The Restless Chronicles

Where Intelligence Meets News Analysis.

The Shame of Africa

The argument gets tiring. The conversation very predictable. So much so that every now and then, my mind takes an unauthorized leave of absence and checks into some fancy resort on some fancy deserted tropical island — just to get a reprieve from the constant barrage of heartaches that come from pondering Africa’s numerous problems.  And, of course, this is why the conversation gets very polemic, as virtually every citizen on the continent has an opinion of which solution(s) befits what  problems and yet, year in year out, we rehash the same ole dialogues.  Little improve, so the conversation becomes hackneyed and cumbersome. But since conversations are important in any society, we persist in our dialogues – it is good therapy for the soul I suppose.

Of course, I am not without fault in this; after all, I am a bona fide son of the land. This is why the 2011 Failed States Index, as recently published by Foreign Press magazine in partnership with the Fund for Peace, once again offers a sobering point of contemplation.

In 2009, 11 African states accounted for 20 of the top failing or failed states on the Index; in 2010, they were 12; in 2011, an agonizing 14 now grace the top-tier of the list.

I need not spew out elaborate statistics to convince your mind of what your eyes sees where Africa is concerned. For outsiders, the pictures daily rewrite a shameful story, for insiders i.e. those living on the continent, the shameful story is only but their daily lives.

The story is shameful not because the people are shameful and are a pathetic bunch (Africans are the most persevering and hardest working people anywhere on earth); but it is primarily so because for decades now, a people have been bound and gagged by a shameful leadership which hitherto has dictated the narrative of their lives.

Africa has never been without her problems, that’s a point of agreement; but never in modern times did she seem so hapless in producing a credible counterweight to her problems.

Africa’s shame has two perpetrators, with a thousand and one co-conspirators.  The first is the African leadership and the second – Western intervention on the continent, both past and present. The latter will be addressed in a later space, but the primal cause needs our foremost attention.

It is hard to envision Africa being where she is today without the leaders that got her there.  It is hard to believe Chaka Zulu, Haile Selassie I, Nelson Mandela and others once highlighted the bravest and brightest of a continent.  Looking at the land today, it seems love of country and countrymen is a relic that belongs in some nondescript crypt.  Thus, it is readily easy to suppose African states fared better when they had a common foe – European colonialism.  And such a supposition, alas, seemingly true, is highly regrettable.

Let there not be any confusion, present day Africa is not without her martyrs; she’s not without those select few like Kizza Besigye of Uganda and Morgan Tsanvigirai of Zimbabwe who in limited pockets of resistance still seek better nation states and a dignified continent.

The monstrosity of the African leadership is no where made stark than in the impasse that has embroiled North African states in the past few months: more pointedly, the imbroglio presently taking place in Libya.

There is a club on the continent by the name AU (African Union).  It’s supposedly a regional institution that boasts the membership of virtually all the states on the continent save Morocco. But it is more so a country club that caters to the needs of the Heads of State who represent their different countries.  Up until January 2010, Muammar Gaddafi was its chairman, albeit for a year.  When Gaddafi started slaughtering citizens who dared seek reform in the towns and cities across Libya, not a whisper of condemnation could be heard from the club.  Doing so would have been a breach of omertà. And, then, when it came to passing UN Resolution 1973 to authorize military action to stop Gaddafi’s madness, the three African States on the Security Council could not muster the decency to do the right thing, and had to be cajoled to support the resolution.

And since NATO’s mission begun in Libya, AU’s leadership has been strong in its condemnation of the mission – even saying the affair is better left for it to handle.  It is indeed a shame that leaders like Jacob Zuma of South Africa are the foremost speakers on behalf of the continent.  How can any decent mind entrust the lives of the children and women in Libya to an organization which refuses to strongly condemn their butcher?

A friend recently asked; “So what becomes the solution?” given the conundrum as stated.  The harsh answer is that present African leaders have to either pass away or quit their respective posts.  And the latter is highly improbable as evidenced by Robert Mugabe’s cling to power in Zimbabwe.

It is this sort of selfishness that continues to show African leaders as grossly corrupt and inept. Little or no importance is placed on developing critical infrastructures and combating the myriad mortalities afflicting the land.  A system so venal that nepotism and its many ugly cousins are the proud custodians of state.  Vox populi becomes just that – the opinion of the people. True, as some might say, there are patches of improvement here and there, and I am heartened by those.  But to whom much is given, much is expected.  The richest land on earth cannot persist to be its poorest and its most unstable, as the Failed States Index acutely shows.

But there is hope.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the entire AU membership in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia this month. She literally begged the organization to muster some responsibility toward that for which it was created.  “The world needs the African Union to lead,” she said. “The African Union can help guide Libya through the transition you described in your organization’s own statements, a transition to a new government based on democracy, economic opportunity, and security.”

Today, an African leader cannot be indifferent.  He or she cannot even think to only preoccupy him or herself with matters affecting only his own state.  Whatever befalls one state directly or indirectly befalls another.  Take for example Ghana, where President Atta Mills is by all estimates the best African leader today.  Not only has he been able to maintain Ghana on a steady socio-economic course, he has provided the West with a vision of what a stable vibrant African state could be.  But for all his glory at home, he seldom gives opinion about issues across his border.  But this past April, the post-election crisis in neighboring Ivory Coast spilled over into his land as many refugees fleeing the violence crossed over into Ghana.  He had a chance to take a strong leadership position in pressuring Laurent Gbagbo to leave power peacefully after his election defeat, but he instead chose a more sedentary position. Whatever his fears were, they were realized nonetheless by his lack of visible leadership in the matter.

For Africa to be credible, good leaders like Atta Mills must seek just not to be good, but great; for that’s what Africa needs from her leaders at this decisive point.

A 19th century Japanese philosopher was once credited with saying “Some citizens are so good that nothing a leader can do will make them better. Others are so incorrigible that nothing can be done to improve them. But the great bulk of the people go with the moral tide of the moment. The leader must help create that tide.”

Lack of tide creators is the primary reason for Africa’s poor health.  Until leaders see selfish ambitions as a destructive immoral force that lays waste to the land, the shame shall remain.  Africans, especially the youth, are tired and seek change as is being presently experienced in the Arab Spring; if only our leaders will cease to sell their souls to the devil and embrace a righteous change.

Respectfully Yours,

A Writer in the Wilderness.

June 27, 2011 Posted by | Africa, International, Socio-Politics | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Limitation of Common Sense

To keep approaching a problem in the same manner and expecting a different result is often termed the quintessential definition of insanity.  But what often goes lacking is what definition befits the scenario where an alternate approach to a problem is employed and yet the same undesirable result is still achieved.  This can’t possibly be sanity … or is it?

For over 30 years now, the United States government has designated Syria a state sponsor of terror.  For over 30 years, Syria has given the West no credible reason to challenge such an assertion.

In his speech to Congress before the invasion of Iraq, former President W. Bush forthrightly tagged Syria an  indispensable fraction of the three-headed monster he labeled the Axis of Evil – alongside her Middle-Eastern counterparts: Iraq and Iran.  The regime in Iraq has since fallen and no longer deserves such dubious moniker, while that in Iran continues to bask in unapologetic ignominy.

After numerous attempts to coerce the Assad dynasty in Syria into some sort of acceptable moral posture, the West thought it was time to employ a “common-sensical” approach – after all, if sticks are not working, carrots are bound to. Thereby pushing the earlier stated definition of insanity aside and embracing a “sane” approach to things.

When Bashar Al-Assad took over government 11 years ago, after the death of his father, many were giddy (and credibly so) to believe civility might eventually touchdown in Syria.  Unlike his father Hafez Assad who murdered over 10,000 Syrian dissidents close to two decades earlier, Bashar seem to understand the indispensability of decency – leaders wishfully thought.  After all, he’s a product of Western education and has seen firsthand the virtues of human freedom and dignity.

But as the years accumulated on Bashar’s presidency, his unbreakable tie to the shameful government in Iran and the terrorist outfit—Hezbollah—in Lebanon eerily became unshakable.

Still, the Obama administration thought what Assad needed was more cuddling; the Bush administration might have been too frightening in its attempt at cuddle.  So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lauded Assad as a reformer (with no iota of reform visible across the Syrian landscape) and other administration officials followed suite in their praise.  Even President Sarkozy of France made him a guest of honor at a national ceremony commemorating human freedom.

But if we now know anything, Bashar is indeed the son of his father and no amount of Western exposure or cajoling can taint the blood that courses through his veins.

What is happening in Syria today has no other name but plain evil.  That a 13-year-old boy (Hamza Ali al-Khateeb) would be abducted from a group of protesters, electrocuted, jaws and kneecaps shattered, beaten, burned, shot in both arms, penis cut off and his dead body returned to his family after a month speaks to an unfathomable satanic disposition that a million words cannot adequately quantify in this column.

As of today, according to the Turkish government, close to 9,000 Syrians have crossed the border into neighboring Turkey as they flee the scorched earth policy that Assad and his thugs have unleashed on Syrians.

Let it be clear: fear is no longer the incentive it was in Syria.  If anything, it has become a disincentive; dissenting Syrians now know they are marked for death no matter what they do – Assad’s secret police now know their names and families.  Syrians have reached a point of no return.

And I suppose some might claim that this is just a repeat of the events of February 2, 1982 when Hafez Assad gunned down thousands of Syrians who revolted in the town of Hama: Nothing happened then and nothing would happen now is the easy assumption.  But times have changed, 1982 seem like the Stone Age compared to 2011.  The revolutions we have witnessed throughout this Arab Spring were only forceful the way they were because of the power of technology.  When Gaddafi knocked at the gates of Benghazi and was about to obliterate the city, Western powers assumed defensive positions because lives of brave and hapless Libyans have been streaming through our TV screens, Facebook and Twitter feeds. We could feel their pain and aspirations in real time.

Nations thousands of miles from one another other no longer have the deniability that they know not to what extent humanity is being pummeled in any location– technology has made such claims an inexcusable excuse. This is why Assad has refused to allow foreign press into Syria and has aptly clamped down on what images make it out of Syria.

We are now in “uncommon-sensical” territory as we have exasperated all the protocols common sense affords where Bashar al-Assad is concerned.  Sticks and carrots used interchangeably have proved ruinous as the status quo has only become more entrenched. As President Obama said in his speech on the Middle East, President Assad must either lead the reform that must take place in Syria or get out of the way.

I seriously doubt Assad will do the latter — as evidenced by his continued brutal destruction of homes and lives in these past days.  True, the UN cannot exercise the decisiveness it did when catastrophe confronted rebels in Libya. The ramifications of any military intervention in Syria might explode the already volatile atmosphere that persists in the region.  But let us not kid ourselves; diplomacy is taking its final breath on the bed in which it lays in Syria. Diplomacy couldn’t stop Hitler despite the countless concessions he was given in attempts to stave off a holocaust. Coalition intervention in Syria might someday be necessary to prevent senseless mass loss of human life.  It is an eventuality our leaders need to start preparing for – if they are not already – no matter how despicable and unsavory such a proposition might be.

Sure, nations like China will innately turn the blind eye – no one has ever expected one thuggish government to lecture another on the evils of decadence.

I bear no delusion that for real change to come to Syria, Syrians will have to bear the brunt of this struggle – as families across the land are presently doing.  But the international community has a responsibility toward making sure aspirations of those who seek a just and free society are not snuffed out by a merciless few.

This much we owe ourselves.

June 16, 2011 Posted by | International, Socio-Politics | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.