THE PRAISE-SINGING STARTS

By Kwasi Adu

President John Dramani Mahama

Now that the elections have been won and lost (depending on which side of the political divide one is located), various individuals and groups are taking positions (without the “womma funu” aspect). In the taking of positions, some people have resorted to the age-old act of praise-singing and pathetic sychophancy towards the President.

From “foot-soldiers” and serial callers to the President’s personal friends, as well as party people who would want to be handed political appointments, there are frantic acts of idolising and praise-singing for the President.  Such servile flattery are now a daily occurrence on radio and television. Suddenly, President Mahama is not capable of doing any wrong; he has been “ordained by God”, “he is humble” “he is endowed with the wisdom of Solomon” etc, etc.

There are currently reports of the President’s personal friends, not being members of the NDC but finding themselves perched near the seat of power, are even telling him that President Mahama is more popular than the NDC and he should take no notice of the party and rule as he wishes. In effect what these friends, some of whom are not members of the NDC, are saying to the President is that he should make them the only source of advice.

The President may well be advised to be careful of such friends, because they are “BAD COMPANY”. The President should ask whether before 24 July 2012, he was more popular than the party. If no, then he should recognize that it was the party that propelled him to victory in the elections. The people giving such praises think nothing but the   attempt to pursue their personal interests. Some of them are even known to be boasting that they would make sure that they sideline certain leading NDC activists. It is the case of the pheasant fighting for turf on someone’s farm.

At some point in the 1980s, Mrs. Thatcher, then Prime Minister of UK was made to believe that she was more popular than the Conservative Party. It went into her head, and she proceeded to make statements such as “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the "U" turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to. The lady (i.e. Thatcher) is not for turning”. When the party finally decided to “turn”, she was left alone crying bucket-full of tears as she was bundled out of the seat of government at No. 10 Downing Street.

Whereas the serial callers who praise-sing mostly do so to ward off their party’s opponents, those close to politicians who praise-sing do so because they want to hang around the seat of power to advance or protect their personal interests.

The President may do well to remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes in which a stark naked  Emperor’s courtiers kept saying the clothes he was wearing were beautiful, although the fact was that the Emperor did not any have clothes on.  The President may also be advised to remember the tale of Rasputin of Russia who, when he became so close to the Russian Emperor and Empress took advantage of them by convincing them to fill some governmental offices with his own handpicked candidates and in the end contributed to the demise of the Emperor.

Angels are bright, but the brightest fell. Rawlings and his wife were made to believe, and they actually ended up believing, that they were personally more popular than the NDC.  Until the 2012 elections, they genuinely believed that the NDC could not win an election without their support. We all know what happened. Now they are squirming and looking to be accommodated within the NDC.

All of us have egos. But politicians holding high offices tend to have such big egos that sometimes they are unable to carry them. The beauty about President Mills was that he did not allow praise-singing to get to his head; and President Mahama may well be advised to take a leaf from Professor Mills on this issue.

Osagyefo Dr. Nkrumah was accused of encouraging a personality-cult around him. His critics were wrong. It was rather the population that kept singing his praises with people like Okyeame Akuffo in tow. Ghanaians are generally very guilty of making deities out of their leaders. Such behaviors defeat the whole ethos and purpose of democracy and participatory governance. One can decry such behavior from the ordinary, less sophisticated citizens who still carry with them the trappings of chieftaincy and feudalism. However, it is unforgiveable for people who consider themselves as educated elite to descend into that sort of pit. It must be added that such people do so deliberately to advance their personal interests rather than the common good.  Such people do not want to be accountable to the political party which the President leads and which put the President on the pedestal.

The danger of allowing praise-singing to get to one’s head is that the one may begin thinking that he/she is omnipotent and that t s/he can do what s/he likes. In the end, they go overboard and do the wrong things. The sad thing is that when trouble comes, those who massaged the President’s ego and led him to ignore teamwork with his party members would walk into the sunset unscathed.

Leaders who tolerate hero-worshipping always end up with tragic consequences. A word to the wise is enough.

EDITORIAL

FIRE IN MALI

French intervention in Malian civil war has raised the stakes and there are indications that in the very future foreign fighters of all types will flood the West African Sub-Region under the guide of fighting terrorism.

There are credible reports that the US is already preparing to use Mali as the platform for launching drone attacks throughout the region.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also pledged to send troops to Mali to shore up government forces.

The problem is that the Government of Ghana’s position on this issue is not very clear.

Is Ghana preparing to send troops to Mali and what justification can there be for such an adventure?

First, the point must be made that this is a combat and not a peace-keeping operation.

Countries which send troops to Mali need to expect a very high casualty level and their Governments must find out if their soldiers are psychologically prepared for that.

Secondly, the rebels in Mali have made it clear that they will attack all countries which wage war against them.

Is Ghana ready to fight terrorist forces on her own soil?

Our view is that Ghana should not allow herself to drag into a war aimed at promoting Western interest.

Likely increase in AFRICOM activity

By Fabian Scherer

AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham

The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is the youngest of the six American Unified Combatant Commands, which divide the world into different areas of responsibility for the United States military. 

As the name suggests, it deals with the American military operations on the African continent, even though its headquarters are situated in Germany. 

The main aim of the command is to handle humanitarian aid operations, disaster management and crisis-reactions.

Over the past few months, the United States has attracted attention by its announcement to increase military activities in Asia, particularly around the South China Sea, which is claimed by different bordering countries. 

However, the United States do also have a growing interest in the African continent. 

According to estimations of an American think-tank, the United States will obtain one quarter of their oil demand from the African country. The resource-gathering rivalry between the western superpower and its eastern counterpart, China, on the continent is an open secret.

However, AFRICOM’s focus has somewhat shifted; it was reported that US forces have been increasingly focusing on the rising danger of terrorism on the continent, especially in Mali, where Islamic extremists close to the Al-Qaeda terror group have seized northern key cities. Many have warned that the area might develop into a new international hub for terrorist activity. Together with West African nations, the USA and France plan to start a military operation to drive out the radical Islamist forces. The United States have announced that they would back such an intervention with aerial support. Even though a formal resolution of the United Nations Security Council is still due, military and civil authorities have reportedly started with the planning of an African-led international troop in the deserted North of the country.

One of AFRICOM’s main operation areas is the Horn of Africa in the east of the continent. The coast of Somalia, which has been described as a failed state by the US, is partly under the control of pirates, who make money by kidnapping foreign ships in the waters around Somalia and demanding ransoms. As part of the “Operation Enduring Freedom,” the United States, together with other nations of the international community, patrol the regions’ waters and try to enable shipping traffic on the highly important route, which also leads to the Suez Canal.

US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens

The United States’ influence on the African continent seems rather low when compared to their power in other areas of the world. In the wake of the deadly attacks against the American embassy in Libya, AFRICOM’s commander General Carter Ham announced on 18 December that the African Command would receive a rapid reaction force in the future. 

Until then, AFRICOM had relied on an “arrangement with what’s called the Commander’s in-Extremis Force with European Command.” The new special force will allow the United States army to react faster on potential threats on the African continent. It is not clear where the team will be situated, but considering the low American military presence in Africa, it seems possible that the newly created force will rotate its location.

The attack on the embassy in Benghazi has, in general, shaken up the United States of America. Many people asked themselves how the American ambassador was able to be killed, and pointed to the lack of American military presence in the region. In combination with the increasing Islamist influence, especially in the northern half and in the east, it is not unlikely that the United States might increase their engagement in the future.

Possible CIA plot
ECUADORAN President Rafael Correa is not discounting the possibility that the CIA is plotting an attempt on his life in the run-up to February’s presidential elections.

Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa

President Correa was referring to a recent exposé by Chilean journalist Patricio Merym, who has revealed alleged CIA plans to eliminate him. "These are credible things, because they have already happened in Latin America," Correa stated.

The Ecuadoran president acknowledged that he felt relieved in the wake of the statement from Adam Namm, the U.S. ambassador in Quito, that his government would never get involved with the current Ecuadoran electoral process.

"That is probably the case," said Correa, while warning, "What they don’t say is that these agencies have their own agenda, of which the President isn’t even aware."

"We are clear that we are going to confront an extremely hard campaign," affirmed Correa, who did not exclude any possibility, or any act of destabilization which could reach the physical level, because the opposition knows that "it is not going to win at the polls."

Correa was speaking in Guayas province during his tour of the country in the framework of the presidential electoral campaign for 2013-2017. The elections take place February 17 and the current president is the favorite in opinion polls, with a 20-point advantage over his closest rival, former banker Guillermo Lasso.

Last month, Craig Murray, former British ambassador in Uzbekistan, stated that the CIA was investing $87 million, most of it Pentagon funds, to influence the Ecuadoran elections, which he assured was to open the way for the opposition campaign to bribe and coerce the media and state officials.

Obama: White man in black

By Zaher Mahruqi

You might think that the heading has some racist connotation but that is not the intention at all. Whilst supporting gay marriages as Obama did is utterly uncharacteristic of black men, what I have in mind in relation to the heading are far more serious issues.

The fact of the matter is that it was hard not to notice that the man made history by becoming the first black president in any predominantly white country in history; Let alone the arguably strongest nation ever.

Two times Time magazine’s man of the year, a Nobel price laureate and many more varied awards and recognitions, judging from his achievements, Obama’s rise to stardom has evidently much to do with his race more so than anything else. In fact, he received the acknowledgments before doing anything practical to the direction of piece or prosperity for all.

To his credit, he broke a seemingly unbreakable barrier and the breakthrough gave a world in distress a great deal of hope. His slogans of “yes we can” and “change we can believe in” and his speeches promising global reconciliation gave people hope, a great deal of it.

Particularly the black continent expected so much from Mr. Obama. With a black president, Africa hoped that America’s involvement in its affairs would be wider and more thorough. That was not to be the case however as it was years as president before he even set foot on the black part of the continent. He did visit Kenya, his father’s land, as a senator only as a campaign stop over in order to secure the votes of African Americans.

Since he started his presidency support given to Africa has not changed and most of the support Africa receives today had been laid out before Obama took office.

Obama didn’t give hope only to Africa but to others who are oppressed or in pursuit of justice. His speech in Cairo in which for the first time ever an American president quoted verses from the Quran made the man a figure that could finally bring justice to the Palestinians plight.

A Palestinian Child shot by Israeli Soldiers

That too didn’t materialize, in fact, it is at its worst point ever and the Zionists have been mocking Obama on regular basis. The latest was the post-bombardment of Gaza approval of thousands of illegal settlements at the very instance Obama was calling for the halting of settlement activities.

Obama is a good guy, make no mistake about it. At the very least he seems committed to his wife and family and the tears he shed following the New Town massacres of children portrayed a very sensitive man indeed. The only problem is that he seems to tear up only for American children whose parents are responsible for voting him into the white house.

Palestinian children in Gaza who face blockade and even Israel’s missiles do not seem to touch him all that much. The children of Africa who lack almost everything from food, medicine to education too don’t seem to provoke sympathy in Mr. Obama, let alone tears. To add a verse to the poem, the children of Syria are hungry, bloodied and facing a harsh winter in open plain and instead of tears, Mr. Obama is busy sending arms to the rebellion. That is hardly the characteristic of a man of peace.

Why has a man whom people compared to Gandhi, Mandela and the likes has miserably disappointed almost everyone? Why a man whose ancestors suffered centuries of oppression seemingly oblivious to the plight of the oppressed? It has become almost understandable that white America and white presidents are sympathetic to the Zionists but OBAMA!!! That is hard to believe.

The reason is simple. THE MAN IS WEAK. Obama’s main weakness lays in his major strength and that is his ability to deliver spotless speeches. The gap between Obama’s spiritual-like speeches and his deeds is almost unbridgeable.

Beyond the widening of extra judicial killings by the way of drones, the man has no independent foreign policy to speak of. He is simply following what his predecessors left behind. For example, Obama would kiss the bottoms of the leaders of AIPAC at every opportunity granted to him just as his predecessors did.

Former Cuba President Fidel Castro Ruz

In the eyes of the Zionists and the otherwise racists and hateful, he is playing the game the right way. To the contrary, Obama has said too much on the Palestinian issue and yet his record by the way of deeds could be even worse than that of Bush in that regard.

Other matters remaining unchanged in spite of the most preferred tune of Obama, the tune of change, are the antagonisms against Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Russia and in fact they are heating up under his watch.

Perhaps the legacy he would leave behind is having been president during the assassination of Osama bin Laden which too has been in the works even before Obama thought of running for president. Other legacy he would leave behind is that he would be remembered as the person who was so remote from the expectations of the world.

If he continues the same way in his second term, he would be remembered as a man who said more of what he thought would sound believable than what he actually believed. As such he might be considered a good politician but as a good fellow that is another question.

Obama has come long ways from his humble origins in Kenya and was granted a rare opportunity to bring the world the changes he preached but sadly four years plus later that doesn’t sound like the path Obama is pursuing.

He seems more interested in keeping the status quo. One wonders what would his grandmother who slaughtered a cow to honor his second term win think of him and whether he is even interested in helping her live a more dignified life and one wonders what his root land thinks of him.

If I could ask him one question face to face, I would look him right in the eye and ask: Do you always say what you really believe or simply say what you think is believable Mr. OBAMA?

The Herzl Conspiracy

Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah

Prior to the establishment of what we know today as Israel, there were several attempts made to establish a homeland for Jewish people in other places throughout the world. These places varied and none shared any real commonality in respect to geography, climate, history, etc. None were established in barren lands free of indigenous people and none ever made that claim except Israel.

Theodore Herzl suggests that the Zionists will have to exploit the sufering of the Jews in order to create a compelling cause for the establishment of a Jewish colony in Palestine.

Among the many proposed locations for the establishment of Jewish homelands we find Australia, Albania, the United States (Alaska and New York), and East Prussia. Plans for Jewish homelands included the Andinia Plan to settle Jews in Argentina, and the British Uganda Plan to settle the Jews in Uganda. There was also the Fugu Plan to settle Jews in Japan, the Madagascar Plan to settle Jews on the island of Madagascar, and the British Guiana plan to settle Jews in what is now Guyana. Among the many other places considered for Jewish settlement, there was Vietnam.

What appears to be the most successful attempt to establish the Jews in a homeland of their own is found approximately 5,000 miles east of Moscow close to the Chinese/Russian border in a town called Birobidzahn. Birobidzahn is the capital of the Jewish Autonomous Region (JAR). This region was established by Joseph Stalin in 1928 as the first official Jewish homeland. Author Kate Goldberg, writing for the BBC Online, in an article titled, Russia’s Forgotten Jewish Land, said, “ The first settlers arrived in the region in 1928, 20 years before Israel was created.” She explains the motive for Jewish resettlement as “to build a new city and set up a national homeland for Soviet Jewry with Yiddish as the official language.”

Presently, approximately 6,000 Jews continue to live in the JAR. 40,000 Jews are said to have migrated there from 1928 to 1989 when many began to leave for Israel after the breakup of the Soviet Union. On the website for the administrative offices of the Jewish Autonomous Region, we find the following:

The main ideologist and organizer of the formation of the Jewish Autonomous Region was P.G. Smidovich - the head of the Committee on land settlement of Jewish workers (KOMZET) created in 1924 at the Presidium of the Soviet of Nationalities of the USSR. He was occupied in search of places for compact settlement of Jews and adaptation of the Jewish people to agricultural work as well.

On March 28, the decision of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR passed the decree "on the attaching for KOMZET of free land near the Amur River in the Far East for settlement of the working Jews, including the area of Birsko-Bidzhanskiy district".

And in May, 1928 Tikhonkaya railway station has accepted the first Jewish settlers from various cities, villages and places of Ukraine, Belarus and the central areas of Russia. Simultaneously the necessary money resources and technical equipment for their arrangement were allocated by the state’s decision.

The prospect of revival of the Jewish state has found the response from abroad, first of all from Jews of the USA and Canada. IKOR, a special organization on rendering assistance to the Jewish land management in the USSR, has been created. It rendered settlers such free aid as various equipment, engineering, agricultural stock, building materials, and medicines. On August 20, 1930 the Central Executive Committee of RSFSR has accepted the decision "On Formation of Birobidzhan National Region in the Structure of the Far Eastern Territory".

On May 7, 1934 the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee has accepted the decision about transformation of the Biro-Bidzhanskiy national district to the Jewish Autonomous Region in structure of the Russian Federation. Administratively it entered into the Far Eastern territory. In 1938, because of division of the Far Eastern territory into the Primorye and Khabarovsk Territories, the JAR became a part of the Khabarovsk Territory. And in 1991 after acceptance of the Declaration by the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR about state legal status of the Jewish Autonomous Region, it became the full subject of the Russian Federation.”

It may seem at first glance that these facts are little more than historic trivia. Yet, when we think about it, we realize that it is much more than trivia. It is proof that Theodore Herzl and other Zionists were lying when they insisted as late as 1948 that Jews were in need of a homeland in Palestine where they could be safe from European anti-Semitism. These facts prove that a homeland for Jews had already been established as far back as 1928 in Russia. It was established and was already attracting Jews from throughout Europe and other parts of the world.

According to the JAR official website, the Jewish settlers were given land, farm equipment and money donated by the various Jewish organizations and some sympathetic countries. This being the case, we are left to ask ourselves why an additional Jewish homeland was required and why in Palestine? Why weren’t the Jews who were evacuated from Germany and other parts of Europe after the Holocaust in Germany, not taken to their Jewish homeland in Russia, a homeland that by then was well established and at peace, the new settlers living peacefully among the people who were native to the region?

The answer is obvious. The Jewish homeland in Russia was not Zionist, it was Jewish. It was established in cooperation with the leaders of the Jewish Chabad movement and included in its initial stages full accommodation for the religious needs of the new settlers, including conversion of already standing structures into synagogues. It was a drastically different experience and method of Jewish resettlement than what we have learned about the Zionist colonization of Palestine, most specifically the fact that the Zionists who were overseeing the occupation and settlement of Palestine wanted nothing to do with the Jewish religion and little to do with Jewish people.

What they apparently wanted was the land of Palestine, at least to start. To convince the Western powers that they should be granted the right to settle Palestine under the guise of establishing a Jewish homeland, Herzl came up with the idea to use the suffering of the Jews and anti-Semitism as what he called the steam that would be needed to get his project off the ground. In his treatise on the Jewish state, by that same name, he wrote:

“Everything depends on our propelling force. And what is that force? The misery of the Jews. Who would venture to deny its existence? We shall discuss it fully in the chapter on the causes of Anti-Semitism. Everybody is familiar with the phenomenon of steam-power, generated by boiling water, which lifts the kettle-lid. Such tea-kettle phenomena are the attempts of Zionist and kindred associations to check Anti-Semitism. I believe that this power, if rightly employed, is powerful enough to propel a large engine and to move passengers and goods: the engine having whatever form men may choose to give it.”

Herzl suggests here that the Zionists will have to exploit the suffering of the Jews in order to create a compelling cause for the establishment of a Jewish colony in Palestine. He says that the argument should be focused upon Jewish suffering and blamed on anti-Semitism. Add the suffering and the anti-Semitism together and what we get is the European guilt that undergirds not only the impunity that was granted to Israel, but also the license to kill Palestinians and anyone else deemed a serious threat to the Zionist project in Palestine. So, what exactly is the project? If Herzl’s purpose was not truly to provide a homeland and safe haven for Jews, Jew being a religious designation, what was he up to? Looking again to Herzl’s own words, it seems that he was looking for a base of operation from which a colony of militant extremist Zionist terrorists would be equipped with weapons by their Western sponsors.

In gratitude, these extremists would serve the British Crown and other Western powers as a military outpost. This outpost would serve as a launch pad for a series of wars and revolutions in the region that would culminate in the Zionist domination of the Muslim world. Herzl said in his treatise The Jewish State, that he would convince the Western powers that Zionists could accomplish in Palestine what the Crusaders had failed to accomplish in the crusades. What could that be? It was to conquer and to hold Jerusalem (al-Quds) and from Jerusalem (al-Quds) to dominate the entire Muslim world. It is quite possible that the grand Faustian deal struck between Herzl and the British Crown, resulting in the very unpopular Balfour Declaration was perhaps an agreement to allow Zionists to settle Palestine for that purpose. Zionists were not interested in religious Jews who Herzl actually despised. He had no use for them except to use their religion and their experience to accomplish his goals. If it was the goal of the British crown to use the Zionists to establish a military outpost in Palestine to aid with its continued attempts to conquer Jerusalem and to eradicate Islam, what were Herzl’s goals? He explained them quite simply when he wrote the following:

“The infiltration of immigrating Jews, attracted to a land by apparent security, and the ascent in the social scale of native Jews, combine powerfully to bring about a revolution. Nothing is plainer than this rational conclusion.”

Could it be that Herzl imagined that once Zionists had conquered Palestine, they would expand throughout the Muslim world through a series of revolutions? Is it possible that Herzl felt that anti-Semitism, would suffice to get Zionists into Palestine, but revolutions would be required for Zionism to spread and to dominate the Muslim world and to create Eretz Israel? Does this explain what we see today in Syria and the UK’s and France’s insistence that Israel be aided by NATO and the Western powers in its attempts at regime change and expansion into Syria? Does Herzl’s plan explain what happened in Libya and why Qaddafi was first driven from power and then seemingly killed?

There is little doubt that such ideas will be dismissed as mere conspiracy theory. Even so, we can say for certain, that no other theory suits so perfectly, the events in Palestine since 1948, including the 1967 war leading up to today’s headlines. Also, to date, there has been no other reason offered to the world explaining Western tolerance for Israel’s lawlessness and the genocide it is carrying out in Palestine and its efforts to destabilize the region and expand into other parts of the Muslim world.

Algeria and the Sahrawi struggle for independence 

By Roboán Rodríguez Carrera

It was not long ago I read an article published by Jeune Afrique on the 29^th January, 2012, about the significant economic growth that could take place among the states of the Maghreb (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara and Mauritania). 

Saharawi President Mohammed Abdel Aziz

In particular, Morocco and Algeria, if they were able to deal with the issues of the Western Sahara and that of the reopening of their borders as two unrelated issues. Although the relationship between the two countries has been tumultuous since their independence from colonial rule, it is the 1975 invasion and illegal occupation of the eastern Sahrawi territory by Moroccan forces that obliged the revolutionary government of Algeria to close its borders as a categorical rejection to Morocco’s colonialist aggression towards the Sahrawi people. Many attempts have been made since then, some with success, but the reality is that since the failure of the last accord in 1994, the position of Algeria has been unshakable.

Same language, same religion, reciprocal needs and very similar cultural habits might be good enough for the establishment of an economic agreement in relation to the reopening of their borders, nonetheless, for Algeria that is not the case: A conclusive solution for the issue of Western Sahara is the main priority. 

It is clearly obvious that for many international investors the idea of a united North Africa is synonymous to great opportunities for business; just as Driss Moulay Rchid, director of the Centre régional d’investissement de l’Oriental, said, “In our region, many foreign companies wait impatiently for the opening of the frontiers to invest, for example, tourism.” Or, Hasni Abidi, director of the Centre d’études et de recherche sur le monde arabe et méditerranéen, who states, “An un-united Maghreb incurs the risk of political and economic marginalisation in the process of internationalisation and is likely to have low investor attention due to fragmented and low profitable markets.”

Here we go ‘profitable markets,’ when the question should be, profitable for whom?  For the owners of foreign or local companies who always promise to create employment in exchange for natural resources and cheap labour? Or, for the bureaucracy that will be compensate for being helpful and allow those companies to make as much profit as they can? Or, as unusually happen, for the ordinary worker that goes to work in public transport every day and is obliged to accept whatever salary is offered? Or, in the same context, for the market women who knows that if she does not sell enough every week she will not be able to pay the electricity and water bill, the rent or the school fees for the children?

Another interesting point to analyse is that of the World Bank, for which according to one of its studies the real GDP per inhabitant in Algeria could grow 57% and in Morocco 38% between 2005 and 2015, but only if they could manage to form a true commercial bloc, to effect a complete opening of their services and to create an atmosphere of investment in regulation with the best international practices. 

All this gives the impression of being very appealing, but just by referring to current history, which country has been able to reduce the gap between the poor and rich, or to ensure the basic needs for all its citizens by opening completely its market?

 Let us first look at the so called capitalist societies, better known as developed countries and the current economic crises they are going through, which is the inevitable result of what they named neoliberal politics. In simple words, it’s a system that legally allows the strongest to take and accumulate as much wealth from those in weaker positions without governmental regulations. 

Why is it that people have been furiously protesting in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, the US and many other countries? Because the citizens have finally felt the unfair consequences of this free capitalist system. If the World Bank or any other international institution genuinely wanted to improve people’s lives, to begin with, they would never give economic advice while knowing that thousands of people are suffering starvation in refugee camps under the most inhospitable conditions of the Sahara Dessert. 

To carry out business and think about economic growth without resolving a problem of decolonisation is an intolerable attitude of the UN, therefore, the violation and abuses committed against the Sahrawi people are direct offences to the rest of the world.          

Looking at the past to understand the present

1884 – Spain commences the colonisation of the Western Sahara as European powers agree to   divide the African continent at the Berlin Conferences.

1898 –   Ma and Ainin establishes Smara and continues resistance against Spain and France.

1912 – France and Spain confirm frontiers on the Western Sahara.

1913 – French troops seize Smara.

1934 – Spain and France embark on a join campaign to pacify the Sahrawi tribes.

1957 – Sahrawi fighters attack Spanish positions. Spain and France respond with Operation Ecouvillon and thousands of Sahrawis are displaced to the Tarfaya Strip.

1965 – The UN calls on Spain to begin decolonisation of the Western Sahara.

1969 – Harakat Tahrir is formed to campaign for Sahrawi independence. It is crushed a year later and its leader never seen again.

1973 – The Polisario front is formed and launches its first raids against Spanish positions.

1975 – A UN commission notes majority Sahrawi support for independence. The International Court of justice rejects Moroccan and Mauritanian claims of sovereignty over the territory. Morocco responds with its green march over the border. Spain reneges on promises of a referendum of self-determination for the Sahrawis and cedes the Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania.

1976 – Tens of thousands of Sahrawis flee to refugee camps in Algeria. They report napalm attacks and slaughter of live-stock by Morocco forces. The formation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is declared. Break up of diplomatic relationship between Morocco and Algeria, closing of their borders. 

1979 – Mauritania signs a peace agreement with Polisario and retreats from the Western Sahara where the territory it held is taken by Morocco. The war between Polisario and Morocco continues unabated. 

1981 – Morocco commences building fortified sand walls, or berms, around the territory to combat Polisario.

1988 – Polisario and Morocco accept a UN and OAU proposal for a ceasefire to be followed by a referendum of self-determination for the Sahrawis, based on 1974 Spanish census data.

1989 – Polisario leaders meet with Hassan II of Morocco.

1991 – The UN creates Minurso to oversee the implementation of the peace plan. The ceasefire commences.

1992 – The referendum is delayed for the first of many times.

1997 – Morocco and Polisario sign the Houston Accords on the modalities of a referendum.

1999 – The process of voter identification goes ahead. Hassan II dies. A series of protests commences in the territory controlled by Morocco.

2000 – A provisional list of 86,000 voters is published. Morocco floods Minurso with 130,000 appeals, throwing the process into further crisis.

2001 – James Baker presents his Framework Agreement, replacing a referendum for the Sahrawi people with a vote in which Moroccan settlers would form an automatic majority after a period of autonomy. Morocco issues oil reconnaissance licences to Total and Kerr-McGee. Mohamed Daddach is released from twenty seven years in detention and met by crowds in Laayoune and Smara.

2002 – Morocco’s Mohamed VI declares the referendum process to be obsolete.

2003 – Baker’s second version of his proposal is accepted by Polisario as a basis for negotiations but is rejected by Morocco.

2004 – Morocco continues to reject any referendum that would include independence as an option. The UN supervises the first, limited family visits between the refugee camps and the occupied territories.  

Revolutionary principles above economic interests.

Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia could get 2 points of economic growth if they worked together, says the UMA (Arab Maghreb Union). For some academics like French historian Benjamin Stora, this appears to be a viable strategy towards the pursuit of regional integration. “The freedom of transit must be applied in the countries of the Maghreb,” he said, “With the Arab spring, union has become one of the new exigencies of the people” and “it is necessary to put aside the Western Sahara conflict in order to advance in the other disagreements.”

Though the statements might initially sound convincing, I find serious discrepancies with them. I am a firm partisan to the initiative of free transit among African states, so I believe in the need for unifying the entire African continent (first, if convenient, regionally and then continentally). 

However, to consider that even the basic human rights of a whole population are not important enough to be respected is a clear indication of the capital-orientated purposes of such regional integration. Who is going to dare tell me that the rights of the Saharawi people to decide their own destiny is irrelevant as long as it represent an obstacle for economic growth?   

For how long should we deceive ourselves and continue thinking that private capital and all its neo-liberal policies will address the historical process of poverty, hunger or unemployment. 

A saharawi Refugee Camp

What is the difference between being a citizen of a small country where the gap that divides the poor and rich is enormous and, being a citizen of a large and rich continent where we still have the same gap dividing the vast majority of poor citizens and the few dominant elites?  We ought to think that it is first and foremost necessary to define and assimilate the new principles under which this union and all its institutions will operate.

I do believe the supportive position of Algeria is a consistent reflection of the revolutionary struggle it went through in shaping its own identity. A former Algerian foreign minister, Ahmed Attaf, cites two points of principle in his country’s position: that of the inviolability of borders inherited from colonial powers and that of the right of self-determination. 

He argues that the first principle, a basic tenant of the African Union, invoked to safeguard the fragile post-colonial states and maintain peace on the continent, has been violated only twice: by Somalia over the Ogaden and by Morocco over the Western Sahara.

What future for Africa’s Last colony? Many may wonder, but the truth is that the international support plays a decisive role in the ultimate decision of the UN. To implement a referendum of self-determination or not has never been the major dilemma, the key issue is whether the referendum should be based on principles of human equality and freedom or on economic interests for the elite of the kingdom of Morocco and the predatory multinational companies, which, in complicity with their corresponding governments, have been illegally exploiting the natural resources of the occupied Sahrawi territory for over 25 years.

What does it take for other leaders of state to be strongly committed to what they know is the right position. Of course, it all depends on their true ideology, not on what they generally declare. It is evident that by their apathetic support to the Sahrawi struggle, the principle of human life and its full emancipation for every person is not as important as the diplomatic recognition they might get from the richest of the world and the international community. At the end of the day, it has always been a matter of principles and conviction.

TULLOW SCHOLARSHIP SCHEME

Tullow Oil plc (Tullow) is pleased to announce that it will offer up to 114 scholarships across its countries of operation for the 2013/14 academic year. 

The application process for the Tullow Group Scholarship Scheme (TGSS) is open from today until 13 February. Interested candidates should apply online at www.tullowgroupscholarshipscheme.org. 

Tullow Boss, Aidan Heavey

The TGSS aims to build capacity in areas where Tullow’s host countries might experience significant skills gaps, especially, but not exclusively, around their oil and gas industries.  Scholarships are available to post graduates who are committed to making a contribution to their own country’s development. The Scheme gives candidates the opportunity to receive a high standard of education from internationally recognised institutions, which can then be applied in their home country.

A wide range of courses will be offered that are designed to contribute to economic growth of the participating country. These will include Engineering & Technology, Geosciences, Oil & Gas Economics and Supply Chain. Scholarships will be awarded across the following countries; Congo Brazzaville, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mauritania, Uganda, Uruguay and Suriname. The number of awards allocated to each country is weighted to the appropriate phase (project life cycle) of Tullow’s business within that country.

Commenting today, Rosalind Kainyah, Vice President External Affairs, said:

"The Tullow Group Scholarship Scheme attracted nearly 7,000 applicants last year, and more than 90 scholars are currently studying at universities in Europe. We have a long-term commitment to our host countries, so we are very happy to be starting the second year of the scheme”

The Scheme is fully managed by the British Council which has over 40 years experience in global scholarship management. It is expected to run for the next few years and is aligned with Tullow’s aims of supporting long-term socio-economic growth in countries where it operates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tullow Oil plc (+44 203 249 9000) Rosalind Kainyah – Vice President External Affairs Pamela Uwakwe – Social Investment Project Manager George Cazenove – Media Relations

Tullow is a leading independent oil & gas, exploration and production group, quoted on the London, Irish and Ghanaian (symbol: TLW) stock exchanges and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. The Group has interests in over 100 exploration and production licences across 23 countries which are managed as three regional business units: West & North Africa, South & East Africa and Europe, South America and Asia.

For further information please refer to our website at www.tullowoil.com.

Follow Tullow on:

Twitter: www.twitter.com/TullowOilplc
You Tube: www.youtube.com/TullowOilplc
Facebook: www.facebook.com/TullowOilplc
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/Tullow-Oil