Africa. This derogatory thinking pushed the French to halt a democratisation process that was going on in Burkina Faso by asking Blaise Campaoré to stop it. It should be remembered that the French were accused to have been behind Campaoré?s killing of Nationalist and pan-Africanist Thomas Sankara. What standards of democracy can France teach the world? A presidential mandate of 7 years with a lifetime eligibility? Why is it that the French army comes to fight domestic and international wars in Africa? They fought for Chad against Libya, fought in the Central African Republic with an excuse of protecting an unpopular government from mutineers. They also fought in Congo (Brazzaville) with the claim of protecting their citizens. Why have they not gone to Angola to protect their citizens? FRANCE AND CAMEROON The present president and dictator in Cameroon Mr. Paul Biya, introduced to late former President Ahidjo in 1963 by Jacques Focart, then head of the Quai d?ORSEY in France. Through constitutional manipulations Mr. Biya found himself at the helm of the administrative powers in Cameroon. Since then the French have ensured Mr. Biya?s stay in power by all means within their reach. FRANCE STILL FAILS TO REALISE THAT CAMEROON HAD NEVER BEEN AND WILL NEVER BE A FRENCH COLONY. We sincerely wonder why they fail to respect the terms of the charter they signed with the League of Nations when Cameroon was mandated to them. They were supposed to have left Cameroon since Independence in 1960 as stipulated by the charter. There are still French citizens in the public sector and surprisingly in the Military of Cameroon today. This embarrassing situation is not only in Cameroon, but also in all other African countries that had anything to do with France before independence. In Cameroon electricity generated by Cameroonian rivers is sold to Cameroonians by the French, water which is abundance in Cameroon is sold to the Cameroonian by the French. The 1992 presidential elections in Cameroon was won by the Flag Bearer of the Union for Change and chairman of the Social Democratic Front (SDF), Cameroon?s main opposition party, John Fru Ndi, and Hijacked by Dictator Biya on the instructions of France, with reasons being that Fru Ndi was from the English speaking minority part of Cameroon and was therefore not capable of ruling the country. The entire opposition parties in Cameroon condemned this act and with the agitating atmosphere that surrounded this condemnation, the ruling CPDM (Cameroon People Democratic Movement) declared a State of Emergency and put the real winner of the elections under house arrest. Prior to the elections Cameroonians, tired of the oppression, misappropriation, looting, embezzlement, corruption and tribalism of the CPDM regime called for a Sovereign National Conference which the government vehemently refused. The unarmed opposition used the only weapon it could- operation ghost town- which it declared over the national territory. This weapon would have been the most effective to bring down a president who is the most guarded in the world, and a regime, which is the most corrupt in the world, had it not been the intervention of France, which came and financially supported the unpopular Regime for more than 6 months, until the peace-loving and hard working Cameroonian people got tired and gave up. France is responsible for the suffering of the Cameroonian people today just as it is for all other French speaking African countries. This deliberate assassination of political ideas, ideologies and persons in Africa by France is seen as a new form of imperialism and neo-colonisation, and we Africans have decided to remain steadfast on pushing out French influence in Africa which is institutionalising nepotism and plunging Africa into perpetual wars, which are disuniting us. As the Flag bearer of the African Renaissance said during the Franco-African summit that while Europe was trying to integrate as one strong nation, France was helping to disintegrate Africa. France remains the stumbling block of this much-advocated African Renaissance- the dream of every African as evidenced by all her acts and position in matters concerning the emancipation of the African. We should unitedly stop France from achieving her goals of completely ruling Africa South of the Sahara. There is no reason why the French should be celebrating a National day indicative of their freedom while they are depriving us of the ?Luxury? of independence and democracy (as they call it).
1999 seems to be a year for the polls for African giants, South Africa and Nigeria. Some few months back, their two leaders met in Pretoria in an attempt to iron out the brief but deep rooted animosity that had emerged as result of the reign of terror and dictatorship under the military rule of the late General Sani Abacha. Before this diplomatic pause, the Nigerian government and the ANC had been real pals. Nigeria was the African champion of the war against Apartheid. Apparently Africa? most populated nation Nigeria has a lot to her credit, at least to call herself the Giant of Africa; she has the natural and human resources, they are financially, academically and technically apt. With all these to her credit she is paradoxically the champion of all the vices. Nigeria did not spare any chance using all these ?weapons? to clamp down real hard on the apartheid regime and any Western imperialist who supported the regime. She was 100 % behind ANC during the struggle. To her honour she was the first West African nation Mandela visited after the collapse of the Apartheid. The friendship of giants could not last given that Mandela spent all those years in jail for a simple reason, to stop oppression and encourage equal human rights (Democracy) which is what was far fetched in Nigeria. Nigeria has suffered under military dictatorship for so long. Since Independence in 1961, Nigeria has had only two civilian regimes, which disappeared as fast as they came. The third orchestrated by Retired Gen. Babangida was just a white elephant. These civilian regimes punctuated about ten military regimes. The outcome of the elections in South Africa is very predictable. Vice president Thabo Mbeki being the ANC candidate has virtually been ordained to win. The ANC is the most popular party in South Africa with the greatest number of militants. And given that, elections are more often than not on partisan lines. It is but obvious that his victory is as good as acquired. The ANC however still has a tough job to do if they must acquire the much talked about two thirds majority. The Nigerian elections on the other hand are still dangling. There are lots of issues to be addressed and resolutions to be made, before one can comfortably gulp down the fact that the elections would even hold, not to mention the outcome. Gen. Abacha seemingly died along with the dictatorship in Nigeria leaving not even dregs. At least, that is the impression Gen. Abubakar is giving us. Since his coming to power he has tried to mend Nigeria?s dented image to the international community and most importantly the Governments image to the Nigerian people who no longer trust nor believe in the deceitful military. He wears the face of a man sent to listen to the cry of the Nigerian and the African at large. He has, since taking over power this year, reestablished all broken diplomatic links with the international community. He is settling his territorial frontier disputes as evidenced by the exchanging of prisoners of war between Nigeria and Cameroon; he accepted official visits from the European Union, the UN Secretary General and the Pope; He granted audience to human rights investigating panels and to the OAU. Locally, he has started by releasing political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. President Abubakar drew up a transition to civil rule program for a year. This indicates his vehement desire for the military to quit politics and remain apolitical. He addressed the Nigerian military reminding them of their duties and that they belonged to the barracks. He also cautioned them on the risk and dangers involved if any one of them was nursing the idea of a coup d?etat. He insisted on the reestablishment of professionalism and job specification - politics was for politician and not for the military. On Tuesday, the 2nd of December this year, to show his positivity towards this transition endeavour, he signed four decrees strengthening their powers and influence of the electoral commission headed by a southerner Ibrahim Apata. On their part to ensure that the elections do not eventually become regional, the electoral commission has insisted on each political party getting at least 5% of the votes in each local government council to enable its eligibility for the subsequent elections. Gen. Abdul Salam is definitely prepared for these elections, but is the ?electorate? and the terrain prepared? Nigeria is Africa?s greatest oil producing nation, but it beats me beyond imagination that fuel is not available in Nigeria. This situation has been persistent for the about four years. Road communication has become a serious problem in Nigeria. There was even a nation wide strike in 1995, when commuters protested against the troubles they were going through. This was however cracked down by the Military Government. The present fuel crises has led to a serious hike in fuel prices, fuel that used to be sold for 11 Naira now goes for about 5 times the price. This has rendered transportation almost unaffordable to the common man. Nigeria is a multicultural and multi-tribal society with over 400 tribes and ethnic groups. There are persistent inter-tribal clashes and oppression of the minority by the majority. This has led to the death of so many souls and summarised so many neighbouring villages as live time enemies. A typical example is the Ijo and the Ichekiri people of the Delta State. An Ijo political leader on the 2nd of December, barely three days to the council elections, said, they were in support of the Ijo youths, who were advocating to boycott the council elections. He said this was because they were robed of the local government headquarters and given to the Ichekiri people, simply because they had some top military officials behind them. Situations like this are of rampant occurrence in Nigeria. Their environment is neglected and each time they voice out their complain, they are repressed. An example is the hanging of play write Ken Saro Wiwa, whose death drew the attention of the international community. There are still many tribes in the country whose plight against marginalisation is still to be reacted to by the government. The Ogoni people of south eastern Nigeria are a typical example of this, most of the oil that Nigeria boasts of is found in their land but they remain the least developed region in Nigeria. The military is leaving, so they say. But are they really leaving? This issue still has to be addressed. With the likes of Retired Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo and Retired Gen. Joe Garba running for the presidency, one wonders if the military would ever leave power. Once a soldier always a soldier. Nigerians do not seem to be very comfortable with this idea. This is buttressed by the fact that, ?The World Ibo Council? (WIC) sent a strongly worded letter to President Bill Clinton of the US and to the Nigerian Government asking them to ban former military men from running for any post. They accused the People?s Democratic Party (PDP) of being a military party and a means the military is using to bring back military leaders in mufti. Despite all these threats, the council elections nevertheless took place reportedly in a calm atmosphere, with the PDP (People Democratic Party) coming out, with a lead in all the councils except in southwestern region predominantly inhabited by the Yorubas. This great win qualifies them to head for the State and presidential elections. It thus could be seen that the PDP is on the lead as preempted by the WIC. With these trends of affairs the federal military government of Nigeria still has a lot to do come 1999.
The Euro and the Franc CFA
There was panicking all over the CFA zone in Africa. Shrewd, educated, illiterate, big and small businessmen were running helter-skelter with the lunching of the Euro. So many people even converted their property to liquid cash, which they evacuated from their countries. The banking sector faced the highest slump it has seen since independence. Customers withdrew all their savings and went banking in western banks. Some took their money to some neighbouring countries that had independent currencies even to Ghana, Sierra Leon and Nigeria, despite the economic uncertainty that looms around these economies. One would ask the question ?Why this frenzy?? The simple answer is people didn?t want to be devaluation victims for the second time. The last devaluation of the francs CFA took so many people unawares. It is said that when a snake bites one, he would be scared of a worm. But would one consider the coming of the Euro a worm? To answer this question one needs to think twice and take a couple of things into consideration. On 14 December 1994, President Jacques Chirac of France sent a letter to his homologues of the CFA zone telling them that there would be no modification on the parity of the Franc CFA and Franc Comorien to the French Franc (FF), with the coming of the Euro. He said if the rate of the FF remained at 6.6 to a Euro, then the CFA will implicitly be exchanged at the rate 660 francs CFA to a Euro. Earlier on in 1998 while Charles Konan Banny and Felix Mamalepot the governors of the Central bank for West African States (BCEAO) and Central Bank of Central African States were panicking their French counterpart the French minister of Finance, Dominique Strauss-Kahn on the 6th of July obtained a political accord from his European Union colleagues on the status of the franc CFA in the Euro zone. It is based on this that this agreement that his president, Jacques Chirac made his affirmative letter. So far the Euro is still in transaction on the paper and at the inter-bank level. Does this really solve the worries of the man who makes and uses his money on the streets. The effect of the money is still to be felt, come 2002 when the money will be put into circulation. The FF will eventually be faced out and European financial transactions including that of France will be left in the hands of the European Union and not France. One of the reasons for the last devaluation of the Francs CFA was that it was too strong making it difficult for western countries to buy raw materials and primary products from the CFA zone countries. What guarantee is there that if the control of the FF is left in the hands of the EU there wouldn?t be this allegation again from exploitative countries? If this comes up again the EU might not devalue the Francs CFA but might just uplift its being pegged to the Euro, the CFA will be allowed to float freely in the market like any other independent currency. This will be the waterloo of its value. With the lazy working spirits in this zone, which is a result of poor economic policies, coupled with the lack of giant private sector, the rate of inflation will just be exponential. The already desperate populace would be left more wanting. We just have to keep our fingers crossed praying for Christ to come again.
HOW MUGABE HIJACKED THE RENAISSANCE
The African Renaissance as a pillar of SA foreign policy will require some rethinking if pro-Kabila forces win the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The renaissance dream promised a new boarders and free trade in order to side step the legacy of poorly drawn colonial boundaries. Now geopolitical alliance in war may isolate SA. When the DRC joined the Southern African Development Community (SADC) it brought the world?s most mineral rich country into the single trade bloc. SA?s industrial capacity became linked to huge quantities of cobalt, platinum, copper, zinc, gold, uranium, tin and diamond. Spoornet was to profit from transporting the raw goods and ore. Eskoms development of Zaïres hydroelectric potential became feasible. A single section of Zaïre River, -the Inga River falls- could power all the sub Saharan Africa. It was also hoped that the water from the Zaïre River could be tapped for thirsty southern Africa. The economies of land locked nations was to be invigorated by spatial corridors. All these changed when Zimbabwe?s president Robert Mugabe threw his prestige the state coffers and 3000 Zimbabweans behind Kabila in a bid to hijack the African Renaissance. Mugabe is attempting to wrest regional influence wealth and power from SA. His ministers are now advising Zimbabwean banks and mining enterprises to assume what was expected to be South Africa?s role in the Congo. Zimbabwe, together with Tanzania and Namibia, has the potential to redirect Congo?s wealth out of SA?s hands and along their corridors. Should the pro-Kabila forces win the war, any African rebirth will exclude SA. Fearful of such an outcome President Nelson Manuela has already back-flipped on statements that Zimbabwe should not have intervened militarily. Such backtracking may be too late. Central, Southern and Eastern African leaders appear to have been too badly divided to reconcile themselves to a Pretoria-influenced SADC region or to support an African Renaissance led by SA. This could lead SA into becoming marginalised within Africa as it was under apartheid. On one side ethnic Tutsi militias, Uganda, Rwanda, some ex-Mobutu forces, dissident Congolese army troops, Angolan rebels (Unita), Cabindan secessionists (Flec), rebel force from Congo Brazzaville, (Lissouba?s Zulu militia). Christian rebels in Sudan (SPLA) and certain mercenaries have engaged in an action to oust Kabila. Anti-Kabila sympathizers include Burundi, SA, Botswana Mozambique, the US, and many key role players in Zambia. On the other side, there is a pro-Kabila military alliance composed of Zimbabwe (3000 troops), the DRC, Namibia (600 Troops), Chad (1000 troops) and Sudan (2000 troops). Pro-Kabila military sympathizers include Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, the Central African Republic, Tanzania, Kenya, Libya, China, numerous ethnic militias, and some former Mobutu forces. The geopolitical alignments are also global. States in the pro-Kabila alliance have hitched their prospects to China. Economic and demographics suggest that this rising eastern star could become the world biggest trader early next century. China has already expanded its economic involvement to pro-Kabila states and has been sending weaponry to Kabila via Mozambique. The anti-Kabila forces are us-aligned. Washington advocated, supported and would benefit from an SA-led renaissance that united the southern African states into an open, border-free market economy.
UNITED STATES ATTACKS IRAQ BASED ON SUPERSTITION:
Looking at the intensity, severity and most of all the incessant attacks that the US has launched on Iraq, one cannot but wonder whether there is no other reason besides the possession of weapons of mass destruction. This doubt becomes more glaring when one considers the number of Iraqi lives lost; the sheer cost of the operations to the US in terms of human lives, human and financial investment, the diplomatic fallout, etc Iraq is definitely neither the only state with nuclear technology, nor is she the only one with weapons of mass destruction. Many other countries produce and own these weapons including, Russia, Israel, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Cuba and most of the G7 nations. Recently, India violated all international treaties and ignored all protests when she went ahead and tested such a weapon in the Indian Ocean. Richard Butler and his UN Weapons Inspection Team have not been to any of these countries nor has the UN set up any machinery to oblige their disarmament. Iraq?s failure to comply with the request of the UN?s Weapon Inspection Team late last year resulted in the US air raids. In this operation, the US used the same weapons of mass destruction they are asking Iraq to dispose of. This is an attack by a sovereign state on another sovereign state, which the United Nations should have criticised. While the world came out condemning this attack by Uncle Sam, Britain another world power joined them, in an endeavour to impose the Anglo-Saxon leadership of the world. Another contradiction is that Saddam?s military might received its strongest booster from the US, during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980?s when he was armed to prevent the birth of an Islamic republic led by the Molahs and inspired by the Ayatollah. The US armed Afghanistan in a bid to prevent the creation of a communist satellite state in the Middle East by the Soviet Union. Afghanistan is today suffering the same effect as Iraq. There have been more serious issues that would have warranted the UN or the US in the name of the UN, to react but they remain aloof. The recent downing of two UN planes [by a rebel group in Angola (Unita), which has been destabilising the peace of the state for so long], is a typical example of a situation the UN/US should have reacted to. The best they did was make statements and speeches, with repeated ?we condemn in strong terms?, while waiting for Savimbi to make a statement. However, the real question remains, WHY IRAQ? A critical study of the situation could make one conclude that the US is just being superstitious. A great Fortune teller astrologer Nostradamus whom the American believe and respect so much, predicted that at the end of this century they would come a great leader from the Middle East who would conquer the world. He would bring the collapse of the West; the two great cities of the west (New York and probably London) would be destroyed. This would be the greatest and most destructive war. Christianity would be killed. This Islamic State would rule the world for 2000 years. This prophetic prediction was confirmed by an American clairvoyant and fortune-teller, Jeane Dixon who predicted a world war III in 1999. Why should these people be taken serious? Nostradamus née Michel de Nostradame in France to a Jewish family on 14 December 1503 was raised as a catholic. He later became a physician. While he grew up he had this amazing power of seeing the future, most if not all of his predictions and clairvoyance have come to pass. He predicted Felici Peritti would become Pope and 50 years later Perriti became Pope. In 1555 he published his prophesies in a book, in which he predicted the death of Henri II of France, the date and place Queen Elizabeth I was going to die, the great plague that ravaged London in 1663, the execution of King Charles, the fire disaster that devoured London in 1666 and the reign, fall and exile to St Helena of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also predicted the reign and name of Franco in Spain, the name and discoveries of Louis Pasteur, the name and misdeeds of Adolf Hitler and then he predicted that in the 7th month of the year 1999 they would be a great king of terror from the middle East Jeane Dixon, wife of a Washington DC estate agent, started her clairvoyance at the age of 9. She forecast a World War beginning in the late 80?s and culminating in 1999. She predicted the assassination of President J.F. Kennedy as far back as 1952. In the early part of 1963, she continuously warned the White House to no avail until that November 22 day when it happened. She predicted the futures and deaths of so many great Americans. It is very dangerous then to ignore their predictions on the World War III. It is very frightening to the West and America in particular. It may be doubtful to consider London as one of the two biggest cities in the West but New York; there is no doubt about it. To also imagine America ceasing from being the World?s greatest power is something the American can?t stand. Then the thought of an Islamic nation dominating and controlling the world is a nightmare to most Westerners. What can be done? What can America do? What can the West do? What can the World do? What should be done? Nostradamus ended his prophetic writings by saying that the future could be changed, for what the future entails depends on what we do today. If J.F. Kennedy did not go to Dallas, he would not have been killed. This Great War could be prevented. Saddam Hussein befits the great king from the Middle East that would bring terror and the world under him. Is this not enough reason for America to attack him continually in order to ruin him and prevent the war and change the future? Is the US not being superstitious?
ZAMBIA, DISASTER-PRONE?
Zambia of late has been a victim of so many disasters, economic, political, diplomatic and health. Since after taking over power President Frederick Chiluba has been facing a lot of problems. He has been finding it very difficult to manage a country that the popular Nationalist and Africanist Kenneth Kaunda had led for so long. After taking over power, when Chiluba realised that his Government was becoming so unpopular and with the fear that Kaunder could come back to power, Mr. Chiluba staged a game of exemption and instituting tribalism. He labelled Kenneth Kaunda as a foreigner. He claimed Kaunda was not a Zambian but a Malawian. It is is an appauling situation to say that someone who ruled the country for that long with all the passion could be called a foreigner in the same country he had once been termed a father of. In Africa today there is no one who is an Indegene of where they are today. If you get into the roots of each tribe?s origin, you would find out that some time ago, they had migrated. It is also true that once you become a leader in Africa, then leave power your successor in an attempt to gain cheap popularity always tags you as a foreigner. It happened to the late President Ahmadou Ahidjo of Cameroon, it happened to Kerekou in Benin Republic who incidentally came back to power to prove wrong this theory, it is happening to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. After instilling such a bad political concept of playing the man and not the ball (politics), Chiluba is today a victim of his own mal-intentions. The opposition in Zambia used the same sword that he used on Kaunda on him. They traced his origin to the Democratic Republic of Congo. So he too is a foreigner. Who therefore would rule a country in which he will not be a foreigner? While Europe is struggling to become united, Africans are struggling to split more. The imperialist syndrome of divide and rule has eaten deep down in us. It beats my imagination that the Ndebeles from Zimbabwe are called foreigners in South Africa while History tells us that they are the blood brothers of the Zulu people. The tribe was actually founded by Chaka Zulu?s brother who couldn?t stand the reign of terror in Chaka?s regime. Chiluba is trying his best to maintain peace in the great lake region. He has been playing the rule of a mediator mentor and moderator in the crises that have been ravaging the DRC; the figth between the troops of President Laurent Kabila and the Rebel Tutsis. The world commends him for this effort. At the same time President Edouado Dos Santos is accusing him of supporting and sponsoring the Unita rebel movement in his country which has reached a disaster level already. This is a war that has been going on for so long. A truce was made which did not last. So many Angolans are dying, so many are on exile, even those who are in the country cannot afford to have a full meal in a day, not to mention health services and education. If this accusation be true, then how then could Chiluba be solving a problem in the DRC. Is this to concretise the Allegation that he is a Congolese? Or is this allegation a stem of his position in the Congolese crises? As if enough is not enough Zambia has been experiencing a lot of disasters hundreds of people died from cholera. The opposition accused Chilyba?s regime of not being able to create a good drainage system in the country. As such there is no good hygeinic condition. There is no good water supply system. Earlier last month, there was a flood in Zambia, which left about 5000 houses under water. Cholera in Zambia has become an annual issue. Zambia is also facing a serious crises with food. There has been a tremendous shortage in food. Maize that is the main food source faced a serious shortage last year. The farmers accused the government for the ban on the importation of agricultural products, which had made then not to be able to acquire the required chemicals for farming. In response to this, the government has uplifted the ban on agricultural products, and revived the investment policies in order to encourage forein investors. This seems to be the major step forward to solve the famine problem. But what about health disasters, which is suppose to be the most important issue?
ZIMBABWE RE-AFFIRMS HER SUPPORT FOR KABILA.
The Zimbabwean Minister of Agriculture last week, 27th of November, this year re-affirmed Zimbabwe?s support to President Kabila to kick the ?rebels? out of the DRC. In an interview with BBC?s Elizabeth Ohini, monitored in JHB, he said the vocal minority in Zimbabwe, who claim Zimbabwe is not in support of the war, is misleading the world. This minority is criticizing Zimbabwe?s presence in the war. He said that most of Zimbabweans were in support of this course. This is reflected in the parliament. The parliament is very vocal and if the people were not in support of her presence in the DRC the constituency representatives would have indicated in the house. Asked about the Zimbabwean soldiers that were dying in the DRC. He said those were the consequences of war. And that, if you accept war you should be ready to accept its consequences. He however accepted that they had suffered some casualties. Contrary to the stories that they were denying this, the victims were given a state-honoured burial with their families officially present and publicly involved. When asked whether Zimbabwe was able to financially support the war. He said that the fact that they were still there is a pointer that they could support the war. He went ahead to say that Zimbabweans were proud to support brotherly countries, which were in trouble. Looking at the history of Zimbabwe, it is where it is today, thanks to friendly and brotherly countries like Zambia who fought along side with them during the struggle. Meanwhile in a similar interview with Bola Olufunwa of the same BBC, a Ugandan states man disclaimed the involvement of Uganda in the war, he however accepted the presence of their troops at their frontier with the DRC. He emphasized that they (soldiers) were there, mainly for the purpose of securing their borders and preventing the war from spilling over into Uganda. He insisted and reiterated that they were not involved in the war.
FRANCE, A NEOCOLONIALIST
While addressing the Franco-African summit in France on the 25th of November this year, which brought together almost 36 heads of state, mostly from her former colonies, President Jacques Chirac of France, reassured them that there would be no further devaluation of the CFA Francs, the currency used by most of these her former, but neo-colonies, come the single European currency next year. To think that this statement comes from an enlightened government like that of France is very amazing. A critical examination of this statement reveals the level of obtuseness France places on these her neo-colonies? leaders, who of course, believed him. Devaluation has never been a government policy; it is a consequence of economic forces. France?s policy on her ?former? colonies in Africa is the most draconian any western power had ever had, so much so that they have a minister in charge of ?France d?Outre Mer? (meaning France Overseas) as they called their former colonies. As a result of her weakness in terms of human and natural resources, France?s survival in an economically advanced Europe, has been tied to her absolute dependence on the vast natural resources of her former (neo-) colonies. This probably explains why she would rather peg the CFA Franc to the French Franc so as to control international trade in all these countries which include: - Benin, Togo, Senegal, Côte d?Ivoire, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Chad, Central African Republic, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso ---. A few years ago the situation was so deplorable. For example; a letter from Côte d?Ivoire to neighbouring Sierra Leon had to go through France. A simple phone call from Cameroon to her next door neighbour Nigeria had to be exchanged in France. France sells to them even their basic necessities like water and light tapped and processed in these very countries, at the most expensive prices one could imagine. They have set up companies like Societé Nationale D?Electricité (SONEL), National Electricity Company, which operates, in almost all-former French colonies. One might wonder why a Multinational company of this nature should be called ?National? and not ?International?. The ?National? refers to France, I suppose. Just as an illustration of this imperialistic exploitation, this company SONEL buys electricity from Nigeria where electricity is sold at about 45 kobo (about 3.3 cents) and sells it to next door Niger Republic for about 70 CFA Francs which is about 70 cents a unit. This is about 20 times the cost price. Worst of all, it is sold to the country that provides the river, which generates this electricity, and has an economy far weaker than that Nigerian. How could they be milking a starving cow, if not to kill it. These French neo-colonies are the poorest countries in Africa today. They are rich in human and natural resources, but their economies are drained off completely by France.