Charges dropped against Tunisian policewoman

Months ago a simple event, a common place event even, led to a series of world historic uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. A Tunisian fruit vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, was humiliated by a policewoman. Not only did she confiscate his wares, because he supposedly did not have a permit, she also slapped him.

For Bouazizi this was not the first time the police had stopped him earning a living, nor the first time they had treated him like dirt. This time would be the last time though because Bouazizi had had enough. He took himself to the local municipal office in his small provincial town and set himself on fire. Three weeks later he died from his terrible injuries.

This extraordinary act of immolation from a man who could simply not cope any more led to snowballing protests against police corruption, unemployment, poverty and the state. So powerful did that movement become that the President himself fled the country in fear. The fruit seller took down the dictator.

Bouazizi's family had put in a complaint against the policewoman who's casual acts set in chain these vents but, according to Al Jazeera, they have now dropped the charges as "a gesture of tolerance and an effort to heal wounds suffered in Tunisia's upheaval".

It's a generous act aimed at helping the country move forwards and one that should command great respect. His family did not choose to be at the centre of a revolution but it is quiet acts like these that can help construct a better Tunisia.

EDM 1565: Libya, North Africa and the middle East

It's my view that the current situation in Libya is not the kind of clear cut ethical question that some people, on both sides of the debate, would have us believe. For me whether we come down for or against military intervention rests on an assessment of whether our proposed actions will work (rather than simply making us feel like we're doing something) and whether the wider impact of the action will not work to the detriment of the revolutionary process taking place across the Middle East and North Africa.

The moral certainty that has been displayed by some when debating this question has made me feel rather uncomfortable, particularly when many seem unable or unwilling to provide supporting evidence for their claims.

Whatever happens now it is likely there will be a humanitarian disaster in Libya and it is up to us to ensure we are helping these democratic upsurges across the region for the chance of a long term solution, as well as taking stock of the immediate tragedy as it unfolds.

On balance I'm opposed to the proposed military intervention, but I recognise that others take a different view for perfectly legitimate reasons. I'm sure this discussion will continue over the coming weeks and you can still vote in the poll (right) which seems pretty evenly split at the moment.

I am backing EDM 1565 on this issue proposed by Jeremy Corbyn and seconded by Caroline Lucas. If you also agree with it you may like to encourage your local MP to sign too. It reads as follows;

That this House does not believe that Western intervention in Libya or elsewhere will bring about the peace, justice and democracy that is being sought by millions of people in North Africa and the Middle East; and calls for a rethinking of British and European foreign policy and a more concerted effort to apply international law and its human rights clauses in any negotiations or actions relating to the historical process that is now taking place.

As the air strikes pile in we've moved a long way on from talk of a no fly zone. The days and weeks ahead will no doubt see news that supports both sides of the argument, but it will only be the long term impact that will truly make it clear whether this was the right course of action.

The new Arab revolts continue

As Libya continues to, understandably, dominate the news I thought I might take a quick tour of what's happening with the inspiring revolutionary process that kick started the whole thing. Although, perhaps more accurately that's a tour of the repression that's currently taking place.

• In Yemen 35 protesters have been killed when troops opened fire on them. The government have now declared a state of emergency.
• In Iraq gunmen torched a TV station for showing protests, police allowed armed men to beat and stab protesters in Bagdhad, while journalists who reported the demo were arrested, as they were in Basra, in Anbar province security services shot five protesters dead, Al Jazeera have pictures of police shooting at protesters in Falluja.
• In Iran they are cracking down on web activists, 
• There are mass demonstrations in Jordan.
• Strikes closed 300 factories in Oman and the ports.
• Clashes in Syria have left at least three people dead in pro-democracy protests.
• In Bahrain Saudi troops have come in to restore order, and Kuwait is sending its navy (!), all to reinforce the status quo against the protests. This is while they enforce their own ban on protests. The Bahraini authorities have smashed a monument symbolic of the movement as the state rounds up the opposition.
• In Djibouti opposition leaders have been arrested and there have been widespread calls to boycott next month's elections.
• In Egypt the repression continues, with attacks on women marchers, as the wrangles over the constitution look set to leave the revolutionaries out in the cold.
• While the inspiration of these liberation movements in taking hold in Africa, a place not so seperate from the Arab world.

Check out the very useful Iraq Occupation Focus. Meanwhile in Tunisia Clinton has made a visit to encourage economic reforms. Goodie.

Poll: should we support military action over Libya?

I've already set out my case against the no fly zone over Libya here and Richard and Claude have put the alternative case.

Opinions seem divided so I thought I'd set up a poll to guage opinion on this important issue. If you allow your eyes to drift to the right you'll see you have eight options and I've set the poll up so you can tick multiple boxes.

If you 'don't know' or want to explain your answer feel free to leave a comment.

End of the Tyrant; Now to end tyranny

Millions, if not billions, of people across the world will have raised a smile to hear that Egypt's dictator Mubarak has at last stepped down. You would have to be made of stone to not welcome the news.

Of course the end of a tyrant does not mean the end to tyranny and the revolutionary wave across the Arab world has barely begun. What comes next will no doubt be a mix of both good and bad, new solutions and old. The risk of an even more reactionary regime is both real and, I think, no reason to mourn the dying of the old.

I was impressed last week by a reporter on Radio Four being interviewed by John Humphreys. "How will Mubarak react next?" he was asked "I don't know." He replied. "But Mubarak wont do a Tianamen Square will he?" "I've got no idea what he'll do!" Queue an outraged snort from Humphreys - but the reporter was right.

Speculation is pointless at this time, the only thing that really matters is how the people of Egypt and the rest of the Arab world react. What kind of world they choose to make is in the balance and how those disagreements and compromises that lie ahead play out are all to play for.

There are many different visions for Egypt's future, and I'm sure that even what people want at this point is fluid and changing. Maybe those with modest aspirations will find themselves radicalised. Perhaps the religious will start looking to secular solutions and others will find themselves fusing faith and politics.

I'm reading it all with interest, but I've decided that, not only do I not know enough about the region to comment properly, but also that even the self appointed experts will have to throw their deeply entrenched ideas in the days and years to come. Who can say what these means for Egypt's women or how Israel will take the news, or the US or the people of Saudi Arabia?

This domino is falling. Today we should celebrate that, even if we cannot know what seemingly permanent structures will evaporate next.

New times in the Ivory Coast

Last Sunday's Presidential election in the Ivory Coast has ended in farce. Both candidates have claimed victory and have sworn themselves into office. One, Laurent Gbagbo, has been the incumbent for the last ten years, the other Alassane Ouattara has been a leading opposition player associated with the New Forces, the armed rebel group in the north.

Gbagbo led in the first round of elections 38% to 34% resulting in Sunday's run off election between the two.

The Electoral Commision has claimed that Alassane won Sunday's election with 54.1% while the Constitutional Council claims Gbagbo won 51.45% of the vote.

The Council claims that there was widespread ballot stuffing and irregularities in the north where the New Forces are based. The international community does not seem to agree.

The US has strongly backed Alassane and Barack Obama warned Gbagbo: "The international community will hold those who act to thwart the democratic process and the will of the electorate accountable for their actions." The IMF has also come out for Alassane and told Gbagbo in no uncertain terms that it will not work with him if he remains President.

It should, of course, be remembered that neither the US nor the IMF are neutral players in the country. Neither have been fans of Gbagbo's determination for the Ivory Coast to pursue an independent economic policy, whilst they have tight personal ties with his rival.

Alassane was a leading economist for the IMF based in Washington for much of his career. He became the governor the Central Bank of Western Africa and, through this position, managed to become the Prime Minister of the Ivory Coast in 1990 a post he held for a rocky three years until he was forced to resign when he returned to the IMF as Deputy Managing Director.

At the turn of the century Alassane returned to Ivorian politics resulting in a civil war breaking out in 2002. In 2004 Ivorian planes bombed a rebel 'New Forces' position - which killed nine French and one American 'observer' who 'happened' to be there. This resulted in French tanks parked round the Presidential palace, the counter bombing of the Ivorian air force and French forces taking over the airport, killing a number of civilians in the process.

It has long been thought that the 'New Forces' had international backing of institutions like the IMF, as well as the US and French who hope to see an economic policy that's more multi-national friendly.

Gbagbo's personal history is rather different from his rival's. A history teacher who was jailed during the years of French control (when Presidential 'elections' were usually uncontested). A leading member of a teachers' strike in 1982 he helped to form the FPI, a party which is now an affiliate of the Socialist International (that Labour is part of).

Under Gbagbo the Ivorian economy has done quite well. It is the largest economy in the West African Economic and Monetary Union with a relatively high income per capita. Compared to its neighbours the Ivory Coast has done reasonably well for itself despite being in the bad books of the IMF.

From a distance it is impossible to know whether there was widespread electoral fraud in the north, although it does seem sensible to regard it as a possibility. The eagerness of the US and IMF to declare their candidate the victor don't convince me that this was the will of the people, or the best thing for the Ivorian people.

Guest Post: football, freedom and South Africa

Today's guest post is from one of Hackney's finest, Pippa Lane. Here she discusses the fascinating history of the Makana Football Association, and wonders whether everything was quite as splendid as the official history seems to be saying.

The eyes of the world have been focussed on football in South Africa in recent weeks and South Africa’s former political prisoners have shared some of the limelight. A couple of weeks ago the BBC ran a short feature on the Makana Football Association - the body created and run by political prisoners that organised football on Robben Island (some of whom are pictured right with Fifa President Sepp Blatter). This coverage typifies how former political prisoners, and Nelson Mandela in particular, have been almost deified in the last two decades.

Nonetheless, the Makana Football Association was incredible. It was modelled on international rules and within months of its establishment contained twenty-six sides organised into three divisions. The Association was named after Makana, a Xhosa leader banished to Robben Island in 1819. He drowned trying to swim back to the mainland.

The prisoners kept detailed records from the various sport and recreation committees on Robben Island and these are kept in the archive of the Robben Island Museum. These records reveal a level of tension rarely reported by former Islanders in the years after their release. There were frequent allegations of biased or incompetent refereeing and resignations by referees and prisoners often referred to a past golden age of sport on the Island. A letter written by a prisoner in 1983 said:

Sir,

Sport has for the duration of our stay here been the cementing force which has effectively obliterated our natural identities. I have all these years given my services unreservedly to the promotion of sport in the general sense. It has in recent years been quite clear that we have lost the recipe, sport has suddly [sic] become the source of conflict.

I choose this moment to announce my resignation as one of your rugby referees, and consequently shall not consider myself obliged to carry out any duties assigned by you in future for the rest of my stay here.

I regret the inconvenience which might be caused by my decision, but I prefer to retire with my dignity.

Thanking you

Yours in sport

However, the archives of the various clubs do not disclose such a time of calm and cooperation. A letter to the Robben Island Sports Association in 1981 contained an excerpt from a document 10 years previously:

we are where we are, and being where we are we find ourselves exposed to psychological and physical pressures which have a telling effect on our material and spiritual well-being. ... The purpose of sport is, therefore, to kill boredom, to reduce tension, to chase away anxiety. But once this purpose is overlooked, once points … or victory become the be all and end all of things, then our inter-personal dealings will become corroded by boredom, wrecked by tension and shattered by anxieties and the playing of sport will be the cause of those very maladies which sport was supposed to cure.

The letter went on to reflect that “The above excerpt was written more than ten years ago but its message is still as fresh, as valid and as relevant today as it was then.”

The creation of a football league on Robben Island was no doubt an incredible achievement in hostile circumstances. However, South Africa’s political prisoners were not super-human and the political prison was destructive, not a seedbed of democracy. The political prisoners were often frail, petty, bored and argumentative. Ordinary people like you and me, then. I think that makes their actions and commitment to overthrowing a terrible regime all the more heroic.

ANC invokes Apartheid era legislation

The South African government has invoked Apartheid era legislation to force journalists to reveal confidential sources or face jail.

The government wants to force a TV station to reveal the identities of two self-confessed criminals it interviewed anonymously who spoke about how criminal gangs are preparing for the World Cup.

ETV issued a statement saying that;

Two eNews journalists have been served with subpoenas in terms of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This follows an eNews story by Mpho Lakaje – aired on Friday January 15th – which featured interviews with two self-confessed criminals. One of the criminals stated that he would rob tourists during World Cup 2010. Another said that he would be prepared to shoot his way out of a standoff with police if he felt his life was in danger. This was in response to a question as to what he thought of the police’s new tougher approach to fighting crime.

State prosecutors require Ben Said, eNews Group News Editor and Reporter, Mpho Lakaje to appear in court on 25th January unless they provide the following:

· the identity (names and surnames), addresses and contact details of the persons interviewed.

· full particulars of who brought the firearms visible during the program to the interview, who possessed the firearms during the interview and what happened to the firearms after the interview was completed

· the original and unedited footage of the interview.

The matter is currently with eNews’ attorneys.

On the same day it was reported that a man that had acted as a 'facilitator' between the TV station and the criminals killed himself, although the circumstances around his death do not appear to be public knowledge.

It may appear to be worthwhile to infringe a few journalists rights in order to arrest two dangerous criminals (or try to) but the short term benefits would have long term negative consequences, not least that it would prevent journalists being able to guarantee their sources anonymity - massively hampering the ability of the press to do its job, that's a high price to pay which could lead to far more deaths than could be prevented through invoking this law.

Rwandan government suppresses Greens

News coming in says that the Green Democratic Party of Rwanda is facing problems from the government who are refusing to officially register the party (thereby barring it from standing in elections) and closing down its conferences.

The Rwandan News Agency has now removed all reference to the party on their website despite having previously reported on the closure of their national conference, apparently for the fourth time in a row leaving 900 delegates stranded, some having trekked large distances.

The website Save Rwanda has re-posted the report that the RNA has now removed. In it one delegate is quoted as saying “From what I have witnessed today, I do not think there is there democracy in Rwanda,” retorts Munyankumburwa Innocent. “To me, this means that the government is not yet ready for multiparty democracy. If they say parties do exist, then what is this?”

An unnamed party official also states “We are tired of this kind of way of doing things in this country,” she dismissively says. “No one seems to be able to tell you the truth. This one says the other is responsible, the other says the next one is responsible.”

The GDP has put out a call for democrats across the world to assist them in launching a genuine opposition party in Rwanda. I think the idea is to put out statements and contact embassies and such like to demonstrate that the world is watching as the government refuses to allow this opposition party to be legally constituted.

Winston sticks it where the sun don't shine

This story is a bloody marvelous illustration of how, despite claims from some quarters, the internet revolution has not quite made it to even quite developed parts of the globe. A South African IT company based in Durban raced "an 11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory stick against the ADSL service from the country's biggest web firm, Telkom."

Guess who won! Winston, the aforementioned pigeon, took two hours to fly 60 miles with the stick whilst the file was only 4% of the way there. Frankly Winston could have walked the stick home and he'd have still won.

I only mention it because Winston has demonstrated with admirable clarity what I was arguing in the Morning Star in July that Africa is not witnessing "a new dawn of connectivity for the masses" despite the inflated claims about the new undersea cable that's just been hooked up.

It's also nice to see people use inventive media stunts to giving big companies the bird. That's a real feather in their cap! OK, I'll stop there.

Anyway, why take it from them when you can check out Winston's website and hear it straight from the pigeon's beak (check out the video, hilarious).

South African troops on strike

South Africa has been blighted by riots and social unrest from some months now and in the context of political disunity among the old allies of the ANC there seems to be little light at the end of the tunnel.

With the news that around 1,500 troops went on strike, marched and demanded to see President Zuma demanding a 30% pay rise on top of their concerns that the army is being drafted into law enforcement duties. The police then attacked the striking soldiers and mayhem ensued.

The government now intends to sack every single one of the soldiers saying that they would not tolerate "thuggish behaviour by our armed forces". Although it appears they do tolerate it in their police forces.

Those involved "must accept no sympathy from the state, as the law will take its course... Defying a court order... and attempting to invade the seat of government is totally unacceptable, especially from people who have the responsibility of being the true defenders of the constitution... This is applicable to all types of protests we have seen, which is bordering on hooliganism." *

The demonstration was organised by the South African National Defence Union (SANDU). SANDU national secretary Pikkie Greeff said that soldiers were some of the lowest paid workers in the country. “Soldiers often leave their loved ones at home and put their lives on the line for their country. Our members are part of the country’s poverty problems.”

Tourism is anti-development

Your friend and mine Tony Blair has been arguing that tourism is the way out of Sierra Leone's troubles. Mr Blair wrote in the Guardian that;

"economic collapse and a decade-long civil war drove tourists away – many to neighbouring Gambia which now attracts more than 100,000 visitors a year, mostly Europeans in search of winter sun.

"But the fundamentals that made Sierra Leone an attractive destination remain strong: unspoilt beaches, beautiful tropical islands, world-class fishing and diving, and a rich cultural and historical legacy linked to its role in the slave trade and beyond."

The day after Aminatta Forna disagreed. She points out that;

On Blair's last few trips to the country he has never left the airport... But it is the madness of how modern aid is distributed and prioritised that, despite the billions spent by the international community, the country's infrastructure remains scarcely improved.

In 30 years every new leader - be they dictator or democratically elected president - has promised the economic miracle of tourism, the quick fix. It hasn't happened yet. For the Gambia, a small strip of country with few natural resources, tourism offered the only choice. Forget diamonds - Sierra Leone, with rich agricultural soils, has a better choice. Once a rice-exporting country, it is now a rice-importing country. Investment in agriculture is long-term, sustainable, and would benefit the entire country.

But nothing can happen without a working infrastructure.

Quite. For real development you need a real economy, but there's a deeper issue here about how tourism effects nations in the developing world. It creates an economic and political apartheid.

In many countries it creates entire swathes of a nation where the poor cannot go. Sometimes the poor are simply priced out by a parallel economic system, sometimes they are literally barred from entry by force. Tourism can also create an economic distortion that actually shifts people away from the long term work of building an economy that benefits everyone. As I wrote in January 2008;

"If people in the local area see that they can, potentially, make five times as much engaging in tourism rather than, say, agriculture or manufacturing the simple truth is that you are encouraging that area to develop the least sustainable, least useful part of their economy. Your friendly tour guide has made a very rational choice to try to groom tourists rather than doing something that might actually help build up long term resources."

In order to create safe zones for Westerners an overt militarisation takes place to keep out those whose living standards fall well below that of the wealthy visitors. The corrupting influence of corporations entrenches a staggering inequality.

A new resort in Sierra Leone would require helicopters priced highly enough to exclude 98% of Leoneans. A resort would mean beaches "unspoilt" by Africans, Hotels where the only locals in sight are taking out the bins and turning down the beds. Lastly it requires walls. High walls well manned with armed guards so that one patch of Sierra Leone excludes Africans just as surely as Fortress Europe and the USA.

Health care, electricity and policing are all improved for the tourists. But this comes to the detriment of improvements for the poor. I'm certainly not opposed to tourists per se, we should all have the opportunity travel, but I am opposed to gearing a poor economy towards prostituting itself to the Global North.

It makes sense to Blair who appreciates the benefits that living in a pampered parallel universe brings. For the millions living in grinding poverty tourism offers nothing because it closes off opportunities rather than creates them. Building infrastructure, economic regeneration and democracy has to be done for the benefit of all the people.

Does the Pope shit on the poor?

We all know that the Pope refuses to use a condom, no matter how much you beg him. He's famous for it. On his African tour he has been speaking on the sex issue saying that "A Christian can never remain silent". Good job the Vatican's got thick walls then I suppose, don't want to keep the nuns awake any more than we have to.

Benedict XVI (pictured here dispensing sex tips) was greeted on the first leg of his tour by Cameroon's President Paul Biya who has been President for almost 27 years, surrounding himself with much the same people for his entire rule. But his aging government has not retained power through murder and torturing political opponents. That would be wrong, it's just their hobby.

However, Biya may be a murderous strongman but this doesn't stop him being a "staunch catholic" and having a hearty welcoming ceremony with the Pope on his arrival. Just because Cameroon is the second worst for journalists in Africa should not blind us to the fact that it clearly isn't the worst then! Hurray for democracy.

Although the Pope could have used the flight over to bone up on Amnesty International's reports on Cameroon he spent most the time telling journalists how many friends he has in the church (oh oh) and defending his decisions over bringing right wing screwballs back into the fold. Isn't the Church full of that sort already? Did the Church really need a top up?

Anyway, when Benedict XVI isn't rubbing shoulders with the local elites he's looking after the interests of the poor and the needy by telling them off for having sex with each other. After all, if he didn't do his best to prevent the AIDS epidemic what would he tell his grand kids? That he just flounced about in a dress all day? For shame.

The other good news is that because the Catholic Church does everything for the benefit of the poorest and most needy in the world they have decided to donate their huge fortunes to the efforts to do good works in the world. That's right - they are selling off the palaces, the huge tracts of land, the art works, emptying out the the Swiss bank accounts, the lot. Well, I expect they'll announce that anytime soon.

They'll get right on to that directly after they've finished with the sex tips. For example, one Vatican official said that in the Church "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing". Maybe that way it feels like someone else is doing it.

Clegg takes Lib Dems into pro-war waters

Some years ago the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, spoke at the largest anti-war demonstration in this country's history. It was controversial in some quarters as the Lib Dems were hardly a consistent anti-war voice and could act as a break to a rising movement - as it happens I think that decision was the right one, it was an exercise in showing just how politically broad and numerically vast the opposition to the invasion of Iraq was.

Ever since (not just because of Charlie speaking on that platform, obviously) there has been an element of Lib Dem support that has essentially been to the left of Labour who hoped that the yellow party could be a nicer, less bloodthirsty and kind of social democrat-ish place. But there has been a growing feeling that the Lib Dems are less interested in that constituency these days than they are in positioning themselves to repel Tory advances.

Nick Clegg, the current leader of the Lib Dems, is a different kettle of fish to CK, his last meaningful predecessor. He likes to lean to the right and has a harder, more market orientated approach to life. But that's not all, his instincts on foreign policy are rather more robust than many of those who gave the Lib Dems their vote last time round might like.

Back in June Clegg longed for military action against Zimbabwe (among other punitive measures) and in October he decried the reticence to intervene whilst accepting that "The best we can hope for is keeping the insurgents ‘manageable’" in those areas where British troops are currently stationed.

Release the peace and love bombs

Nick Clegg on PM tonight went further and, using the word force rather more often than might have been strictly necessary, came out clearly in favour of military intervention in Zimbabwe, further distancing himself from those whose faith in liberal intervention is not so well developed.

Clegg said he felt a "mixture of rage and impotence" at the situation and that we should "take up the call of Desmond Tutu" who recently said that Mugabe ought to be deposed by force. Clegg argued that the West had a "responsibility to protect [which] in effect gives a moral or legal right to the outside world to intervene in a country where its rulers are neglecting or brutalising their own people." (please note: we don't have any such legal right to invade countries on the basis that they mistreat their populations and we don't like them).

Clegg called on China and South Africa in particular to "step up to the plate", rightly claiming that South Africa's approach so far had been "feeble and pathetic", he then stated that "I think force is now completely justified [however] Western intervention is impossible without the cooperation of its neighbours" which could be taken in one of two ways. Either that we should secure the cooperation of those neighbours for a Western invasion to take back our colonial possessions, or that we will be unable to invade so South Africa will have to do it for us (fat chance). I assume he wasn't calling on China to invade - but who knows!

The situation's critical

The situation in Zimbabwe does indeed seem dire. With a Cholera outbreak, a food crisis and the army rioting it's only right that we ask ourselves what kind of solidarity can we offer? Particularly because the authorities are using this moment to target trade unionists and activists, including the arrest of the leader of the teachers union and a leading human rights activist. Voices that call for grassroots action by Zimbabweans are getting beaten down because they are rising up, and we need to hold out our hand to them.

But whilst those like Condoleezza Rice see this as an opportunity to pursue US/UK interests in the region, to call on African nations to commit to a failed strategy because we're too tied up in our own failed wars to start a new one isn't wise. We're exactly the wrong people to advocate this strategy because of our colonial history and our recent adventures in the Middle East. We don't have a good track record here which means we're just not credible.

Whilst we're happy to fund and arm countries like Nigeria who oppress their populations and keep the oil flowing Zimbabwe has consistently failed to play ball, and behaves like a "rogue state". Our governments find that difficult to tolerate. I think there's another way, but one that does not meet the modern needs for immediacy and blood letting.

Nations like Botswana are donating aid to help the Zimbabwean people rather than bombs whilst simultaneously pursuing a critical, diplomatic offensive to the undemocratic and barbarous Mugabe regime. I suspect that shows a better way than wishing for wars that will never, and should never, come - but either way Britian has to butt out.

Well, Nick Clegg will be attending the climate change demonstration tomorrow in much the same spirit that the Lib Dems attended the anti-war demo all those years ago. Whilst there's votes in it they'll be there, but let's not imagine that if the wind changes Clegg and co wont just drift away.

How Britain tortured Obama's grandfather

With great excitement sections of the press have "revealed" that the President elect's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British. Whilst I'm glad to see this in the papers, seeing as Obama Jr published this himself in 1995 I'm cringing slightly at the word "revealed" here. "Revealed again" might be a bit more more appropriate.

The Guardian concedes in a rather straight faced way that "Obama, with more pressing contemporary problems on his plate, is unlikely to be fixated on extracting revenge from the UK." Well, I think they might be right on that one, but Brown better watch it just in case.

One good thing to come out of this rather old story is that the press has been publishing potted histories of the resistance movement in Kenya that led to Obama snr's arrest. It's worth remembering that during the Mau Mau phase of this resistance ('52-'60) between 11 and 30 thousand Kenyans were killed, 80,000 imprisoned and around one and half million Kenyans were "resettled"by the British (Ken Olende).

According to Dreams from my father prior to his arrest Obama's grandfather had been known locally as a great admirer of the British and had proudly served in the British Army. Arrested for a connection to the resistance that he always denied Hussein Onyango Obama was imprisoned without trial and tortured - an ordeal from which he never recovered either physically or psychologically.

According to The Times “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” and he'd recalled how “they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down”.

The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly anti-British. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango [his wife] said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained.”

Whilst the paper is horrified that "Mr Obama has nothing good to say of the colonial era, which he summarises as “the manipulation of colonial boundaries, the displacements, the detentions, the indignities large and small”" The Times still does not flinch when it comes to eye witnesses, which include rebels of the day, one of whom recalls of his own ordeals;

First he was pushed through a cattle dip. Then he was beaten around the back of his head until he fell unconscious. “But the worst punishment was carrying overflowing buckets from the cells,” he said, in the Kikuyu language of his tribe. “We were made to carry them on our heads. The guards would make us run so the excrement would run down our faces. It stank and made our eyes sting. We were all ill, all the time.”

In a sworn statement collected by human rights activists, he details other abuses at Manyani, which he described as “hell on earth”. The screams of other inmates turned the camp into a lunatic asylum, he said. Their days would be spent digging rocks from the ground. One of the white guards would force young inmates to carry him on their backs, as if they were horses.

If anyone were tempted to say that Abu Graib or Guantanamo were uniquely American institutions they should consider some of the barbarities British colonialism inflicted upon its subjects in order to keep Kenya British.

One British officer recalls being horrified when he first arrived when his superintendent outlined what they did in the camps. “He said, ‘I don’t know why you’re looking so queasy about this, it’s just like a good rugger scrum’.” The officer went on “The war in the forests lasted for maybe two and a half years. The more serious situation was created by the operation to sweep Nairobi clean of anyone who was black — or that’s how it seemed.” To his credit he eventually refused to continue to take part in the British offensive.

Even The Mail has a potted history which concedes that the British response in Kenya "only radicalised Kenyans who may otherwise not have felt as strongly about the violent path to independence." Which is a lesson worth learning time and again for any budding ruler of an Empire.

Obama never met his grandfather and whilst it seems he found these stories instructive and moving he's hardly emulated the politics of the Mau Mau or Fanon in his meteoric rise but his determination to close down Guantanamo, and end US sanctioned torture may well be a fitting tribute for his grandfather and those who, like him, suffered under the misrule of the British Empire.

International aid makes you live with your mother

Well, according to the BBC it does. In one of their regular articles on why international aid makes everyone in Africa lazy this caught my eye;

While I was filming in Uganda, local newspaper editor Andrew Mwenda took me and my crew to his home village near the town of Port Loco in the west of the country. There he introduced us to two men, one in his sixties and one aged 26.

"This man represents the tragedy of aid," he said pointing to the older of the two. "While this man represents the potential of aid," he said indicating the younger man.

Mr Mwenda explained that the sexagenarian was the chairman of the local parish council who had spent most of his life living off aid money, supervising projects meant to benefit the community. Today he is an alcoholic who still lives with his mother.

The younger man started selling potatoes in the village square at the age of 17.

Less than 10 years later he owns the largest and busiest store in the village. He has not received one penny from aid, yet he has bought himself land and has built a house.

"So you see," Mr Mwenda said. "If aid were to offer this young man support in the form of low interest credit he could not only expand his business offering employment opportunities and a valuable service to his community, he could also eventually pay the money back."

Well I'm convinced, compare a sixty year old alcoholic with a twenty something entrepreneur and you have a convincing argument for letting the free market solve all the world's problems. I mean why can't the poor be more like the rich - then we'd all be driving round in BMWs!

Here's my alternative version, just for fun you understand.

Here we have two men. One who takes the bus, the other who rides a bicycle.

The bus user, a man with one leg, has spent his life waiting at chilly bus stops or sitting on the top deck now spends listless hours in solitary masturbation consumed with self loathing.

The cyclist on the other hand owns a chain of fashion boutiques without the aid of a single bus pass. Surely if we just cleared these buses out of the way it would make way for thousands more bicycling boutique owners to take our economy into the space age.

I might have something more serious to say about this later...

Pirates could be the best thing that happened to Somalia

These pirates could be the best thing that have ever happened to Somalia. I don't mean this in a "they're daring entrepreneurs" sense of course, current fashionable cool aside, pirates are murdering, kidnapping bastards - but in the long run they might prove to be useful if they focus the world's attention on some of the facts of life in Africa.

The Sirius Star (right) may be the biggest tanker that's ever been hijacked, but it certainly isn't alone. It's the 90th ship this year to be hijacked by Somalian pirates who currently have a whole flotilla of vessels they've half inched from the high seas.

We're even back to the good old days where you have entire pirate towns. If you've ever wondered what a pirate city looks like by the way try Google maps and search for Eyl in Somalia, and scroll up and down the river. Fascinating... but it don't look like a pleasant holiday destination I'm afraid.

Things are getting very, very serious. The Norwegians have begun avoiding the place. Even the South Koreans are sending warships to the area afraid of the impact piracy will have on international trade. Dave, who presents himself as an expert on these matters, says that "There have been widespread calls for tougher naval action, and there are already many warships in the area, ranging from NATO assets to a Russian frigate. But given the millions of square miles of sea they are expected to cover, the pirate attacks continue."

Here, I think, lies the crux. When Somalia was just a corner where people crawled to die, or at least when Somalians confined themselves to killing each other then the world simply did not care. With no functioning economy or government for twenty odd years Somalia has to be one of the worst places on Earth to be a human being.

Whilst the warlords have had zero impact on global trade the pirates are quite another matter, they're costing real money. Now the world is paying attention to a land that has been discarded, of no monetary value to the rest of us. The gaze of the most powerful governments in the world has been drawn to the East Coast of Africa and whilst this has already brought with it warships it may well bring something else too.

That's why I say that these pirates may, in the long run, be a benefit to Somalia. I'm sure they are a pestilence on the people who live under their shadow, but they have lit a fire where simple suffering never could. These acts could help focus international efforts to bring the region out of its failing state and bring a little hope.

Being a pirate is not an easy life and Somalian jails are jammed packed with them. If there were a Somalian economy with the semblance of jobs and stability and a functioning state to prevent whole areas falling to what, in previous ages, would have been called robber barons piracy would not be an itch that the world economic system can't quite scratch.

If any good can come out of this it might be that there is a recognition that this is a problem that is too difficult to solve through force alone. In the long term peace goes hand in hand with prosperity and we'll only make the shipping lanes safe if the world's poor gets at least a small slice of the action that rolls past them every hour of every day.

Rwanda: positive lessons on equality

The already pitiful number of women MPs in the UK is going to go down sharply in the next couple of years. With a massive cut in the Labour ranks replaced by their Tory counterparts it is a racing certainty that the unintended consequence will be a vast cull of female politicians despite the fact that as it stands just 19% of the UK's MPs are women.

But whilst our wonderful liberal democracy is lagging behind the Rwandans have the honour of being the first Parliament in the world to elect more women than men. Is this because Rwandan society is based on some sort of radical feminist matriarchy? Well, no, it's still just as patriarchal as it ever was. It's because they recognised there was a problem and used quotas to ensure that at least one in three MPs were women (and also ensured that three seats (out of eighty) went to young people and the disabled).

Quotas like this are much easier to do fairly with list systems like Proportional Representation - whilst First Past the Post all women short lists have been brought into disrepute by Labour who've had a tendency upon occasions to use them to ensure the required number of right wingers get in, rather than simply ensure a better gender balance.

The fact remains that in top level politics women are massively under represented and it's clear that once you build in the mechanisms to ensure a critical mass of women is achieved, it's far easier to break the conservatism that leads to male dominated politics. That has to be done sensitively and with regards to context, but it does have to be done.

Thinking closer to home the Green Party employs these kinds of lists on a judicious basis which has led to us having two brilliant female Green MEPs Jean Lambert and, oh, oh, I'll remember her name in minute... but it allows regions and local parties to make their own rules to suit their circumstances trusting to their adherence to the importance of ensuring some sort of gender equality - although there are so many leading women at all levels of the party that you might be forgiven for wondering how necessary this still is.

The one exception to this would be the national executive which has had a recurring problem achieving anything like equal representation - hopefully the new executive post of equality and diversity officer will be able to begin to address this slightly embarrassing issue. Although having said that, this year's six women out of fourteen posts is an improvement on where we have been in the past and probably obscures the difficulty there has been in achieving that balance.

I would say is that we do have a mechanism in place that possibly meant that the chance of seven out of fourteen was simply impossible. For leader and deputy leader we have a hangover from the old system where you have one man and one woman - where the intention was clearly to ensure that at least one of the two leading representatives of the party was a woman it actually meant that, given that, oh, you know, um, her, given that she was a shoe in it actually meant there was no point in any woman running for deputy. So a rule intended to help boost the number of women leading the party actually may have set an artificial barrier in place.

In my opinion what the rule should say is that at least one of the two should be a woman, rather than guaranteeing one place to a man. I doubt any member would object to an all woman leadership team. At least if they do I don't know if I care for the cut of their jib.

There are lots of structural problems in wider society that make it difficult for women to participate equally with men, even in a progressive party committed to empowering women. It seems to me at least that until we break these cycles where it seems normal for executives to be nearly all male, or for all lead candidates to be male then we'll be stuck with the same stifling inequality forever. That's what I reckon anyway.

Interesting article on women in African politics here.

Tanzania says bye to Biwater

In 2003 the Tanzanian government was put under immense pressure by the IMF and World Bank to privatise state run organisations in return for much needed debt relief. This included water and sewage services which were awarded to UK company Biwater, also known as City Water, with the financial support of the UK government "including £440,000 on a publicity campaign to highlight the benefits of private enterprise" 1.

Well, all did not work out as planned for Biwater and less than two years later they found their staff deported and their company seized by the state. It was one thing to force a liberalising contract onto a poor nation you have undue influence over it's quite another when the new water company simply cannot do its job.

Biwater's argument is familiar and essentially boils down to "a contract is a contract" and have demanded millions in compensation. What's so familiar about this is that it's always the government that has to keep to the contract and never the company. The company did not meet its contractual obligations, failed to run the capital's water systems properly, invested less than half the money it was obliged to in infrastructure and City Water went broke - the government rightly decided the contract was null and void.

Biwater were horrified that some tin pot government cared more for the people who'd be denied the right to water and sanitation than it did for some piece of paper they'd been forced to sign under duress, so they took them to the international court. Today that court ruled that the Tanzanian government was naughty but had nothing to pay. Good for them (for once).

In short Biwater were rubbish. Or, in the chairman's own words, there was ‘corporate failure all the way to Dorking’. They were unable to "perform" to the standard of their state owned predecessor, were bringing in less profit and water charges were higher. It would be one thing if this was a company producing luxury goods, but this is water and sanitation, essential to life - and they were screwing it all up whilst screwing the poorest down hardest.

Tanzania had no choice but to step in and take over the failing company. A government spokesman justified this saying "expropriating their property was like shooting a corpse - no harm done." Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch said “Biwater failed the people of Tanzania, yet it had the audacity to run to an international trade court to try to get millions of dollars off of its mismanaged scheme to profit from water, this is fitting justice.”

Earlier this year a "tribunal ordered City Water to pay £3m in damages to Tanzania, and £500,000 towards legal costs" but Biwater have refused to pay up insisting that City Water (the subsidiary company they set up for the deal) no longer existed and therefore could not be held accountable for any fine. Nice bit of having your cake and eat there. They mess up the water supply but instead of coffing up for the fine they insist they want compensation for having been put to the trouble of messing it all up. That's how business works I guess.

Tanzanian government lawyers however take a different view and say “The whole affair was the prescription of the World Bank. It will be fair that they should pay the government,” after all this is a poor nation having been stitched up by international institutions who have been proved wrong in their thesis that private companies are more effective than public ones in providing public services. Even the terms of the deal were explicitly in favour of the rich. According to WDM "98 per cent of the funds to support the water privatisation in Dar were to be spent in the areas where the richest 20 per cent of the population lived."

Even big international institutions are beginning to question whether the third world can cope with purely free market solutions to their problems. You can't expect a government to sit back and watch as the price of water rockets whilst the service deteriorates, but I guess that's why they always needed the financial strong arm tactics in the first place, to make sure that there was no place on Earth where Western corporations were not making money.

Britain's next war zone? Nigeria

You don't often hear much from Nigeria in the main stream news do you? It's probably a very insignificant African country of little importance in the global economy which ticks along quietly not being a bother to anybody. Yes?

Well, get ready for the media to get suddenly interested with more and more reports fed to them by the UK government of murder and mayhem from the region. Which in no way would be connected to the fact that Gordon Brown is planning on sending a bunch of military advisors to help train the Nigerian army how to put down those who oppose them. Which is in no way connected to British economic interests in the country. Which in no way is connected to the fact that Nigeria is the eighth biggest producer of oil in the world.

President Yar'Adua (pictured), who came to power in a rigged and completely meaningless vote last year, is visiting the UK at the moment to sort out the deal literally guaranteeing the supply of oil through murder.

Oil is 40% of Nigeria's GDP and I think it would be fair to say that the government is not particularly interested in running the country at all - only in keeping the supply of oil, and their backhanders, flowing. Which is precisely why those displaced from their homes or disenfranchised by a violent, murderous corrupt regime have felt they have no other option that to take up arms, to resist violently, and even to resort to kidnappings (effecting even Everton).

There is no democratic route to justice in Nigeria and the world does not give a toss what happens to some black peasant living in the back of beyond. If a family gets shot because they refuse to be displced by an oil company - well you wont hear it reported in the UK press, especially becuase we're talking about UK oil companies here.

Ironically it is this very policy of prioritising the oil over all other things that has created such a backlash - if there were some schools, civil rights and a bit of job creation there'd actually be less disruption to the flow - but that would not suit the personal interests of those most tied to the oil industry.

Brown should be intervening - but to arrest those UK citizens who have been complicit in the social and ecological disasters - not to send in troops to prop up a violent and anti-democratic regime. Still the British government tries to send those fleeing the political violence and poverty back. Poverty so bad that recently 12 unemployed people were killed in a stampede over the announcement of jobs. "After struggling through school, you have unemployment staring you in the face, and when you finally think succour has come to provide you with employment, the recruitment leads you to your grave,"

Of course there are voices from Nigeria getting through that are asking why the UK should be supporting a corrupt government that acts against the people in the interests of the oil corporations. It's also claimed that this will lead to more violence rather than less and increase the number of attacks - now where would we have seen that before?

The government is one big militia. Better armed, more ruthless, more organised than those resistance groups that have sprung up across the Niger Delta. But whilst those groups arose as a reaction to displacement, repression and poverty the government is the author of those woes.

Oil has only brought misery to the vast majority of the people of Nigeria. The jobs it brings go to foreign nationals, the wealth it produces goes into the pockets of the Western and Nigerian elites, it arms the people's oppressors, displaces the poor from their homes, distorts the economy and national life until those who are not part of the oil better not be in its way. And due to the strategic importance of oil if it ever looks like they might be able to throw off their government the West will step in to shore up their corrupt business partners.

Even Gordon Brown will have heard of the name Ken Saro Wiwa, surely. Well through these actions Brown is complicit in the fact that Ken Saro Wiwa will not be alone in his shallow grave. I've given up hope of an ethical foreign policy by now, I'm sure we all have, but that's no reason to turn a blind eye to our government's bloody support for yet another oil dictatorship.

Updates

Craig Murray on the same story.
Militia pledges to call off cease fire due to Brown's offer of military support.