Origins of Zimbabwe Sanctions

Origins of Zim sanctions

By Golden Guvamatanga
Courtesy of the Zimbabwe Herald

MDC-T have got President Mugabe’s political maturity, astuteness and intellectual prowess — which scaled new heights recently — to thank when he partially saved them from the political embarrassment of admitting they could not get the sanctions they called for to be lifted.

The President, in his typical exhibition of political wisdom, told Reuters on the sidelines of the recently held United Nations General Assembly that he was giving the Obama administration time to reflect on the sanctions regime they inherited from the war monger Bush.

By stating this position, President Mugabe was also giving MDC-T a window period to search their consciences on the role they played in getting sanctions imposed.

It is understandable that Obama’s hands are tied because sanctions can only be lifted by Congress, which is a process and not an event.

President Mugabe also said the same in his annual independence interview with ZBC on 17 April, 2009, when he said we should be patient with MDC-T over sanctions.

It is understandably difficult for MDC-T to go back and lobby for the lifting of the illegal embargo.

As Zimbabweans, we all believe MDC-T wants the sanctions — which PM Tsvangirai prefers to call restrictive measures — to go quickly but things are not that easy.

However, there are people in MDC-T who in recent weeks have been trying to run away from their shadows by either denying the existence of sanctions or by denying their imposition.

But President Mugabe gave both them and the US a chance to redeem themselves and it is hoped that this is an opportunity they will not spurn.

This is moreso for Obama who has just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Under normal circumstances the sanctions removal lobby should be MDC-T’s sole responsibility because we all know what role they played in their imposition.

MDC-T, ably supported by their friends in the West has been at pains in trying to deny the existence of sanctions by calling them “restrictive measures”.

They have literally been stepping over each other, going on the defensive, apparently trying to suppress the shame that comes with exposure where one’s past deeds return to haunt them.

Despite these spirited denials, which smack of political immaturity and dishonesty, the hard-hitting fact and stark reality of this whole sanctions issue is that they are real and they are causing untold suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.

Denying their existence does not minimise the suffering they cause.

A brief history will help readers understand why this country, tiny and innocent as it is, is burdened with the heavy load of such punitive measures as sanctions.

This is the story.

Upon the realisation that the West could not take over power through the MDC-T as they had thought, they decided — with MDC-T’s complicity — to put the country under sanctions.

MDC-T set foot on almost every city in Europe and the United States calling for their imposition so that the people of Zimbabwe would turn against President Mugabe, which would result in his removal from power.

They blindly thought that the sanctions would swiftly result in their lightning ascendancy to power.

Those with political foresight warned the agitated Americans and the West from punishing the innocent souls of Zimbabwe.

One such person is US legislator Cynthia McKinney who said in 2001: “Those who knew did not want to admit the truth and those who didn’t know should have known — that land was stolen from its indigenous people through the British South Africa Company and that any “titles” to it were illegal and invalid.

“Whatever the reason for this silence, the answer to this question is the unspoken but real reason for why the USA Congress is now squeezing an economically devastated African state under the hypocritical guise of providing a ‘transition’ to democracy.”

McKinney went on: “I have not heard anyone proposing a United States Democracy Act following last year’s presidential electorate debacle. (That saw George Bush elected US president by a Republican judge despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 400 000 votes).

“And if a foreign country were to pass legislation calling for the United States Democracy Act which provided funding for the United States opposition parties under the fig leaf of ‘voter education’, this body and this country would not stand for it.

“When we get right down to it, this legislation (ZDERA) is nothing more than a formal declaration of the USA’s complicity in a programme to maintain white skin privilege.

“We can call it an ‘incentive Bill’ but that does not change its essential sanctions nature. It is racist and against the interests of the masses of Zimbabwe. In the long run ZDERA will work against the USA having a mutually beneficial relationship with Africa.”

What should be known to the readers also is that the imposition of the sanctions against Zimbabwe was as a result of the West’s anger over the Fast-Track Land Reform Programme that President Mugabe initiated in 2000.

The West was never going to accept reality that this country had its owners and they would not be stopped by anyone in asserting this fact.

Further to this, the US would stop at nothing at nipping this self-assertion in the bud — at whatever cost.

This was confirmed by the former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker, who in September 2001 called for the annihilation of the Zimbabwe economy by imploring the US Senate to “separate the Zimbabwe people from Robert Mugabe, we are to make the economy scream. And I hope you senators have stomach for it”.

Having looked at the history of sanctions it is now of paramount importance to look at the impact of the sanctions against the country.

Section 4(c) of ZDERA states: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against:

a) “Any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe”, or

b) “Any cancellation or reduction of indebtness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.”

Through the enactment of the sanctions the country was put under the spotlight for the wrong reasons through the gross misrepresentation of facts on the ground by the Western media.

Zimbabwe was portrayed by BBC, CNN, Sky and other television stations as a war zone.

Zimbabweans were said to be eating rats by the Western media.

Successive droughts did not help our cause either but everything was blamed on President Mugabe.

In August 2008 a serious cholera outbreak hit the country and again it was blamed on President Mugabe.

Travel warnings hit the tourism industry.

Zimbabwe was shunned by potential investors, which affected our economy.

People like Prime Minister Tsvangirai, Finance Minister Tendai Biti, MDC-T spokesperson Nelson Chamisa, Tichaona Sibanda of the “genocide in Zimbabwe” fame and clown priest John Sentamu among others almost became permanent features of the BBC.

They were said to be presenting the “real” Zimbabwean situation through statements that only made the situation worse.

Companies shut down, workers were laid off and hospitals ran out of drugs.

And in the midst of all this President Mugabe and loyal nationalists like Dr Gideon Gono soldiered on.

The Americans even hypocritically offered Dr Gono’s a job at the World Bank!

The visible effects of the sanctions came to the attention of the progressive forces of the world who collectively sought to lobby for their removal.

At regional, continental and gatherings, the debilitating effects the sanctions were acknowledged, but some people still insist they are “targeted” or “restrictive measures”.

It is important to take stock of possible reasons of why MDC-T and the West are not in a hurry to have sanctions removed.

Firstly, it could be because they have realised — like many people in the world — that they were wrong from the word go and are embarrassed to backtrack.

Biti appeared to have realised the gravity of their error when in a May 4 interview with SW Radio he said: “The World Bank has right now billions and billions of dollars that we have to access, but we can’t access those dollars unless we have dealt with and normalised our relations with IMF.”

We cannot normalise relations with IMF because ZDERA ensures that Americans block any co-operation.

When Tsvangirai went to take the West to solicit funding for the inclusive Government, he was told of “reforms” and “benchmarks”.

Now the “reforms” and “benchmarks” have morphed into “outstanding issues”.

Secondly, MDC-T and the West refuse to accept that what are in place are sanctions and not “restrictive measures”.

In essence, they are telling us that the sanctions are here to stay because they will only deal with “restrictive measures”.

On September 10, 2009, the recently tax duty-freed Western propaganda tool called The Zimbabwean published an interview held by another propaganda tool — SW Radio — in which Violet Gonda talked to a Geoffrey van Orden, who is a member of the European Parliament.

Van Orden shamelessly and hypocritically claimed that Zimbabwe was not under sanctions.

He said: “Well first of all, let us be clear there aren’t any sanctions on Zimbabwe right? And there never have been. The sanctions, the restrictive (note restrictive measures) are against a small number of leading elements in the regime in Zimbabwe . . .”

On September 4, 2009, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Gorden Moyo denied the existence of sanctions, calling them “restrictive measures”.

Then came the revelation.

On September 15, 2009, ZBC TV’s programme Melting Pot then accorded Zimbabweans an opportunity to hear it for themselves as MDC-T Senator Obert Gutu and MDC’s Gabriel Chaibva talked about sanctions among other issues.

The debate nearly degenerated into a pub brawl as Chaibva threatened to expose the real authors of ZDERA.

He said the people were in MDC-T and are occupying top positions both in the party and in the inclusive Government.

These are probably the same people being paid US$7 000 salaries by the World Bank for working in the PM’s Office.

What is important here is the fact that some of the people who called for the imposition of sanctions are pretending to be representing the interests of the majority when they are actually perpetuating their suffering.

Now, in light of these points what can be done to make sure that Zimbabwe is freed from sanctions?

There are two options.

First is to shun the West’s interference in our domestic affairs like what President Mugabe highlighted in his address at the just-ended 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in the United States.

Regrettably, while countries in Sadc have made great sacrifices and given Zimbabwe financial and other support at a time when they too are reeling from the effects of the global economic crisis, the West has refused to remove them.

Indeed, some of them are working strenuously to divide the parties in the inclusive Government (like what the World Bank is doing through their parallel government initiative).

President Mugabe went on to give them a stern warning when he said: “If they will not assist the inclusive Government in rehabilitating our economy, could they please stop their filthy clandestine divisive antics.”

Need I say more when the President has spoken so clearly?

President Mugabe has eased MDC-T’s task by giving them and the West time to review their actions.

Zimbabweans have to push for MDC-T to engage the West to remove sanctions.

We hope they take President Mugabe’s message seriously and use this opportunity wisely.

The same way they asked for sanctions is the same way they should ask for them to go.

We continue to pray for our nation so that we may all see the light.

Long live Zimbabwe!

Energy policy changes are needed to hit key ‘green’ targets, Government told

Urgent policy changes are needed to encourage the £200bn development of wind farms, nuclear power and other forms of renewable energy to reduce costs and carbon emissions the Government was told yesterday.

By Roland GribbenPublished: 7:47PM BST 12 Oct 2009

The Committee on Climate Change made it clear that without intervention in the market place to change pricing rules and provide other incentives to accelerate development of low cost, low carbon generation, the Government risks missing one of its key ‘green’ targets.
Lord Turner, chairman and the other members of the independent committee, echo warnings from Ofgem, the gas and electricity industry regulator, about the “significant costs and risks” linked to the huge investment needed in renewable energy to reduce emissions from electricity plants by 50pc. The committee’s annual report to parliament says the renewable risks and costs should not be accepted.

It wants the Government to consider a range of options for intervention in the power market. The report says support for selected technologies should be extended to cover the full range of renewable and low carbon power systems to cut costs and ease worries about supply security.
The committee questions whether the market will deliver the forecast 30,000 megawatts of onshore and offshore wind power, two or three new nuclear power plants and four pilot clean coal stations needed to replace dirty energy with clean energy by 2020 to meet emission targets without a policy rethink. Suggestions include strengthening carbon price signals and extending the exemption from the climate change levy to all new low carbon energy sources.
The report acknowledges changing market rules could take time but says discussions with energy companies, analysts and academics suggest the current set-up will not deliver a low carbon power generation system through the 2020s. The committee expresses particular concern about the development of wind power, clean coal and warns of the risks of power suppliers opting to build more gas-fired plants using imported fuel unless the uncertainties are addressed.
Offshore wind generation could be handicapped by weaknesses in the turbine market. The market for sub-sea cables is said to be undeveloped while only two of the 12 vessels needed to instal wind turbines by 2020 are operational.
It is estimated £15bn will be needed to develop an offshore transmission network to carry the power generated by a more ambitious wind power programme. The committee is relatively relaxed about the timetable for the modest nuclear power programme but is concerned about the risks of planning, regulatory delays and shortages of specialist staff.
The Tory Party has tried to distance itself from reports that Lord Turner, (right) chairman of the FSA and an adviser to Gordon Brown, is being lined up for a senior Bank of England appointment if they win the next election. A spokesman said George Osborne, shadow chancellor, “Has absolutely not started handing out jobs to anyone.”

Clean coal dealt second blow as Danish energy giant pulls out of Scottish plans

Dong Energy withdraws from 1.6GW Hunterston power station scheme just days after E.ON shelves Kingsnorth
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009 17.24 BST
Plans for a new generation of “clean coal” power stations were dealt another severe blow after the Danish energy giant Dong Energy announced it was pulling out of plans for a major new coal-fired plant in Ayrshire.
Dong said it was withdrawing from the 1.6GW Hunterston power station scheme, which would eventually use carbon capture technology, and a further coal-fired plant in Germany, to focus its efforts on green energy and cutting its CO2 emissions.
The decision raises further doubts about the future of UK and Scottish government plans to invest heavily in “clean coal” plants after the energy firm E.ON said last week it was shelving proposals for a new coal-burning station at Kingsnorth in Kent. It cited the drop in demand for power due to the recession.
The news caps a dizzying few days for environmentalists, with an announcement at the weekend from airports operator BAA that put plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport in severe doubt. BAA said that it would not submit a planning application for the development ahead of the general election. If the Conservatives win the next general election that will effectively kill the project because the party has said they will include a manifesto commitment not to expand Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.
Dong, which brands itself as a climate-friendly power company, said that the economics of coal were too difficult for it to invest in new plants. Its withdrawal raises significant problems for the junior partner in the 50:50 joint venture at Hunterston, the Manchester-based property company and airport operator Peel Holdings.
It has invested in windfarms and has a 24% stake in the mining company UK Coal but it has never built a coal-fired power station. Environment campaigners and the Scottish Green party urged Peel to completely drop the proposal.
Liz Murray, Scottish campaigner for the World Development Movement, said: “It’s clearer than ever that dirty coal is a risky investment. Energy companies are finding it impossible to justify such climate-trashing developments.”
Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said: “The Hunterston coal proposal was the wrong sort of scheme in the wrong place. It would have locked us into major climate change emissions for three or four decades, long past the time when we need to have kicked our addiction to burning coal.”
E.ON’s decision last week suggests the energy industry is unwilling to risk fresh investments in coal but Peel insisted it would continue with the application. Dong would continue giving it technical advice, said Owen Michaelson, chairman of Peel Energy.
“We can all appreciate the business drivers behind this decision,” he said. “We are sorry to lose Dong Energy as an investor on this project but are pleased the relationship will continue through their design services.”
“Ayrshire Power’s [the company formed by Dong and Peel Energy to build Hunterston] overall strategy for the project is unaffected by this decision. We have just completed the latest stage of our public consultations with the local community and other key stakeholders and we now look forward to continuing to progress through the planning process.”
The UK energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has insisted no new coal-fired plants can be built in England without the capacity to use carbon capture and storage technology which will bury waste CO2. Environmentalists say this is unacceptable, as the technique is unlikely to be available until 2020.
The Scottish first minister Alex Salmond has publicly backed the Hunterston proposal, since it too would have the capacity to use CCS technology and would allow Scotland to entirely phase out nuclear power.
The Dong plant would sit beside Hunterston nuclear power station, which is due to shut down its last reactor in 2016. The Scottish government has given Hunterston significant support by adding to its national planning framework, which allows it to sidestep local planning rules.

Electoral reform could save the climate

Green groups such as Greenpeace could benefit if open primaries were used to select candidates
Nicholas Milton
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009 14.00 BST
The Greenpeace activists occupying the roof of the Houses of Parliament are calling for a “new style of politics in Britain, one capable of rising to meet the challenge of climate change”. But instead should they be calling for electoral reform to save the climate?
Greenpeace has put up banners saying “change the politics, save the climate”. But it is the scandal around expenses that will be uppermost in MPs minds on their first day back, not the climate. However, the fallout from the row could yet produce a future intake of politicians who put the needs of the planet above loyalty to party.
If the scores of candidates who are likely to replace departing MPs are selected not by their constituency party or party lists but by open primaries, then it could be a real opportunity for those who care about the climate to put up candidates.
There are already encouraging signs that this may happen. In August the Tories announced the winner of the first ever open postal vote of an entire constituency in Totnes. The result was not a career politician or one of the usual suspects but a doctor, Sarah Wollaston.
Many big hitters in the Labour party have recently shown their support for open primaries. They include Ken Livingstone, who has backed them to elect the next mayor of London and the Tottenham MP David Lammy, who has called for them in every London borough. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, has also backed the cause, arguing the case in cabinet as part of the answer to the cynicism surrounding politics and falling party membership.
For open primaries to really engage with the electorate, political parties must not just use them as a way of deflecting public anger but instead ensure they are rooted in the community and open to anyone and everyone. This comes at a cost. It is estimated that the open primary in Totnes cost the Tories about £40,000 to organise. But in the greater scheme of things this seems a small price to pay to regain the public’s trust and participation in politics. Building the cost of open primaries into future discussions about the state funding of political parties and election campaigns could be an option.
If open primaries were used to replace departing MPs then there is no reason why environmental activists like those on the roof of the House of Commons wouldn’t be elected to parliament, as well as people from many different walks of life. In return, Greenpeace and other environmental organisations should encourage their members to participate in the democratic process rather than shout from the rooftops.
As a former campaigner with Greenpeace I’ve participated in many actions and understand only too well its antipathy towards politics and politicians. But with more than five million members, green groups could be one of the major beneficiaries of such electoral reform. While many of them are constrained by rules governing charities, their members vote and many may be prepared to back candidates who put the climate at the centre of their campaign.
For example the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than a million members and the National Trust has more than three and a half million members. In the case of the trust this is the equivalent to the population of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow and Sheffield combined. And it has already declared that it wants to become “the largest green movement in the world” and put its members in the front line against climate change. Applying this electoral muscle in open primaries could well help to swing the vote, particularly in constituencies where climate change is a big issue, such as those with nuclear or coal-fired power stations.
The Greenpeace action is timely, coming just two months before Copenhagen and as the climate talks in Bangkok having broken down in acrimony. The Committee on Climate Change has also published a report saying a “step change” in emissions cuts is needed.
Sadly, I suspect the only questions that will be asked in the House about the protest will be regarding Westminster security. Yet if parliament advocated genuinely open primaries and they were embraced by the environmental movement, the banners in future could read “join in politics, save the climate”.

Nkrumah and Ghana’s Independence Struggle

Nkrumah and Ghana’s independendence struggle

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire

Over 100 years ago on Sept. 21, 1909, Kwame Nkrumah, the founder and leader of the African independence movement and the foremost advocate of Pan-Africanism during his time, was born in the western Nzima region of the Gold Coast, later known as the independent state of Ghana.

Nkrumah was the first head of state of an independent post-colonial nation in Africa south of the Sahara, after he led Ghana to national liberation under the direction of the Convention Peoples Party in 1957. Educated at the historically Black college of Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, Nkrumah became involved in the Pan-African movement in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s as a leading member of the African Students Association, the Council on African Affairs, as well as other organizations.

After leaving the United States at the conclusion of World War II in 1945, he played a leading role in convening the historic Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England—a gathering that many credit with laying the foundation for the mass struggles for independence during the 1940s and 1950s.

During his stay in England from 1945 to 1947, he collaborated with George Padmore of Trinidad, a veteran activist in the international communist movement and a journalist who wrote extensively on African affairs. Nkrumah was offered a position with the United Gold Coast Convention as an organizer in late 1947 and made the critical decision to return to the Gold Coast to assist in the anti-colonial struggle that was intensifying in the aftermath of World War II.

After being imprisoned with other leaders of the UGCC for supposedly inciting unrest among veterans, workers and farmers in the colony, he gained widespread popularity among the people, who responded enthusiastically to his militant and fiery approach to the burgeoning anti-imperialist movement. After forming the Committee on Youth Organization, which became the best organized segment of the UGCC, Nkrumah was later isolated from the top leadership of the Convention, who objected to his demands for immediate political independence for the Gold Coast.

On June 12, 1949, Nkrumah and the CYO formed the Convention Peoples Party in Accra, Ghana, at a mass gathering of tens of thousands of people. They were prepared to launch a mass struggle for the abolition of British colonial rule over the Gold Coast. During this same period, Nkrumah formed links with other anti-colonial and Pan-African organizations that were operating in other colonies of West Africa. When the CPP called for a Positive Action Campaign in early 1950, leading to massive strikes and rebellion throughout the colony, Nkrumah was imprisoned by the colonial authorities for sedition.

The executive members of the CPP continued to press for the total independence of the colony, eventually creating conditions for a popular election in 1951 that the CPP won overwhelmingly. In February 1951, Nkrumah was released from prison in Ghana and appointed Leader of Government Business in a transitional arrangement that eventually led to the independence of Ghana on March 6, 1957.

Vision of Pan-Africanism, socialism

At the independence gathering on March 6, Nkrumah—now prime minister—declared that Ghana’s independence was meaningless unless it was directly linked with the total liberation of the continent. This statement served as the cornerstone of Ghanaian foreign policy during Nkrumah’s tenure as leader of the country.

George Padmore became the official advisor on African affairs, and was placed in charge of the Bureau of African Affairs, whose task was to assist other national liberation movements on the continent in their efforts to win political independence. In April 1958, the First Conference of Independent African States was convened, with eight nation-states as participants. This gathering broke down the colonially imposed divisions between Africa north and south of the Sahara.

In December later that same year, the first All-African Peoples Conference was held in Accra, bringing together 62 national liberation movements from all over the continent, as well as representation from Africans in the United States. It was at this conference in December 1958 that Patrice Lumumba of Congo became an internationally recognized leader of the anti-colonial struggle in that Belgian colony.

By 1960 the independence movement had gained tremendous influence throughout Africa, resulting in the emergence of many new nation-states on the continent. That same year, Ghana became a republic and adopted its own constitution, making Nkrumah the president of the government.

However, there arose fissures within the leadership of the CPP over which direction the new state would take in its economic and social policies. Many of Nkrumah’s colleagues, who had been instrumental in the struggle for independence, were not committed to his long-term goals of Pan-Africanism and socialism. Consequently, many of the programmatic initiatives launched by the CPP government were stifled by the class aspirations of those state and party officials who were noncommittal about a total revolutionary transformation of Ghanaian society and the African continent as a whole.

Internal struggles in Nkrumah’s Convention Peoples Party broke into the open, once even resulting in an August 1962 attempt to assassinate the president with a bomb attack.

By 1964 the First Republic of Ghana had held an election that mandated the adoption of the one-party state form of government. During this period, the CPP was attempting to restructure the country’s economy from dependence on trade with and investment by the capitalist world. This proved to be a formidable task due to the legacy of colonialism in the country and the relative weakness of the Soviet Bloc and China, which limited their ability to provide economic assistance to newly independent African states.

Nkrumah in 1963 identified neocolonialism as the major impediment to the genuine liberation of Africa. At the founding meeting of the Organization of African Unity in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, he released his book entitled “Africa Must Unite,” which provided a proposal for the adoption of a continental union government as the only means of countering the development of the new form of colonialism on the continent.

At the OAU conference in Egypt during July 1964, Nkrumah pleaded for the adoption of a United States of Africa by the heads of state. This proposal was not accepted despite apparent problems associated with the legacy of colonialism on the continent. The Congo crisis and the economic stagnation of many of the newly independent states illustrated that these nations were not viable as economic and political entities.

At the October 1965 OAU Summit held in Accra, many of the heads of state from other nations did not attend because they opposed the CPP government’s foreign policy. At this conference, Nkrumah issued his book entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism,” which condemned the United States as the principal imperialist power behind the new form of hegemonic rule, which was designed to maintain Western control over the newly independent states in Africa and throughout the so-called developing world.

This book so infuriated the U.S. government that its Undersecretary of State for African Affairs G.M. Williams wrote a memorandum of protest to Ghana’s Embassy in Washington, D.C., saying that Nkrumah was working in contravention to the interests of the U.S. government in Africa.

Just four months after the release of his book on neo-colonialism, Nkrumah was overthrown on Feb. 24, 1966, by a coup d’etat led by lower-level military officers and police in Ghana. Since they perceived Nkrumah’s policies as a threat to the economic and political interests of the Western powers, the U.S. government and the imperialist world united behind the coup.

At the time Nkrumah was in China en route to North Vietnam. He was on a mission to bring about a peace settlement in the U.S. war against the peoples of Southeast Asia when Chinese officials informed him of the events in Ghana.

Aborting his mission to Vietnam, he returned via the Soviet Union to Africa, traveling to Egypt and eventually settling in Guinea-Conakry. Nkrumah remained in Guinea until he was flown to Romania to undergo treatment for cancer in 1971. During the period following the coup from 1966 to 1971, he continued to write on the history of Africa and the revolutionary movement for Pan-Africanism and world socialism.

The legacy of Kwame Nkrumah

Despite the coup, Nkrumah’s legacy in Africa and throughout the African world continues. His view on the necessity of coordinated guerrilla warfare to liberate Africa was realized in the subcontinent during the 1970s and 1980s when the settler-colonial regimes of Rhodesia and eventually South Africa were defeated. Cuba’s role in the liberation and security of Angola was clearly in line with Nkrumah’s ideas, which argued that until settler colonialism was destroyed, the entire continent of Africa would not be secure.

Though the realization of a United States of Africa is still far away, this issue continues to be discussed broadly on the continent and in the Diaspora. The Organization of African Unity was transformed into the African Union in 2002 in order to increase efforts aimed at the unification of the continent. A Pan-African Parliament was formed and is now housed in the Republic of South Africa.

The current chairman of the African Union, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, has continued to stress the necessity of forming a continental government along the lines Nkrumah advocated during the 1950s and 1960s.

In Ghana Nkrumah’s legacy was utilized in both a positive and a negative manner by the successive regimes that took power after his departure. These regimes are compelled to use his image and legacy, despite their refusal to adopt the CPP program in its totality.

In the United States and throughout the Diaspora, increasing identification with Africa has occurred over the last forty years. The African community in America and the Caribbean played an instrumental role in the solidarity struggle with the national liberation movements in southern Africa during the 1980s and 1990s. Nkrumah’s views on the necessity of African unity have been prophetic in light of the continuing underdevelopment of the continent and the phenomena of domestic neocolonialism in the United States and the Caribbean. Consequently, the legacy of Nkrumah is still relevant to the present-day struggle of African and other oppressed peoples around the world.

A greater understanding of Nkrumah’s ideas and activities can only benefit the present efforts to create a world that is genuinely independent and self-determined.

Britain’s renewable energy plans need support to meet carbon targets

New rules to stimulate more investment in renewable energy and nuclear power coupled with a major drive to encourage a switch to electric cars are among key recommendations to reduce carbon emissions in a report.

By Roland GribbenPublished: 12:30PM BST 12 Oct 2009

Lord Turner has recommended that the nuclear industry must play a bigger role in reducing carbon emissions
The report, which is from the Committee on Climate change, headed by Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, calls for fresh policy approaches to achieve a step change in cutting emissions and meeting carbon targets and warns that reductions achieved during the recession are providing misleading signals.
Last year emissions are estimated to have been cut by around 2pc compared with an average 0.5pc in the four year period to 2007. The committee says cuts of 2pc-3pc a year will be needed in future to meet carbon budgets.

The committee questions whether plans to reduce power station emissions by 50pc by 2020 will be achieved without a stimulus. The current programme is heavily dependant on creating a wind power industry with capacity of 30,000 megawatts, four clean coal demonstration and two or possibly three nuclear power plants.
But the committee doubts whether the expansion, coupled with the EU carbon trading scheme will deliver the expected results and says it could lead to heavier dependence on imported gas.
Lord Turner’s group is calling on the government to carry out a review of alternative arrangements to reduce investor risks and ensure delivery of investment in low carbon technologies. It says bluntly that new approaches will be needed to support investment in low carbon generation.
Investment in low carbon generation is risky in the current market the report acknowledges and suggests consideration should be given to strengthening carbon prices and providing more certainly on the price to be paid for low carbon generation.
Progress on carbon capture and storage demonstration plans is vital to assess whether the clean coal technology can make a viable contribution to reduce emissions the committee says in reinforcing its earlier recommendation that conventional coal generation has no role in power generation beyond the early 2020s.
The report says the combination of markets and carbon trading schemes is not best designed to deliver the reductions needed in electricity emissions.
Other policy changes may be needed to achieve another target, the committee feels. Improving energy efficiency in homes by 35pc by 2020 may need a shift from the existing strategy based on electricity companies meeting obligations through specific measures such as the supply of energy efficient light bulbs to a ‘whole house’ approach.
The committee is encouraged by electric car initiatives announced by manufacturers but to reach a target of having 1.7m electrically powered vehicles on the road by 2020 to help achieve a 30pc cut in transport emissions the report says the government will have to support new car purchases to drive initial volumes and help manufacturers achieve economies of scale as well as supporting a battery charging infrastructure.
Lord Turner said: “With the carbon budgets in place we need to achieve a step change in the pace of emissions reductions. What we have proposed is achievable and affordable but action needs to be taken now if we are to make our contribution to climate change.”

Guineans Stage One Day Strike to Protest Massacre

Monday, October 12, 2009
23:31 Mecca time, 20:31 GMT

Guineans in post-massacre protest

Camara seized power in a coup and there is speculation that he will stand in next year’s poll

Thousands of Guineans have stayed at home in protest over the massacre nearly two weeks ago of at least 150 people who were among thousands demonstrating against the country’s military rulers.

The strike, which began on Monday, brought Conakry, the capital, to a standstill with banks, shops, markets and offices remaining closed.

A collection of unions called for the two-day strike after a September 28 demonstration ended in a bloodbath, with security forces opening fire on protesters who had gathered outside a stadium in defiance of an official ban on the protest.

The demonstration followed speculation that Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, Guinea’s president who seized power in a coup last December, would stand in next year’s elections.

Strong backing

Rights organisations and the UN say the toll may have been higher than 150 and that at least 1,200 people were injured.

The military government puts the death toll at 56.

In a statement issued last week, the main union federation called on people to observe a “day of prayer”, urging them to “kneel piously before the mortal remains of the … martyrs for democracy in Guinea” - a reference to the protesters killed by security forces.

The strike action received strong support in the southeastern town of Kissidougou, where traders said there was “no activity” in the main market.

“All the shops, as well as the banks, have shut down, and the bus station as well,” Sall Mamadou Lamarana, a trader, told the AFP news agency.

In northwestern Boke, Sine Magassouba, a teacher, said: “There is no activity at the market. People have been praying in the courtyards, and youth clubs.”

Bauxite exports hit

Union sources said the strike also hit an aluminium refinery and bauxite exports, which are a major source of Guinea’s foreign exchange.

Sekou Ousmane Diallo, head of the union at UC RUSAL’s Friguia refinery, said: “We are maintaining minimum service because an aluminium refinery cannot be completely shut-down without the equipment possibly being damaged. However, 90 per cent of the Friguia workers stayed at home.”

The refinery, which was projected to produce 527,000 tonnes of aluminium in 2008, is still operating despite a decision last month by the government to strip it from Rusal. Rusal is contesting the decision.

Efforts to resolve the crisis are continuing and last week Mohamed Ibn Chambas, head of the regional grouping Ecowas, met Blaise Compaore, the president of Burkina Fasso, who has been appointed by the body to mediate.

Amid mounting international pressure on Camara, rights groups have also reported cases of rape and other abuses at the stadium where the protest was staged.

Source: Agencies

Guinea ‘facing new dictatorship’

Guinea is in danger of slipping into dictatorship, the leader of West Africa’s economic group, Ecowas, says.

Mohamed Ibn Chambas said the junta, who seized power late last year, was repressing the people with “arbitrary and irresponsible” use of state power.

Ecowas ministers are meeting in Nigeria to try to resolve the crisis in Guinea, sparked when soldiers opened fire on an opposition rally two weeks ago.

Guineans are holding a two-day strike to remember dozens who were killed.

Activists say 157 people were killed by troops, and rights groups have reported that soldiers raped women in the streets.

The government put the number of dead at 57 and said most had died in a stampede.

The AP news agency reports that Agriculture Minister Abdulrahmane Sano has resigned in protest over the killings.

Strident language

The country’s military rulers were widely criticised over the shootings - with the US denouncing “vile abuses” perpetrated against their own people.

Critics of the military are hoping that the strike, combined with the Ecowas talks, will increase pressure on junta leader Captain Moussa Dadis Camara to resign.

Ecowas is hosting talks in Abuja where opposition leaders, members of Guinea’s military and Ecowas foreign ministers met to try to resolve the crisis.

Opening the meeting, Mr Chambas told delegates Guinea was “characterised by arbitrary and irresponsible use of state power by the military to repress the population”.

“The signs are there now that if the military junta has its way it will impose yet another dictatorship on them,” the AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

Analysts say it is unusual for Ecowas to use such strident language.

The bloc suspended Guinea after last December’s coup, when the military took power shortly after the death of long-term leader Lansana Conte.

The protests two weeks ago were sparked by persistent rumours that Capt Camara intends to stand for president in an election scheduled for next January - something he had previously ruled out.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/8303726.stm
Published: 2009/10/12 17:59:46 GMT

Netanyahu Says No War Crimes Trial For Israelis

Netanyahu: No war crimes trials for Israelis

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday vowed never to allow Israeli leaders or soldiers to stand trial on war crimes charges over their actions during last winter’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip, furiously denouncing a U.N. report in a keynote address to parliament.

Netanyahu’s fiery rhetoric — and his decision to open the high-profile speech with remarks on the report — reflected the deep distress felt among Israeli leaders after a U.N. commission accused Israel of intentionally harming civilians when it launched a massive attack in Gaza to stop years of rocket fire.

“This distorted report, written by this distorted committee, undermines Israel’s right to defend itself. This report encourages terrorism and threatens peace,” Netanyahu said in his address at the opening of parliament’s winter session. “Israel will not take risks for peace if it can’t defend itself.”

The U.N. report, compiled by a team led by former war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It specifically accused Israel of using disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure, and using people as human shields. It accused Hamas of deliberately targeting civilians and trying to spread terror through its rocket attacks.

Israeli officials across the board have condemned the report, saying their country had little choice but to take harsh action against militants who were terrorizing southern Israel. They also blame Hamas for civilian casualties, saying the Islamic militant group took cover in residential areas during the fighting. However, Goldstone’s strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.

Netanyahu angrily noted the report’s portrayal of Israeli leaders as war criminals. “The truth is exactly the opposite. Israel’s leaders and its army are those who defended the citizens of Israel from war criminals,” he said, before vowing to defend the country’s wartime leaders.

“We will not allow Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, who sent our sons to war, to arrive at the international court in the Hague,” he said.

While Netanyahu has repeatedly lashed out at the U.N. report, Monday’s comments appeared to be a direct response to a new Palestinian push for a vote on the report in the U.N.’s Human Rights Council. If the vote takes place, the matter could be referred to higher U.N. bodies that could theoretically push for war-crimes prosecution.

Earlier this month, Abbas’ government had agreed to delay the vote for six months. That decision, which came under heavy U.S. pressure, sparked sharp criticism and protests across Palestinian society, particularly from the rival Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.

U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Monday that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke with Abbas on Sunday about the matter and said he would support Abbas’ proposal to reopen discussion of the Goldstone report at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

In contrast to predecessors who have used parliamentary addresses to speak of bold visions of peace, Netanyahu spoke in far bleaker terms. He focused on past Jewish suffering and criticized the futility of previous peace efforts, blaming Arab adversaries for their failure.

“The right to a Jewish state and the right to self-defense are two of the existential rights of our people,” he said. “These basic rights of the Jewish people have been under greatly increasing attack. … Our prime mission is to stave off this attack.”

President Barack Obama has been trying to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to restart peace talks, which broke down late last year. Even after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he faces a daunting challenge in just getting the sides to talk, let alone in solving one of the world’s longest lasting and most intractable conflicts.

The Palestinians say they will not resume negotiations until Israel freezes all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas they claim as parts of a future independent state.

Netanyahu says some settlement construction must continue to accommodate growth in the Jewish populations. He also says all of Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands, although Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of the city and its sensitive holy sites has never been internationally recognized.

Netanyahu, for his part, has demanded the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state — a demand the Palestinians criticize as upping the ante from previous negotiations. The Palestinians say it would discriminate against Israel’s Arab minority and deprive Palestinian refugees of their rights to lost properties in what is now Israel.

“For 62 years, the Palestinians have been saying ‘No’ to the Jewish state. I am once again calling upon our Palestinian neighbors; say ‘Yes’ to the Jewish state.” he said. “Without recognition of Israel as the state of the Jews we shall not be able to attain peace.”

(This version CORRECTS name to Human Rights Council).)

The Bells Are Tolling For the Dollar: Reflections of Fidel Castro

Havana. October 12, 2009

Reflections of Fidel: The bells are tolling for the dollar

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE Empire dominated the world more through the economy and lies than by force. It obtained the privilege of printing convertible currency at the end of World War II; it had a monopoly of nuclear weapons; it had virtually all the gold in the world; and was the only large-scale producer of productive equipment, consumer goods, food and services at global level.

However, it did have a limit on printing paper money: the backing of gold, at the constant price of $35 per troy ounce. That was the case for more than 25 years until, on August 15, 1971, via a presidential order from Richard Nixon, the United States unilaterally broke that international commitment by defrauding the world. I shall insist on repeating that.

In that way it launched on the world economy its rearmament costs and military adventures – in particular the Vietnam war – which, in line with conservative calculations, cost no less than $200 billion and the lives of more than 45,000 young Americans.

More bombs were dropped on this little Third World country than all of those used in the last world war. Millions of people died or were mutilated. When the conversion rate was suspended, the dollar became a currency that could be printed at the will of the U.S. government without the backing of a constant value.

Treasury bonds and bills continued to circulate as convertible currency; state reserves continued nourishing themselves on those bills which, on the one hand, served to acquire raw materials, properties, goods and services from every part of the world and, on the other, privileged U.S. exports in the face of other economies of the planet.

Time and time again, politicians and academics refer to the real cost of that suicidal war, admirably described in the film by Oliver Stone. People tend to make calculations as if the millions were the same. They do not usually take note of the fact that the millions of dollars of 1971 are not the same as the millions of 2009.

One million dollars today, when gold – a metal whose value has been the most stable throughout the centuries – has a price in excess of $1,000 per troy ounce, is worth approximately 30 times what it was worth when Nixon suspended the conversion rate. In 2009, $6 trillion is equivalent to $200 billion in 1971. If this is not taken into consideration, the new generations will have no idea of imperialist barbarism.

In the same way, when one speaks of the $20 billion invested in Europe at the end of World War II – in virtue of the Marshall Plan for reconstructing and controlling the principal European powers that had the necessary workforce and technical culture for the rapid development of goods and services – people usually ignore the fact that the real value of what was invested at that time by the empire is equivalent to a current value of $600 billion. They do not note that today, $20 billion would barely stretch to building three large oil refineries capable of supplying 800,000 barrels of gasoline per day, in addition to other oil derivatives.

The consumer societies, the absurd and capricious waste of energy and natural resources that are currently threatening the survival of the species, would not be explicable in such a brief historical period if one is unaware of the irresponsible manner in which developed capitalism, in its superior phase, has ruled the destinies of the world.

That astounding waste explains why the two most industrialized countries of the world, the United States and Japan, are indebted to approximately $20 trillion.

Of course the U.S. economy has an annual gross domestic product of $15 trillion. The crises of capitalism are cyclical, as the history of the system irrefutably demonstrates, but this time it is about something more: a structural crisis, as Professor Jorge Giordani, Venezuelan minister of planning and development, explained to Walter Martínez in the latter’s Telesur program last night.

News agency reports circulated today, Friday October 9, add irrefutable data. An AFP cable from Washington notes that the budget deficit of the United States in the fiscal year 2009 is rising to $1.4 trillion, 9.9% of the GDP, “something unseen since 1945, at the end of World War II,” it adds.

The deficit in 2007 was one third of that figure. High deficit figures are expected for the years 20010, 2011 and 2012. That huge deficit is fundamentally determined by the U.S. Congress, to save that country’s major banks, to prevent unemployment rising above 10% and to pull the United States out of recession. It is logical that if they flood the nation with dollars, the large commercial chains will sell more merchandise, industries will increase production, fewer citizens will lose their homes, the unemployment tide will stop rising, and Wall Street shares will increase in value.

However, the world can no longer return to what it was. The economist Paul Krugman, an eminent Nobel Prize winner, has just affirmed that international trade has suffered its greatest fall, worse than that of the Great Depression, and has expressed doubts on its recovery in the short term.

Nor can the world be inundated with dollars and think that those bills without backing in gold will maintain their value. Other economies, today more solid, have emerged. The dollar is no longer the hard currency reserve of all states; on the contrary, its holders wish to move away from that currency, while as far as possible avoiding its devaluation before they can get rid of it.

The European Union euro, the Chinese yuan, the Swiss franc, the Japanese yen – despite that country’s debts – even the pound sterling, together with other hard currencies, have moved to take the place of the dollar in international trade. Gold metal is once again becoming an important international reserve currency.

This is not a capricious personal opinion, nor do I wish to slander that currency.

Another Nobel Prize winner in economy, Joseph Stiglitz, commented, according to one news agency, that the most likely thing is that the green bill will continue its decline. He stated this on October 6 at the IMF World Bank Joint Annual Meeting in Istanbul. Violent repression could be noted in that city. The event was greeted with broken windows in the commercial sector and fires from Molotov cocktails.

Other agencies talked of the fact that the European countries are fearful of the negative effect of the weakness of the dollar compared to the euro and the consequences of that on European exports. The U.S. treasury secretary stated that his country “was interested in a strong dollar.” Stiglitz made fun of an official statement and stated, according to EFE: “In the case of the United States money has been squandered and the reason has been the multimillion rescue of the banks and defraying the cost of wars like that of Afghanistan.”

EFE reported that the Nobel Prize winner “insisted that instead of investing $700 billion to help bankers, the United States should have directed part of that money into helping the developing countries which, at the same time, would have stimulated global demand.”

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, raised the alarm a few days earlier, warning that the dollar could not maintain its status as a reserve currency indefinitely.

Kenneth Rogoff, an eminent professor of economics at Harvard, stated that the next major financial crisis will be that of “public deficits.”

The World Bank declared that “the International Monetary Fund has demonstrated that the central banks of the world accumulated fewer dollars during the second half of 2009 than at any other point in the last 10 years and increased their euro holdings.”

That very same October 6, AFP reported that gold reached the record figure of $1,045 per ounce, prompted by the weakening of the dollar and fears of inflation.

The Independent newspaper of London published that a group of oil producing countries were studying the possibility of replacing the dollar in commercial transactions with a basket of currencies including the yen, the yuan, the euro, gold and a new unified currency.

The news leaked or deduced with impressive logic was refuted by some of the countries presumably interested in that protection measure. They do not want it [the dollar] to collapse, but neither do they want to continue accumulating a currency that has lost its value thirty-fold in less than 30 years.

I must mention a cable from the EFE agency, which cannot be accused of being anti-imperialist and which, in the current circumstances, includes opinions of particular interest:

“Experts in economy and finance were in agreement today in New York in affirming that the worst crisis since the Great Depression has resulted in this country playing a less significant role in the world economy.”

“The recession has led to the world changing its way of looking at the United States. Our country is now less significant than before and that is something that we have to recognize,” affirmed David Rubenstein, president and founder of the Carlyle Group, the largest risk capital company in the world, addressing the World Business Forum.”

“The financial world is going to be less centered in the United States… New York is never again going to be the world financial capital and that role will be shared with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Sao Paulo and other cities,” he noted.

“…sort out the problems that the U.S. will confront when it comes out of the ‘great recession,’ which will probably go another month or two.”

“…’enormous public debt, inflation, unemployment, loss in value of the dollar as a reserve currency, energy prices…”

“The government must reduce public spending in order to confront the debt problem and do something that it doesn’t much like: increase taxes.”

“Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at the University of Columbia and UN special adviser, agreed with Rubenstein that the economic and financial predominance of the U.S. ‘is fading.’”

“We have left a system centered in the U.S. for a multilateral one…”

“…’20 years of irresponsibility by the first part of the Bill Clinton administration and then that of George W. Bush,’ yielded to the pressures of Wall Street…”

“…the banks negotiated with ‘toxic assets2 to obtain easy money,’ Sachs explained.”

“’The important thing now is to recognize the unprecedented challenge that supposes achieving sustainable economic development in line with the basic physical and biological rules of this planet’…”

On the other hand, the direct news from our delegation in Bangkok, capital of Thailand, was not at all encouraging:

“The essential issue being discussed – our minister of foreign affairs noted textually – is the ratification or not of the concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities between the industrialized countries and the so-called emerging economies, basically China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and the underdeveloped countries.

“China, Brazil, India, South Africa, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the ALBA are the most active. In general terms, the majority of the Group of 77, are holding to firm and correct positions.

“Figures being negotiated for the reduction of carbon emissions do not correspond to those calculated by scientists for keeping temperature increases to a level below 2 degrees Celsius, 25-40%. At this point, negotiations are moving around a reduction of 11-18%.

“The United States is not making any real effort. It is only accepting a 4% reduction in relation to the year 1990.”

In the morning of today, October 9, the world awoke to the news that the “good Obama” of the enigma explained by the Bolivarian President Hugo Chávez at the United Nations, has received the Nobel Peace prize. I do not always agree with the positions of that institution but I am obliged to acknowledge at this moment in time, that – in my view – it was a positive measure. It compensates for the setback that Obama suffered in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro and not Chicago was chosen as the venue for the 2016 Olympics, which prompted irate attacks from the extreme right.

Many people will say that he has not as yet won the right to receive such a distinction. We would like to see in the decision, more than a prize to the president of the United States, a criticism of the genocidal policy followed by more than a few presidents of that country, who have brought the world to the crossroads where it finds itself today; an exhortation to peace, and the search for solutions that will lead to the survival of the species.

Fidel Castro Ruz
October 9, 2009
6.11 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

North Korea Readying to Fire More Missiles

North Korea readying to fire more missiles: report

SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea may be preparing to launch more short-range missiles a day after it fired a barrage off its east coast, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency said on Tuesday, quoting a government source.

The launches come as the reclusive communist state has signaled to the outside world that it might return to talks on ending its nuclear arms program and made overtures to the South for working-level dialogue amid chilled ties.

Indications of the additional launches are coming from the western part of the Korean peninsula, Yonhap quoted the source as saying. North Korea has issued a warning for vessels to stay out of waters off its coasts, Japan’s coast guard and Yonhap said.

“There have been indications that the North is getting ready to fire short-range missiles from the west coast,” the source was quoted as saying.

North Korea accepted the South’s proposal for talks on preventing flooding from a river that flows across their borders after a surge of water last month killed civilians in the South, the South’s Unification Ministry said Tuesday.

It also agreed to hold Red Cross talks on arranging reunions for families separated by the 1950-1953 Korean War, the ministry said.

Analysts have downplayed the security threat from the North’s missile launches, saying they may be an attempt to gain the upper hand in upcoming talks.

(Reporting by Jack Kim; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)