These ‘Giants of Global Africa’ give the lie to negative stereotyping of Africans

Posted on by emandowa

‘Global Africa” is a term popularised by the late Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui and used to refer to African diasporas of enslavement and colonialism, covering the Americas, the Caribbean, Europe and the Indian Ocean.

My recently published Global Africa: Profiles in Courage, Creativity and Cruelty (Jacana) consists of 100 essays, written over the past three post-apartheid decades. They cover historical and political figures, technocrats, activists, writers, public intellectuals, music and film artists and sporting figures.

The essays seek to capture the zeitgeist of the post-apartheid era, arguing that Africa’s liberation struggles were mirrored by similar anti-colonial battles in the Caribbean as well as the American civil rights movement.

The book examines three historical figures: Cecil Rhodes, Mahatma Gandhi and Woodrow Wilson.

Rhodes was the greatest symbol of imperialism during the late 19th century, plundering Africa’s riches by often brutal means while expanding British colonial territory.

Wilson was the US president from 1913 to 1921. His supposedly “liberal” foreign policy entailed imperial “gunboat diplomacy” in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Gandhi has been widely lauded for his role in the liberation of the colonial world. His many racist utterances during his 21 years in South Africa (1893-1914) have, however, recently tarnished his legacy in Africa and beyond.

The book also provides kaleidoscopic profiles of 18 African and eight Western political figures: Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and two of South Africa’s Nobel peace laureates, Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela, as well as Thabo Mbeki, were all actively involved in Africa’s liberation movement as Prophets of the Pan-African Pantheon.

Mbeki was the heir of Nkrumah, with both acting as philosopher-kings seeking to craft a visionary pan-African foreign policy. Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe both contributed greatly to the liberation of southern Africa, but instituted autocratic rule and oversaw catastrophic economic policies. FW de Klerk ruled an undemocratic apartheid state, but embarked on peacemaking with fellow Nobel laureate, Mandela, to usher in democratic rule.

Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo and Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings were autocratic military rulers before becoming elected civilians, though Rawlings remained more popular among his citizens.

South Africa’s Jacob Zuma – dogged by allegations of graft – had a similar cunning “native intelligence” to Obasanjo’s, while controversial Nobel peace laureate, Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (who had funded Liberian warlord Charles Taylor during the country’s civil war in the 1990s), was a technocrat politician.

Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi and Nobel peace laureate Abiy Ahmed both ruled as strong-fisted, intellectual freedom fighters. Zaire’s Western-backed Mobutu Sese Seko’s 31-year rule brought about the very chaos he had repeatedly argued that only he could prevent.

Uganda’s Idi Amin and Kenya’s Daniel arap Moi oversaw tyrannical regimes, mirrored by Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. Libya’s mercurial Muammar Gaddafi suffered from monarchical delusions of grandeur, while promoting a quixotic pan-Africanism.

US Democratic presidents – Bill Clinton and Kenyan-Kansan Nobel peace laureate Barack Obama – were both intelligent, charismatic but ultimately cynical leaders who, respectively, oversaw the forced withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from Rwanda at the height of the 1994 genocide, and the extended militarisation of Africa by the US military in the 2010s. 

American president Donald Trump, British prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy all expressed prejudiced thinking towards Africa. The legacies of two US secretaries of state – Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright – are also assessed.

The perspectives, personalities and performance of 14 global technocrats are then examined: Egypt’s Boutros Boutros-Ghali; Ghana’s Nobel peace laureate Kofi Annan; Nigeria’s Adebayo Adedeji, Ibrahim Gambari, Margaret Vogt, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Eloho Otobo; Algeria’s Lakhdar Brahimi; Tanzania’s Augustine Mahiga; South Africa’s Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Naledi Pandor and Mamphela Ramphele; Argentina’s Raúl Prebisch; and France’s Jean Monnet.

I then turn to the legacies of seven activists from Global Africa: American civil rights stalwarts, Nobel peace laureate Martin Luther King Jr and John Lewis; Kenyan environmental  campaigner Wangari Maathai and her Congolese fellow Nobel laureate, anti-sexual violence campaigner Denis Mukwege (who unsuccessfully ran for his country’s presidency last year); martyred Nigerian environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa; and two martyred South Africans, Ruth First and Solomon Mahlangu.

Two Europeans are highlighted who contributed to Africa’s political (Tor Sellström) and journalistic (Kaye Whiteman) struggles.

I then analyse the rich diversity of African literature, starting with the influence of 19th-century British writer Charles Dickens on the continent’s writers, before profiling Nigeria’s Chinua Achebe, Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, Buchi Emecheta and John Pepper Clark, as well as America’s James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison and bell hooks.

Ten public intellectuals are then showcased who pioneered Africa’s Triple Heritage (Kenya’s Ali Mazrui); Post-Colonial Studies (Palestinian American Edward Said); Négritude Literary Criticism (Nigeria’s Abiola Irele); Post-Colonial African Literary Criticism (Kenya’s Chris Wanjala); the Political Economy of Rebel Movements in Africa (Malawian-Swede Thandika Mkandawire); the Politics of Rural Societies in Africa (Nigeria’s Raufu Mustapha); America’s Prison Industrial Complex (African-American Angela Davis); and the Struggles for Global Reparations (America’s Randall Robinson, Barbadian Hilary Beckles and Nigeria’s Ade Ajayi).

I examine the legacies of seven artistes: Iconoclastic, anti-establishment rebels, Nigeria’s Fela Aníkúlápó Kuti and Jamaica’s Bob Marley; American multiple Grammy-winning superstar Michael Jackson; Bahamian American Oscar-winning actor Sidney Poitier; Nigerian-British Oscar-nominated actress Cynthia Erivo; and Nigerian Grammy-winning Burna Boy and his songbird compatriot, Asa.  

I conclude by assessing the legacies of 21 of the greatest sporting figures in history: Three-time African-American world boxing heavyweight champion and civil rights campaigner Muhammad Ali; Afro-Brazilian three-time World Cup winner Pelé; Mozambican-born European footballer of the year Eusébio; Argentinian World Cup-winning captain Diego Maradona; Africa’s only Ballon d’Or winner, Liberia’s George Weah; five African players of the year: Cameroon’s Samuel Eto’o, Ivorian Didier Drogba, Egypt’s Mohamed Salah, Senegal’s Sadio Mané and Gabon’s Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang; the all-conquering anti-apartheid West Indian cricket team of Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding and Joel Garner; American quadruple Olympic gold medal sprinter Jesse Owens; rugby’s first global superstar, New Zealand’s Jonah Lomu; Spanish tennis phenomenon Rafael Nadal; Nigerian American two-time NBA (National Basketball Association) champion Hakeem Olajuwon; and my late businessman father and sports administrator Israel Adebajo.

With negative stereotyping and widespread Afrophobic views of the continent and its diaspora still so rife in the Western imagination and media, it is critical to counter these views through these giants of Global Africa. DM

Source

Thailand’s ‘Humanitarian Corridor’ for Myanmar Faces Pushback

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Migration & Refugees, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Migration & Refugees

A Myanmar girl, displaced by war, sells cigarettes through the razor-wired border with Thailand near the frontier town of Mae Sot. Thailand is bracing for another influx of refugees. Credit: William Webb/lPS

A Myanmar girl, displaced by war, sells cigarettes through the razor-wired border with Thailand near the frontier town of Mae Sot. Thailand is bracing for another influx of refugees. Credit: William Webb/lPS

MAE SOT, Thailand, Mar 13 2024 (IPS) – The Maung family is rebuilding their lives in a foreign land. A freshly painted signboard with a play on the word Revolution declares their small restaurant is open for business, and breakfast features traditional Myanmar mohinga—rice noodles and fish soup.

Three years ago, the family of four was prospering in the central Myanmar city of Mandalay but suddenly everything changed. The military seized back power from the newly elected government, and thousands of people took to the streets in protest, including the Maungs. A brutal crackdown ensued across Myanmar, the father was arrested and their two restaurants seized.

Since the 2021 coup, the UN estimates some 2.4 million more people have been displaced by conflict across Myanmar, while 78,000 civilian properties, including homes, hospitals, schools, and places of worship, have been burnt or destroyed by the military.

The Maung family was wise to leave Myanmar when they could, and fortunate to survive the hazardous journey eastwards towards the border with Thailand. After spending a year in a border camp for IDPs run by the military wing of the Karen National Union (KNU) in eastern Kayin State, the family managed to cross into the Thai frontier town of Mae Sot to start afresh, even if they exist in a grey zone of legality alongside tens of thousands of others.

More waves of refugees are following in their footsteps.

“We have 750,000 IDPs in our territory,” said a senior official of the KNU, which has been waging the world’s longest civil war against successive Myanmar regimes since 1949. “A year ago, there were 500,000 to 600,000. Numbers are rising because the military is deliberately targeting civilians,” he told IPS in Mae Sot, asking not to be named.

Myanmar refugees in Thailand pick out clothes piled in the street that have been donated in the border town of Mae Sot. Credit: William Webb/IPS

Myanmar refugees in Thailand pick out clothes piled in the street that have been donated in the border town of Mae Sot. Credit: William Webb/IPS

Against this background and wanting to preempt an influx, Thailand’s new coalition government announced its intention last month to open up a ‘humanitarian corridor’ into Myanmar to funnel aid to IDPs and keep them well away from the border.

Thailand’s military—the real arbiter of power in these border regions and holding sway over two parties in the coalition—is haunted by the spectre of past and present examples of chaos through conflict. In the 1980s, Thailand reluctantly hosted several hundred thousand Cambodian refugees, including remnants of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, on its eastern borders. Today it looks west and sees Bangladesh struggling to contain in camps some one million Rohingya refugees forced out of Myanmar in what the UN special rapporteur on human rights called a genocidal campaign by the Myanmar military.

But beyond the ‘humanitarian’ aspect, what has caused anger within the various groups fighting the Myanmar military as well as rights activists, is Thailand’s own admission that its humanitarian corridor proposal is aimed at drawing the regime’s State Administration Council (SAC) into a dialogue that would lead to a negotiated settlement with Myanmar’s diverse resistance forces.

Neither the KNU nor the parallel National Unity Government set up by ousted Myanmar lawmakers after the coup were consulted by Thailand, which received a green light from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Under Thailand’s initiative, aid would be delivered initially to 20,000 IDPs by the Thai Red Cross and the Myanmar Red Cross (whose senior administrators are former military officers) and monitored by ASEAN’s Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management, where the Myanmar junta also has a presence.

“Aid is used everywhere in the world as a political entry point,” the KNU official commented. “This is not a pure humanitarian issue. They want to bring the SAC out of isolation. This is very problematic for us.”

A senior NUG official, also based in Thailand, was similarly concerned by the political intentions behind the proposal.  “It’s a desperate measure by ASEAN seeking a semblance of negotiated peace and dialogue,” he told IPS.

The official doubted it would get off the ground in its present form without the support of the Karen forces that control large areas of Kayin State, nor without the full backing of the US.

The US values its long-held strategic ties with Thailand and its military, and Thai Foreign Minister Parnpree Bahiddha-Nukara returned from Washington last month, declaring that he had secured complete US support for the initiative, although the US public statement appeared more cautious.

Human rights activists and humanitarian workers on the Thai-Myanmar border remain highly sceptical of the initiative, denouncing it as a “weaponization of aid”.

Thailand, they note, has never officially recognized the refugee status of nearly 100,000 people living in nine UNHCR camps along the Thai-Myanmar border since the 1990s.

“This is not about providing humanitarian aid to the people of Myanmar. It is about giving a new lifeline to the junta to re-engage with ASEAN and everybody else,” commented Paul Greening, a former UN senior staff officer and now independent consultant in Mae Sot.

“Neighbours and other international actors, including the US and China, do not want the junta to fall. They do not want the junta to win but they do not want it to fall either. This is why they all want a ‘negotiated settlement’,” he said.

Igor Blazevic, a senior adviser at the Prague Civil Society Centre who previously worked in Myanmar, said a “carrot” was being held out to the Myanmar regime at a time when it was “seriously weakened and shaken” after losing large areas of territory to resistance forces both in Rakhine State in the west and in Shan State close to China.

“A political aim behind the ‘humanitarian initiative’ is the intention to treat genocidal power-usurpers in uniform as the inevitable and unavoidable key factor in Myanmar’s ‘stability’ and with combination of soft pressure and humanitarian incentives, try to force everybody else to surrender, in a soft way, to ongoing military dominance in politics and the economy,” Blazevic wrote in a commentary.

With the UN warning that nearly two million people in Myanmar are expected to fall into the “highest category of needs severity (catastrophic)” this year, the resistance is aware that they will come under intense international pressure not to reject the Thai initiative.

Recent developments indicate Thailand may rethink its proposal, however. It has opened channels with the KNU and the NUG to discuss their involvement in facilitating aid deliveries through Myanmar civil society organisations independent of the regime. Word has it that the Myanmar Red Cross is not that keen to be directly involved, knowing it is too close to the regime to be able to safely deliver aid to those who have suffered atrocities at its hands.

For the Maung family and their small eatery in Mae Sot, a dream would be to return to Mandalay and Myanmar in peace. But they have little hope of such an outcome, nor do they really want to remain in Thailand, along with over two million other Myanmar workers, classified as migrants, not refugees.

For the moment, life revolves around navigating Thailand’s complex and often corrupt system to secure papers that would give them a degree of legitimacy and enable them to move beyond Mae Sot and surrounding Tak Province. A possible lifeline is an ethnic Chinese branch of their family with members in Taiwan.

“Taiwan could be our future,” says the elder of two daughters, who still dreams of going to university. “I can learn Chinese,” she says, in excellent English.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source