Elliot Ziwira @ The Book Store
LOOKING at the nature of slavery and what constitutes the concept of colour in the United States today vis-à-vis what it has been for over two centuries now, one cannot help concluding that the reading of two of the greatest minds in post-abolition America – W.E.B Du Bois and Booker T. Washington is – an exploration of the same coin.

Inasmuch as they appear to be at a crossroads, they are in essence driven by the quest to unshackle the physical, psychological, emotional and mental chains that bind them to their former slave masters, albeit in different shades of the same spectacles. To Washington, slavery is more than a physical phenomenon that cannot be wished away within the perusal of a book, or acquisition of philosophical learning.

Du Bois, on the other hand, is moored in a growing environment that seeks to go beyond the reality of decades of suffering, displacement, psychological trauma and enforced ignorance, through his embracing of a purely ideological approach. He calls for the acceptance of the existence of racism first, before anything else, because being black is a condition that can also not be rubbished through compromise, but rather through confrontation; hence the need to hoist a tenth of the race through intellectual learning, for the people of colour to be able to meaningfully question the status quo.

A close reading of the two’s philosophies, however, reveals gaps which can only be filled through complementation, instead of animosity; as the American society remains an albatross around the necks of the people of colour; whether they belong to Booker T. Washington’s 90 percent, or Du Bois’ chosen “talented tenth”, and the dream, to the people of colour, continues to recede to the horizon.

It is this nature of blackness that creates invisibility as Ralph Ellison depicts in “Invisible Man” (1952) and Richard Wright surrealistically, existentially and nihilistically articulates in “Native Son” (1940) and “Black Boy” (1945). Bigger Thomas in “Native Son” suffers the same contradictions that Du Bois’ “dual consciousness” purveys, in the same way that the unnamed hero in Invisible Man does, regardless of their level of education. So how then can the black man be seen in a Manichean world; where everything is seen as either black or white?

In “Up From Slavery” (1901), Booker T. Washington points it out from the onset that having been enslaved for over a century, the Negro has lost much of his being, not only his identity, so for him to start believing in himself civil rights and political power alone were not enough. As he has only known the bottom for decades, which has robbed him of the beauty of bathing and the essence of cleanliness in foisting confidence, why should the Negro aspire to start at the top? In his Atlanta Compromise Speech of September 18, 1895, Washington brings to the fore the strength of reason over common sense, the delimiting nature of combat premised on hate and the power of self-introspection if the Negro desires to win battles against his former master, instead of simply engaging in wars for the sake of warped heroism.

In his compromise, Washington hints on the idea of “casting the bucket” where one is. The idea of seeking solutions further away from home is not the best that the man of colour, who scantly understands the world around him can afford. As Tom says to his fellow former slaves in “Roots” (1984), being free means a lot more than freedom, for freedom without understanding the conditions that surround the concept is meaningless. There is need to start by realising that one needs to begin life from somewhere, and accept the dignity of labour, for the man of colour to be able to accumulate wealth, industrial skills and acquisition of property.

Like Washington, Du Bois admits that the Negro is disadvantaged in many ways; that he needs to acquire property to be at par with his white neighbours and that book learning alone is not enough if the Negro has to make an impact on the body politic of the American landscape.

Du Bois notes that: “The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife . . . this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost” (ibid). Thus, he confirms that, a man of colour will rise only by employing what he already has at hand and in this manual labour is included, yet he refuses to sail with Washington on the same boat to total freedom and emancipation for the race.

In his attempt to find fault with Washington’s Atlanta address, Du Bois dismisses it as mere accommodation of the ideals of the white man’s patronage and demeaning of the black man. However, in his “Souls of Black Folk” (1903), he alludes to the convergence of races for the betterment of the American society and racial harmony.

Du Bois’ premise here, therefore, abets rather than contrasts Washington’s compromise that they (Negroes) are “. . . ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defence of yours, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one” (Washington, 1901: 112). It is also this same standpoint that Du Bois perches on in the coming years in his quest to find a footing in the struggle for black empowerment.

The case for the desire for empowerment may be different, but the reasons for emancipation in all its facets are the same. In Du Bois’ personal context, lack of empowerment always leads to some sort of self-evaluation on the esteem of a black man who is enlightened. However, only an already empowered man can have such realisation dawn on him, and not the ignorant man, who wakes up one day and is told that he is free to take his soul wherever it fancies, without having been taught the meaning of freedom. It is this psychologically, emotionally and physically deprived man that Washington addresses, without forgetting that he also needs to attain a level of understanding that will propel him to political office. Washington in this premise, therefore, agrees with Du Bois that there is no template for emancipation.

Whereas Booker T. Washington is of the belief that industrial education is capable of developing cognitive and psychomotor skills desperately needed by the newly freed men, Du Bois places his wager in intellectual achievement.

The brouhaha about meaningless acquisition of knowledge, for the sake of it, has to be halted, Washington believes, because without manual labour, the Negro remains in shackles one way or the other. He remains in perpetual imprisonment; physically, psychologically and emotionally.

Though remaining firmly footed in intellectualism for the “Talented Tenth”, Du Bois cannot help concurring with Washington that the black man, “felt the weight of his ignorance . . . not simply of letters, but of life, of business, of the humanities; the accumulated sloth and shirking and awkwardness of decades and centuries shackled his hands and feet” (Du Bois, 1903:). Thus, the two agree that, empowerment goes beyond letters, if any change is to be achieved in the new America. It is through responding to the need of the industrial hurricane, and the desire to achieve beyond the obvious milestone set for blacks, that people of colour got their names emblazoned on the American log sheet of achievers, for one can always be rewarded on merit regardless of race.

There are quite a number of black inventors who can be credited to Washington’s push for industrial skill. One notable product of Tuskegee, founded by Booker T. Washington, was George Washington Carver, scientist extraordinaire, who developed, in his laboratory at Tuskegee, 300 products from the peanut. These included butter, soap, face cream, plastics, ink, synthetic rubber, dyes, linoleum, oil and candy. Carver, who died in 1943, also developed more than 100 products from the sweet potato (Dawson, Yon, 1990:134).

With the concept of “double consciousness”, Du Bois emphasises the need for accommodation within characters so as to allow equal contribution to the progress of America, Washington, on the other hand, insists that, the black man must learn how to improve his social appeal by improving his aesthetic appeal. He has to debunk stereotypes associated with him before he seeks higher office.

Du Bois admits to the fact of the black man as a crime in motion, through his visits to the Black Belt, but he refuses to accept that the starting point should be a change of mindset, and not just intellectual prowess. He believes that the “talented tenth” as a starting point can help in raising the bar high for the people of colour through probing of the conditions that set the races apart, and this can only be done through intellectual understanding.

In Washington’s view if the mindset remains tilted towards civil rights alone, society becomes dysfunctional, as the individual understands only mistrust, yet he is expected to find avenues of survival outside his own abode. On close analysis of the two’s ideas, however, it becomes clear that Congress seats become void if they are held by people without knowledge of the political landscape, as Washington highlights in “Up From Slavery”, and industrial skill alone is equally vain if it is not complemented by intellectual ability, which makes Washington and Du Bois two sides of the same coin.

If a system is structured in such a way that it subtly robs the man of colour of integrity, fairness and equality, it will be folly to plunge into it blindly, which is why Washington is publicly careful in dealing with it; giving concessions in public and remaining resolute in private, not that he is not aware that civil rights are equally important.

As both sides of the same coin, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B Du Bois missed out on a chance to work together for the betterment of their race (Knight 2007). Notwithstanding the fact that they had the same agenda, they played into the hands of the white media, which propelled their petty differences out of proportion, thus compromising the birth of greatness out of the black man’s travails over centuries of subaltern existence. As Adam (2015) puts it, “the differences between the two men that would lead to their split – age, regional origin, education, philosophy,” halts the train of events ensconced in their earlier correspondence, which could have helped in the fruition of the struggle for justice and empowerment that they both cherished.

Christopher Farai Charamba The Reader
What makes a good reader? Is it the ability to consume hundreds of books in a year? Or perhaps a good reader is the one who can retell the story with precision soon after completing a piece of work. One is of the opinion that as numerous as there are people, there are likely different types of readers. Reading also tends to be a personal activity, and so perhaps there isn’t a single definition of a good reader.

In an essay titled “Good Readers and Good Writers” found in “Lectures on Literature” by Vladimir Nabokov he shares his thoughts on what makes a good reader and how people should consume literature. Nabokov was a Russian-American novelist famous for penning “Lolita” in 1955. He was also a synesthete who saw numbers and letters as colours.

“The good reader,” Nabokov writes, “is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense.” According to him: “In reading, one should notice and fondle details.” He argues against generalising work and approaching a piece of literature with preconceived notions of what it is about but should rather the reader should always be critical of the work while situating it only in the world that the writer has chosen to create. Nabokov warns against seeing literature, particularly fiction, as anthropological and depicting accurately the time or space within which it was written.

“We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know,” he writes.

This is one of the plights that African authors find themselves in. Their work is often seen as a representation of a real African existence even if this space exists only in the mind of the author. Imagination and a critical awareness are thus essential if the reader is to not make connections with the worlds they already know. Of course, this is not a steadfast rule and many authors draw inspiration from real life events. However, a novel, particularly a fictional one, while it can offer apt social commentary, should not be taken as a historical account.

As Nabokov put it: “Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth.” One intriguing idea that Nabokov shares is “a good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a re- reader”.He makes the argument that when one reads a book for the first time they do not have a full picture of what the story is about and therefore are unable to interrogate it and appreciate it artistically as a whole. A case can be made that the second time one reads a piece of work they can examine it more and perhaps pick up details that they might have missed the first time round. However, this certainly depends on the indiv- idual.

Some people tend to read with clinical precision the first time and do not need to re-read work while others are more passive and could benefit from a re- read. Nabokov’s essay ends with his thoughts on what makes a good writer. “There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered,” he writes. “He may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter.” A storyteller provides entertainment, a teacher some form of education, moral or factual, and an enchanter the magic and genius of the work through how it is written and how it makes one feel. The best writers, one believes, are those who leave the reader interrogating the work and their feelings long after they have closed the last page.

Adekeye Adebajo Correspondent
The Kagame report on reforming the African Union (AU) — named after its chair, Rwandan president, Paul Kagame — was accepted by African leaders at its summit in July. The report’s eminent members — including former South African Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni — however, appear to represent African alchemists: marabouts uttering mysterious, but undecipherable incantations in the hope that the AU will somehow be magically revived.

This is the most disappointing report of a blue-ribbon commission in living memory. It seems rushed, lacks substance, and its fluffy recommendations are on a level of vacuity as to be of no real utility. These are physicians who are proposing half-baked cures to ills that have not been properly diagnosed. The result could clearly be fatal to the comatose AU patient. It is important to note some of the discrepancies of the AU Commission from the outset. It has a staff of only around 700, compared to the European Union’s (EU) 33 000 staff. The AU’s 55 members are also largely responsible for implementing resolutions, as the commission lacks both the capacity and mandate to do so.

All the report’s nine “key findings” — chronic failure to implement AU decisions; limited relevance to African citizens; fragmented focus areas; over-dependence on funders; under-performance of organs; limited management capacity; lack of performance accountability; unclear division of labour between the AU and sub-regional bodies; and inefficient working methods — are all more coherently outlined in Nigerian technocrat, Adebayo Adedeji’s 2007 panel report on reforming the AU.

The Kagame report scathingly describes the AU as “dysfunctional”, but there are no concrete solutions proposed for reforming it. The committee’s four suggestions for strengthening the organisation — prioritise key tasks with continental scope; realign AU institutions to deliver these priorities; manage the AU efficiently, politically and operationally; and self-finance the AU sustainably — are nebulous and trite. The report’s main recommendations constitute a laundry list of unoriginal ideas. Saying that the continental body should focus on fewer areas such as political affairs, peace and security, economic integration, and Africa’s global representation, is grossly unhelpful since these are, in fact, all huge areas. Merely recommending a clear division of labour between the AU and Africa’s sub-regional bodies is equally unhelpful.

The document then calls on the AU Commission to “re-evaluate its structures” to ensure that it has the “right size” and “capabilities”, but no figures are ever mentioned. The recommendation that the “senior leadership team should be lean and performance-oriented” is equally vacuous. The panel then astonishingly calls for “an audit of bureaucratic bottlenecks and inefficiencies”, an audit which Adedeji had undertaken a decade ago.

The report notes that the 15-member AU Peace and Security Council’s (PSC) decision-making and engagement “do not meet the ambition envisaged in the PSC Protocol”, but how exactly the PSC has fallen short is left to our imagination. The panel then advocates a review of the AU PSC’s — one of the few effective and useful bodies of the organisation — membership and working methods, as well as giving it an enhanced role in prevention and crisis management. But, should the 15 members be reduced, or should more powerful countries have permanent seats on the Council? In strengthening the PSC’s prevention and crisis management role, recommendations from key AU reports and recent UN reports on conflict prevention and peace-building have not been thoroughly engaged.

The panel suggests that the AU hold one summit at heads-of-state level a year (instead of the current two), and that the other summit focus on coordinating Africa’s sub-regional bodies. But if one of the key problems is that AU decisions are not followed up, would waiting a year to review them rather than six months, be really helpful? The panel notes that 74 percent of the AU’s $439 million budget for 2017 is to be financed by external donors, before incomprehensibly calling for the AU’s “Kigali Financing Decision” in which members fund 100 percent of the organisation’s operating budget, 75 percent of the programme budget, and 25 percent of peacekeeping operations, to be implemented.

The panel’s final coup de grâce suggests establishing a high-level panel of heads of state to supervise the implementation of its report. So, the very same leaders who have been responsible for not implementing scores of continental resolutions over 54 years are now being charged with supervising implementation of a report on many of the very same resolutions that they have spectacularly failed to implement! This is surely pure alchemy. — Business Day.

David Rosen Correspondent
Five days after the Halloween lone-wolf terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, attacked pedestrians and bicyclists in New York, killing eight people and injuring 12 others, another lone-wolf undertook a terrorist attack this time in a small, unincorporated community 30 miles southeast of San Antonio, TX. The terrorist, Devin Kelley, killed 26 people and injured 20 others attending the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs; in 2000, its population was, but 362 people.

One month earlier, on October 3, in Las Vegas, NV, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old retired real-estate speculator and gambler, shot assault rifles from a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay at attendees of the Route 91 Harvest music festival, killing 59 people and leading to over 500 people being injured. In August, at the bloody political showdown in Charlottesville, Virginia, a 20-year-old white nationalist, James Alex Fields, Jnr, of Maumee, Oklahoma, drove his car into a crowd of marchers, killing Heather Heyer, a 32-year old local resident, and injuring 19 others.

The attackers were lone-wolf terrorists operating in different parts of the country, executing different actions and for apparently different reasons, but taking one of two forms — political (i.e., Saipov and Fields) or psychopathological (i.e., Kelley, Paddock). President Donald Trump expressed very different assessments of both forms.

With regard to political terrorist, Trump initially declared about Saipov: “Send him to Gitmo — I would certainly consider that, yes”; he then backed off, saying “that process takes much longer.” With regard to the Charlottesville, he initially declared: “I think there’s blame on both sides,” he said. “I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would see.” Under pressure, he revised his assessment, angrily denouncing Fields as a “disgrace” and a “murderer”.

With regard to (apparent) psychopaths, Trump found that Kelley “a very deranged individual” and that “mental health is your problem here”. He also insisted, “This isn’t a guns situation . . . This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event . . . “A very, very sad event, but that’s the way I view it.” Trump said. And he dismissed Paddock, “He’s a sick man, a demented man. A lot of problems, I guess.”

The different ways Trump classified these four recent attacks seems rooted in his racist, nationalist agenda, one that denies the role of race, masculinity and weapons (especially assault machine-guns) in domestic terrorism. Most troubling, it blinds law enforcement from fully appreciating the growing threat posed by deepening crisis besetting white people, but especially men, who feel abandoned by the faltering American social system. They are a restive force and one — extreme — way they express themselves is in mass killings, 21st century terrorist acts.

Earlier this year, the nonprofit advocacy group, Everytown for Gun Safety, released a revealing study, “Mass Shooting in the United States, 2009-2016”, that argued that, in the US, most mass shootings are related to domestic or family violence. It reports that from 2009-2016, there were 156 “mass shootings”, incidents in which four or more people were shot and killed. Digging deeper, it found: “These incidents resulted in 1 187 victims shot: 848 people were shot and killed, and 339 people were shot and injured. In addition, 66 perpetrators killed themselves after a mass shooting, and another 17 perpetrators were shot and killed by responding law enforcement.” Most disturbing, “the majority of mass shootings — 54 percent of cases — were related to domestic or family violence.”

In a recently updated report, “A Guide to Mass Shootings in America”, Mother Jones found that “since 1982, there have been at least 94 public mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 34 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii”. It notes that 57 occurred since 2006 and 7 took place in 2012 alone, including Sandy Hook.” Analysing 62 cases that took place from 1982-2012, it found that 44 of the killers were white males. Only one was a woman. Kelley and Paddock are representative of these mass killers, but very different types of men. Nevertheless, both committed suicide rather than being captured and having to face a trial and likely a life-long prison sentence, if not the death penalty.

Kelley was armed with Ruger AR assault-type rifle and wore black tactical gear, including an anti-ballistic vest. He seems to have been a very troubled man. After graduating from his hometown, New Braunfels, Texas, located about 50km from where the killings took place, he joined the Air Force. However, after allegedly assaulting his wife and child, he served a one-year detention sentence, was demoted and received a bad conduct discharge.

He apparently remarried and was the father of another child, but was living a hard-scrabble existence. Paddock was older, 64 years of age, and much more financially secure. He owned two planes, was a licensed pilot and owned homes in four states as well as being dedicated gambler. His brother, Eric Paddock, “He’s just a guy who played video poker and took cruises and ate burritos at Taco Bell. There’s no political affiliation that we know of. There’s no religious affiliation that we know of.” After the shooting, police found 23 guns in his room at on Mandalay Bay hotel as well as 20-plus in his two Nevada homes, along with an enormous amount of ammunition. He seems to have been as normal as the proverbial “guy next door”, although some reports claim his father was reportedly mentally ill with “psychopathic with suicidal tendencies”.

In 2015, Georgetown National Security Critical Issue Task Force (NSCITF) issued a revealing report, “Lone Wolf Terrorism”. It warns: “While the majority of LWTs [lone-wolf terrorists] are single, white men with criminal records, these patterns are too broad to develop a clear profile for LEOs [law enforcement officers].” Among the all-to-many white men who committed some of most egregious terrorist acts are: (i) Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, OK, in 1995, killing 169 people and injuring 675 people; (ii) James Holmes, kills 12 people and injured 70 others in a shootout at an Aurora, CO, movie theatre in 2012; (iii) Adam Lanza, who had killed 20 children and seven 7 members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother; and (iv) Dylann Roof who killed nine African-American parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina.

Mass shootings are not limited to white men as indicated by Saipov. Other “non-white” killers include: (i) Omar Mateen’s shooting at an Orlando, Florida gay nightclub in 2016; (ii) Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, killing of 14 people and wounding 22 others at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, in 2015; and (iii) Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev bombing at the 2013 Boston Marathon that killed three spectators and wounded 264 others.

Sadly, like the wide-range of domestic mass shootings, the reasons people commit such acts are equally diverse. Everytown for Gun Safety study warns that the “majority of mass shootings in the United States are related to domestic or family violence”. It notes that many share a set of common symptoms including the violation of a protective order, evidence of ongoing substance abuse, serious mental illnesses and the easy availability of high-powered assault firearms.

However, one factor that is given little attention is the deepening sense of disillusionment spreading through the country. It is like an undiagnosed cancer, a phenomenon that is often expressed in secondary symptoms until a major outbreak — like a mass shooting — occurs that is, sadly, too late to treat. — Counterpunch.

Disillusionment is expressed in the rising morbidity and mortality rates, including suicides and drug (e.g., heroine and oxy-condign) overdoses among white men 35 to 64 years. It is also expressed in deepening dissatisfaction with the way income and wealth are distributed, notably ongoing wage stagnation and the rising poverty rate. Perhaps most troubling, depression and social or political cynicism is mounting, evident is a growing sense that the long-cherished belief in the “American Dream” is over, the shared ideology that hard work, debt and white skin privilege would guarantee the ordinary American — and, more importantly, their children — a better tomorrow. Disillusionment was most bitterly expressed in the desperate effort to reverse history that elected Trump president. Sadly, one often overlooked factor contributing to mass shootings is an all-to-common male attribute, the recourse to violence. It is a defining, endemic, feature of patriarchy. It plays a significant role in domestic or family violence, the male’s mistreatment of the female and/or children in the family. In addition, it is often an implicit — if not explicit — feature in a man’s relations with other men, whether in a bar, in a sport’s contest or on the battlefield.

Finally, there is a need to call “mass shootings” by their true name, terrorist acts. Mass shooting are conducted by lone-wolf perpetrators, whether driven by political, cultural or psychopathic factors — or combinations of all three. They are intended to not simply permit a perpetrator to act-out his rage, but to inflict pain and suffering on a targeted other. To succeed, the terrorist must believe that the target, whether wife or gathered group, is not capable of stopping him. Most troubling, in an era when a significant segment of the nation’s white population feels under threat, that their once-chosen privileged position in American society is eroding, one can only expect deepening rage to be expressed in additional mass-shooting terrorist attacks.

Donald Trump

Baher Kamal Correspondent
The UN Climate Change Summit in Bonn is a step further, most experts say. Fine, but towards what? On the one hand, the organisers – the UN, Fiji and Germany – express strong hopes that it will speed up the implementation of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement. On the other, a giant contributor to global warming – the United States – decided to desert that milestone Agreement. Meanwhile, major European powers have been, again, prodigious in unmet promises.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn is the next step for governments to implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement and accelerate the transformation to sustainable, resilient and climate-safe development, said Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on this major event, in the former German capital, November on 6-17 2017.

Patricia Espinoza

As such Convention, the Bonn-based UNFCCUS climate change
C is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent “dangerous human interference” with the climate system. The Paris Climate Change Agreement entered into force on November 2017 and the era of implementation has begun, reminds Espinosa, emphasising that the Bonn conference will further clarify the enabling frameworks that will make the agreement fully operational and the support needed for all nations to achieve their climate change goals.

“It is also an excellent example of the cooperation and collaboration between nations that will truly meet the global climate change challenge . . . This meeting is incredibly important.” The conference – known as the signatory countries or Contracting Parties 23 session (COP 23) – is presided over by the government of Fiji with support by Germany. Prior to its opening, Espinosa encouraged governments, the private sector and civil society organisations to be ready to work together to “accelerate implementation and take the crucial next steps towards transformative change”.

“We all have a role to play, and COP 23 will shine a light on both action underway and the many possible actions every individual and institution can take moving forward.”

Although small island states contribute the least to climate change, they bear the brunt of its effects. The Polluters Do (Not) Pay Principle This is on the one hand. On the other, the US administration announced that it would promote coal, natural gas, fossil oil and nuclear energy as an answer to the climate change challenge. And the US President Donald Trump spelled out in September this year his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

In spite of this negative development, the UNFCCC executive secretary expressed optimism ahead of the last Group of the Seven more industrialised powers (G 7) – The Web of Paris Cannot Be Broken by One Missing Link, she said on July 7. The point is that it is not about the US only. In fact, other major contributors to global warming and gas emissions, such as many European highly industrialised countries, have been heralding day after day their formal commitment to reduce gas emissions, expand the use of alternative sources of energy, and a long etcetera. So far, major car-makers have been very active promoting the sale of vehicles moved by electric and, hybrid engines. For now, China as a key source of pollution seems to be addressing the need to slow down the fast process of climate change in a serious manner.

The Visible Dangers
Meantime, the grave impacts of climate change are visible on almost all fronts.

At the same time, the leaders of two top UN specialised organisations, have been warning that climate change migration is reaching crisis proportions. Another major UN organisation has recently explained the reasons of the massive displacement of people. One key cause of the growing, dangerous impact of climate change is the prevailing economic model consisting of voracious depletion of natural resources in both production and consumption patterns has proved to be one of the world’s main killers due to the huge pollution it causes for air, land and soil, marine and freshwater.

And the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification has warned that pressures on global land resources are now greater than ever, as a rapidly increasing population coupled with rising levels of consumption is placing ever-larger demands on the world’s land-based natural capita. On top of this and that, the United Nations weather agency announced on October 30 that the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) surged at “record-breaking speed” to new highs in 2016.

Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation, issued this warning in Geneva, at the launch of the organisation’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report indicates that carbon dioxide concentrations reached 403,3 parts per million in 2016, up from 400 ppm in 2015. “We have never seen such big growth in one year as we have been seeing last year in carbon dioxide concentration,” said Taalas. The WMO chief said: “We are not moving in the right direction at all . . . In fact we are actually moving in the wrong direction when we think about the implementation of the Paris Agreement . . .”

A Common Cause, Really?

The UNFCCC explains that the Paris Agreement builds upon this Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort. The Paris Agreement’s central aim – it reminds – is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1,5 degrees Celsius.

The central aim should definitely be to prevent the growing everyday human dramas such as the loss of food security and means of survival, the forced need to abandon their homes and families to face death and brutality at the hands of smugglers and human traffickers, to be exploited as “modern” slaves, and to prevent the world’s seas and oceans from being home to more plastic than fish. – IPS.

Bill Gates

Eric London Correspondent
According to a report published recently by the Institute for Policy Studies, the three richest Americans — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — now own more wealth than the poorest half of the US population, some 160 million people. America’s “60 families”, whose massive wealth was documented in journalist Ferdinand Lundberg’s 1937 exposure, have been replaced by just three billionaires whose combined wealth is over $264 billion.

The Institute for Policy Studies report, “Billionaire Bonanza: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us”, reveals that the richest 25 Americans are wealthier than the bottom 56 percent of the US. The net worth of the 400 richest is roughly equal to that of the bottom two thirds of the country, a total of 200 million people. According to the report’s authors, the US has become “a hereditary aristocracy of wealth and power”.

Jeff Bezos

The unprecedented concentration of wealth is an international phenomenon. Oxfam reported in June 2017 that the world’s five richest people own as much as the poorest half of the world’s population, down from 80 people in 2015. Today, each of the top five billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US.

The IPS report explains that the US data “underestimate[s] our current levels of wealth concentration” because “the growing use of offshore tax havens and legal trusts has made the concealing of assets more widespread than ever before”. A 2017 report published by Alstadsaeter, Johannesen, and Zucman titled “Who owns the wealth in tax havens?” estimates that the world’s super-rich have between $5,7 and $32 trillion hidden from taxation or statistical analysis.

Warren Buffett

While the super-rich dominate the commanding heights, the bottom 90 percent face hardship and crisis that vary only in terms of immediacy. The IPS report measures the net worth of working class families by subtracting the value of durable goods like automobiles, household appliances and furniture. According to its estimate, over 19 percent of US households — roughly 60 million people — have “zero or negative net worth” when durable goods are sub- tracted. Beyond the poorest 20 percent, the report explains, “even those low- and middle-income families who do have some wealth often don’t have any liquid assets — cash or savings — at their disposal. Over 60 percent of Americans report not having enough savings to cover a $500 emergency”.

Even above the roughly 200 million people with nothing saved, conditions for the 60th to 90th percentile are similarly difficult. The bulk of this section of the working class’s net worth derives from housing equity, and when this is subtracted, most lack enough to survive through a few years of retirement. According to a recent study of Census data by the Economic Policy Institute, retirement account savings have plummeted in recent years among all age groups.

The IPS report is based on data from the US Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, which the World Socialist Web Site analysed in detail last month. While the extremely wealthy have accumulated vast sums of wealth, a broader layer, comprising the top 10 percent, has also greatly enriched itself in recent years at the expense of the working masses. The richest 10 percent of the US — the social and political base for gender and identity politics — owns 77,1 percent of total wealth, while the bottom three quarters owns just 10 percent.

The explosion of social inequality is not an accidental process. It is the product of a decades-long campaign by both the Democratic and Republican parties to transfer trillions of dollars from the working class into the pockets of the rich. The “accomplishments” of both parties over the course of the last forty years are a litany of tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to social programs, the de-industrialisation of broad swaths of the Midwest, gutting corporate regulations and spending trillions on imperialist war, state surveillance and mass deportation and incar- ceration.

The Obama administration marked a milestone in this protracted social counter-revolution defined by the Wall Street bailout of 2008-2009, the restructuring of the auto industry in 2009 and the bankruptcy of Detroit in 2013-14. With the help of the Democratic administration, the ruling elite cashed in on the financial crisis.

As a result, the United States is now an oligarchy. Through its immense wealth and control of the major corporations, the super-rich have established total domination over all of the official institutions of political, cultural and intellectual power. The courts, the congress, and the president not only operate on behalf of competing interests within the aristocracy, they are increasingly personally staffed by millionaires and billionaires, as expressed most directly in the figure of Donald Trump. The military wages permanent war across the globe to protect corporate profits. The mainstream media is nothing more than the official propaganda wing of the American oligarchy. The trade unions, in their typically brutish and corrupt form, are paid off by the corporations to police the workers and suppress opposition.

The obsessions and preoccupations of this privileged layer of the population are entirely alien to the concerns of the bottom 90 percent. The cost of health care is skyrocketing; thousands of immigrant families are torn apart each week by deportation; nearly 100 people die each day from opioid abuse; student debt crushes a whole generation; millions remain devastated by floods, fires and hurricanes; entire states have been stripped of women’s health clinics; one veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes; and on and on. Congress holds no hearings on these subjects. Its calendar is booked full with hearings on alleged Russian interference in US politics and the need to bring social media and tech companies to heel by censoring antiestablishment media. The Democrats and Republicans are working around the clock to reach a deal on a tax bill that will hand over trillions to the wealthy and corporations, with Senate Republicans announcing their version just yesterday.

The astronomical growth of inequality and the absence of any institutional mechanisms by which the population can address its social grievances presages an historic explosion of the class struggle. Strikes and protests involving tens of millions of workers and youth are inevitable, but they must be guided by a socialist programme. The billionaires’ wealth must be expropriated and redistributed to those in need. The corporations through which they derive their riches must be seized, placed under democratic control and reorganized by the workers themselves to serve public need and not private profit.

Companies like Bezos’ Amazon can be used to deliver medicine, food, water and construction equipment to disaster zones and impoverished areas. Gates’ Microsoft software and programming development can be harnessed to introduce an unprecedented degree of social planning into the world economy, allowing for production to be controlled so as to eliminate scarcity of basic resources and reverse environmental degradations. All industries can be made to serve the interests of the human race. Under socialism, across all industries and in all countries, workers will come together in their workshops, plants and offices to plot a course for wielding the world’s productive forces in pursuit of equality and progress. But the ruling class will not give up its wealth voluntarily. — www.ustoday.com

It is becoming difficult to find a book in Zimbabwe which you can read seamlessly without that jarring sensation that is provoked by misplaced words, punctuation errors and mispellings. Bran Chikwava’s “Harare North” is an exception because the narrator’s bastardisation of English is intentional.

Tanaka Chidora Literature Today
In the Literature Today column of The Herald of 11 November 2016, Stanely Mushava wrote passionately concerning the downside (it also has an upside) of self-publishing. In a paragraph that lyrically captured what has been boiling in my heart for a very long time, Stanely wrote:

“When one sees a novel, for example, in low-cost packaging, with a cliché, a tasteless bouquet of platitudes and contrived plots, they are bound to miss the good old days when the tradition was more highly esteemed from workflow to reception.”

I couldn’t have said it better! I am a proofreader and editor. Both proofreading and editing demand rigorous, close and careful reading. In fact, both require that the writer stay out of gunshot’s distance of his/her script and let the proofreader and editor do their work. Professional proofreaders and editors do not work for free. They are professionals who have reputations to protect. So when they start working on a script, they want to give it their best.

But they can’t give it their best when an impatient writer is nagging them for the script a few days after submitting it for editing and proofreading. I am also a literary critic and reviewer. I receive many copies for reviewing. The bulk of the copies I have received this year are products of self-publishing.

Some have been successfully read by Mama JC and myself. Others have messed up our appetite for reading right from the cover page! So we have left them to gather dust somewhere on the bookshelf. Others have had the misfortune of being in JC’s crawling path and he has done a good job of matching their physical appearance with their technical shortcomings. This year, I received a script from a certain fellow who thinks he has been called to write a motivational message for Zimbabwe.

I perfunctorily glanced at it and concluded that it needed a generous portion of time and will on my part to exorcise it of obscurity. The chap did not have that amount of time; so he took his script elsewhere only to turn up three days later lugging two cases of books that could fill a modest bookshelf like mine. He was smiling. “Mr Chidora, may I present to you my first book!” I received a copy for “reviewing”. Unfortunately, the book found itself in JC’s path and . . . you know what he did, lol!

I think an honest reader pointed out the serious shortcomings of the book to the fellow because a few weeks later, after the euphoria of having published his first book had evaporated, he came back to me, repentant-like, and begged me to edit the “published” book in preparation for the second edition. Kkkkkkkk. I told him I needed a soft copy. He promised to send it. That was it. Now I hear the second edition is out although there is nothing “second edition” about it.

It is becoming difficult to find a book in Zimbabwe which you can read seamlessly without that jarring sensation th Brian Chikwava’s at is provoked by misplaced words, punctuation errors and misspellings. It’s really difficult. It’s either our writers are not choosing professional editors or they are not giving the editors enough time. Or it might be because the self-publishing route has made writers escape the rigorous investment of time and money that real editing and proofreading re- quire!

The solution to mediocrity is clear: as a writer you need professional and reputable editors. They will charge a fee and you must be ready to pay. They will take their time and you must wait. They will give you advice and you must heed it. That’s the solution. This is part of what it takes to be a writer. It’s not just a matter of putting pen to paper. There is more to writing.

If an editor gives you advice and you do not follow it, it’s an insult to associate their name with your work. An editor has a reputation to protect because editing is a business. But it’s not just the editor who has a reputation to protect; the writer also has a reputation to build. There are two kinds of reputation: good and bad. So as a writer you really need to invest into that process that builds a good reputation for you. The publication of a technically flawed book is, bluntly speaking, a waste of time. Once readers discover that you love wasting their time, you have lost them, sometimes for good.

A story with misplaced punctuation marks, grammatical errors and a serious disrespect for the traffic rules of words does not stand a chance of being read. It takes one bad book to soil a writer’s reputation. Sometimes it’s not just the reputation of the writer that is soiled but also the reputation of books in general. That’s the truth! In this day and age when the hard-copy reading culture is waning, bad books must not, should not, see the light of day!

Everyone has a story to tell, but how it is told, how it is packaged, is as important as the story itself. My hope is that the self-publishing alternative that our writers, established and new, are embracing is also accompanied by proper publishing processes especially editing and proofreading. I am a proponent of democratic writing space, but I am not a proponent of mediocrity in the name of democratisation.

As a parting shot, let me say these accusations of mediocrity exclude Brian Chikwava’s “Harare North”. Kkkkkkk. Readers can tell the difference between linguistic deficiency and art. “Harare North” is art through and through. The narrator’s bastardisation of English is intentional. But I can’t say the same concerning some books that I received for reviewing this year. Maybe one day, after reading every well-written book on my bookshelf, I will turn my attention to these books just to have a good laugh. But for now, let me remain silent! Good editors, please come forward. Our book industry needs you!

THE Zanu-PF Extraordinary Congress is scheduled to roar to life 29 days from now, amid expectations from both party members and neutrals alike, that the Congress will come up with practical resolutions to expedite the economic turnaround initiative. We all expect that, as has become the norm, the Congress will review the ground covered since the last session in Harare, evaluate the measures implemented and come up with informed decisions to move the nation forward.

It is providential that the issues that were likely to dominate the agenda, namely succession and factionalism, are unlikely to do so in the wake of the sacking of the two vice presidents Joice Mujuru in 2014 and Emmerson Mnangagwa in 2017, both of whom were identified with factions angling to succeed President Mugabe. With President Mugabe already endorsed as the party’s Presidential candidate for 2018, all eyes should be on the ball.

This naturally leaves the agenda clear to tackle pressing bread and butter issues. We have no doubt that the revolutionary party leadership have since identified the issues that can make us regain our rightful place as Southern Africa’s second biggest economy after South Africa. And all indications are that after a successful turnaround, there is nothing that would preclude us from giving South Africa a run for its money. President Mugabe has consistently pushed the agenda of socio-economic transformation. He rightly pointed out that this objective could be achieved through good corporate citizenship that shuns vices like corruption, illegal foreign currency dealings, nepotism and bribery.

It is also our hope that the Congress will discuss ways of stamping out or curbing these evils that detract from the turnaround programme. It is providential that the Congress comes at a time the nation has attained food self-sufficiency on the back of the highly successful Command Agriculture programme, the brainchild of First Lady Amai Grace Mugabe. And in light of the changing climatic patterns, Congress should discuss ways of ensuring that we do not overly rely on rain-fed agriculture in order to ensure that the Command Agriculture programme continues scoring for the nation.

As delegates troop into the Congress venue next month, they must remember that the whole nation will be looking up to them, it expects nothing less than tangible programmes to consolidate the turnaround programme. The Extraordinary Congress should celebrate the successes scored so far, with the illegal regime change ship running aground, the sponsored opposition in tatters and all indications are that with concerted efforts, Zanu-PF can march into Election 2018 stronger than ever before..

Kelvin Albertson Correspondent
It hardly needs saying, but there are changes afoot in the political economy of the world. Where there is globalisation, there are globalisation protestors. This is nothing new, but it is becoming mainstream. The antithesis of globalisation, nationalism, and the pursuit of your own country’s interests over those of everyone else, has bubbled back up in Europe. And it’s not just Europe, of course. In the US, President Donald Trump is (among other initiatives) rethinking the American commitment to free trade.

In the rest of the world, the experience of globalisation shows it creates some winners and some losers. This varies geographically and in different economic fields, and is shown in different aspects of our lives. And so, someone in London might find their house is worth more. As foreign capital flows in to buy up large swathes of the capital it increases their wealth, while others might be priced out of the market. In some sectors of the market, wages might be declining as a result of global competition, migration, casualisation or automation. In the final analysis, however, it is not a matter of whether globalisation causes these changes; it is rather more that people feel that it does.

Globalisation is not, however, merely a matter of trade, migration and foreign outsourcing. To many it seems Britain itself is for sale as an increasing proportion of UK businesses and assets answer to foreign owners. Economic theory suggests, therefore, the nation will increasingly be run for the benefit of foreign capital, rather than the citizens. On top of this, there is the danger that inflows of foreign capital will cause the exchange rate to appreciate, making it more difficult to export, reducing manufacturing output and reducing employment in those sectors affected.

To protect them from forces beyond their control, citizens across the world are increasingly looking to the nation state for protection, hence the rise of what is often called nationalism. As Abraham Lincoln noted:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.” It is clear, no individual or community can stand against the forces of global capital, and Western governments appear averse to giving the workforce the means to protect itself, through, for example, increasing employment rights and unionisation. However, in their search for a strong government to protect them, citizens are in danger of giving the state too much power over their lives.

It is by no means assured that the policies which suit a strong domestic government will be better than those which suit foreign owned multinational corporations. Also, history indicates the fear of global capital may be coopted by unscrupulous politicians into a fear of other nations or fear of other peoples.

Think locally
Rather than nationalism, therefore, we might turn to localism. In the UK context, this might be devolution with real (financial) localised power, and that power realised through local government and local business.

An economy of big businesses (operated for the benefit of global owners) is less than ideal for the individual and society. In contrast, a society of many small local businesses is more resilient, more empowering and more in keeping with the spirit of capitalism and of the market. We must also bear in mind that increasing business concentration (fewer, but larger firms) is a driver of increasing inequality. If a business is too big to (be allowed to) fail, then the government has failed in its duty to keep business small.

Economic theory indicates that those with no stake in a community other than profit extraction avoid suffering from localised ill effects such as unemployment, poverty, want and homelessness. It follows those who live and work in a community have a greater stake in its prosperity. The government might likewise consider how we might prevent those who do not even live in the country from driving up house prices.

Local protection from exploitation by global interests requires the right mix of global and local policies. And local government policies require adequate financing. By local financial power, I don’t mean local taxes. That has the potential to fragment the nation, as it has, to some extent, in the EU (whether perceived rightly or wrongly).

If we fund education or social care out of local taxes, for example, there will tend to be a race to the bottom as local authorities will be motivated to underperform to encourage vulnerable families to go and live elsewhere. It follows taxes should be collected nationally, and shared proportionally (on the basis of demographic profile) to the devolved authorities. There is no space here to discuss in detail other possible localism policies, but there are many ways to promote local ownership and local empowerment. That could include local currencies, boosts to council housing, local authority ownership of utilities or support for locally-owned high street shops. However, it is not a policy mix I suggest, rather it is an emphasis.

Ultimately, the only viable alternative to the choice currently on offer, the choice of Big State or Big Business, is Small State and Small Business, or more appropriately Local Government and Local Business. To pursue localism will require a systemic shift in how the national government goes about shaping society, but I suggest it is possible to promote social justice in a capitalist context in no other way. -Africa Conversation

Nick Beams Correspondent
One of the most significant developments to emerge from US President Donald Trump’s current Asia tour is the extent to which far-reaching changes in the structure of the world economy have undermined the once unchallengeable dominance of US imperialism. This shift has far-reaching geopolitical consequences. It is the essential driving force behind the ongoing efforts by the United States to reverse its decline by military means. Washington’s increasing economic isolation was visible at every stage of Trump’s visit.

In his address to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit meeting in Da Nang, Vietnam, on Friday, Trump railed against the World Trade Organisation (WTO), saying it benefited other countries at the expense of the US. Henceforth he would seek bilateral deals based on the principle of “America First.” After days of wrangling, however, the APEC summit statement pledged to “fight protectionism”. It said ministers “recognise the work of the WTO in ensuring international trade is rules-based, free, open, fair, transparent in predictable and inclusive”. It committed members to “cooperate to improve the functioning of the WTO”.

A side meeting of the 11 remaining members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the economic bloc proposed by the Obama administration from which Trump withdrew immediately upon taking office in January — agreed to try to secure an agreement without the US. Full TPP agreement had been expected to be announced on Saturday but Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau withdrew at the last minute. Canada is believed to have problems with sections of the agreement concerning “cultural issues” and proposed rules governing Japanese auto parts sales. The Canadian position is also complicated by negotiations with the US over changes demanded by the Trump administration to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The proposed TPP deal remains alive, however. Following the Canadian move, the TPP 11, led by Japan, said they had reached agreement on “core elements”. Negotiations would continue on a Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a title adopted at Canada’s request.

Officials said they planned to sign a final agreement next year that would eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of goods traded in the bloc, covering 500 million people and $10 trillion in economic output. In a clear sign of the divisions with the US, Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said: “This will send out a very strong message to the US and to other Asia-Pacific countries.”

In Japan last week, Trump pointed to America’s $69 billion trade deficit with that country and called for more “reciprocal” trade. He suggested that Japanese automakers “try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over”. The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association responded by pointing out that 75 percent of Japanese-branded vehicles sold in the US are built in North America.

Following Trump’s visit, Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso pointedly issued a statement that Japan would not enter a bilateral agreement with the US to resolve the trade imbalance. In China, Trump railed against “out of kilter” economic relationships between the two countries, reflected in the $347 billion trade surplus China enjoys with the US. Much of this surplus, however, results from US firms using China as a base for their global operations, as well as the supply of Chinese materials to US corporations.

Conscious of Trump’s desire to present his visit as a success, the Chinese accorded him red carpet treatment and facilitated a signing ceremony for some $250 billion worth of corporate deals. It was largely an exercise in smoke and mirrors. Bloomberg noted: “The headline number is impressive. A quarter trillion dollars’ worth of deals from China that . . . Trump can use to show he’s creating opportunities for US businesses and jobs for his base. The reality, however, is that the roughly 15 agreements unveiled on Thursday are mostly non-binding memorandums of understanding and could take years to materialise — if they do at all.”

Significantly, there was no agreement on giving US companies more access to Chinese markets or on opening up the Chinese financial system to the US — two key demands Washington has pursued for years. Summing up Trump’s Asia visit, one business leader cited by the Financial Times said: “I think everyone was polite to him and they want to make him think they are all chummy and willing to do things with him. But I have to think in some ways they are laughing behind his back, and certainly the Chinese are.” — WSWS

I don’t think any of them have any intention of getting into a deal with him, certainly not on the terms that he wants.” Michael Froman, the chief US negotiator for the TPP under the Obama administration, said the agreement of the TPP 11 to push ahead showed that “our allies and partners” continued to value tearing down trade barriers. “Clearly, as the US retreats, the rest of the world is moving on.”

Trump’s Asia visit has underscored the mounting problems US imperialism confronts globally on the geo-economic front. The multilateral trade framework the US put in place after World War II, now enshrined in the WTO, is increasingly seen as working against its interests. This assessment is not just that of the Trump administration. It was also the essential motivation for the TPP, which the Obama administration developed as part of its “pivot to Asia” to counter China’s rise.

At the same time, Trump’s demands for countries to enter bilateral trade arrangements with the US are not going to be met. No country wants to place its head in the jaws of the lion for it to be bitten off under Trump’s “America First” program. In others words, there is no economic avenue for the US to change its position within the present order. Hence the drive to assert its interests through military force.

Throughout Trump’s Asia visit, the pressure continued against North Korea—in the final analysis aimed at China. And Trump’s continued references to the Indo-Pacific, rather than the Asia Pacific, began to acquire flesh. A meeting was convened in Manila on Sunday between US, Japanese, Australian and Indian officials for “exploratory talks” on a regional “security architecture.”

The proposal for such a “quad” was first raised in 2007 at Japan’s instigation but receded into the background. It “has now bounced back with a vigour few would have expected just a year ago,” according to Harsh V. Pany, professor of international relations at King’s College, London. “The reason is simple: there is growing nervousness in the regional power centres in the Indo-Pacific about China’s emergence as a major global power.” While the “quad” meeting was not at a ministerial level, the US is clearly pushing for a coalition of the region’s supposed “democracies” as a strategic and military counterweight against China.

Notwithstanding its economic differences with the US, Tokyo evidently sees the “quad” as a means for pushing its strategic interests against China. India has similar motivations. Australia has been a frontline supporter of the US in every war over the past quarter century, both to promote its own interests in the region and because of its economic dependence on the US financial system. The disintegration of the relations that regulated world capitalism, so palpably on display during Trump’s Asia visit, mean that the US push to find a military solution to its mounting economic problems will accelerate in the coming period.

-WSWS

“Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me.” (Matthew 17:15-17).

There are spirits responsible for everything taking place on earth. Three kinds of spirits are responsible for everything taking place on this planet. They are responsible for every movement that you see. The first spirit responsible for what is happening around you is your human spirit and it is capable of controlling things and events. There is also the spirit of God which is responsible for most of the things we see happening now, then there is the spirit of the devil which also causes things to happen on earth.

Apart from these three spirits you cannot have another spirit controlling you or what is happening around you. If you are to make any decision right now, it is either your spirit, the spirit of God or the spirit of the devil moving you into making that decision. Before you can begin executing your ideas, dreams and visions, you need to first of all establish whether it is the spirit of God, the spirit of the devil or just your human spirit pushing you.

Your spirit can move you into doing things you will later on regret but the spirit of God will never lead you into something you will regret. The spirit of God will never lead you to a place you will become stranded. When you finally find yourself in a place where you are getting lost you need to begin questioning yourself the kind of spirit that controlled you into such a place. Even as parents you need to make sure that your children are taken through a process of deliverance so that they can be free from any manipulating spirit.

You need to make sure that your children are free and delivered because we have three spirits controlling people. These three spirits are controlling events, nations, kings, priests, politicians and pastors. As parents it is time not sit down and fold your hands, allowing the devil to plunder your families and take away your children. There has to be people ready to fight and pay the price; people who will not allow the devil to destroy their families.

“And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.” (Mark 9:2). In this scripture Jesus took three of His disciples to a mountain; out of His 12 disciples only three were invited. He then took them to a very high mountain and if you look at it, the main reason was not for them to pray but He wanted to show them something. Peter, James and John were invited to an experience.

On top of the mountain Jesus was transfigured before them, he became too glorious and there was light everywhere. The reason why Jesus invited only three out of 12 disciples was not due to the venue that was not able to accommodate the rest because He did not take them into a confined place. He took them into a mountain which could accommodate thousands of people, but why choose only three?

The reason was not whether the mountain can accommodate them but it was whether they were able to accommodate the mountain. It was all about the experience; Jesus can take you to a place and your place can be found but it is difficult for an experience to have a place in you. It was only three disciples who were able to bear what was going to take place in the mountain.

Your place can be found on the mountain but the place for the mountain might not be found in you. You can find yourself in a place where things are happening but it will be difficult for those things to find a place inside of you. Only three disciples could understand what was happening.

These three disciples saw two personalities – Elijah and Moses – talking to Jesus. This was hundreds of years after Elijah and Moses had departed but just by looking at them they could tell who they were yet they never saw them physically. There was not even any angel to introduce to them that those men were Elijah and Moses. The reason is because in the realms of the spirit introductions are not necessary, just by looking at somebody you will know who they are.

You have to operate at high levels when it comes to discernment because if you are able to contain the mountain you are able to contain the revelation. You have to see what other people are not able to see and you will experience what other people have not experienced.

In life if you can only see what others are seeing you can never be different from them. If you can hear what the rest are hearing you cannot be different from them. This is why the Book of Psalms says: “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.” (Psalms 62:11). When others hear one message you have to hear two messages when God speaks once.

Of the 12 disciples Jesus had only three who could describe Elijah because they had a face-to-face experience with Moses and Elijah. It is only they who can touch on very outstanding and sensitive areas; it is not for every pastor or preacher. That is why you need to be very careful when choosing a church to attend because it is only three disciples able to talk about that experience, the rest have to talk about something else. It is also dangerous for you as a church member to find yourself in a church where the founder has never had an experience in the spirit.

An experience in the spirit makes these three disciples different from the rest. After witnessing such an experience, it does not matter how much the devil tries to push you around, you just cannot be pushed. He can shake you but you can never fall, He can intimidate you but you can never run because of what you would have seen, touched, heard and experienced. We cannot be pushed around because we have seen what God can do. What I can guarantee you is that if you do not quit in the battles of life you will definitely win.

Feedback: https://www.facebook.com/prophetEMakandiwa

https://twitter.com/prmakandiwa

https://www.instagram.com/emmanuelmakandiwa/

Helpline: +263 4 339 341

info@emmanuelmakandiwa.com mailto:info@emmanuelmakandiwa.com

The question on everyone’s mind is will RT’s hosts, including veteran interviewer Larry King, also be forced to register as “foreign agents”?

Andre Damon Correspondent
Last Thursday, RT America, the US-based subsidiary of RT (formerly known as Russia Today), announced that it would, under pressure from the United States government, register as a “foreign agent” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Justice Department’s demand that RT register as a “foreign agent” is aimed at delegitimising RT as a news source, intimidating its journalists and guests, and setting the precedent for taking similar actions against other news outlets.

The US government has given no public justification for its demand, which will require that RT America provide information on its finances and on individuals involved in directing the news outlet. RT clearly reflects the views of the Russian government and avoids criticism of the Putin regime. However, the US has made no similar demand in relation to other outlets that have government financing and backing — the BBC, for example.

Moreover, the United States operates a vast network of news agencies that work, officially and unofficially, to promote the interests of the American ruling class all over the world. The US government’s motivations are entirely political, bound up with the effort to present all opposition within the United States as the product of the actions of Russia.

In its reporting, whatever its reasons may be, RT provides a platform for voices critical of the policy of the American government. The United States outlined the political reasons for moving against the broadcaster in the January 6, 2017 report by the US Director of National Intelligence on “Russian intervention” in the 2016 elections. The report alleged, “RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.

“The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.’” The Director of National Intelligence report further denounced favourable coverage by RT of the Occupy Wall Street movement, declaring, “RT framed the movement as a fight against ‘the ruling class’ and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations”.

More recently, US politicians — led by the Democratic Party — have developed a narrative that Russia, through outlets like RT, has worked to “sow divisions” within the United States, as if the American people need RT to know that the political system is corrupt and dominated by corporations. The campaign has been used to demand a regime of Internet censorship, with technology giants including Google, Facebook and Twitter taking measures to block or demote content from a broad range of websites.

Earlier this month, Google removed RT from its list of “preferred” channels on YouTube, while Twitter blocked all advertising by the channel. In addition to its crackdown on RT, Google has made sweeping changes to its search engine and news service that have dramatically slashed traffic to left-wing, antiwar and progressive websites, including the World Socialist Web Site, which has had its search traffic from Google fall by 74 percent since April.

Precisely because of its ties to the Russian government, the US Justice Department has chosen it as its first target in its drive to persecute, criminalize and ultimately outlaw all oppositional journalists. Will RT’s hosts, including Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and veteran interviewer Larry King, also be forced to register as “foreign agents”? Will all of RT’s guests, which have included prominent left-wing journalists, politicians, academics and even celebrities, get a knock on their door demanding that they file paperwork with the Justice Department?

Will all of these individuals now be opened to questioning about their collaboration with a “hostile foreign power”? This month, an organisation calling itself the European Values Think-Tank, based in the Czech Republic and funded by the US embassy and foundations associated with billionaire George Soros, published just such a list, including the names of 2 300 RT guests, grouped into US and UK politicians, journalists, academics and celebrities.

These individuals are, according to the think tank, “useful idiot(s)” for a “hostile foreign power”. The list includes journalists Julian Assange, Max Blumenthal, Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Ed Schultz and Matt Taibbi, as well as the academics Noam Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, together with actor Russell Brand and filmmaker Oliver Stone.

Amid soaring social inequality and an ever-escalating military build-up, the US government is moving to silence any alternative to its closely monitored and vetted establishment media outlets, including the major newspapers and broadcast networks. The fact that RT is being targeted because of its political positions sets an ominous precedent. It means that “foreign propaganda” is being defined by political views, laying the groundwork for a much broader range of news outlets to be labelled as promoting “Russian propaganda”, blacklisted and ultimately criminalised. — wsws

Women rights activist Nyaradzo Mashayamombe

Locadia Mavhudzi Features  Correspondent
While women in urban areas are exposed to a variety of family planning choices, the plight of women in rural and peripheral areas with regards to access to contraception is still miserable. A recent visit to Mambowa small scale mining area in Shurugwi revealed that many young women who entered into marriage at an early age did not have access to contraceptives and in the case that family planning choices are available, they cannot afford the costs.

Muchaneta Machirori, a 22- year-old mother, with three children below five years, said she has never used any contraceptives for a long time due to various reasons.

“We normally get lessons on the need to use contraceptives when we visit the clinic for baby wellness but I cannot afford the one dollar cost that is needed for pills,” she said. Way back in the village, Machirori said, health workers used to distribute family planning pills for free but it is now a thing of the past.

A intrauterine device (IUD)

“Our village health workers used to supply us with family planning pills but now they no longer do so. I wish that system would be brought back because it empowers me as a woman to control my reproductive system,” she said. Machirori said her three children who are aged five, three and one are not by choice.

“My biggest fear is that I might even fall pregnant again because once I stop breastfeeding I will be susceptible to another pregnancy,” she said. The mother of three revealed that she had in the past tried traditional forms of family planning but the methods came in with their own side effects.

“Our village traditional midwives have told us about some traditional herbs such as “mutsvanzva, munhanzva and roots of a ‘‘muroro” tree but these have not been very efficient. The labour of having to go into the forest every now and again and at times overdose of the prescription may lead to further health complications”, she said. The young woman, said the burden of family planning rests upon her as a woman because her husband is not interested in the subject.

A models shows a second-generation female condom, called “FC2.”

“I always tell my husband to buy me family planning pills but he does not take it as a serious issue,” she said.
“When I fall pregnant, it becomes my burden to cater for the child until the child goes to school. My husband does not share the challenges I go through in raising the children. He only shows joy when a baby boy is born.” Family planning the world over has long been fraught with political, cultural and religious controversy, ever since the first pioneers began to promote the benefits of birth spacing in the early 20th century.

According to statistics released by the Zimbabwe National Family Planning Council, the uptake of family planning is still low in rural areas where teenage pregnancies are still prevalent. Knowledge of contraception means knowing at least one of the methods of family planning. Modern contraceptive methods include female sterilisation, male sterilisation, the pill, the intrauterine device (IUD), injectables, implants, male condoms, female condoms, the diaphragm, foam/jelly, the lactational amenorrhea method, and traditional methods include periodic abstinence and withdrawal. Women rights activist Nyaradzo Mashayamombe believes women’s empowerment should go beyond the boardroom talk.

“Provision of family planning services in rural areas should be free and accessible,” she says.
“That alone will prevent a lot of child marriages that are rampant in rural settings. If male condoms are readily available in many places, then why not family planning services and sanitary pads for women? “

Meanwhile, lawmakers recently called on government to channel more funds towards family planning and reproductive health as they are currently largely dependent on donor funds. Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on health, Dr Ruth Labode, noted that there is an urgent need to mobilize funds for family planning services especially in rural areas.

Population Services Zimbabwe country director, Abebe Shibru said family planning has advantages in that it improves the health, education, and well-being of women, as well as allowing countries to invest in economic development. No operations and capital grant was availed to the Zimbabwe National Family Planning Council by the government from 2014. Dr Munyaradzi Murwira, director of the Zimbabwe National Family Planning Council, noted the challenges associated with boosting contraceptive use in the country.

“The problems about funding gaps is nothing new, as funding for family planning was diverted to HIV programmes across the developing world during the 1990s,” he said.

“Funding for our family planning programmes has been limited over the last 10 to 15 years. Barriers to meeting the full demand for contraceptives are many. Stock outs limit access to contraception, some countries limit contraceptives on non-medical grounds, for example, to unmarried women and adolescents, and some women need their husbands’ consent to use contraception or must pay for it.”

The unmet need for contraceptives among married women aged 15-49 years in WHO’s Africa Region is estimated at 24 percent and lags considerably behind the rest of the world, according to the Atlas of African health statistics 2016. However, Zimbabwe remains one of the top countries to scale up health services in Africa. Critics believe high literacy rates in Zimbabwe, should reflect a knowledgeable and progressive society that is able to make healthy choices.

According to the 2015 Zimbabwe Demographic Health Survey – the country exceeds the global average on contraceptive prevalence in sub Saharan Africa with 67 percent of married women aged 15 to 49 years having access to contraceptives. Zimbabwe’s family planning strategy is to increase contraceptive prevalence rate from 59 percent to 68 percent by 2020, and in the process reducing teenage pregnancies from 24 percent to 12 percent by 2020.

The green fields of yesteryear have given way to deep gullies

David Mungoshi Shelling the Nuts
A quartet known as The Brothers Four recorded a memorable version of the song “Where have all the flowers gone?” Backed by simple guitars and a double bass, the vocals are clear and distinctive in a way that makes their lament even more evocative. The Brothers Four also did an environmental hit song called “Green Fields”, whose words go something like this:

Once there were green fields kissed by the sun
Once there were valleys where
rivers used to run
Once there were blue skies with white clouds high above
Once they were part of a
everlasting love
We were the lovers who strolled through green fields

The imagery in this stanza is sad and forlorn and speaks of profound, but unwelcome changes. It reads like a typical 21st century story of deforestation and desertification. The green fields are gone and all that is left is the dust bowls and vast yawning gaps of nothingness. Where the sun once kissed the green fields it now burns the earth almost oven hot. You dare not step out without shoes or sandals because if you did you would most certainly be looking for trouble.

If you are in Kenya, drive out to a place called View Point just outside Limuru, the little town on the highway to Lake Victoria and Uganda in the distance. Limuru is fascinating because in the evenings you can go to the pubs and drink Miti, a traditional brew invented by a Kenyan herbalist who actually has a patent to it. Miti is an intoxicant as well as a medicine. Well, that is the claim from its brewers. Each drinking place that sells Miti displays a certificate on the wall.

The certificate assures drinkers that the brew is properly calibrated and has been clinically tested for toxins. In simple English you are told by the certificate that it is absolutely safe to drink Miti. These are the things I remember about Kenya and Limuru: the makeshift tea kiosks by the roadside and the friendly citizens out on a walk in the fresh mountain air or just wanting to have tea by the roadside.

One evening I was feeling adventurous and decided to try the fabled herbal beer. It had a tangy and exotic herbal taste. Soon it had me chatting animatedly with other guzzlers in this seedy little place where a man promised to introduce me to Fadhili Williams, the composer of Malaika, one of Africa’s greatest and most enduring melodies.

I think my new-found friend and I were tottering on the brink of sleep and inebriation, completely felled by the herbal brew and the sheer exhaustion of our imbibing. Sometimes tongues are looser, especially when sleep is calling. In between eager gulps from the frothy bottles, I heard the secrets of Kenyan beer. One being that to get the best out of a Kenyan beer, always drink it at room temperature.

“My friend,” said my grateful companion groggily, “As soon as you ask for a cold beer everyone knows you’re from Zimbabwe. Zambians don’t care for such things. They say, a beer is a beer. If you want a lion go to the bush.” I was the one buying.

Days later, an incident came to me in my reminiscing. Its trigger was my Miti-drinking episode. Years back, a group of adventurous boys at boarding school tried their hand at contraband beer. Neither the boarding master nor the headmaster had any idea what was going on.

The incident was a top-notch secret. The boys boiled the smelly, toxic leaves of a hardy plant that no animal could graze on. In the days before the advent of cement floors, women in the countryside cleaned and polished their hardened earthen floors with the plant’s crushed leaves.

Although the smell was strong and nauseating, the clean air deodorised it. Thirsty rural beer-drinkers desperate for a swig sometimes resort to illicit brews such the zavazava brew. The leaves and roots are boiled about five times, the discoloured water being thrown out until a clear liquid remains. If taken before all the processes are done the taste is said to be harsh and uninviting.

Once the illicit brewers are satisfied that what they have is drinkable, the brew is allowed to cool and settle. This done, merry consumption begins. On this particular occasion the boys were too thirsty and impatient to allow for what had to be done to be done. They had the brew prematurely and were soon transported to worlds unknown. Right through the weekend to about the end of day on Monday one of the boys was sick to the bone and had trouble with his eyes. He couldn’t focus properly or coordinate himself. The disorientation was absolute; confusion reigned in his head even as the physical pain tortured his body. To all intents and purposes he was in a state of restricted animation. But boys will be boys. The secret was kept intact until years after the incident. Some memories are made of such incidents.

Standing at the edge of View Point and looking down into the valley below you see the beginnings of the wondrous East African Rift Valley. In this place the earth and sky seem to converse.

There is just so much beauty everywhere that as you stand there and after you have bought your Kalenjin souvenirs you wish you could stay there forever and just enjoy this wondrous natural beauty that threatens to floor you and reduce you to a whimpering idiot stunned by a sight that even angels will stop to gaze at. There is always a kind of heavenly mist in this place. I have sometimes thought that I could hear the hooves of wildebeest stampeding across the grasslands or leaping blindly into flood waters. After your ravishing experience at View Point you could go to the roadside vendors and help yourself to the special Limuru maize that they proudly announce takes six months to mature and is harvested in winter. In that case you had better visit there when it’s winter. That way you will be able to taste the roadside tea made from tea from Kenya’s highlands.

Have you ever noticed how when you visit a place of real significance the place seems to take on almost visible personality of its own? It’s as if the place has a physical presence and can talk to you. You hear the voices of a young Ngugi wa Mirii growing and developing community-based theatre among the villages in the outer environs of Limuru. This is the place that sired Ngugi wa Thiong’o, one of Africa’s literary icons and most lucid political analysts.

Conservationists in Kenya and everywhere must insist on the sanctity of the environment. Only that way can we avoid the tragedy that must come if people in Africa continue to allow the environment to be depleted through deforestation and siltation whose logical consequence in both cases is desertification. There are numerous places along Zimbabwe’s roads and motorways where a signpost announces a river, but when you get there all you see is a bridge over a dry river bed. And I can think of places out in the communal areas that had springs that have since dried up. Walking around the bush in those far-off days you knew exactly where to find water. Willy-nilly, I find myself singing along with The Brothers Four: Once there were valleys where rivers used to run. This is a true enough picture. There were ponds we used to swim or fish in. Now only the deep gullies remain except where siltation has had a say in the way things have panned out. Will there come a time when someone’s child will ask what a river is? Or are going to march to a dirge lamenting the dying of our world and the depletion of our natural resources? When I go walkabout out in the country I feel the emptiness all round. There are empty huts and fallow fields everywhere and as always The Brothers Four serenade me with the words:

Green fields are gone now, parched by the sun
Gone from the valleys where rivers used to run
Gone with the cold wind that swept into my heart
Gone with the lovers who let their dreams depart
Where are the green fields that we used to roam?

Is anybody listening out there? Does anybody care? Or are we all saying, “I’m all right Jack”? There will be a comeuppance and hell to pay one day if people continue to be so uncaring, inflicting wounds, scarring the world and then turning round to ask: Where have all the flowers gone? As the song says, flowers get picked some day and those who pick the flowers eventually move on to marriage, to soldiering and to the graveyards in solemn caskets. And the cycle of flowers goes on.

David Mungoshi is a writer, social commentator, retired teacher and editor.

Osama bin Laden

Stephen Gowans Correspondent
A POINT I made in a recent article has stirred a fierce reaction, particularly from Michel Chossudovsky, but on earlier occasions from others as well, who seem particularly agitated by my observation that Al Qaeda is “implacably opposed to the US presence in the Muslim world”.

As far as I can tell, Chossudovsky is offended by the following.
The war [of the United States in Yemen] is consistent with the immediate aim of the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds — to eliminate any organised, militant opposition to US domination of the Middle East. It is an aim that accounts for Washington’s opposition to entities as diverse as the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. While these states and organisations have differing agendas, their agendas overlap in one respect: all of them oppose US domination of the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Bashir Al-Assad

There are two organisations in Yemen that militantly oppose US domination of Yemen specifically and the Muslim world broadly: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Houthis. Both are Islamist organisations. Both are implacably opposed to US and Israeli interference in the Muslim world.

Apparently, my contention that (a) Al-Qaeda is opposed to the US presence in the Muslim world, readily verifiable in the statements of Osama bin Laden and the organisation’s subsequent leadership, has been construed as (b) a denial of Al-Qaeda’s collaboration with the United States, both in the war on Syria, and in the wars on the Gaddafi government in Libya and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

As a matter of logic b (what Chossudovsky thinks I’ve said or implied) does not follow from a (my observation about Al-Qaeda.) Perhaps a few examples will illustrate how Chossudovsky’s thinking — and that of others — has gone wrong.

Opposition to the US presence in the Middle East does not preclude collaboration with the United States to achieve a shared negative goal. The ad rem case in this particular discussion is the elimination of secular, leftist governments. Hostile states and organisations that have otherwise mutually antagonistic aims have, on occasion, if not frequently, formed temporary alliances to achieve common negative objectives.

Muammar Gaddafi

For example, the resolutely anti-communist Winston Churchill formed an alliance with the resolutely communist Joseph Stalin against Hitler’s Germany, a shared enemy. Once their common negative goal was achieved with Hitler’s destruction, the alliance was dissolved, and the hostility that had previously existed between the two states, based on their pursuit of mutually antagonistic goals, resumed. Stalin was implacably opposed to British imperialism, but we wouldn’t say that his alliance with London refuted this. Nor would we say that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact refuted the claim that the Soviet Union was implacably opposed to Nazism (though if we followed Chossudovsky’s logic we would.)

Bashar al-Assad is implacably opposed to the US presence in the Arab world, readily verifiable in his statements and in the programme of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party. All the same, Assad, like Muammar Gaddafi (also an anti-imperialist) collaborated with Washington in the US rendition programme. That programme was aimed at Al-Qaeda and other jihadists, enemies common to Libya, Syria and the United States. Assad’s collaboration with Washington in this matter didn’t mean he wanted a US presence in the Arab world. Nor does it refute the statement that Assad is an anti-imperialist.

At the time, it made sense for Gad-dafi and Assad to cooperate with the United States in neutralising jihadists who threatened their secular governments. Equally, it made sense for Washington to enlist Gaddafi’s and Assad’s assistance. Jihadists threatened US domination of the Arab world. But it also made sense for Washington to enlist the aid of the jihadists to eliminate Gad-dafi and Assad, who also threatened US domination of the Arab world. If you’re smart, you play your enemies off against each other.

Some people have argued that Assad’s anti-imperialism is a front, citing his collaboration with Washington in the rendition programme and on other matters. They make the same argument about Gaddafi and Milosevic and Saddam. These leaders, the argument goes, are (or were) objectively pro-imperialist, because at some point they cooperated with the United States, in implementing structural adjustment programmes (Milosevic), seeking a rapprochement with the West (Gaddafi), or collaborating with Washington against Iran (Saddam.) The argument, of course, parallels Chossudovsky’s that Al-Qaeda can’t possibly be against a US presence in the Muslim world because it collaborates with Washington.

Many people have asked me how I can say Bashar al-Assad is anti-imperialist, since Assad’s government tortured the Syrian-Canadian Maher Arar and many others on behalf of Washington. Assad, they say, is “objectively” imperialist for collaborating with Washington, just as Chossudovsky believes that Al-Qaeda is “objectively” imperialist for cooperating with the United States.

Some say that Assad can’t possibly be “implacably opposed” to the US presence in the Arab world because he collaborated with Washington, just as others say with equal illogic that Al-Qaeda can’t possibly be “implacably opposed” to the US presence in the Arab world because it collaborates with Washington.

What’s missed here is that Assad participated in the rendition programme, not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he wanted to advance Syrian goals. Likewise, Al-Qaeda worked with Washington in Libya and Syria, not because it wanted to help the United States, but because it wanted to advance its own anti-secularist goals, and collaborating with the United States, at that particular time and place, was believed by Al-Qaeda’s leadership to be the best way to achieve those goals (just as Churchill believed at the time and place of Europe in 1941 that the best way to achieve Britain’s wartime goals was to collaborate with a hated enemy.)

Collaborating with an imperialist power to eliminate a common enemy, no more makes Assad an imperialist, than collaborating with Britain to eliminate Nazi Germany made Stalin an imperialist (or Churchill a communist), or the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact made Stalin a Nazi, or Lenin’s accepting Germany’s assistance to return to Russia in 1917 made Lenin pro-German, or collaborating with the United States to eliminate secular Ba’athists makes Al-Qaeda imperialist (or Washington Islamist.)

Islamists have often cooperated with Western powers to topple secular, leftist governments — not because they desired a US presence in the Muslim world, but because they didn’t want secular government. Lenin accepted assistance from Germany not because he desired German-rule but because he didn’t want a Tsarist government and wanted a Bolshevik government in its place.

Accepting Washington’s help to rid the Muslim world of secularists like Assad makes sense to jihadists — but it doesn’t mean they want Washington or its puppets running their affairs, anymore than Assad’s and Gaddafi’s accepting Washington’s help (through the rendition programme) to rid secular Syria and secular Libya of jihadists meant they wanted Washington to run Syria’s and Libya’s affairs.

To sketch this out:

Assad wants the US out of the Arab world and a secular government
Al-Qaeda wants the US out of the Arab world and an Islamist government
Washington wants both Assad and Al-Qaeda out of the way

At points the goals overlap; at other points, they’re in conflict. At times Washington works with Syria against Al-Qaeda (as in the rendition program); at other times, Washington works with Al-Qaeda against Syria. And both Assad and Al-Qaeda are quite happy to have US assistance if it means the elimination of the other.

If Washington governed Syria through a local puppet, it would not be improbable to see Ba’athists and Islamists form a temporary alliance against US power in Syria. On other occasions, secular leftists and Islamists have collaborated in the pursuit of common goals. In the 1970s Iran, communists, secular nationalists and Islamists formed alliances to oust the Shah. But communist collaboration with political Islam didn’t make the communists tools of the Islamists or “objectively” Islamist. Nor did it mean that they weren’t implacably opposed to Islamist government.

Communists have often worked with social democrats, with whom they’re implacably opposed, against the right, but their cooperation hasn’t made them “objectively” social democrats or tools of social democracy. Nor would anyone who has a passing acquaintance with logic accept communist participation in a popular front as proof that communists aren’t against social democracy. What a popular front is, is anti-right, not pro-social democracy, in the same way that Al-Qaeda’s collaboration with Washington in Syria is anti-Ba’ath, not pro-imperialist.

Groups cooperate with each other where their agendas have points of intersection, and work against each other where their agendas are in conflict. Shifting alliances, temporary collaborations of convenience, playing one side off against the other — these are all common features of human interaction and commerce, as ubiquitous in the political affairs of the Middle East and the wider world as in your own personal life. Collaborating with one enemy against another, temporarily, until one enemy is gone, doesn’t mean you don’t have two enemies.

The choices people face are rarely of the sort: A (ally with) or B (fight against), but are most often of the sort: A (ally with) or B (fight against) or C (do both, shifting between one mode or the other depending on circumstance, opportunity, and the balance of forces.) Unless this is recognised, the complex interaction of competing forces in the Middle East, and elsewhere, will be understood as a Manichean world of over-simplified dualisms suitable only for comic book analysis and the world of half-wit conspiracy theory rather than what Lenin once called “concrete analysis of concrete situations.” – www.gowanswordpress.com

TRUE to the prediction of the Meteorological Services Department, the rains have started falling in most parts of the country much to the relief of farmers as they step up their preparations for the 2017/18 agricultural season. While we are all happy that the MSD forecast has come true, it is that time again that we need to remind ourselves of the dangers associated with rainfall. Granted, we need the rains for our crop and livestock production, not to mention its importance as drinking water.

Our economy is agro-based, meaning it depends on agriculture, which in turn can only perform well when there is adequate rainfall. Another bumper harvest is expected this season on the back of the good rains and the successful Command Agriculture programme. What worries us the most every year are the reported cases of drowning as people attempt to cross flooded rivers and bridges. It is with this in mind that we want, once again, to remind the people to be very careful when crossing flooded bridges and rivers.

Many people have died after being swept away by the heavy currentwhile attempting to cross rivers. Transporters should never attempt to cross flooded bridges as doing so would be putting the lives of many people at high risk. Buses carrying passengers have been swept away yet the advice that is given every year against crossing flooded rivers and bridges seems to fall on deaf ears. We want to appeal to everyone to desist from crossing flooded rivers and bridges and in cases where bus drivers insist on crossing, the passengers should also insist on disembarking as nothing is worth taking that kind of risk.

The deaths can easily be avoided if people take heed of warnings against crossing flooded rivers and bridges. It is better to be delayed on a journey and wait for the water levels to recede than to risk losing your life. While the dangers of drowning dampen the spirits of many, the advantages of receiving good rains far outweigh the dangers that the rains bring.

It is serious work in the farming areas as the season promises to be a good one again. Most farmers have already done their land preparations and barring delays in the availability of inputs, should start planting very soon. There are other farmers, however, still to harvest their wheat crop because of the problems associated with getting combine harvesters. We appeal to Government to help such farmers remove their crop from the field as it risks being damaged by the rains.

Those that have harvested the crop also face the problem of delivery as they cannot deliver to the nearest Grain Marketing Board depot. There are reports that farmers are being turned away from the GMB depots in their areas and being directed to remote depots. We believe farmers should be allowed to deliver to the GMB depot nearest to them and the GMB must take the responsibility of moving the wheat to other depots that have space.

Otherwise, by turning away farmers, the GMB is simply encouraging them to side market the crop. We do not want farmers to find an excuse to sell the wheat crop to middlemen simply because the GMB cannot accommodate them. The GMB is the top buyer paying the highest price and naturally every farmer would want to sell to the parastatal. We thus appeal to the GMB against turning away farmers, but instead urge it to accept delivery and take the responsibility of moving the wheat to depots that have space. The responsibility of the farmer is to move the wheat from the farm to the to the nearest GMB depot in their area.

Sharon Hofisi Legal Letters
Marriage is a molten word in Zimbabwe and the world over. Realistically for Zimbabwe, the old and new world novel is usually shot through with an atmosphere of the extant union between the dead and the living. The dead commune with the living and vice versa. In all this, families describe different spirits which can affect the marriage set-up such as vengeance (mweya yengozi); spooks/ghost (zvipoko/zvindofa/zvidhoma); familial or generational (mweya yedzinza); or alien spirits (mashavi). Fetishism, snuff, and so on form part of the paraphernalia for communication.

A man who kills his relative or stranger could manifest a ghost spirit yet women’s lived realities show that they would suffer for the sins of a male relative. The family would be forced to commune with the dead, not just because of their belief in the afterlife, but because of the overwhelming influence of the vengeance spirit in terms of how it wreaks havoc in the family.

The rights of women quickly come to the fore because women were and can be still used as the ransom for the family; mainly through some “forced” marriage. Illustratively, this article deals with ghost or homicide marriages. These marriages are “forced” because the woman or girl is not involved in the decision-making process. She is the object and never the subject of her rights. Her tripartite being of soul, spirit and body is sent into anguish all in the name of patrilineal and patriarchal dominance – both from her family and that of the deceased.

Women’s rights matter because they are part of the fundamental human rights that are protected in the Constitution. They are part of the elaborated rights that are found in Part 3 of Chapter 4 of the Constitution. They are considered part of specific group rights in this article. The application part on such rights is Section 79 of the Constitution which shows that these rights are elaborated for the purposes of ensuring greater certainty since they relate to particular classes of people: women, children, elderly, persons living with disabilities and veterans of the struggle.

The rights are not meant to limit the bulk of rights that are found in Part 2: which include the three generations of civil and political rights such as the right to life in Section 48; economic, cultural and social rights such as education in Section 76; as well as group or collective rights such as environmental rights in Section 73. Most importantly, they are framed in a manner which shows that they are enjoyed by every woman. Such a woman has full and equal dignity (chiremerera in Shona) of the person with men and this includes equal opportunities in political, economic and social activities.

Using homicide marriages to explain this pillar, women cannot and must not be used as a carrot to appease vengeance spirits (mweya wengozi). This is because homicide marriages are usually associated with ritual killings or murders that are committed by a male member of the family and a woman’s dignity cannot be used to soothe a spirit. Retribution demands that the perpetrator should be made to pay for his sins. Other forms of punishment such as retribution, restitution through a woman, and rehabilitation are usually inapplicable since the perpetrator could be dead.

From an international level, thematic treaties on women such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) quickly become relevant to the present discussion. In essence, their goal is to show the universality of fundamental human rights. For instance, CEDAW talks about marriage and family relations. It, however, does not define marriage. Such a definition would have gone a long way in benchmarking oppressive marriages the world over. CEDAW is the international Bill of Rights for women and national laws and practices can be audited using the provisions that are related to marriage.

Human rights instruments give states some margin of appreciation on such rights. As such, some nations can frame women’s rights using arguments from cultural relativism or particularism. While relativism is usually used as a response to forms of democracy as they relate to large set-ups such as Asian or African cultures; particularism is usually used on specific issues such as religious laws like Sharia.

At our national level, the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (Constitution), does not also define marriage in its definitions section, Section 332. The marriage rights provision, that is, Section 78 of the Constitution, does not also define marriage.

Without throwing away the baby with the bath water, Section 78 of the Constitution is important because it does the following: sets the age of marriage to be 18 years; clearly states that no person may be compelled to enter into marriage against their will; and shows that marriages in Zimbabwe are heterosexual in nature in that persons of the same sex are prohibited from marrying each other. In setting the tone of this article, the following must be borne in mind on women’s rights: they are justiciable and this is shown in Section 80 of the Constitution; and there are various laws that can be used to explain the marriage rights of women. Further, the Preamble of the Constitution, which is the epitome of individual sovereignty in Zimbabwe, places strong emphasis on the need to entrench good governance.

This is important because the principles of good governance which bind the State and all institutions and agencies of Government at every level include the recognition of the rights of women. This is enshrined in Section 3 (2) (i) (iii) of the Constitution. For starters, Section 3 of the Constitution is important because it states the founding values and principles of the constitutional form of democracy that Zimbabwe subscribes to. Further, women’s rights are protected by the supremacy clause – Section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has had occasion to show the importance of this clause in the case of Loveness Mudzuru and Another v Minister of Justice.

Section 9 of the Constitution shows that good governance is part of Zimbabwe’s national objectives. In terms of Section 8 of the Constitution, the national objectives are used to interpret the obligations of the State. As such, they can be used together with the interpretation criteria that is found in Section 46 of the Constitution which includes international law From an international law perspective, Zimbabwe is a State party to CEDAW and it becomes the primary duty-holder on women’s rights. In terms of Section 34 of the Constitution, the State must ensure that the provisions of conventions such as CEDAW are incorporated into domestic law.

Recently, the Constitutional Court outlawed provisions of laws which violated the marriage rights of women. There is need for a complete and urgent overhaul on all laws on marriage so that they protect, promote, respect and fulfil the rights and freedoms of women. In dealing with oppressive forms of marriages once and for all, the State must urgently uphold the spirit of Section 80 (3) of the Constitution which states that “all laws, customs, traditions and cultural practices that infringe the rights of women conferred by this Constitution are void to the extent of the infringement”.

Various other ways can be used. The State can fulfil its obligations on women’s rights by promoting the gender balance provision that is found in Section 17 of the Constitution. Most importantly, Section 26 of the Constitution is important when interpreting women’s rights. It states the following: no marriage is entered into without the free and full consent of the intended spouses; children are not pledged into marriage; there is equality of rights and obligations of spouses during marriage and at its dissolution; and in the event of dissolution of a marriage, whether through death or divorce, provision is made for the necessary protection of any children and spouses.

From the perspective of women rights or feminism, the following points can be made: Firstly, homicide marriages take away the freedom and consent of the woman who is married off. She is used as a ransom and nothing else. The marriage is not based on love, or feelings of love, but a messiah fever which simply runs high in the family’s veins and brains.

Secondly, the appeased spirit can choose someone who is below the marriageable age in Zimbabwe. Under criminal law, the family members can be arrested and prosecuted for pledging a minor. Under the Constitution, the family commits a constitutional breach by violating children or a young woman’s rights. Thirdly, the woman to be married off does not have equal rights with the vengeance spirit or the deceased’s male relative. She is psychologically abused from before and during the marriage. Fourthly, she is considered to be the wife of a dead man and it is certain that she cannot claim the proprietary rights that proceed from the estate of the dead man’s relative.

Because of the lacuna in both the Constitution and CEDAW on the definition of marriage, the following working definition that is used in most contemporary societies is used to mean: a voluntary relationship between a man and a woman or women, intended to last for their joint lives (Armstrong et al 1993: 3). This definition includes both monogamous and polygynous but does not include other forms of marriage which are recognised by some African societies under customary laws and which may have important implications for the protection of women’s rights under Article 16 and other related articles of the Convention (CEDAW) (ibid).

Frequently, people use the term polygamy for marriages in Zimbabwe. This term is, however, misused because it refers to a situation where a spouse has a right to marry several spouses during the subsistence of his or her marriage. This is not the situation that obtains in Zimbabwe. Men are allowed to marry several women, usually under customary law. Women who stay with several men under a marriage set-up are usually accused of using love potions or mufuhwira in some indigenous societies.

Polygyn is the best word to use in marriages in Zimbabwe since it points to a situation where a man has several wives. The Zimbabwean society is largely polygynous in nature, except in situations where people marry monogamously under the Marriages Act (Cap 5:11). A man’s signs of social virility were expressly shown in traditional Zimbabwe by the number of wives that he married. Some still hold on to this belief.

Using arguments from existential feminism, the concept of otherness is clearly seen in the ordering of priorities for men as “the person” and women as the “other”. This is so if regard is had to the fact that polyandry or a situation where a woman has several husbands was and is still very rare in Zimbabwe. This is notwithstanding that scanty media reports show that women in some parts of Zimbabwe do marry more than one husband and those husbands enjoy the comfort of their woman who they consider to be the head of the family.

The corollary to the above is that involuntary marriages under customary law such as ghost or homicide marriages must be situated in the need to treat the rights of women as part of the fundamental human rights. Quick notes on customary marriages would reveal the existence of the following marriages: levirate marriages where a deceased husband’s male relative gets into his shoes and performs his duties. In the Shona society, he is frequently referred to as “Musarapavana”.

Armstrong et al (ibid) used levirate in a broader sense which also gave the relative the right to enjoy conjugal rights with the deceased’s widow on condition that the children arising from such a union would belong to the deceased. The children would also inherit from the deceased’s estate. Very complex relationship indeed!

Some customary marriages include widow inheritance; sororate marriages where a sister replaces a dead sister or is used to overcome problems usually related to child bearing, and ghost marriages where a woman may be married to dead husband in order to raise and continue his family line.

Broadly speaking, homicide marriages are part of ghost marriages. A male relative can kill a stranger or another deceased relative. Years or generations can come and go before the deceased avenges his death. When he decides to do so, a lot of unusual things would happen: various illnesses, hallucinations, deaths, unintelligible utterances and so on.

The family elders in the extended family concept, usually men and the elderly sister (tete), would collectively decide on the best way to save the family from a catastrophic breakdown. This concept is still dominant in most societies. Family tragedies are solved at that level. Most families believe that the deliberate or negligent killing of a human being creates a calamitous situation for the whole family.

In that event, they collectively consult traditional healers. A performance of some rituals may expose an age-old heinous crime, usually of a stranger or distant relative. The whole family is usually advised to appease the vengeance spirit. The stranger’s spirit is usually more dangerous than that of a distant relative. This was expressed in the Shona through proverbs such as ‘ngozi yerombe igandanzara’, loosely translated to mean a beggar’s avenging spirit routs a whole family. Strangers were the bulk of beggars.

The spirit of the deceased would manifest itself in a young girl and would sometimes be preceded by a whole lot of family misfortunes. It would claim a large number of beasts of burden. If the deceased was not married, his spirit would demand an offspring from the killer’s family. The affected would equate the spirit to buffalo beans (guruzuzu or hurukuru). The spirit would relive the commission of the crime; point to the crime scene; identify the perpetrator; proffer the raison d’etre for the killing and would prescribe the punishment for the family. A girl or young woman is usually preferred for reasons of procreation. The woman becomes the vengeance spirit’s wife.

If the deceased was a relative, the girl who is used as the family ransom would be married off to another man who is not necessarily a relative, but on condition that the bride price is given to the relative’s family. If the deceased was a stranger to the family, she would be married off to the stranger’s surviving relative. In all this, the woman is not consulted. Her marriage rights; sexual reproductive rights; right to personal security; and right to human dignity are violated because she is simply told that she is the family messiah. Her mother is usually treated as the “other” woman because the husband usually has the final say in the negotiations.

Ultimately, the zenith of patriarchal, or rather patrilineal arrangements, manifests itself. Men become “the” measure of family affairs. The woman becomes the object and not the subject of her rights. Sharon Hofisi is a lawyer and writes in his personal capacity. He can be contacted on sharonhofii@gmail.com

Donald Trump

Innocent Ruwende in Bonn, Germany
American president Donald Trump has been isolated and continues to receive worldwide condemnation following his infamous decision to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Agreement in which several countries pledged to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases over the coming decades. At the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, parties are meeting without him and are optimistic that the implementation of the rules of the Paris Agreement signed in Paris last year, will be finalised this year, with Fiji making history as the first Pacific Island nation to hold the COP presidency.

Mr Trump’s decision, which has seen him sidelined, has driven other nations to take action, with China spurred to play an active role while France has announced its own Climate summit and Germany re-electing Angela Merkel as “the climate chancellor”. War ravaged Syria, which has been the only member of the United Nations not to sign onto the accord, on Tuesday announced its intentions to sign the agreement during the ongoing climate talks in Germany. Syria’s representative to the climate talks, Wadah Katmawi, said his country last month passed a law declaring its decision to join the accord.

“I’d like to assure you that the Arab Syrian Republic supports the implementation of the Paris Accord in order to achieve global objectives and reflect the principles of justice and joint responsibilities that are assigned according to the capacity of each signatory,” he said. Katmawi also called on developed countries to honour their legal and humanitarian responsibilities in assisting developing countries with technical and financial support.

“Countries that are entering a post-war recovery period, such as mine, need to be recognised as a priority when it comes to reconstruction and reorganising climate and the environment,” he said. Nicaragua, which was refusing to sign because it felt the agreement did not do enough to combat climate change, signed last month. Trump has been receiving flak even in his home country, with California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr announcing that his state would host the world’s climate leaders at a major summit in San Francisco next year.

The Global Climate Action Summit will take place in September 2018. Mr Brown’s office, in a statement on Thursday last week, said California would convene representatives from sub-national governments, businesses, investors and civil society at the summit.

“I know President Trump is trying to get out of the Paris Agreement, but he doesn’t speak for the rest of America,” Brown said. “We in California and in states all across America believe it’s time to act, it’s time to join together and that’s why at this Climate Action Summit we’re going to get it done,” he said. A Climate Science Special Report, released last Friday by 13 federal agencies in the US as part of the quadrennial National Climate Assessment contrary to Mr Trump’s claims, confirmed that human action was the major cause of climate change.

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” said the report. The findings, which were approved for release by the White House, come as Trump and his top advisors are defending their climate change policies which promote the US fossil fuel industry.

Other countries are also against Mr Trump’s decision, with France stating that “for the time being” Mr Trump was not invited to a climate change summit to be held in Paris in December. An official in the Office of President Emmanuel Macron recently announced that more than a hundred countries and non governmental organisations had been invited for the December 12 summit. The United States will still be invited to the summit, but at a lower level.

A famous musician joined the bandwagon of those attacking Trump, saying the American president’s attitude towards climate change exhibited some “madness”. He accused Mr Trump of backtracking “a lot of the advances that have been made”. The Paris Accord, which is not binding, was brokered in Paris in 2015 and signatories pledged to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases over the coming years. The Paris Agreement was widely viewed as historic as it was the first climate agreement to include the US.

Zimbabwe and other developing countries attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP23) have called on the United States to respect the Paris Agreement and work with the rest of the world in addressing climate change. Some nations want Washington to be sidelined following Mr Trump’s plan to withdraw from the deal.

“We would like to stand with the Africa Group positions on climate change and call on the Trump regime to be more serious and not hold the rest of the world hostage. This is the time for more strengthened unity in Africa and in the Group of 77 and China negotiations group.” Mr Trump’s pro-coal policies and doubts that climate change is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, could undermine urgency at the meeting of senior government officials and environment ministers.

COP23 will work on a rule book, due to be completed in 2018, for implementing the Paris Agreement on issues such as the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and how national emissions will be checked. Parties expect US officials, many of whom were architects of the Paris Accord under former president Barack Obama, to contribute to clear, enforceable rules and not promote Trump’s pro-coal political agenda which may derail the negotiations. Climate Change Management Department director Mr Washington Zhakata said changing weather patterns — like the hurricanes that devastated parts of the US this year — prove richer nations are not immune to climate change.

“Although climate change undoubtedly poses an “existential threat to our world”, it is not too late to take decisive action. COP23 should deliver tangible results towards strengthening climate resilience of the developing world,” he said.

“As developing countries, we have already done our part in pledging to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases to the best we can without any conditions. The developed world, which have already accepted historical responsibilities for causing the current changes in climate, have responsibility under the United Nations Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions.”

He said most countries had not honoured their pledges, thus creating mistrust as parties discuss the rule book for implementation of the Paris Agreement at COP23. Mr Zhakata said by taking strong ambitious steps to phase out greenhouse gas emissions and building an international legal mechanism to protect the climate, COP23 will protect the poorest and most vulnerable in the global society, build resilience, reap massive economic benefits and build a safe and secure future for the planet.

COP23 is organised by Bonn-based UN Climate Change, presided over by Fiji, with support from the Government of Germany. At least 20 country leaders are expected to attend.

Education can change the world

Fred Swaniker
In February 1997, history was made in a fairly nondescript building in downtown Addis Ababa. The African Virtual University (AVU) was born. Representatives from universities in six African nations including Kenya, Ghana and Zimbabwe, along with their respective finance ministers, came together to inaugurate the first pan-African project in education.

In its ambition, the World Bank-funded initiative aimed to bolster access, albeit remotely, to higher education for many Africans and provide a platform for academics, particularly those in the sciences, to build new annals of local knowledge. Twenty years later, AVU has graduated over 60 000 students across the continent, by any account a minuscule achievement when counterpoised against the towering (and unmet) demand for higher education in Africa.

But AVU has provided a shiny thread that weaves through less inspiring responses to the problem; years of student protests, strikes by university workers, and unsound policy responses by governments. The #FeesMustFall student protests in South Africa, a country with one of the best-resourced but also most unequal higher education systems in Africa, continues the broader narrative of inequality and exclusion in the higher education system across Africa.

Yet the problem is larger than its symptoms. What is the heart of the issue here is whether Africa’s higher education system as it currently stands is capable of fulfilling its role – producing high calibre graduates with the skills to drive the continent’s development forward. There is no simple answer to the question, nor is there a one-size-fits-all formula. Rather, we must look into the past to understand how Africa’s university education system came to be, and lessons for the future, as we work to correct our systems of higher education.

Samuel Ajayi Crowther was a Yoruba man who, by the age of 13, had been captured by Fulani raiders on the coast of West Africa, sold to Portuguese slave traders and then rescued, quite dramatically, en route to America by British Naval officers. In 1827, as he turned 18, Crowther received a formal education for the first time at the Christian Institute at Fourah Bay, an institute of further learning set up by his guardians from the London Missionary Society, in what is now Sierra Leone.

Crowther, christened after a renowned member of the English clergy, was a brilliant student. His academic promise eventually led him to the gates of Oxford University. He would become the first and most influential African bishop of the Anglican Church in West Africa. Crowther was one of the early members of what came to be known as the “African Educated Elite” – individuals culturally and socio-economically set apart from their kith and kin because of their Western education and acculturation. It is this elite that would lead their nations into independence, and in the decades following, establish the foundations of modern Africa.

As a social group, this elite emerged in the 1920s and 30s, the decades when colonial education policies encouraged the establishment of premier mission schools, some of which still exist today, such as the École normale supérieure William Ponty in Senegal, Achimota in Ghana, the Gordon Memorial College in Khartoum and Alliance High School and St Mary’s in Kenya. These institutions, which historian Martin Meredith calls “the nurseries of the new African elites”, were built to develop African recruits for the lower rungs of the civil service and, by an accident of history, educated the political leaders of the coming generation.

Elite nationalist vanguard

By the late 1950s, this elite – outside South Africa – totalled only about 8 000, a small number of university graduates that was to form the vanguard of nationalist struggles for freedom for an African population of about 200 million. With independence, they rose to power on a platform of hope, promised freedoms, prosperity and empowerment. The visions they had for their nations were lavish and understandably so: education was to be universal, as would healthcare and employment – courtesy, in part, to appropriated land being returned to its original owners. But these hopes of development were going to be difficult to realise with such a small and concentrated population of educated citizens.

At the time, only 16 percent of the adult population on the continent was literate and nearly half of those who received at least a secondary school education were concentrated in Ghana and Nigeria. Few countries had more than 200 students receiving some form of tertiary education during the period. The numbers were even more daunting in certain locales: in Nyasaland (now Malawi) only 28 Africans had received a university education by 1959; in Northern Rhodesia (later known as Zambia) this number was 35.

For the first time in our history, we are poised to build institutions of higher learning that are uniquely African, informed by the needs of our economies and, most importantly, within reach for many of our youth. In former French colonies, institutions like the University of Dakar only began admitting African students in 1957 as decolonisation was becoming an impending reality.

In South Africa, the advent of apartheid led to the introduction of “Bantu” education, in 1953, that transformed education received by the black students at every level from primary school to university. Schools that served black, Indian or coloured students were poorly funded. They only received a tenth of the national education budget and almost a third of their teachers were deemed under-qualified. What is more, these schools were not free, therefore only families that could afford them had access to education.

Universities as political instruments
In the years following independence, the lack of African professionals ready to run government ushered in a new phase of development for African universities. In tandem, recently formed African governments believed that education was a crucial conduit for social transformation. Therefore, schools were poised to deliver on national development policies and, as a result, universities were positioned as crucial political instruments.

In the 1960s, Tom Mboya’s pioneering “Airlift” scholarships were part of this movement. The trade unionist and eventual cabinet minister wanted to prepare fellow Kenyans to take on the challenge of building their new nation. From the country’s eight million strong population, 800 students were chosen to receive further education in the US and Canada. Among them were the late Nobel Laureate, Professor Wangari Maathai, and Barack Obama Sr, who would become an important government economist, publishing seminal papers on national planning. Obama and Maathai, along with other Airlift beneficiaries, went on to teach at the University of Nairobi, the oldest tertiary institution in the country, which would take over 40 years to grow from a student population of 2 768 in 1970 to the 68 000 it serves today.

The 1970s were the golden age of the African university. In 1973, leaders of major African universities met in Accra to make a historic declaration that their institutions were more than just corridors of learning but carried with them the responsibility of building new nations and according them new social identities.

Now more than ever, the African university was poised to deliver on the ambitions of post-independence. These institutions were under pressure to contribute directly to national development plans and immediately impact national identity and social welfare, albeit through a state monopoly on tertiary education. This was a heavy burden. Before these universities could deliver what was expected of them, they needed to build their own foundations as institutions. However, due to economic pressures in the 1980s, state funding for many of these universities fell sharply. At the same time, student enrolment continent-wide grew from 337 000 in 1980 to an estimated 542 700 by 1990.

This caused a complex dynamic at many of Africa’s universities. Expenditures per student, measured in constant terms, fell by about two-thirds during this period, with cutbacks in research, staff development, library acquisitions, and maintenance. This ushered in a trend of decline within tertiary education that we still see today.

Needless to say, many of these public universities had to find alternative channels of income, much to the detriment of access. An example is Makerere University in Uganda, once the premier institution in the social sciences and humanities in the region, attracting intellects like Nobel Laureate V S Naipaul and celebrated scholar Mahmood Mamdani to its halls. In 1980, anyone attending Makerere was funded via government scholarship. Ten years later, responding to financial constraints, the university began admitting its first fee-paying students to study in parallel with those receiving state sponsorship. By 2011, 55 percent of the university’s income came from private student tuition. Makerere’s story is indicative of the experience of a number of African universities whose need to survive derailed their initial charter.

Initiatives like the AVU are a tangible response to the prevailing problem of access. However, they cannot act alone. Since the 1990s, private universities in Africa have been growing in number and have been supported by both government and international stakeholders. They have also been acknowledged as important partners in providing young Africans with additional avenues for tertiary education. What universities in the private sector can do is focus on the skilling of labour and, in tandem, offer relevant market skills needed to survive in the labour market.

Beyond access, high quality private institutions are uniquely placed to redefine the purpose and efficacy of the university within the African context. Where the continent’s public institutions were never rebranded from the “development” imperative accorded to them in the 1970s, private universities and colleges are free to align the purpose of their teaching and research with the needs of Africa today. They can use innovative models and updated pedagogical methods to deliver high quality education at a low cost to those who need it. Much like the situation of the 1950s and 60s, these universities have the unique potential to educate the leaders of the next generation and, now, they can do this at scale.

For the first time in our history, we are poised to build institutions of higher learning that are uniquely African, informed by the needs of our economies and, most importantly, within reach for many of our youth. In order to do this, we must return to first principles. Our universities can still be critical drivers of local development, as was originally espoused at their formation. What universities in the private sector can do is focus on the skilling of labour and, in tandem, offer relevant market skills needed to survive in the labour market. They can do this at a lower cost and, most importantly, at scale. This is a new age of African education, which – if harnessed accordingly to focus on high quality – can help usher Africa into a new era of prosperity. — New African.

Our Children, Our Future

As parents – or relatives, teachers and other adults responsible to children’s safety – we want our children and those we look after to be healthy and happy . . . and to develop well both physically and mentally. Above all, it’s also instinctive that we want kids to be safe.

Children learn through exploration and natural curiosity, and it is part of our job as parents and carers to encourage that. However, as our children grow up, develop and discover new experiences, we have to take more and different steps to ensure their safety. Get switched on about the best approach: Viruses & other malware, Clickjacking Privacy & identity theft, Cyberbullying, Cyberstalking Protecting passwords Texting & sexting, Safe browsing, Copying & cheating Music, movies & file sharing Gaming Social networking & instant messaging, Parental control software.

Until their understanding and instincts catch up with their curiosity, our children need to be protected from everyday dangers – whether crossing the road, in and around the home, trying new foods or talking to new people they meet. And sooner or later . . . going online. They’re growing up fast. Depending on the age that your children are now, they may not have yet discovered computers, smartphones or tablets, unless it’s just pressing the buttons!

Alternatively, they may already be used to using certain trusted websites and apps or – if they’re older – using social networking sites. By the time they are older still, they will probably already be “online veterans” who know their way around the internet, apps, games, downloading and social networking with ease. Chances are, they know more about these things than you do. But they almost certainly don’t have the life-experience and wisdom to handle all of the situations they en- counter. Which is why we need a measured approach to keeping our children safe when they’re online.

So what’s changed?
Until relatively recently, most homes had a family computer, on which parents could safely introduce their children to the internet, keep an eye on what they were doing and introduce a degree of monitoring and control using parental software. When children started to get their own computers for doing their homework and playing games, it became more difficult to work with them to ensure they were visiting appropriate websites and not talking to strangers online in the privacy of their bedrooms. Now, of course, in the age of smartphones and tablets – effectively mini-computers that can be used anywhere – most parents find it a real challenge to not only educate their children in doing the right thing, but monitor and control their online behaviour.

The risks
None of us – of whatever age – is immune from encountering problems online, as a look through this website or the daily news will tell you. Our children are certainly at a vulnerable stage in their lives … naturally more trusting than adults and hopefully having been less exposed to the darker side of the internet. They are also not as well equipped to deal with such issues – or their consequences. Some of these potential issues are as follows:

Inappropriate contact: From people who may wish to abuse, exploit or bully them. Inappropriate conduct: because of their own and others’ online behaviour, such as the personal information they make public, for example on social networking sites. Unfortunately, children can also become cyberbullies, especially when encouraged by others.

Inappropriate content: being able to access or being sexually explicit, racist, violent, extremist or other harmful material, either through choice or in error. Commercialism: being the targets of aggressive advertising and marketing messages. Gaining access to your personal information stored on your computer, mobile device or games console, and passing it on to others . . . or using your financial details such as payment card information. Enabling viruses and spyware by careless or misinformed use of their or your computer, smartphone, tablet or games console.

Our advice
Everyone needs help sometimes . . . and that’s especially true of parents trying to stay switched-on to their children’s online safety. What can one do when there is a violation of child online safety? Guardians or parents can:

a. Report incidences to law enforcement agents

b. Counsel the children to help them from the effects of the risks involved

c. Conscientise the public on trending issues of cyber security. – Get Safe Online.