In this issue:

Testimony About International Players Barred from Tribunal for Rwanda

Question of Real Independence Paramount as African Union Formed

Durban Debates Force Changes in NEPAD

'Children on the Brink'—AIDS Report Is Devastating

South Africa-Iraq Talks Challenge Anglo-American War Drive

IMF, European Union, World Bank Thieves Fall Out

U.S. Oil Firms Mount Pressure on Nigeria To Quit OPEC

From the Vol.1,No. 19 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly
AFRICA NEWS DIGEST

Testimony About International Players Barred from Tribunal for Rwanda

Judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), sitting in Arusha, Tanzania, last week handed down a far-reaching decision in the case against Andre Ntagerura, Rwanda's former Minister of Transport. On July 10, it was reported they refused to hear two expert witnesses, Uwe Friesecke of Executive Intelligence Review, and American journalist Wayne Madson, on evidence that the war which destroyed Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 was an international armed conflict. Defense lawyers had asked Madson to present his hypothesis about who shot down the plane of the Rwandan President on April 6, 1994, and had asked Friesecke to testify on the geopolitical aspects of the Rwandan crisis. But the judges refused.

Both Madson and EIR had presented their written testimony to the court; the material was studied by the prosecution and the judges. The Ugandan prosecutor argued that the testimony would be irrelevant for the court, because it would only divert attention away from the individual guilt of the accused, and he demanded that these expert witnesses and testimony not be allowed. This request was granted by the court.

Against massive evidence available from these expert witnesses and other testimony, the presiding judge reasoned that it is "common knowledge" that the conflict in Rwanda in 1994 was not international, but a non-international armed conflict. Therefore, testimony about involvement of governments such as the U.S. and British, or about the responsibility of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, would be irrelevant.

This decision is binding and cannot be appealed in the ongoing trial. But it immediately raises the question, who defines "common knowledge"? For political observers in Arusha, this decision came as no surprise. There is apparently top-down pressure in the tribunal to slam the defense every time they try to bring in these proven international aspects of the conflict.

The effect is twofold. On the one side, the very nasty aspects of how Anglo-American interests manipulated the bloody conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa since 1990 will not come to the fore; and on the other side, only one side of the conflict, representatives of the former Hutu government of Rwanda, will be accused and sentenced for crimes. The other side, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), most of them Tutsi—who won the war in 1994 and under the leadership of Rwanda's current President Paul Kagame committed and still commit massacres and killings of civilians in Rwanda and in Congo—will go unpunished.

Some call this tribunal a case of "victor's justice" or a modern lynching of the Hutus. And the fear is that in this way, the tribunal will only contribute to further estrangement of Hutu and Tutsi population groups, and create new feelings of injustice. But, even worse, while a selection of local actors from Rwanda is punished, those in London, Washington, and Kampala who bear the final responsibility for the disaster which befell Rwanda in 1994, go unpunished. EIR's expertise on Africa and the fact that they agreed to testify for the defense, and actually appeared in court in Arusha, are taken as an important sign that there are people in Europe and the U.S. who care about Africa and its down-trodden people.

Question of Real Independence Paramount as African Union Formed

National sovereignty, or how the African continent can work with the West, without being taken over by it, was one of the big subjects of debate as the African Union was officially born in Durban, South Africa the second week of July. This was reflected in the speeches and interventions by what is described as the "new-look" leaders: such as South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, who spend a lot of time in Western capitals. And, also by those "old-style" Presidents who have been, or are currently, battling for their country's sovereignty from bigger powers, such as Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi, andLibyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

A major fault line is the economic plan—the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), favored by the "Western" powers and the IMF, which "new look" leaders are embracing, to try to bring Western capital to the continent, seemingly oblivious to the overall economic collapse now moving into its acute phase. (See June issues of EIW and our critique of NEPAD.)

A second fault line is formed around a "Peer Review Mechanism" under which African countries will each other's monitor performance to ensure "good governance" and respect for "human rights" under the new African Union. Because of the history of Western manipulation in the name of sham "human rights," the terms themselves have become poisoned and a subject of well-founded suspicion by African leaders.

Southern African leaders who form the Southern African Development Community (SADC) held a consultative meeting just before the all-African inauguration. Here, Zimbabwe President Mugabe openly challenged the NEPAD conception of "good governance" and was supported by the Presidents of Tanzania, Malawi, Namibia, and Congo. Namibia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Theo-Ben Gurirab, explained about this division to a reporter from the daily The Namibian of July 11. "There are obviously things that we agree and disagree about," he said, with reference to President Mugabe's rejection of NEPAD as having the "spots of a leopard"—a clear reference to the undue influence of rich Western nations. Girirab rejected the assertion that some SADC countries oppose NEPAD because of monetary gifts from Libyan leader Gaddafi.

Gaddafi's role in bringing the African Union into being cannot be overlooked, nor can his interventions in Durban as the Union was being formed. On July 9, in a speech at the King's Park Stadium, Gaddafi addressed the issues that African leaders are battling, including the Commonwealth and international attacks on Zimbabwe.

Durban Debates Force Changes in NEPAD

As a result of deliberations in Durban, the implementing committee of the NEPAD was enlarged from the original 15 to 20 members, and moved out of exclusive control of the "new look" leaders. Libya is now set to become part of the NEPAD implementation committee. Until this inaugural meeting, Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo, South Africa's Mbeki, and other members of the NEPAD steering committee had sold NEPAD to the West on the basis of NEPAD's selectivity. Organization of African Unity (OAU) members automatically become members of the African Union, but only those who met certain standards of good governance, financial discipline, and respect for the rule of law could be part of NEPAD. (The OAU is now dissolved).

Many of Mbeki's peers want to totally fold NEPAD into the African Union structure, wrote the South African weekly Mail & Guardian July 12. "Mbeki's peers are unhappy with him (Mbeki) being portrayed as the driving force of the continent's rescue program," said the Mail & Guardian, "and want to fold the secretariat he controls into the African Union structure as fast as possible. The key peer review system, on which NEPAD will stand or fall, threatens to become a casualty." Ironically, according to The Namibian, not even President Obasanjo and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade—two of NEPAD's core architects—could agree on whether the "peer review" was necessary, with both ending up saying it was unrealistic in practical terms.

Another important development July 10 was that the West African lobby fended off a strong South African challenge to get rid of Asmara Essay, the Ivorian elected to oversee the birth of the African Union, and replace him with a "more capable" technocrat.

As was aptly said by Namibia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Theo-Ben Gurirab, in his interview with The Namibian July 11: Building the African Union will take time; it is a long-term vision by Africans for the future of Africa, and thus it is extremely important to African leaders.

'Children on the Brink'—AIDS Report Is Devastating

A new report, titled "Children on the Brink," was released during the 14th annual international conference on AIDS held in Barcelona, Spain during the week of July 8. The report is said to contain the most comprehensive statistics on the current and projected number of children orphaned by the AIDS pandemic. As earlier noted, sub-Saharan Africa alone now accounts for 70% of all AIDS orphans. The statistics show that over 13.4 million children worldwide have lost one or both parents to the epidemic, a number that is set to increase to 25 million by 2010. The report predicts—clearly an underestimate—that about 43 million children in Africa will be orphaned by AIDS by the year 2010. Dr. Peter Piot, head of UNAIDS, noted: "When a father dies in war, his children are viewed as heroes, too. But when he dies of AIDS, the stigma and discrimination of the disease is passed on"; the children become outcasts. "HIV/AIDS has created an unprecedented orphans crisis," Piot said.

The cited report is a joint report from U.S. AID, UNICEF, and UNAIDS.

South Africa-Iraq Talks Challenge Anglo-American War Drive

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and South African President Thabo Mbeki held talks in Pretoria, South Africa on July 4 on how to strengthen ties between the two countries on political and economic levels.

Aziz, heading a six-man delegation, was given a red-carpet welcome at Waterkloof Air Base outside the capital—even as Washington and London were gearing up a massive propaganda campaign pushing war against Iraq.

On July 11, an agreement was reached between Eskom, the South Afican state electricity company, and the Iraqi Electricity Committee. Mbeki's spokesman Bheki Khumalo noted: "Iraq is interested in South Africa's industrial capacity, including electricity, agriculture as well as railways." Minerals and Energy Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka also held bilateral meetings with Aziz.

At a banquet for the Iraqi delegation, South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma insisted that South Africa is opposed to "bully states," and made very clear that he was referring to the United States. "We need to work hard to strengthen Afro-Arab cooperation. Increased trade and diplomatic relations between Africa and the Arab world will enhance broad political, economic, social and cultural ties among our people.... We believe that justice and equity will never be achieved whilst the majority of the world is fragmented, disempowered, and ignored by 'bully states.' This is the kind of a world we must continue to seek to change. No part of the world, region or country should give itself a right or authority to decide for others. This we must not allow."

Zuma slammed the 12 years of sanctions: "We were encouraged by the warm welcome that Iraq received at the Arab Summit in Beirut in March and at the Organization of Islamic Conference in Malaysia and Sudan," and concluded, "South Africa believes that solid economic relations can be the foundation of lasting friendship and expansion of cooperation in all other spheres."

IMF, European Union, World Bank Thieves Fall Out

At a hearing in the British Parliament July 4, IMF Managing Director Horst Koehler blamed the World Bank and the European Union (EU) for pressing heavily indebted Malawi into selling 28,000 tons of maize to repay debts, just before a harvest failure and the onset of famine. In reply to a question from MP David Laws as to why the IMF had pressured Malawi into reducing grain reserves, Koehler said: "The IMF is not the scapegoat for everything. The advice [to sell the maize] was given by the World Bank and the European Union—it's plain wrong to blame the IMF. Ask the World Bank and the EU what they did. The IMF was part of this process, the IMF may not have been attentive enough; but the decision was with the World Bank and the EU." Koehler went on to admit that "there have been mistakes made" in Malawi, and said that the Malawian government has started an "audit" to identify who was involved in the decision and what went wrong.

U.S. Oil Firms Mount Pressure on Nigeria To Quit OPEC

An article in This Day (Lagos) of July 8, by Mike Oduniyi, charges that U.S. oil firms are dangling the "debt relief carrot" in a pressure campaign to get Nigeria to quit OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The article cites a conversation the author had in Lagos with Dr. Paul Wihbey, a fellow of the American Institute of Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and a member of the African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG), a U.S. thinktank.

Wihbey said that the U.S. is hoping to double its oil imports from Nigeria, from 900,000 barrels per day to around 1.8 million barrels daily, in the next five years. Asked how this could be achieved with Nigeria still under tight OPEC output control, Wihbey replied: "This [pulling out of OPEC] is something Nigeria will have to determine for itself. If Nigeria doesn't supply the American market with that surplus, other producers like Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Venequela will supply that amount." Members of AOPIG were in Nigeria last week and held talks with President Obasanjo and other top Nigerian officials.

According to a position paper produced by AOPIG, among the possible dividends dangled before Nigeria, include Congressionally driven negotiations for debt relief; U.S. private and institutional capital for Nigerian projects in telecommunications, transportation, mining, and agro-allied businesses; U.S. capital and technology for additional Nigerian refining capacity; and an increased oil and gas share of the American market.

This Day says that oil-producing companies are unahppy over the fate of their multibillion-dollar investments in crude oil exploration projects in the face of the hurdles imposed by OPEC production quota allocation to its member states.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS