A-list message, [A-List] Fw: Africans are against the war

Mbozi Stages Lone Protest

The Post (Lusaka)

April 2, 2003

Posted to the web April 2, 2003

Speedwell Mupuchi And Webster Malido

Lusaka

UNIVERSITY of Zambia (UNZA) Philosophy lecturer Austin Mbozi yesterday staged a lone protest against United States and British invasion of Iraq.

Mbonzi urged Americans and Britons never to vote for George Bush and Tony Blair in next elections. Mbozi's protest started at UNZA where his car was pasted with anti-war posters.

Accompanied by three UNZA students, Sebastian Pasuwa, Dominic Mweetwa and Benson Mukuka, Mbozi drove to the US and British embassies where he went round eight times, occasionally honking. He briefly stopped in front of the American Embassy and caused panic in security guards and a few police officers who surged forward to order him not to park in front of the Embassy.

"You are not allowed to park in front, you are putting us in trouble," a security guard pleaded. From the embassies, he drove through Independence Avenue while honking into Church Road and finally Cairo Road and drove back to UNZA.

Some of the posters read: No genocide for crude oil; Its their oil leave them alone; America has lost its sanity; Pride goes before a fall, remember Vietnam, Mogadishu and the Balkans; Bush, Blair, stop the madness, war is not the solution and Bush, stop your bullish behaviour, it stinks.

Other posters read; "Bush, how many children have you killed today; UNZA against wars and abash shedding of blood for crude oil. Two non-governmental organisations, Transparency International Zambia and the Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) sent messages against the war.

SACCORD condemned the double standards displayed by the US and Britain and urged the two countries to focus on the damage to property and human life caused by the war. SACCORD demanded an immediate halt to the Iraqi aggression and immediate withdrawal of US and British troops. Speaking after his protest, Mbozi urged Zambians to fight the public order Act (POA).

He said the insecurity government was giving as reason to stop peaceful demonstrations was unjustified. Zambia Alliance for Progress (ZAP) president Dean Mung'omba said the United States and Britain have both lost credibility, respectability and moral justification to belong to a civilised society and world.

Mung'omba has further asked UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to resign because he has been rendered useless. Mung'omba said the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and immoral. "Anyone with power and strength can exercise brutality on weaker nations," Mung'omba said. "America and Britain shall win the physical war given their might, but winning a war over a weak nation which has already been disarmed is no victory.

Such a win and victory can only attract shame and a severe sense of guilt." He said no person on earth would applaud the allied victory as it shall be condemned forever. Mung'omba said the war on Iraq shall forever remain a black spot on the civilisation of the world.

He said the war reflects the irrationality of leaders in the administration and management of the world. "It shall reflect the total collapse of world order, and return civilisation to wild west cowboy behaviour of lawlessness, a beastly behaviour of the survival of the might at the expense of the weak, the helpless and the victimised," he said.

Mung'omba said because "God was not neutral", just like Bush once said, he was certain that God would be with the Iraqi people and on the side of the children being mutilated and barberqued by American bombs every - day. "Yes God is with those innocent mothers and fathers who seem not to know or understand the meaning of this war," Mung'omba said.

"This is not the way to administer our world. This is not the way to exercise power. This is not the way to use the wealth of a nation, especially in a world of poor people. This is reckless, irresponsible and carelessness of a very irrational decision."

Mung'omba said the predictable fall out of the war on Iraq would be severe anger, hatred, division and an extremely unsafe world for all nations.

It's Not Just Dubya Who's Nuts

Moneyweb (Johannesburg)

OPINION

March 31, 2003

Posted to the web April 1, 2003

Clive Simpkins

Johannesburg

It's 2003 and globalisation is at its zenith. We have an expanding European Union and a new African Union. The nuclear threat, other than with Kim 'Daffy One' in North Korea, and the Indians and Pakistanis occasionally getting up each other's noses, is all but gone. The big bear of the USSR is dead.

Digital communication permits us to leapfrog, live, in a TV newscast, from city to city and politician to politician, around the world. Yet the USA has chosen to wage war in Iraq. This is an indictment of the planet. Not just the United Nations, but humankind, has failed the basic communications exam.

There's going to be huge residual fallout from the Iraq war. Not just for the USA. The Americans will have earned the instability that will dog them, as a result of cocking so arrogant a snook at overwhelming international opinion.

The Indonesians, Africans, Germans, French, Japanese and many other nations are going to find themselves on the receiving end of George Dubya (as in 'w') Bush's embittered spleen, on economic aid or trade-partner issues. If you want to probe the (shallow) psyche of this man, read two biographies. One is entitled 'First Son.' It's frank, insightful, no holds barred - but it's also balanced and not a gratuitous hatchet job. The take-away? Dubya's obsessed with loyalty. You can be as incompetent as you wish, but if you're loyal, you're granted the coveted appellation of being 'a good man' (sic) and you become royal game on the metaphoric presidential pheasant farm.

Go read, 'The Right Man' (now you know where the title comes from) by David Frumm, erstwhile Dubya speechwriter, who was implicated in crafting the phrase, "Axis of Evil." His book on Bush is a hagiography. To save you looking up the word, it means Frumm makes like he's a traditional African imbongi or praise-singer. Every little Bushism is back-rationalised, polished, justified and made to look like some strategic meisterstuck.

Frumm says of Dubya, "Even when he's smiling at you, his eyes are watching you." Bush bears grudges. There have been some telling public encounters with people who've insulted his pappy, George Herbert Walker Bush. Saddam Hussein of course, is alleged to have committed the cardinal sin of attempting to assassinate pappy Bush in Saudi Arabia. One wonders what percentage of the present Iraqi 'liberation' effort is based on a vengeful desire to 'hunt him down and smoke him out'?

Dubya is a man who opportunistically embraced Bible Belt style Christianity

because it was expedient to his political cause. He's demonstrated not only a lack of compassion on capital punishment issues, but has been heard to mock those who appealed directly to him for clemency. Parodying their voices and enacting 'amdram' versions of what he thought their behaviour might have been in the moment. He dusted off and trotted out pappy's moribund presidential campaign positioning of 'compassionate conservative.' Compassionate Dubya ain't, but conservative he certainly is.

The UN has been reduced in status to being an emasculated origami tiger.

What Dubya's total disregard of international will demonstrates, is that he who pays the piper (or has the biggest piggy bank) gets to call the tune. His British lapdog, Blair, wilted visibly under the ire of the Commons and his own party backbenchers. Just one politico had the courage of his convictions to ditch his fancy salary and ministerial seat, and resign in protest. He must have a Japanese sense-of-honour chromosome lurking somewhere in his system.

The anti-American genie is irretrievably out of the bottle. A precedent has been set, for utter disregard for the rule of international law, or the weight of international opinion. One wonders what future American generations will say when they're burdened with the enormous debt certain to be incurred by their shoot-from-the-lip president? No convenient 20/80 split with the international community on this one. He's gonna make 'danged sure' that there's no money wafting around as a Medicaid reserve, with his first $75bn 'down payment' on this war.

He's hopefully, like pappy, going to be a presidential one-termer, and he'll leave a fat federal deficit in his wake. The Americans may rally around the flag and exhibit their customary fullsome patriotism when the Prez beats war tom toms. But there's a price to their hubris. They don't like economic hardship and they'll have that. With it comes a new, terrorism-driven, insecure lifestyle that will be the fulfilment of the Osama Bin Laden curse, that they'll never know peace again, wherever they may be.

Clive Simpkins is an independent marketing and communications strategist.

Response to Iraq War: An American intern's observations

Accra Mail (Accra)

OPINION

April 2, 2003

Posted to the web April 1, 2003

Ben Weiss

Accra

As an American living in Ghana, I am confronted every day with questions regarding the war in Iraq. People ask me for my opinion. I respond by stressing that I do not support the actions of my government; I am proud to be an American, I say, but not necessarily proud of the current American government.

What has interested me has been the level of tolerance that Ghanaians seem to have of the American position. True, most people here in Accra seem to be against the war. But not passionately so. Rarely if ever have I encountered anger. More often than not, the sense I get here is one of quiet disapproval. Unlike in Europe, the Middle East, or Australia, where enormous protests happen every weekend, in Ghana the anti-war movement has been almost non-existent.

Why is this so?

One obvious explanation for the lack of protest in Ghana is the fact that West Africa is far removed from the current conflict. There is hardly any direct connection between Ghana and the conflict in Iraq. Over the past few months, governments in European and Middle Eastern countries have been asked and at times bribed into providing military support for the war. Citizens in these countries have responded with large demonstrations urging their governments not to join the campaign. Luckily, West African nations have been able to stay on the sidelines; they have not been asked to make that difficult choice. Consequently, citizens here have not been driven to demonstrate.

Another, less obvious reason why there hasn't been as much anti-war sentiment in Ghana has to do with the country's delicate economic state. True, there is peace and a stable government. There is a vibrant free press. Ghana is no doubt envied by its neighboring countries for its freedom and its prosperity. But as President Kufuor said in his Independence Day speech, there is much to work to be done to elevate Ghana from its current status as a developing country to that of a middle-income nation. In the next few years, Ghana will rely heavily on good relations with the United States and with Great Britain to ensure economic growth. It makes sense, then, that Ghanaians would want to exercise caution when criticizing these Western powers.

Lastly, the simplest reason why there hasn't been a strong anti-war movement in Ghana could just be that many here support the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq. Indeed, I've spoken to many people who've expressed their concern that Saddam Hussein is an evil leader bent on attacking America and that the U.S. has every right to preemptively attack.

There are multiple reasons, then, why a galvanized anti-war movement has yet to materialize in Ghana. But these days, emotions seem to be simmering here in Accra. In Legon, student groups at the University of Ghana have come out in force against the war. And on Wednesday, April 2nd, an anti-war march is set to take place starting at Kwame Nkrumah Circle. While the march is not expected to approach the size of those in Europe, it is a crucial first step. In the coming months and years, it will be important for Ghanaians and West Africans in general to raise their voice and assert their concerns regarding America's global dominance.

ANC Leaders Protest Iraq War

South African Press Association (Johannesburg)

March 28, 2003

Posted to the web March 30, 2003

Cape Town

Senior figures in the African National Congress, including water affairs minister Ronnie Kasrils, staged a lunch-time anti-war demonstration in Cape Town on Thursday.

The protest was held at the top end of Adderley Street, alongside a statue of Jan Smuts that had been converted into an anti-war icon.

Among the protesters, some of whom held up "stop the war" posters, and chanted anti-Bush slogans, were deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad, ANC Western Cape leader Ebrahim Rasool, South African Communist Party deputy general secretary Jeremy Cronin and several Western Cape MECs.

Anonymous activists opposed to the United States' invasion of Iraq earlier gave the Smuts statue an Uncle Sam-type top hat and a blindfold, and draped it in a sheet with "No War" slogans.

On the plinth of the statue was a version of the American flag, with more anti-war slogans, including "no blood for oil" in place of its horizontal stripes.

Smuts, a veteran of the Anglo-Boer War, was prime minister of South Africa during the Second World War.

Africa's Irrelevance in World Geo-politics - Seeking the Bubble Reputation

Vanguard (Lagos)

OPINION

March 23, 2003

Posted to the web March 24, 2003

Isaac Sagay

POST-colonial Africa of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) died in Durban, South Africa in July last year; in its place a new Africa, mid-wifed by the African Union to meet the global challenges confronting Africa in the twenty-first century, was presumably born. In the aftermath of the euphoria and jubilation that greeted that historic event, many now wonder if the African Union (AU) was not brain-damaged or still born at birth, for nothing has really changed on the continent to denote that we have entered into a new era of positive achievement that could advance Africa's claim, to equal partnership and respect, among other continental rivals for the advancement of world civilization, using NEPAD as its spring-board.

Nothing in contemporary history, has so much underscored Africa's continuing irrelevance in world geo-politics, as the fact of its delayed, lukewarm reaction to, and her subsequent snubbery by the "big-boys", on the issue of war and peace in Iraq. Indeed, in place of the much trumpeted dawn of an African democratic renaissance, what is now emerging seems to be the beginning of an African "Dark Age", making it for all practical purposes, the "invisible" continent - tucked away in the back-burners of the priorities and concerns of the major powers. Her protests, even on moral grounds, where she is, unequivocally, on equal terms with other continental powers, are usually feeble and irresolute, and more often than not, discordant. Whoever listens to, or dances to the sound of an uncertain trumpet? This is Africa's historic dilemma - she is always irresolute to be resolute, and pursues the mirage of continental unity, without any country willing to give up their centrifugal nationalism. And it all has to do with the quality of leadership - a leadership that seeks to maintain virtue, without cultivating the discipline of self-denial, or as Shaftesbury puts it, one that endeavours to, "establish heathen virtue on the ruins of Christianity". Imagine, for instance, by how much more, Africa would have been great, and so earn the esteem of others, if she had just five African statesmen with the political savvy, personal integrity, moral authority, vision and leadership qualities of South Africa's Nelson Mandela!. Rather, she is saddled for the most part, with a political leadership that presides over the expansion of vice, selfishness and the irresponsible multiplication of personal wants, until private vices become the state's public obligation. In this way, what supervenes is a vanish of vice, under the mask of hypocrisy; and the doctrine of service is used as a pretext for over-lordship. More importantly, true leadership is impaired by a conflict of egoisms among leaders, whose intellectual conceit of their true worth, belies the vacuousness of their true endowments and capabilities. The result is the dominance of self-importance, with every one at war with each other for power and supremacy.

The pity of it all, is that Africa possesses all the attributes of greatness, far in excess of those of some of her continental rivals who now dictate the tune to which Africa must dance in world affairs. For example, she has the benefit of a contiguous large land-mass, stretching from the Mediterranean in the north, across the Sahara desert to the Atlantic Ocean in the South. She has a mixed ethnic - population of over 250 million, a rich and diversified culture and mineral wealth - composed of oil and solid minerals - whose combined worth and weight, could easily sink the entire continental Europe, and also give the United States of America a run for her money. In spite of these predisposing factors for greatness, African remains technologically backward, economically poor, politically unfocused and rudderless. We must ask why?

I have always postulated that Africa's twin enemies are poverty, and leaders who have no allegiance to high standards. As Samuel Johnson has observed, "poverty is a great enemy to human happiness, it certainly destroys liberty, and it makes some virtues impracticable, and others extremely difficult". The effect of this misfortune on Africa, has been to make all its pretensions to greatness and equality, with other players in world geo-politics, ridiculous in the eyes of those who despise her for her weaknesses. Therefore, in order to gain world respectability and acceptability, Africa must join the "rich men's club". In order to qualify, it must become militarily strong, and also seek out leaders who are wedded to the idea of an African economic renaissance, commensurate with the means of this potentially rich continent. For as Dr. Kwamme Nkrumah of Ghana used to say, political independence is meaningless without economic independence.

This requires a new orientation and perspective among the current crop of African leaders. For as someone has observed, "European colonialism is dead, long live African imperialism!" The simple truth is that all over independent Africa today, the colonial power formations and administrative structures of old have been kept and preserved - even reinforced - including the paraphernalia of the instruments of imperial exploitation and dominance - resulting in ethnic marginalization and oppression, and a dangerously fractured continental polity.

The African predicament is made worse, not just by the fact that an overwhelming proportion of its leaders are averse to the application of standards, but are also viscerally opposed to the discipline of "measure", and without this virtue you cannot have a democracy of elevation with just leaders. Indeed, in Africa Will and insatiable Appetite have had a free run over the last forty or so odd years, with the result that now, reformers have to fight a rear-guard action, and with leaders with imagination and vision being so few, it remains to be seen, particularly with democracy sinking daily beneath the tribulations of political excesses and injustice, whether some humane restoration can be worked, by democracy's "saying remnants" - who must daily withstand the shafts of intrigues and malice directed against them, by the multitude who prefer anarchy, and are bent on subverting the democratic process for their own selfish purposes.

But Africa's nemesis and built-in destroyer, that automatically negates every positive advancement towards genuine continental unity, remains the centrifugal nationalism of the constituent nationalities, which together form the new "African Union. Each local despot, has his own pet idea of how an African Union Government, first popularized by President Nkrumah, should operate, but the bottom-line for all of them remains, that national sovereignties must be preserved inviolate, so as to ensure their perpetuation in office. A grave symptom of this mind set, is the appearance of leaders in Africa who more than ever before, are ruthless in their pursuit of political power and who are determined to keep it for ever, and at all costs. This belies their claim of altruistic motives, for offering themselves for "self-less service", particularly when the hallmarks of such "patriotic" service are acts of injustice, cruelty and oppression against their critics and political opponent. For Africa to free itself from the clutches of this generation of political under - achievers, it must seek out individuals who had qualified for true leadership by setting bounds on their expansive lusts, especially the lust of domination. Indeed, Africa's so-called democratic renaissance will have no ghost of a chance, and will indeed continue to include the continent towards the Dark Age, unless it is able to produce such individuals in sufficient numbers, to constitute the arrow-head of its "saving remnant" brigade. Without a reversal of the present trend, we might as well be prepared for an end to our constitutional liberties, and the rise of a decadent imperialism.

Combined sovereignties

If Africa is to become relevant in world geo-politics, the formation of a centralized African Union Government, equipped with all the panoply of the combined sovereignties of its constituent members, and fortified with a rational imperialism which overrides the objections and idiosyncrasies of individual member - nations cannot be delayed. It is clear that no amount of the peripheral advancement of individual African nations on their own, will ever command world attention or respect, nor atone for any lack of a unified African view - point or position in world affairs, which only an African Union Government can provide. Recently, for instance, in the run-up of events leading to the brink of the US-led war against Iraq, the three African members of the UN Security Council - Cameroun, Guinea and Angola - were subjected to intense lobbying by the United States and the French, even though both were aware that the African Union had pronounced itself opposed to war against Iraq, if it did not enjoy the sanction of the UN Security Council. The African states themselves, then began to behave as though they could act independently of the views already adumbrated by the Heads of States of the African Union on this matter. This political pantomime was possible only because of the diffuse, and non-binding nature of the authority of the African Union - as perceived by both parties. And this perception will continue to undermine and weaken African resolve to be resolute, when dealing as a single entity with the rest of the world .

Course of history

Moreover, in our resolve to be irresolute in global events that shape the course of history, we may fancy ourselves urbane, when in reality others see our attitude as luke-warm and contemptible, and thus number us among the immense multitude of those despised and "spewed out", that Dante reportedly saw in the vestibule of Hell - the multitude of those who are equally "displeasing to God and to the enemies of God".Without doubt, Africans are living in a world, which in certain important respects, they had no part in formulating or able to control, but it is equally true, that they have been betrayed by their own leaders, who have pursued policies that were wrong and contradictory on first principles, and therefore irreconcilable and disorienting. On the appearance of leaders who have learnt the discipline of "measure", and are able of their own volition, to place a limit on their expansive appetite and desires, lies the hope of a truly elevating and fructifying African Democratic Renaissance, as a spring-board for Africa's accession to world-class economic, military and technological advancement, and so become a relevant participant in world geo-politics. On the issue of democracy and leadership, African leaders indulge in a grotesque travesty. Our brand of so-called African or home-grown democracy, bears no resemblance to the patterns and processes of democracy elsewhere on the globe. Ours is characterized by blood-letting rivalry and resort to acts of brutishness on a level unknown elsewhere. Clearly, this cannot advance Africa's progress by one iota.

African leaders must urgently come to terms with the inescapable fact that

economic progress, like the advancement of civilization, is something that must be deliberately willed, it is not something that gushes up spontaneously as a result of idle contemplation or wishful thinking. Once grasped, the idea must be pursued with passion and commitment, lest we regress, as only a thin line separates barbarism from civilization. Africa's abiding problem, is that its sovereign equality, has been obtained at the expense of quality and without the due subordination to standards, that quality always requires. The rectification of this anomaly is Africa's greatest challenge in the twenty-first century. If we fail, we face a bleak future, and are doomed to play second fiddle on the world stage - never allowed to become relevant or play any meaningful role in world geo-politics.

Africa's unending revelry and flirtation with destabilizing military coups must now be ended. The hope and expectations of an entire continent rest on the emergence of a "saving remnant" among an otherwise corrupt and inept leadership. The moment of truth has arrived for this generation of African leaders, and each must answer this question for himself. "Whither Africa?" As Carlos Fuentes argues in his "An Agenda for the 21st Century" (1987), and this is particularly germane to Africa, if she wishes to be relevant in world affairs, "High on the agenda of the 21st century will be the need to restore some kind of tragic consciousness" - "An agenda for the 21st Century" (1987). For Africa the choice is clear and unambiguous.

Northern Nigerian Emir Condemns U.S. Action in Iraq

allAfrica.com

INTERVIEW

March 22, 2003

Posted to the web March 22, 2003

Ofeibea Quist-Arcton

Dutse, Jigawa State, northern Nigeria

As the war against Iraq by the United States and its allies gains momentum in the Gulf, many Africans appear to support the African Union's position that the United Nations should have been allowed to handle the problem. There have been street protests in several parts of Africa since the fighting began.

In Northern Nigeria, which is overwhelmingly Muslim, there is deep anger at America's move against Iraq. Many ordinary folk feel strongly that a brother Muslim, President Saddam Hussein, has been wronged, even if he himself may have done wrong. On the walls of traditional mud dwellings and in public places in major cities, posters of the Iraqi leader jostle for position with images of Osama bin Laden, as well as Nigeria s political leaders, who are campaigning for re-election next month.

The Emir of Dutse, capital of Jigawa State, is Alhaji Nuhu Muhammadu Sanusi. On the issue of the attack on Iraq, he granted an interview in Hausa and English to Bilkisu Labaran Ohyoma and Mannir Dan-Ali of the BBC and to AllAfrica's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton.

Your Royal Highness, what is your reaction to the attack on Iraq by America?

I am very sad. I feel sad. This situation shouldn't have degenerated to this stage. The United Nations as a body has been totally disregarded by the powers of the West. And I feel this is not a good omen for the future of the United Nations. It is not a good omen for the future of our relationship between the West and the East. And it's not a good omen for the relationship between our developing countries and the developed countries.

You have spoken about a problem in relationships between various regions of the world - especially between the West and the developing world. Is all this about religion?

Of course, even if anybody says that this has nothing to do with religion, you cannot separate what is happening from religion. There is no way you can totally dissociate the attack on Iraq from religion. Why? Because the great majority of the Iraqis are Muslims and because of what is happening in Palestine - America has failed even to address the issue. Britain has failed to address the issue, and yet they are killing hundreds and hundreds of people every day - through their smart bombs and through whatever. Yet, no one is talking about Palestine. How do you justify this?

But some Muslim countries, some Arab countries, are in support of this action against President Saddam Hussein.

Tell me which countries.

Kuwait, for instance.

Kuwait has already had a problem with Saddam Hussein. They fought a war with Iraq 11 years ago and definitely I don't blame them. But what of Saudi Arabia, what of Jordan, what of Turkey, what of Iran? They are all neighbours. Do they complain? They haven't.

So, what do you think is likely to happen now that Washington has attacked Baghdad? What do you think the reaction might be in Nigeria, and particularly in the predominantly Muslim northern Nigeria?

Our reaction here in northern Nigeria will be only that we should pray to God, that God should disgrace those who are responsible for the killings of innocent people, because definitely civilian lives will be lost in this adventure. And certainly they will be responsible for what happens, because definitely they cannot absolve themselves from the crime that this war will bring.

Is it of concern to you that President Saddam Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction?

It is of concern to everyone. I don't want anybody - even Saddam Hussein as a Muslim - to own any weapon that will destroy the lives of people. And yet, when you talk of it, there are so many weapons everywhere in this world. Even America has these kinds of weapons. The only thing is that we believe that they will not use them. But if you have crazy people at the helm of affairs in any of these countries, they can use them.

So, to me, what I would advise our people in the north is to be patient, to pray to God that God should do what is best for the people of Iraq and the Muslim Ummah (community).

What about to President George W. Bush? What advice would you have for him and his allies?

We have advised him and he didn't take advice. He refused to listen. The United Nations was doing its best to get this thing sorted out. France, Germany and other reasonable countries were trying to find a solution, so that Saddam Hussein could be dislodged permanently.

But the Americans and their allies are in a hurry. So, we don't know, because President Bush has said that this war may take a longer time. And the longer this war takes, the more casualties will be involved. Children will be orphaned and women widowed. And this will generate more anger among Muslims in the world.

Do you see President Bush as the problem?

He is the problem, no doubt! The Republican Party is the problem.

Interview Part 2: A Traditional Ruler Speaks Out on Nigerian Elections and Education for Girls

SA Laments Breakout of US-Iraq War

South African Press Association (Johannesburg)

March 20, 2003

Posted to the web March 20, 2003

Johannesburg

South Africans lamented on Thursday the breakout of renewed conflict between a United States-led coalition and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, marking the day with protests and statements of condemnation.

The protests and comments came from across the political and social spectrum after the US attacked what it called selected targets in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, with cruise missiles and stealth fighters early in the morning.

Anti-war protesters mainly picketed American diplomatic offices. Whether in response to the protests or because of more pressing security concerns, the US closed its embassy in Pretoria and its consulates in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, to the public.

A handful of protesters gathered outside the Pretoria embassy on Thursday afternoon, carrying posters with slogans such as "George W Butcher".

In Cape Town several hundred supporters of the Anti-War Coalition began picketing the US consulate offices at lunchtime and vowed to continue the protest round the clock.

A group of Anti-War Coalition members also picketed the US consulate in Johannesburg, and vowed to remain outside the building until hostilities with Iraq stopped.

Picketers urged passing motorists in an adjacent road to hoot as a sign of solidarity. Motorists responded and the hooting was almost continuous.

Staff at the consulate in Durban were also evacuated in the morning after a bomb threat, police reported. They later returned to their offices.

In one of countless statements sent to media organisations condemning the continuation of the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) said the US-led war against Iraq would further destabilise the Middle East and undermine peace in the region.

It was shocked and "deeply saddened" by the outbreak of war despite the US' failure to secure the support of the United Nations Security Council.

"We pray for all those affected -- combatants and non-combatants alike -- especially for those in the developing world on whom this war is likely to inflict the greatest and most lasting damage," the council said.

The South African government was opposed to war "anywhere in the world," Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula said.

Speaking at the opening of a refurbished police station in Alexandra, Johannesburg Nqakula said: "When countries become wayward... it is better to sit down and discuss issues. When talking stops it should be because solutions have been found."

The Department of Foreign Affairs added that war was not a solution to world problems. "This unilateral resort to force is compounded by the fact progress was being made in dealing with the matter of disarmament of Iraq with regard to any weapons of mass destruction."

The military action would set a regrettable precedent that undermined the authority of the UN in dealing with global affairs, spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa said.

The department also warned South African nationals not to visit the Gulf region for the time being. Mamoepa added that an inter-departmental task team had been set up to address evacuation of South Africa's missions in the region "as and when this becomes necessary".

South Africa would celebrate Human Rights Day on Friday at an ominous time, the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) said in its reaction.

"A war has commenced in the Middle East, that is not likely to just take a huge toll on humanity but also likely to put on the spotlight the entire system of human rights at an international level" the commission said in a statement.

The SAHRC said South Africans should, for that reason, take pride in the country's achievements, especially the human rights framework which had enabled them to peacefully resolve the conflicts of the past and deal with the challenge of transforming society.

The Ceasefire Campaign called on the US and its allies to halt military operations against Iraq.

"This action, which flies in the face of world opinion as expressed by the United Nations and by millions of citizens of numerous countries around the world, reduces its perpetrators to the level of their so-called enemies," the organisation at a lunchtime seminar on the effect of the war on international disarmament treaties.

"It is undemocratic. It is illegal. It is violent. It constitutes a gross violation of human rights and undermines the UN and its institutions," the anti-militarisation lobby group said.

Iraq: Obasanjo, Mbeki, Wade Restate Opposition to War

This Day (Lagos)

March 17, 2003

Posted to the web March 19, 2003

Lagos

Three African leaders including President Olusegun Obasanjo, yesterday dispatched urgent letters to President George Bush of the US, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and United Nations Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, urging that the impending war with Iraq should be reconsidered.

Three separate letters were sent out yesterday by the three presidents including President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, expressing the reservations of the African continent over the proposed war with Iraq.

The three presidents advised the United Nations Secretary General in one of the letters to table the matter as urgently as possible at the next meeting of the Security Council as any war with Iraq would have devastating effect on the African continent and world peace.

Obasanjo and his colleagues were however emphatic on the need for President Saddam Hussein to comply satisfactorily with the UN resolutions 1441, which required that Iraq should dismantle its weapons of mass destruction in the interest of peace in Middle East.

The thrust of the African leaders letter was that any war with Iraq at the present moment would have a devastating effect on the economy of Africa, shatter world peace and make any reconciliation of the disputes within the Middle East impossible.

"We in Africa are apprehensive that any war in Iraq will have monumental effect on African development. The destructive effect would be universal and would further the destabilisation of the Middle East as well as shatter world peace," the concerned leaders said in one of their letters.

It will be recalled that whereas Germany, France, Russia and China are opposed to war with Iraq, the United States of America, Britain and Spain are spoiling for confrontation with Saddam Hussein for refusing to disarm his country in keeping with UN resolutions 1441. Protests have greeted the USA threat to fight Iraq.

SA Could Become Next U.S. Victim

South African Press Association (Johannesburg)

February 19, 2003

Posted to the web February 19, 2003

Pretoria

South Africa with its rich mineral resources could become the next victim of "unilateral" action by the United States, African National Congress secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe warned on Wednesday.

"The primary crime of Iraq is the fact that it floats on oil," he told thousands of anti-war protesters outside the US embassy in Pretoria.

"Because we are endowed with several rich minerals, if we don't stop this unilateral action against Iraq today, tomorrow they will come for us."

Protesters advocating for peace in Iraq marched on the embassy from the Union Buildings, carrying posters reading: "For (US President George W.) Bush, oil is thicker than blood", and "Bush is a terrorist".

According to one placard the acronym USA stood for "The United States of Arrogance", while another went further to state simply: "F..k Bush".

Chanting: "No to war, yes to peace," the group arrived at the embassy by 1.30pm, and their leaders were taken inside to present a memorandum to US representatives.

The group included Motlanthe, United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa, Tshwane mayor Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, Congress of SA Trade Unions president Willie Madisha, and SA Communist Party secretary-general Blade Nzimande.

The marchers, estimated at 4000 by the police, gathered under the banner of the "Stop the War" movement, and claimed to have the support of more than 60 political and other organisations.

These included the ANC, UDM and Pan Africanist Congress, Cosatu, the SACP, the Institute for Democracy in SA, as well as several youth and religious movements, and churches.

Outside the embassy Gauteng premier Mbhazima Shilowa told the crowd that peace was important for development across the globe.

"Yes, we are concerned about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes, we want Iraq to disarm in terms of a UN resolution. But we must not only talk about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we must talk about weapons of mass destruction wherever they are found."

This included the US and Britain, he said.

"We don't want peace because we are pacifists. We want peace because we believe that with peace comes development."

After handing over the memorandum, Madisha told the marchers a war on Iraq would claim about 500000 lives and cost in the range of US200-billion. This money should rather be used to cure diseases and fight poverty around the world.

"The main intention of war is to maim people, to kill people.

War is evil," he said.

"If this war goes on, if this war succeeds, then the children of Iraq will be maimed and killed."

These views were echoed by a representative of Zimbabwe's ruling party, Zanu-PF, who said American and British interference in world affairs should be resisted by all means.

"Let there be no doubt by the American and British governments that in us all here today and tomorrow they have a formidable enemy as long as they keep on imposing their will on the peoples of this planet," the party's South African-based information secretary Gadzira Chirumhanzu said at the Union Buildings.

The memorandum, which embassy officials undertook to convey to Washington, reiterated the view that war against Iraq would be wrong.

"It is wrong because it is the poor who will be its main victims. It is wrong because it will inflame rather than resolve global conflicts, particularly those in the Middle East.

"It is wrong because the forces of power and greed motivate it."

The document urged the US government "to submit to the considered judgment of the vast majority of the world's people that war can and must be avoided".

The marchers released a few doves as a symbol of peace before dispersing.

Ugandans Join Anti-War Protest

The Monitor (Kampala)

February 17, 2003

Posted to the web February 18, 2003

Henry H. Ssa1li

Kampala

Civil society organisations in Uganda have joined the rest of the world to protest the impending US-led attack on Iraq.

"We who have lived [through] wars and continue to live in war and armed conflicts know better the horrors and extreme violations of human rights that war brings," Ms Jacqueline Asiimwe-Mwesige, the co-ordinator of the Uganda Women's Network, said in a statement prepared the civil society groups.

"The effects of the stand-off are being felt in Uganda. Already fuel prices have shot up," Ms Asiimwe said.

She was yesterday addressing journalists at the UWONET offices in Kamwokya.

She said a confidential UN document drawn up in December predicts that the war on Iraq could cause half a million deaths, 900,000 refugees and displace another two million Iraqis.

"Why be part of such a holocaust?" she said. "As Ugandans we know how easy it is to destroy and how difficult and expensive it is to rebuild."

She quoted former South African president Nelson Mandela who said that America's attack on Iraq would be an exhibition of arrogance, racism and disregard of international institutions as well as the needs and feelings of smaller nations.

"We cannot ignore the fact that the US government is developing weapons of mass destruction, [and] they have walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons. Isn't this a contradiction that they attack Iraq for the same thing they are doing?" she asked.

The document signed by 20 groups will be sent to the US embassy in Kampala and the White House in Washington, D.C., this week.

Anti-War Protest At US Consulate

Cape Argus (Cape Town)

January 28, 2003

Posted to the web January 28, 2003

Quinton Mtyala

Cape Town

A SMALL crowd, estimated at 40 by police, braved unusually hot weather yesterday to demonstrate their opposition to a possible war in Iraq.

The protesters, gathered outside the US consulate in Heerengracht Street, included retired teachers and members of the New Unity Movement.

Shahied Mohamed, spokesman for the Anti-War Coalition that organised the demonstration, said they were against a war that would serve to benefit "oil companies".

"George Bush is trying to divert the American people's attention away from a faltering economy at home," he said.

He added that the greatest weapon of mass destruction was not Iraq's alleged hidden arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, but the UN's imposed sanctions that had killed many people in Iraq.

Mohamed said: "We're appealing to the American working and middle classes to stand up in defiance of this war, they won't be the ones to benefit, only the rich will."

While a few younger protesters sang liberation songs, dusted off for the occasion, other, mostly older people, stood silently with their placards in the shade, avoiding the heat.

Tony Ehrenreich, provincial secretary for the Congress of South African Trade Unions, said that a much larger protest was planned for February 15.

"In war working people suffer, they are the ones that get sent off to fight the wars of the wealthy industrialists," said Ehrenreich.

Anti-War Protesters Picket US Embassy in Cape Town

South African Press Association (Johannesburg)

January 27, 2003

Posted to the web January 27, 2003

Cape Town

About 30 members of various civic organisations and labour movements, under the banner of the Western Cape anti-war coalition, staged a peaceful picket outside the United States Embassy in Cape Town on Monday.

They held aloft an assortment of posters ranging from "USA and Britain kill for oil" to "Bush and Blair international war criminals" in protest against the feared invasion of Iraq by America and her allies.

Some of picketers later lined both sides of Hertzog Boulevard to attract the attention of passing motorists.

The picket comes after a report in a Cape Town newspaper on Monday that President Thabo Mbeki had called for South Africans to join the world peace movement to prevent a war.

A spokesman for the group, Shaheed Mahomed, when asked whether they had permission to picket, said "we are exercising our constitutional right to protest." The Congress of South African Trade Unions provincial secretary Tony Ehrenreich said he was glad that Mbeki had joined the call for anti-war protests.

"We think that along all other key political leaders in the country, statements must emerge that this is a struggle for the democratic-minded, average person in South Africa who wants to take a stand, not only for the people in our country but a stand to put an end to the kind of conflict that doesn't hold a bright future for humanity," Ehrenreich said.

Ehrenreich said Monday's picket would be followed by a "big" march from the Keisersgracht to the US Embassy to hand over a petition on February 15.

The proceedings were monitored by about a dozen policemen.

US-Iraqi Face-Off And Nigeria

This Day (Lagos)

OPINION

March 31, 2003

Posted to the web March 31, 2003

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Lagos

The manifestations of the on-going US-Iraqi face-off in Nigeria suggest that in the long run, anti-American sentiments are likely to increase to the detriment of off'cial Nigerian-US bilateral relations for many reasons.

The philosophy on which the Americans predicate the rationale for declaring war on Iraq shows that only Americans know their onions while others are foolish and myopic. Nigerians generally do not always agree with this type of reasoning even if they deliberately keep quiet.

According to Howard Jeter, that competent and pragmatic US Ambassador in Nigeria, "Saddam's refusal to disarm his previous use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people and neighbours, and his government's links to terrorist groups forced my country and like-minded states to look hard at our choices... Saddam could have avoided war by leaving with his family, but he refused. This is a war at his insistence, not an American choice."

Perhaps more importantly, Ambassador Jeter submitted, the US has made it clear that "Iraq's oil riches will be used in the postSaddam era for the benefit of the Iraqi people and in the rebuilding of their country... President Bush recently instructed that the $1.4 billion in frozen Iraqi assets in the United States be placed in a reconstruction fund for a post-Saddam Iraq and we have urged other countries to do the same."

Thus, we have the problem of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism as main reasons for war making and Iraqi oil for post-war reconstruction: is this in the interest of the general international community or in the interest of the United States? The German Foreign Minister, Mr. Joschika Fisher, has provided an answer: the war is in the interest of the Americans. As he put it: "a world order will not work if the national interests of the most powerful nation define the criteria for the use of the military potency of his country... It is not acceptable that we are faced with the alternative either to allow a terrible danger to exist or be forced into a disarmament war." Mr. Fischer believed that the United Nations should be the place to resolve conflicts of this nature. This is also the view of most enlightened Nigerians. It is because of the perception of Americans as unrepentant democratic dictator under President George W. Bush that explains the growing anti-American sentiments and the manifestations of the US-Iraqi face-off in Nigeria.

Ambassador Jeter's statement shows the philosophical deceit of the Americans. He said that "Saddam could have avoided war by leaving with his family, but he refused," where does Mr. Jeter want him to go to? Who will easily give him political asylum? Even if he is able to have an asylum state, what about the Bush Doctrine? The doctrine says whoever aids or abets terrorists either by way of supply of logistic assistance or by hosting them directly or indirectly is also guilty of terrorism and therefore qualifies to be dealt with militarily. It was on the basis of this Bush Doctrine that Afghanistan had to face an alliance of Euro-American forces for giving a territorial asylum to Osama Bin Laden and others. Put differently, when Saddam leaves Iraq, the country that hosts him will be guilty of also doing so. This is not fair and unnecessary.

Again on using Iraqi oil to rebuild Iraq, Nigerians consider that if the Americans have not been intolerant and militarily provocative, the disarmament of Iraq would have still been achieved by peaceful means. In that case, Iraqi oil proceeds would have been set aside for new development projects with UN and US (if need be) assistance. Deliberately destroying the foundations of development only to begin to reconstruct them constitutes at best a waste of time, dissipation of energy, waste and destruction of human and material resources and fighting against the future. Imagine the setting ablaze of some Iraqi oil fields either by the Iraqis themselves or by the American and British belligerents and then asking an American company to come and extinguish the fire. Besides, how do we explain the US preparation to install Mr. Jay Garner, a retired army general, as the Head of the Pentagon, Office of Reconstruction, and Humanitarian Assistance, which will administer post-war Iraq? How do we understand the putting together of a team of former ambassadors, defence and intelligence officials to serve as a shadow government for post-war Iraq? This is destroying Iraqis and using their destruction to providing food and shelter and employment for the Americans. This is the angle from which many Nigerians perceive the war in Iraq. It is also in this context that the various manifestations of the war in Nigeria should be seen and understood.

For instance, the fundamental rights of Nigerians to decide when to travel, where to lodge, where to enjoy and live as law-abiding citizens' of the world have been derogated as a result. Nigerians in Iraq have been compelled to seek a safer place of abode. This situation of force majeure has its economic implications. The Nigerians cannot take their valuables along with them. Relocating elsewhere requires new funding. Adaptation in the new place, and especially nonpredictability of the conduciveness or non- conduciveness of the new environment constitute new burden for the Nigerians.

Even for Nigerians back home, the British and US embassy have closed their offices to the public for security reasons. Their decision is quite wise. However, genuine and non-terrorist Nigerians have had to reschedule their trips and pay dearly for changing their dates of travel.

Besides, those Nigerians who had other businesses to transact in the US Embassy could not do so because of the closure of the embassy.

The US-Iraqi war has also led to a failed attempt to recruit soldiers for Iraq in Nigeria. An Iraqi came to Nigeria and successfully recruited twenty-five Nigerians but were accosted by the security operatives at the Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport, Kano while they were still aboard an Egyptian airline. The 25 recruits, 21 males and 4 females, were all from the southeastern Nigeria. The Iraqi citizen, whose identity is not yet ascertained and his Nigerian accomplice, Mr. Paul Richmond, who hails from Akwa Ibom, are wanted by the police while the 25 recruits are currently under police investigation in Abuja.

If Nigerians can accept, for whatever reasons, to go and fight in a foreign land, there is no reason to suggest that, on their return to Nigeria, they would also not be prepared to fight in any war in Nigeria. The acceptance to fight for Iraq means Saddam Hussein has sympathizers in Nigeria. Although many Nigerians are frustrated and will want to get out of Nigeria at all costs, Nigeria is not well known to be a land for professional mercenaries. If Nigerians do accept to risk their lives for Saddam Hussein, the purpose may be economic, political and religious. The implication is that Iraq already has a basis for the widening of its scope of influence in the country. And without doubt, this cannot but have difficult effects on Nigeria-US relations in the long run. Nigeria, in this regard, will be put under US surveillance even if Nigeria has not been classified as one of the countries in the "axis of evil."

The placement of embargo on US military assistance to Nigeria is another fall out of the US-Iraqi face- off. Chief Onyia, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on Friday, 21 March, 2003 said that the United States had suspended military assistance to Nigeria as a result of Nigeria's Iraq policy. US ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Jeter responded in a press release that "the US government has not sought to influence Nigeria policy on Iraq through the suspension of military assistance." More important, Ambassador Jeter noted that "while some US military assistance to Nigeria have been affected by US legislation that went into effect on February 20, those limitations were in no way related to Nigeria's stand on Iraq. The restrictions stem from our concerns regarding human rights abuses by Nigerian military forces in Benue State in 2001. We have, over the past year and a half, explained these concerns to the Nigerian government and warned of possible congressional action to limit military assistance."

Although Ambassador Jeter regarded Chief Onyia's statement as "ill-informed", he did not fail to register his disappointment with Nigeria's _expression_ of opposition to the US-led war on Iraq.

Two questions arise here: if the suspension of military assistance has not been induced by Nigeria's policy on the Iraqi war, how do we explain the timing of the suspension? Again, what was considered as Nigeria's position cannot be correctly described as a Nigerian position. The truth is that Nigeria's leader, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, South African leader, Thabo Mbeki, and the Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade jointly wrote a letter on behalf of the people of Africa urging the Americans to seek redress to the conflict within the frameworks of the United Nations. What is noteworthy here is that President Abdoulaye Wade also wrote another letter to the US President, which then prompted President George W. Bush to ask for the basis of the harsh tone of the earlier letter written by the three leaders from Nigeria. Abdoulaye Wade's letter can be said to reflect the specific position of Senegal as an independent and sovereign nation state. This Senegalese position is quite different from that of the whole of Africa. However, in both cases, the US President promptly responded to the letters and this is why the suspension of military assistance cannot be separated from US perception of Nigeria's position.

True enough, Nigeria's policy stand is rooted in wisdom and need for world peace. Nigeria believes that the credibility of the UN Must be preserved and that any attempt to undermine this credibility should be resisted. So if the US is suspending its military assistance, Nigeria says this is sheer intimidation and "so be it".

The second question is: when will Nigeria stop depending on foreign military assistance? What is wrong with developing the Nigerian military system and making it second to none by ourselves? How can we be politically seeking leadership positions without also making our military very effective and efficient? Why not develop the Nigerian military in all its ramifications?

US-Iraq Face-Off: NAS Commends Obasanjo

This Day (Lagos)

March 31, 2003

Posted to the web March 31, 2003

Agaju Madugba

Kaduna

The leader of the Peoples Salvation Party (PSP) and former Minister of Special Duties, Alhaji Wada Nas, has commended President Olusegun Obasanjo over Nigeria's position on the USA-Iraq face-off. He urged workers world-wide to stay off duties for one-week in protest against what he described as the US aggression.

Nas said in a statement in Kaduna on Thursday that, "we commend the Nigerian government for joining others across the globe in raising its voice against this genocide.

"As a very important country in Africa and member of Organisation of Petroleum Exporing Countries (OPEC) to which Iraq also belongs, government has demonstrated obligation to the people of Iraq, this is more so because Muslims and Christians are united on this issue.

"As human beings, we feel the pains of the massacre of innocent persons and we urged all Muslims and Christians to continue to offer prayers in support of the Iraqi people.

"It is regrettable that the US has closed its embassies in Abuja and Lagos over the stand of Nigeria on this matter.

"This action does not indicate concern for rthe feeling of people around the world, over this brutal act."

Nas warned that if the world was not careful, the president of the United States of America, George W. Bush, would throw the entire humanity with tragedy by encouraging wars around the globe, - attempts to satisfy his quest for imperialism," he said.

Nas accused the US of defying the United Nations (UN) to engage in this "genocidal act."

He said, "I wish to commend members of the international community for taking to the streets peacefully over the matter. It is gladening that the human race could be so united in the face of brutal misuse of naked power.

"To oppose this war, workers throughout the world should stay home for atleast one week to show their solidarity to the Iraqi people.

"By so doing, they will demonstrate to the world that what is happening is about the mass massacre of people because Britain and America want to take control of their resources."

Africa Agrees to Disagree On Iraq

Business Day (Johannesburg)

OPINION

March 31, 2003

Posted to the web March 31, 2003

Francis Kornegay

Johannesburg

NOW that the war in Iraq is going full-blast, was it a mistake for most of Africa to opt out of the Anglo-AmericanAustralian "coalition of the willing" (or "COW" as US Senator Robert Byrd calls it)? Was it a mistake for Pretoria to take the lead in aligning Africa with France, Russia and China in their security council opposition to the US and Britain on Iraq? There are some who allege that SA has seriously damaged its relations with Washington.

Apart from this assessment appearing to be based solely on anti-American rhetoric by certain prominent members of the ruling ANC (as opposed to official government pronouncements), is this a fair assessment of US-SA relations?

Seasoned Africa hands in Washington have a different take. Apparently both Pretoria and Washington have been able to agree to disagree on Iraq and delink this issue from what they mutually perceive as a partnership on Africa.

It seems that the state department's Africa bureau has convinced the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon that there is too much at stake in other areas with Pretoria to endanger the bilateral relationship over the latter's antiwar stance on Iraq : free trade agreement talks, for example.

Meanwhile, there have been bilateral contretemps between Nigeria and the US. The problem: suspension of US military assistance to Abuja which Nigeria sees as being linked to their opposition to the Anglo-American campaign in Iraq.

Although the timing seemed to suggest this, the US Ambassador to Nigeria, Howard Jeter, says the suspension stemmed from concern about human rights abuses by Nigerian military forces in the Benue State disturbances of 2001.

More broadly, most of Africa cannot support the unilateralist, interventionist "preventive war" policy of Bush administration hard-liners. This carries too many serious implications close to home for states in a continent with many conflicts; a new one breaks out every time it looks like another is simmering down.

Were prevention to become the rationale for "just war," then one can imagine the endless can of worms this would open up for much of Africa. No peace process would be safe. In many an African conflict, armed actors place "justice" before peace or even talks about talks. Adversaries are considered meriting punishment just as the US punished the Taliban in Afghanistan and is waging war against Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

In fact, the two African states that have signed onto the COW Ethiopia and Eritrea are cases in point of how such a doctrine could yet contribute to another round of destabilisation in the northeast African periphery of the Middle East/Persian Gulf cauldron. And even as the Congo is trying to settle itself, the situation between Uganda and Rwanda remains touch-and-go.

From a purely defensive perspective, Pretoria and the African Union (AU) might consider devising a doctrine that politically insulates Africa from becoming a battleground in the war on terrorism or that safeguards member states (like Libya) from being targeted by US neoconservatives for preventive war treatment. This could take the form of articulating an AU continental "zone of peace" as a corollary to its declaration on combating terrorism.

In short, any "clash of civilisations" between the US and Islamist forces should not take place on African soil.

Such a doctrine should reinforce efforts at rooting out terrorist networks within the continent while positioning Africa as an independent regional actor committed to the nonviolent resolution of disputes as should have been the course pursued with the revitalised now interrupted inspections process in Iraq. Of course, independence is something that sticks in the craw of those counselling SA to "join the winning side" by becoming a subordinate state actor in a new "Pax Americana". Pretoria is better off keeping its own counsel.

Kornegay is programme co-ordinator, Centre for Africa's International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand.

Iraq: US, Nigeria Trade Harsh Words

This Day (Lagos)

March 23, 2003

Posted to the web March 23, 2003

Collins Edomaruse With Agency Reports

Lagos

No fewer than 33 American and British nationals have been killed in the on-going war in the Persian Gulf to oust Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. This is coming on the heels of a sharp disagreement between the United States and the Federal Government of Nigeria over the former's suspension of militay assistance to the latter following Nigeria's position on the Iraqi war.

The country's Ambassador in Nigeria, Mr. Howard Jetter, in a four paragraph press release entitled: "Military Assistance to Nigeria" said: "The US Embassy in Nigeria understands Nigerian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dubem Onyia on March 21 reported that the United States had suspended military assistance to Nigeria as a result of Nigeria's Iraq policy.

"This is not the case. The US government has not sought to influence Nigeria policy on Iraq through the suspension of military assistance. While some US military assistance to Nigeria has been affected by US legislation that went into effect on February 20, those limitations were in no way related to Nigeria's stand on Iraq.

"The restrictions stem from our concerns regarding human rights abuses by Nigerian military forces in Benue State in 2001. We have, over the past year and a half, explained these concerns to the Nigerian government and warned of possible congressional action to limit military assistance. The honourable minister of state's recent pronouncements on this issue were ill-informed."

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Chief Dubem Onyia, had last Friday summoned the US Ambassador to his office over what the minister described as the United States decision to suspend military assistance to Nigeria over the Benue killings.

According to Onyia, the US decision, coming so soon after Nigeria's _expression_ of opposition to the US-led war on Iraq is "sheer intimidation."

Onyia added, however, that if the US had indeed decided to suspend its military assistance to Nigeria, "so be it."

The minister restated Nigeria's stand that the credibility of the United Nations must be preserved and that any attempt to undermine this credibility should be resisted.

In his response, Jeter explained that America's decision to withdraw its military assistance had nothing to do with Nigeria's position on Iraq. He, however, expressed his country's disappointment over Nigeria's stance on Iraq.

Meanwhile, the military campaign in the Gulf continued yesterday with several casualties on both sides. A breakdown of the casualty list indicates that early yesterday, seven soldiers from the coalition forces died when two British Sea King helicopters collided after take-off in the Gulf. A US Navy officer was also believed killed in addition to six British servicemen.

On Friday, eight British Royal Marines and four US Marines died when their sea knight helicopter crashed near the Iraqi border.

In a related development four US scouts died yesterday when their vehicle was struck by one or more rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) in an apparent Iraqi ambush, various media reported.

Additional details were not immediately available. If confirmed, the deaths would bring the number of coalition combat deaths to six since armed conflict began four days ago.

Three journalists were also feared dead while five others sustained varying degrees of injury. Agency report said at least five journalists were injured and three reported missing yesterday near the Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr, a Kuwaiti armed forces according to the Kuwait News Agency.

Colonel Yousef al-Mullah told the agency that the circumstances behind those injured or missing were not clear, but he urged reporters in Kuwait not embedded with U.S. or British troops not to enter the border area until the area is militarily secured.

Earlier reports from media in Kuwait said two cars carrying foreign journalists came under fire yesterday on the road between Umm Qasr and Basra. Both cars belonged to the British television network ITV. A French journalist was also reported detained yesterday by Iraqi soldiers.

Meanwhile, President George Bush in a radio address to Americans yesterday warned that his country's led war in Iraq would not be an easy exercise and may last longer than expected.

Bush said the war in Iraq "could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted" in his weekly radio address yesterday.

He, however, repeated U.S. determination to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and "end Iraqi leader SaddamhH_ssein's support for terrorism".

But he said military action begun on Thursday represented "a campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country."

"Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half measures", he said.

Bush's declaration came on the heels of call by Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak for an immediate ceasefire in the US-led war on Iraq yesterday and warned the US against widening the scope of the conflict.

Information Minister Safwat al-Sherif told reporters that Mubarak made the call during a meeting with key members of his cabinet, which was convened to discuss the war in Iraq.

Sherif added that the president also expressed concern over the possible loss of civilian lives and warned against tampering wit Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The Egyptian leader further repeated his country's stance against the use of force to effect regime change and called on all to respect the Iraqi people's right to freely choose their leaders.

Mubarak made a similar appeal to U.S. President George W. Bush during telephone conversation with the American leader after the commencement of the U.S.-led military campaign on Thursday.

Meanwhile heavy clouds of black smoke above the Iraqi capital today were believed to have been stemmed from pools of oil lit by Iraqis to provide a cloak of smoke protecting Baghdad against coalition air strikes, BBC news television reported.

Baghdad has been subjected to massive air strikes during the past 20 hours, strikes which Iraqi authorities said have killed three civilians and wounded 250.

Coalition forces have said the strikes using highly accurate precision munitions targeted Iraqi government installations.

U.S. Actions Draw Criticism in Kaduna, Nigeria

allAfrica.com

INTERVIEW

March 21, 2003

Posted to the web March 21, 2003

Ofeibea Quist-Arcton

Kaduna

Nigeria's city of Kaduna has repeatedly been the scene of violent clashes between Christians and Muslims. The latest violence came in the run-up to the Miss World beauty pageant, which was scheduled to be held in Nigeria, but was cancelled in the end and shifted to Britain after violent protests.

They were provoked when a Nigerian woman journalist speculated in an article that the Prophet Mohammed might have chosen a wife from among the Miss World contestants.

The reaction was immediate and tragic. Aggrieved young militants, accused the journalist of blasphemy and whipped up communal violence between Muslims and Christians in Kaduna. Nearly 200 people were killed in the rioting which also destroyed houses, churches and mosques.

Christian and Muslim leaders in Kaduna have been working hard to try to restore trust and harmony between their two communities. So, there is some nervousness in the city about Washington's decision to wage a military campaign against Iraq.

The Reverend John Joseph Hayab is the secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), in Kaduna state.

Reverend, you have mentioned the 'spectre' of Iraq weighing heavily on people in Kaduna. Exactly what do you mean?

The ongoing crisis in Iraq is part of the reason why people are afraid. The problem in Iraq is between America, Britain and a few allies of America that are trying to attack Iraq. But the way people look at issues in Nigeria - especially crises - is completely different.

Even when this problem began, we began to hear that Iraq is an Islamic country and America wants to attack her, so the possibility is that if America attacks Iraq, then Muslims in Nigeria will also attack Christians.

As far as I¹m concerned, the problem in Iraq is not one of religion, because the deputy prime minister of Iraq is a Christian. If the Americans drop their bombs in Iraq, it will affect both Christians and Muslims.

But unfortunately a learned lawyer in Nigeria came up and said the issue is religion. So, if learned people can say this, then you must be afraid. What of the masses who are just waiting to hear 'go and do it?' So, there is that fear that if America eventually bombs Iraq, if care is not taken and if security is not put in place, then some Nigerians too will take it up as their fight and possibly throw bombs at each other.

That is why we are calling on the government of Nigeria to do everything within her reach to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Nafiu Baba-Ahmed is the secretary-general of the Supreme Council for Sharia (Islamic Legal Code) in Nigeria. After a considered discussion on the upcoming elections in Nigeria, he became excited and incensed as he spoke about U.S. military plans to end the Iraqi leadership of President Saddam Hussein, starting with the ultimatum by President Bush that the Iraqi leader and his sons should leave their country or face the consequences if they refuse to go into exile.

This is one of the hypocrisies a lot of people are afraid to talk about. The same country (the United States) that espouses the principles of democracy which it says should be institutionalised internationally, that same country goes against world public opinion; on the issues of the World Trade Organisation, on the environment and even a conference to censure Israel, it will walk out.

This is a country that claims it is the godfather of democracy. This is America. They have certain interests, they have mapped up what they call a new world order. Part of the new world order is 'we have finished with the Soviet Union, so we are the only superpower. So, we have the right to do as we wish, irrespective and regardless of what anybody says.' That is the motivating spirit behind the actions of George Bush.

Zaki Amani, the former Saudi Oil Minister for 25 years, a few days ago on the BBC revealed that some American friends of his had shown him a letter seven years ago, written by [Vice-President] Dick Cheney and others seven years ago. They wrote to President Clinton saying he should attack Iraq and take over the government.

So 9/11 is nothing but an excuse. It¹s a preplanned thing. You understand? It's part of America¹s idea of geopolitical rearrangement.

And in any case, how about the double hypocrisy? Israel is in the same region, it has more of all of these biological deadly weapons, but nobody is saying anything. The mere fact that Israel, within the same region, has these weapons, is a potential source of perpetual instability in the region. Why should America have the weapons and not Iraq and not Nigeria? I mean, I can¹t understand this.

Honestly, they are lucky they have nimble minds in positions of authority.

I would tell Bush - call his bluff and tell him off and tell him: 'Who the hell do you think you are? If you are telling me to practise democracy, then let's practise democracy in the United States.' But nobody is saying anything.

I think Bush is being driven and tele-guided by an interest group that has been manipulating him, even his own father. But they are past beneficiaries of that system.

If they attack Iraq, they will create not just another Osama bin Laden, but tens of thousands of Osamas - watch my words.

What about the role of the British prime minister, Tony Blair, and the Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar and Washington's other allies?

Tony Blair's case is pathetic, quite honestly. I believe that Robin Cook [Britain's former foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons who resigned this week in protest against military action without United Nations authorisation], like most Britons, must have felt nauseated by the fact that Britain is simply parroting whatever America does.

They cannot reconcile the Great Britain of 50 years ago or so, which had a large colonial empire, [with the now] small island, which is struggling to keep Northern Ireland. Britain has become more or less like the 51st state of the United States of America. They have no foreign policy of their own, whatever America wants, they are ahead. That is a tragedy.

For them to go and rely on the postgraduate thesis of somebody as an authority to justify what they are doing, it shows the desperation. It shows there is more to it than meets the eye.

And what are these issues?

There is the desire to take control of the Middle East, because they can see the emergence of radical, pro-Islamic governments.

They want to deal with Iraq to take over the oil, because it's sitting on 10 percent of the total oil reserves in the world.

By dealing with Iraq, it will be a lesson to other Arab Muslim states that, 'if you don't follow what we want, slavishly, this is the fate that awaits you.'

They want to establish and get everybody to accept that they are the single superpower and can do whatever they wish.

These specifically are the reasons, no more. And these had been planned a long time ago. Even 9/11. It was organized by the CIA [the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency] and the Mossad [Israeli Secret Service].

You mean the hijacking and flying of aircraft into the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon?

Yes, yes. It's surprising. I have books challenging every aspect of this and indicating that this would be preplanned. It was just to provide an excuse in the first place.

The Israeli government was getting concerned - and the American government because they are more or less one and the same thing - about the sudden, gradual tilting of sympathy, not only in America but in Europe, from the Israelis to the Palestinians.

People have been watching on TV - women, children and homes being destroyed. So there was a gradual shift of public sympathy from the Israelis to the Palestinians. What to do to change that?

And, [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has his own agenda. He wants to deal with this, but then he's afraid that if there is no important thing that will take away and divert international public opinion from Israel, then there will be a lot of pressure on them.

Now, he can go anywhere he wants, kill as many people, destroy whatever he likes - you understand.

Isn't that very far-fetched? It seems pretty provocative of you to suggest that it's a CIA and an Israeli intelligence plot.

There is nothing provocative. That is the truth. That is the truth. I have some very interesting literature. There is a book, a very interesting one, called 'The Big Lie'. There is another one, 'Stranger than Fiction'. There are so many books written by Americans and Europeans debunking every issue, every issue, every event that happened and indicating that it was a preplanned and premeditated act for a particular reason - to get American public opinion to support America's warmongering policy and justify it.

What is your message to President Saddam Hussein who is not, after all, the ideal leader, is he?

I have absolutely no sympathies for Saddam Hussein as an individual, absolutely - except that even a bad person should not be wronged. What right has America to go after Saddam Hussein alone? Is he the only bad leader? They have had the longest history of supporting tyrants. There are still tyrants all over the Middle East, [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak and the rest of them, supported by America. Why have they been pointing at him?

My greatest worry is the ordinary people, who do not even understand the politics of this crisis who will end up suffering, dying or - you know - suffering in one way or another as a result of the war.

But God will never allow injustice.

My message to America is that they should learn from past history of previous empires and previous kingdoms that existed. Kingdoms and nations - like individuals - have a life-span. They reach their peak, then down they go. They disintegrate. Others emerge from their ashes.

We had the Roman Empire, we had the Persian Empire, we had the Assyrian Empire, we had the Islamic Empire, we had the Ottoman Empire, we had the British Empire, we had the French Colonial Empire. Now we have America.

We had Russia from 1914 for just about 70 years. They are on the verge of fragmenting. Weakness is from within and outside. It's going to happen to America. And arrogance - that arrogance - is going to first begin to isolate them. They are beginning to offend their closest friends. You understand?

Secondly, there will be internal weaknesses. They should learn from the lessons of history. But, unfortunately, the most ignorant people in the world are the Americans. I am amazed. I have been to America many, many, many times and it's unbelievable. This permeates the totality of the society, from the lowest level to the president.

This president hardly knows anything. He didn't even have a passport until a few years before he became president, because he never traveled anywhere. He doesn't know anything. They are the most ignorant people.

Mallam Muhammad Sani Isah is the chief Imam of the Waff Road Mosque Forum in Kaduna. He has been working tirelessly, with Reverend Hayab and others, in an interfaith effort to bring Christians, Muslims and others together after the episodes of religious violence in Kaduna, most lately because of the Miss World beauty competition. Speaking about the crisis in the Gulf, Mallam Isah had messages for both the Iraqi leader and the American president.

I advise Bush to think twice or thrice about this issue, because his people also in the US are also always and every day asking him to look twice and thrice, because of the threat internationally. No matter what, he has to justify what he is ready to do; the reality at hand - which the common man is seeing - is that he should have waited for the United Nations to take action. But if he, or the United States as a country, as a government, should take action without waiting for that, you will find that a lot of countries and a lot of governments are not with Bush himself.

I was in the US about four months ago, for some training, and I found out how people are divided into two - some supporting and some against. They are saying their views. This is the good thing about America, you can come and speak your mind.

What message do you think President Bush's action sends to the world?

It's sending violence. Because if they attack Iraq now, as I'm talking to you, it will do more harm than good. It will breed much more hatred towards America and Americans, you know, which innocently we don't have to.

Because, if Bush did something, we don't have to blame the whole of the American people but this is what will happen. A lot of people are ignorant. A lot of people don't know that. They think that all of the Americans are behind him or are with him.

So what I'm saying is that if he does this, it will cause a lot of problems and would do more harm than good. So, he should stop this. It's better, so that peace will reign.

Let us, if possible - and I think it is possible - resolve this problem amicably instead of resolving it by war or through war. Otherwise, I'm afraid innocent people in Iraq and outside Iraq will suffer. Innocent Americans will suffer. Innocent Muslims somewhere in the world will suffer. It will be a suffering for both Muslims and Christians all over the world. So it's not a suffering for Americans only. It will breed suffering to all of us and we don't like it.

And your advice to President Saddam Hussein?

Let Saddam Hussein cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. Let him give them all the maximum cooperation they need, so that he himself should not contribute to the problem that will come back later and affect Muslims and Christians in Iraq and outside Iraq. He also should cooperate with them and do what he is asked to do so that we live in peace in Iraq and in general.

That is my message. I hope he will listen to me and act accordingly.

Kano Residents Back Saddam Hussein

allAfrica.com

INTERVIEW

March 21, 2003

Posted to the web March 21, 2003

Ofeibea Quist-Arcton

Kano

In northern Nigeria - far away from the military action in the Gulf, there appears to be overwhelming condemnation of U.S. President George W. Bush and his intentions in Iraq.

AllAfrica's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton is traveling around the northern states of Nigeria to report on the current election campaign, ahead of polls next month. In the influential states of Kaduna and Kano, she heard the views of local people apparently deeply concerned about the war.

Sakina Mohammed is a 20 year old market trader. Serenely watching the mad rush all about her in the central market in the city of Kano, she became stony-faced and unequivocal when it came to a discussion on America's war on Iraq.

America has declared war on Iraq and President Saddam Hussein, saying that he has weapons of mass destruction and murder. What do you think of this?

America is determined to invade Iraq for no just cause. So may Allah destroy America. And may Allah bring success to Iraq, being a Muslim country and we are Muslims.

Is the only reason you support President Saddam Hussein because he is a Muslim as you are? What if Saddam Hussein were a Christian and America was going to invade Iraq? Would you support him then?

I am supporting Saddam because he is a Muslim and I am a Muslim. That's why I'm supporting him.

Is that a good enough reason?

Yes, it is the right one.

Bashiru Usman, a trader in rice, sugar and other essential commodities, was eager to give allAfrica his views, rushing forward and donning his hat for a photograph in the busy main market in Kano.

What are your views on what is happening between the United States and Iraq?

I don't like it at all. This is aggression by America and England. They are going to show their aggression to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a very honest person, a very strong person.

How do you know?

Because they have already fought him before, in 1991, in the first Gulf war. Saddam Hussein has tried to defend his own country. This is the habit of a brave man, to defend his country.

Do you think Saddam Hussein will win?

He will win, Insh'Allah, we are praying for him. We are calling on God to give him courage and strength.

What about the information that Iraq has or may have weapons of mass destruction?

Saddam Hussein, we already know that he has no (weapons of) mass destruction. Because agents of the United Nations like Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei have already been in Iraq and have investigated everywhere in Iraq. And Saddam Hussein himself has told the United Nations that they don't have any kind of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mohammed Kassim, 21, an irrepressible young man with outspoken views, simply could not hold himself back as his elders addressed journalists on Washington's decision to go to war with Iraq. In the small, dark office of the Kano Market Traders' Association, Kassim jumped forward and, in a breathless stream, spoke in defence of the Iraqi president.

Saddam Hussein is straightforward in defending the rights of his people. That is why we like Saddam Hussein. We like him very much. We like Saddam Hussein, we like him very much.

What do you mean he's straightforward?

He is there to defend the rights of his people, that is why I say he is straightforward.

What about the fact that Iraq has had, or may still have, weapons of mass destruction and that President Saddam invaded Kuwait in the past, prompting the first Gulf war? What about all those factors?

This is something that has gone, in the past. America must just forget about this.

But you accept that it might be very hard for the Kuwaitis to forget, perhaps, that they were invaded by neighbouring Iraq and may still feel under threat - surely?

I don't know how to answer this question. I just say this matter is supposed to be forgotten.

What do you say about the potential risks to the lives of Iraqis and the possibility that many people may die if there is a war?

This is absolutely not good. This is absolutely not good.

Who do you blame?

I blame America and Britain and at the same time Spain.

Do you think President Saddam Hussein should have left Iraq, after the American ultimatum that he should go into exile, to avoid a war?

No, I don't support him to leave Iraq. Because, even if he goes somewhere else, they will go there and trap him.

Nura Habib, an older man, also wanted his opinions to be recorded.

I am a Muslim, so I am interested in Saddam, fully interested. I also want to explain to American people and their leader about this war that they are going to get involved in.

You say it is because you are a Muslim? What if President Saddam were a Christian, would you still support him?

Well I would support him, because America wants to impose something that is out of law, it is injustice, it is an imposement. I can't believe that a very strong country like America wants to impose injustice on a country like Iraq. Because, if you consider and compare Iraq and America, it is not going to be comparable.

What about the facts of the past, President Adam's behaviour, the fact that he once invaded Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf war.

If you go back to history, we can simply understand that Kuwait and Iraq are one country. Some things separated them and made them different countries. So, if a leader wants to amalgamate two countries as his own, it is very simple. But does that make it right?

It's right, because it was his own country before and he wants to take it back.

Obasanjo, Mbeki Lead Africa Against War On Iraq

Vanguard (Lagos)

March 17, 2003

Posted to the web March 19, 2003

Lagos

THREE of the most influential leaders in Africa, the presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal, have called on the United States not to risk destabilising the world by launching an attack on Iraq, in a joint letter yesterday. "We in Africa ... are apprehensive that any war brought at this point in time would have monumental adverse effects on our development," said the letter, which was sent Saturday to US President, George W. Bush, Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein and UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. "We daresay also that it will have destructive and irreversible effects on the delicate situation in the Middle East," said President Olusegun Obasanjo Nigeria, Addullahi Wade of Senegal and Thabo MBeki of South Africa.

The presidents, who met last week in Abuja, said that the diplomatic and military pressure that had been brought to bear on Iraq had almost succeeded in forcing him to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. "Iraq must indeed disarm transparently and totally to the satisfaction of the United Nations," they said.

"Thus, if the US were to withdraw its troops after Iraq's complete disarming, it can justifiably claim to have achieved victory for the high purpose of the UN, which is global peace without actually going to war."

The United States has massed some 250,000 troops in the Middle East, alongside smaller Australian, British and Czech contingents, and has said it is ready to go to war with Iraq, which the White House says has not cooperated with demands it disarm. Bush, Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair and his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar were meeting on the crisis yesterday in the Azores.

Wade, Mbeki and Olusegun have been three of the power-houses behind Africa's new economic recovery programme, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), and wield considerable clout within the continent.

Nepad Raises Panel On US/Iraq War

This Day (Lagos)

March 10, 2003

Posted to the web March 10, 2003

Kola Ologbondiyan And Kunle Aderinokun

Abuja

The sixth summit of Heads of State and Government Implementation Comm-ittee (HSGIC) of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) yesterday rose from an eight-hour meeting with a mandate to its steering committee to study the effect of a possible US war with Iraq on Africa and submit its report as soon as possible.

Chairman of the implementation committee, President Olusegun Obasanjo, who spoke to newsmen at the end of the meeting, also disclosed that the committee "was able to review the progress made in the implementation of NEPAD in the intervening period between the last meeting which held on November 3, 2001 and today's."

Obasanjo had in his speech to the committee listed the prog-ress made in the implementation of programmes as including peace and security, on the continent, good governance, economic and democratic transition of governments.

He said yesterday's meeting took report of the steering committee on peace and security, engagement of United Nations agencies, "especially in the area of peace, peace-making, peace support operations and what we have done or we are doing with G8 in this area," among others.

The president said he would not want to pre-empt the responsibilities of the committee when asked what the HSGIC considered as the possible effect of a likely war between USA and Iraq on the continent, adding that "we also did not give them (committee) a deadline, if they can submit report to us in the next two weeks, we will accept it."

He noted that "the issue which took a lot of discussion is the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)" which underscored the essence of the peer review process as a system of voluntary self-assessment, constructive peer dialogue and persuasion, as well as the sharing of experiences among members.

Obasanjo said the HSGIC meeting: "approved, as operative guidelines of the APRM, the documents on objectives, standards, criteria and indicators for the APRM, African Peer Review Mechanism Organization and Processes and the Outline of the Memorandum of Understanding on technical Assessments and the Country Review visit;

"The Memorandum of Under-standing as a framework for a formal ascension to the APRM. Consequently, ten member-countries, namely; Algeria, Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda signed the Memorandum of Understan-ding of the APRM; and

"Mandated the chairman to undertake further consultations with the representatives of each region on the HSGIC, on the appointment of the chairperson and members of the Panel of Eminent Persons, and for this process to be concluded," he added.

He had earlier in his welcome speech said that "our commitment to the African Peer Review Mechanism is manifested in the Declaration of Intent already signed by twelve of our members."

THISDAY gathered that some members are wary of signing away their sovereignty through a Peer Review Mechanism that would enable peer members to put pressure on them.

Obasanjo in response to reporters question on why the number of those who had signed the Declaration of Intent dropped by two said, "it is not the question of being afraid but a lot of points that need to be understood among ourselves because this has not been done anywhere, and we are doing it for the first time.

"We should understand what we are doing and why we are doing it to those who may want to know what we are doing and why we are doing it and how we are doing it," he further said.

THISDAY also gathered that the two-member countries that dissented from signing the Memorandum of Understanding told the implementation committee that their presidents who they were standing in for did not give them instructions to sign the memorandum.

In his speech to the committee, Obasanjo had enumerated the achievements recorded by NEPAD so far.

"It is noteworthy that democratic transitions of governments are taking place apace on the continent. And as Nigeria embarks on a civilian-to-civilian transition with our elections next month, we are committed to making it peaceful, free and fair," he said.

The President also said "substantial progress is being made with African Development Bank (ADB) and other regional partners in the area of infrastructure development. The ADB has undertaken to assist in the implementation of the NEPAD short-term infrastructure plan in addition to co-financing seventeen projects to the tune of 200 million dollars."

On peace and security, Obasanjo noted; "we have re-doubled our efforts in the search for peace in various parts of Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, the Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire.

"In the area of good governance, our commitment to the African Peer Review Mechanism is manifested in the Declaration of Intent already signed by twelve of our members. In order to enhance the credibility and the universality of the Peer Review Process, I would like to urge more countries to accede to the Peer Review Mechanism.

"It is worth mentioning that our joint resolve to uphold good governance practices and democratic principles have greatly facilitated the restoration of constitutionality and the rule of law in some African countries, such as Madagascar."

Noting that NEPAD has moved beyond the level of mere rhetoric to the concrete and pragmatic stage of implementation and that "progress may not have been as fast as some have expected," the president said the body has "continued to assist Zimba-bwe to address its domestic challenges.

"We have continued to enhance cooperation with our development partners, especially regarding financial support and execution of development programmes. In particular, the G8 has been collaborating with NEPAD on conflict prevention, resolution and management, including developing the capacity for peace support operations in Africa.

"Furthermore, the collaborative efforts between the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have led to the elaboration of a Comprehensive Africa Agricul-ture Development Programme (CAADP). This programme is specifically designed to address the African food crisis by which large number of Africans have been facing food shortages, persistent dependence on imports and food aid, as well as frequent disasters requiring emergency food and agricultural interventions," he added.

The Nigerian leader further listed the gains of the body as including the deepening of ownership of NEPAD, "while also mobilizing popular support for the initiative by actively engaging the private sector, civil society organizations, labour unions and non-governmental organizations.

"As part of this effort, the NEPAD-ECOWAS Business Forum was held in Abuja a few days ago, while the launching of NEPAD activities in Nigeria with the Roll-out campaign," which ended last Saturday

Calling on member states to embark on similar initiatives, the president said the roll-out plan is aimed at ensuring that the African peoples are brought into the mainstream of the initiative.

Obasanjo said efforts are being made in the implementation of NEPAD to "ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated."

He added: "We owe it as a duty to our peoples, to consolidate on the gains so far recorded, and the wide support enjoyed by NEPAD, so that we can truly make this year the great beginning of the phase of implementation of this noble initiative."

African Heads of State and Government at yesterday's meeting were South African President Thabo Mbeki; Maitre Abdoulaye Wade (Senegal) who is vice chairman; Mr. Joaquim Albert Chissano (Mozambique); General Denis Sassou-Nguesso (Republic of Congo); Mr. Melez Zenawi (Ethiopia) and Mr. Abdelaziz Bouteflika (Algeria).

Other African Heads of State and Government who are members of the NEPAD's 12 Implementation Committee were represented at the event.

Meanwhile, the implementation of NEPAD has received a major boost with the Malaysian investors pledging to invest $1 billion (about N127,000,000,000) in the area of transport infrastructure development in Nigeria.

Minister of Transport, Chief Ojo Maduekwe who disclosed this yesterday at a press briefing to open a four-day event on the African Ministerial Forum on Integrated Transport (AMFIT), which begins today said, the $1 billion investment was a fallout of President Olusegun Obasanjo's visit and his own recent visit to Malaysia would be invested in effective and efficient methods of harnessing the transport resources to achieve sustainable economic growth.

"I just came back" The Minister said, he added that some Asian countries including, South Korea, Japan, India and Singapore and the United States have indicated their interest to invest in the Nigerian transport sector.