The irrelevance of the African Union

[Somalina]

[Qaranki]

The Zack;703503 wrote:

A look at Africa's remaining 'Big Men,' leaders who refuse to surrender power

 

AP

Friday, March 18, 2011

 

The following is a list of Africa's remaining "Big Men" — the leaders who refuse to surrender power, and their sons.

 

Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea, 69 — Took power in a bloody coup in 1979.

 

Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, 68 — President since 1979. Promised elections from 2006 until last year, when a new constitution abolished presidential balloting. The leader of the party that wins most parliament seats becomes president.

 

Denis Sassou-Nguesso of Republic of Congo, 67 — President from 1979 until a 1992 election defeat, seized power again in 1997 with help from Angolan troops.

 

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, 87 — Elected 1980 after a seven-year war for black rule. Refused to accept a 2008 election defeat and is pushing to end a shaky unity government coalition.

 

Paul Biya of Cameroon, 77 — President since 1982. Has won questionable elections since 1992. Changed constitution so he can run again this year.

 

Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, about 66 — President since 1986 when he took power as a rebel leader and ended a civil war. Refused to hold elections until 1996. Most recently reelected March 9 in elections opposition claims were rigged.

 

King Mswati III of Swaziland, 42 — Succeeded his father in 1986. The last absolute monarch in the world.

 

Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso, 60 — Took power from his best friend, assassinated in the 1987 palace coup. Changed the constitution limiting presidential terms. Holds elections whose results are disputed by a fragmented msg opposition.

 

Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, 67 — Led a bloodless coup in 1989. First sitting head of state indicted by the International Criminal Court, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

 

Idriss Deby of Chad, 59 or 60 — Seized power in a 1990 coup. Eliminated constitutional term limits to contest questionable elections. Faces voters in April.

 

Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, 55 — Part of a rebel group that ended a civil war in 1991. Elected in 1995. Has held questionable elections marred by riots and bloodshed.

 

Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea, 65 — Led the Eritrean rebel movement that helped end Ethiopia's civil war in 1991 and ushered in Eritrea's independence, with him as president, in 1993. Says he expects to live another 40 to 50 years and Eritrea may hold elections in 30 or 40 years.

 

Paul Kagame of Rwanda, 53 — Led rebels who ended Rwanda's genocide in 1994. Elected since 2000 in elections from which all meaningful opponents have been barred.

 

Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, 45 — Took power in a 1994 coup and vows to never leave. Tribal chieftains are campaigning to make him king.

 

Ismail Omar Guelleh of Djibouti, 67 — Elected 1999 to continue a 30-year family dynasty. Changed constitution so he can run for a third term in April.

 

Faure Gnassingbe of Togo, 44 — Won disputed 2005 elections to succeed his father, who ruled for 38 years.

 

Ali Bongo of Gabon, 52 — Won 2009 elections amid charges of vote-rigging and violent protests after the death of his father, who had ruled since 1967.

 

Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, 65 — Assumed office in 2000 after elections barring leading opponents. Lost 2010 elections but refuses to step down.

Basically this is why nobody will take Africa serious on any issue.

[Jacaylbaro]

And still, some people are opposing the western countries for "obvious reasons" ...............

[Bashiir]

The Guardian Iran has joined in the fray. A missive from Tehran says Western attacks are a neo-colonial attempt to gain control over Libyan oil.

 

Although the Iranian has voiced support for the uprising against Gaddafi, in what it called an "Islamic awakening" in the Arab world, it says Libyans should not trust Western military intervention.

 

These countries enter usually with seductive slogans of supporting the people but they follow their own interests in ruling the countries and continuing colonialism in a new form," said Ramin Mehmanparast, a foreign ministry spokesman, according to the Isna, the students' news agency.

 

"The records and the actions of the dominant countries in occupying oppressed countries means their intentions in such moves are always in doubt.

 

Although Iran has taken a zero-tolerance approach to any protests at home, Mehmanparast said the Iranian position "is always to support the people and defend their legitimate demands."

[Bashiir]

Protesters at an anti-war rally in Los Angeles - marking eight years to the day since US-led operations against Iraq began - oppose any "US/UN war on Libya".

 

 

[Picture: GALLO/GETTY]

[Che -Guevara]

Som@li;703539 wrote:

The African Union is for sure teethless

Every organization is toothless unless propelled by those with money and firearm.

[Thankful]

Seems the Arab league (like the AU) are reluctant to see greedy western nations attacking a resource rich nation!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html

 

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya

Video: The Pentagon held a briefing about operation "Odyssey Dawn." Vice Admiral William Gortney gave statement on the specific goals of the operation and took questions from the media. (March 19)

 

By Edward Cody, Sunday, March 20, 1:01 PM

 

CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya on Sunday and said he would call a new league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.

 

 

Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to embrace the intense bombing and missile attacks—including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces—that have filled Arab television screens for the last two days.

 

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement on the official Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

 

Moussa’s declaration suggested some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, Middle Eastern leaders and their peoples traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.

 

A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would constitute an important setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

 

As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Fidel Castro of Cuba condemned the intervention and suggested Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.

 

Russia and China, which abstained on the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention, also expressed regret that Western powers had chosen to get involved despite their advice.

 

In the Middle East, the abiding power of popular distrust against Western intervention was evident despite the March 12 Arab League decision. It was not clear how many Arab governments shared the hesitations voiced by Moussa. But so far only the Western-oriented Gulf emirate of Qatar has announced it would participate despite Western efforts to enlist Arab military forces into the campaign.

 

The Qatari prime minister, Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani, told reporters Qatar made its decision in order to “stop the bloodbath” that he said Gaddafi was inflicting on rebel forces and civilians in rebel-controlled cities. He did not describe the extent of Qatar’s military involvement or what the mission of Qatari aircraft or personnel would be alongside U.S., French and British planes and ships that have carried out the initial strikes.

 

Islam Lutfy, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, said he opposed the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. “The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests,” he added.

 

But the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in the Youth Coalition that spearheaded Egypt’s recent upheavals took no official position, busy instead with Saturday’s referendum on constitutional amendments designed to open the country’s democracy. Similarly, the provisional military-run government took no stand and most Cairo newspapers gave only secondary space to the Libya conflict.

 

When the Arab League approved imposition of a no-fly zone, only Syria and Algeria opposed the league’s decision, according to Egyptian officials. The Syrian Foreign Ministry on Thursday reiterated Syria’s opposition, as diplomatic momentum gathered for the U.S.-European operation.

 

“Syria rejects all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs, since that would be a violation of Libya’s sovereignty, independence and the unity of its land,” it said in a statement.

 

Al Qaeda, which could be expected to oppose foreign intervention in an Arab country and embrace Gaddafi’s qualification of the campaign as a new crusade, made no immediate comment. This likely was due in part to the Qaeda leadership’s difficulty in communicating without revealing its position. But it also was a reminder of Gaddafi’s frequent assertions that Al Qaeda was behind the Libyan revolt and that he and the West should work hand-in-hand to defeat the rebels.

 

Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies in Lebanon’s Hezbollah, reflexively opposed to Western influence in the Middle East, also were forced into a somewhat equivocal position, condemning Gaddafi for his bloody tactics but opposing the Western military intervention.

 

“The fact that most Arab and Muslim leaders did not take responsibility opened the way for Western intervention in Libya,” declared Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, in video speech Sunday to his followers. “This opens the way for foreign interventions in every Arab country. It brings us back to the days of occupation, colonization and partition.”

 

At the same time, Nasrallah accused Gaddafi of using the same brutality against his opponents as Israel has used against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

 

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, which previously criticized Gaddafi’s crackdown, on Sunday expressed “doubts” about U.S. and European intentions. Like the Latin American critics, it suggested the claims of wanting to protect civilians were just a cover for a desire to install a more malleable leadership in Tripoli and make it easier to exploit Libya’s oil.

 

Gaddafi has been on the enemies’ list of Shiite activists in the Middle East since 1978, when Lebanon’s paramount Shiite leader, Imam Musa Sudr, disappeared during a fund-raising visit to Tripoli. His fate has never been officially cleared up but Palestine Liberation Organization investigators determined that he was probably killed by Gaddafi’s security agents after they misunderstood an order from Gaddafi to “get rid of” Sudr and his pestering for money.

[Bashiir]

Hugo Chavez, who has enjoyed good relations with Muammar Gaddafi in the past, has been condemning what he called "indiscriminate bombing" by the US, Britain and others.

 

"What madness. ... It's imperial madness," said the Venezuelan President.

 

The Associated Press reports on his comments, made during his weekly television and radio program:

 

Chavez demanded the airstrikes be halted and echoed claims of civilian victims by the Libyan government, which said 48 people were killed.

 

"Civilian victims have now begun to appear because some bombs are launched 200, 400 bombs from out there at sea and those bombs fall where they fall," Chavez added.

 

"Libya is under imperial fire. Nothing justifies this," Chavez said, holding up a newspaper showing an explosion on the front page.

 

"Indiscriminate bombing," he said. "Who gave those countries the right? Neither the United States, nor France, nor England, nor any country has the right to be dropping bombs."

 

Chavez said African Union leaders were meeting in Mauritania to discuss the conflict.

 

"That's what must be done, and going there to talk with the parties in the conflict, but not launching bombs, more bombs, more death," Chavez said.

 

"We pray to God for peace in Libya."

[Peace Action]

It is easy to oppose western intervention in Libya but if you lived under the brutal dictatorship of Mad Dog Qaddafi for 42 years and the wanton killing thousands of people because they did not want him as their leader, you will welcomed any help for protection agains this crazy maniac. Today the people of Benghazi, Misurata and Zawiyah are grateful for this intervention and carrying the flags of Britain, France and USA.

[Bashiir]

Iraq's government has expressed support for international efforts to "protect Libyan people," a spokesman said, according to Reuters.

[Suldaanka]

The African Union's Lamentations Speak Volumes (Part I)

 

 

Tumultuous events currently tearing apart some countries on the continent have exposed the weaknesses of the continental body—African Union (AU)—and revealed why the international community would choose to do things with impunity on the continent.

 

What makes other continental or regional blocs strong and assertive but not the AU? The European Union is a force to reckon with, just as other blocs in North/South America are. Why is the AU disrespected and sidelined? The reasons are not difficult to adduce. In every sense, the AU is a non-starter, serving as a mere talk-shop, not the vibrant force that it has been expected to be since the birth of the OAU in 1963.

 

The African Union Commission Chair, Jean Ping, is reported to have said that the African Union feels completely ignored by world bodies in the quest to restore peace in conflict-ridden Libya. Ping said efforts by the AU to intervene in the early days of the Libyan crisis were curtailed by the UN Security Council and since then the regional body has been left out of peace talks on Libya.

 

“All our programmes which I mentioned to you were stopped by the decision of the UN Security Council. We were supposed to go to Libya on the 18th in Tripoli and on the 19th to Benghazi. Then the decision of the Security Council came. We asked permission to go too, they say don't go. So we stopped going there,” he said.

 

He said a meeting was scheduled in Paris with the AU but nothing has been heard ever since, even though ministers of western countries on their own have made attempts to resolve the crisis in Cairo. “Nobody talk to us; no body consult us” he lamented.

 

Why should anybody talk to or listen to the AU, knowing very well what it is? The AU can't help the continent solve its problems and seems to have lost public confidence. No amount of lamentation will change matters for the better.

 

In the first place, Africa is the only continent on earth that always has problems for the world to solve. If it is not poverty, disease, and civil war, then, it is corruption and political instability. From all corners of the continent, there is news of disaster. Since African countries gained independence from their colonial masters, they have been ravaged by all kinds of disasters—bloody civil wars, self-serving politics, military intervention in politics and consequent political instability, famine, genocide, ineradicable bribery and corruption, the brain-drain syndrome, and many other indescribable occurrences that threaten to revive the infamous calumny of the continent by the Europeans as the “Dark Continent.”

 

Yes, Jean Ping may be complaining bitterly about this slight but he has to know that in the community of continents, Africa is still regarded as a toddler. Who will leave responsibilities for a toddler to handle?

 

African countries look up to the international community to either supervise or monitor their internal political processes and general elections. If the AU were vibrant enough to perform its functions, it would have assisted in such efforts? After all, the AU's own charter has the following: “The 2000 Solemn Declaration on the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation,” which established “the fundamental principles for the promotion of Democracy and Good Governance in the Continent.”

 

The atrocities that occasioned the elections in Kenya come to mind. Then, the impasse in the Ivory Coast, which is tearing apart that country stand tall for attention. All over the continent, pockets of conflict exist. It appears Africans are more prone to creating problems than solving them. Clearly, no one even trusts any African country's internal political structures to conduct incident-free and credible elections.

 

The AU hasn't ever been known to be pro-active. It lacks the capacity to detect potential conflict situations and can't even tackle them at their inchoate stage until they get out-of-hand. So, when the world bodies step in to help solve those problems, should the AU expect them to defer to it? They will not because they know that as presently designed and constituted, the AU can't be relied on to do what we assume are its responsibilities. The AU is a waste-pipe, serving as a burdensome job-for-the-boys bureaucratic structure.

 

In all honesty, can the AU point to any single major achievement that should warrant its demand for respect and recognition by the world bodies? I shudder to say that nothing recommends the OAU/AU as such. And here are some reasons why:

 

• The ideological conflict between the so-called conservatives (the Casablanca Group ) and the radicals (the so-called Monrovia Group) that undergirded the birth of the OAU seemed to have done much harm to the Union; and that harm still hurts it. The various organs of the AU are mere paper-tigers. They don't function to make their impact felt on the continent. Where they do, they seem to compound problems instead.

 

• Lack of leadership—Who in the AU can be equated to leaders of countries in the West or elsewhere as a capable leader whose policies and actions provide the impetus for development?

 

• Lack of credibility—the AU represents a continent that is still regarded by the white man as his “problem.” Long after decolonization, some African countries (especially the Francophone ones) still owe more allegiance to the colonial master (France) than to the AU, which impedes unity.

 

• Under-development despite the availability of all the resources that should make the continent a heaven-on-earth for its citizens—cocoa, gold, diamond, uranium, bauxite, copper, timber, human resources, abundant water resources, rich tourism resources, arable land, etc.

 

• Excruciating poverty, debilitating diseases, brain drain, civil wars, political instability, paralyzing corruption, etc.

 

• Lack of vision—political office holders enter office only to enrich themselves at the expense of the system. Africa is riddled with human-created problems that don't make the continent credit-worthy. And the AU superintends over this sordid situation. No one will respect such an institution and allow it to spearhead efforts.

 

Member-states of the AU and its predecessor (OAU) have never spoken with a single voice because they have never agreed on any common agenda to move the continent forward. No reliable structure exists to propel collective and concerted action. Politically, different systems exist; economically, there is no integration even though almost all the countries produce similar primary commodities; socio-culturally, the diversity seems to be problematic and generates tension all over the continent. The problems are ambient. Yet, the AU seems to have lost its bearings and has no sense of urgency in finding solutions.

 

To be continued…

 

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com