Kenya’s problem beyond ethnicity and elections.



(IPS) There is more to Kenya’s post-election violence than a bungled vote count and so-called tribal rivalries. As protests degenerate into organised ethnic violence in Rift Valley towns and countryside, the root-cause of the unrest lies elsewhere.

"We must tackle the fundamental issues underlying the disturbances -- like equitable distribution of resources -- or else we will be back here again after three or four years," former U.N. chief Kofi Annan told journalists in Nairobi’s Serena Hotel Sunday, after talking to survivors of the violence which has claimed over 1,000 lives and displaced some 250,000 people since the December election.

Though Annan’s mediation to initiate a structured dialogue between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga is making progress -- Kibaki and Odinga shook one another’s hands last week and vowed to continue a dialogue to resolve the crisis -- the wave of violence has taken on its own dynamics.

Even if Kibaki, a Kikuyu, and Odinga, a Luo, were to make peace and reach a power-sharing deal down the line, the chronic economic and political root- causes of the tribal violence would not go away.

"Its characterisation as a tribal enmity is simplistic -- access to land, housing, and water are the real issues that appear in the guise of ethnicity and are triggered by political disputes," said a Danish aid worker who was part of an emergency assessment team in the Rift Valley. "There is an unmistakable class dimension to the turmoil in Kenyan society," the aid worker said, wishing to remain anonymous.

"Only one category of people had come out to protest against the electoral irregularities: the poorest of the poor, the jobless, and the landless. People from only one class are seen to be committing violence and registering resentment against poll cheating," says Millicent Ogutu, who works at a Nairobi-based media company.

In Nairobi, the only sites of trouble throughout the post-election spree of violence have been the slums of Kibera, Mathare, and other shantytowns. This pattern is visible also in other troubled regions, such as Kisumu in Odinga’s home province of Nyanza, and in the Rift Valley towns of Eldoret, Molo, Nakuru, and Naivasha.

Following conciliatory speeches made in the presence of Annan by Kibaki and Odinga outside Harambee House, the president’s office, Ogutu and others IPS talked to expressed scepticism that any long-term solution to Kenya’s gaping economic disparity, tribe-based cronyism, and corruption would be reached.

"Have you seen any middle-class person of any tribe shouting slogans against either Odinga or Kibaki?" asked Raphael Karanja, a radio journalist. "It is only the people who had a misplaced faith in the power of the ballot, and who genuinely believed that their vote can lead to a change of guard and better economic policies that might alleviate their basic problems of land, housing, and drinking water that have risen up in protest."

Most of the protestors -- in Nairobi’s slums and other places -- belong to the Luo and Klenjin tribes while the majority of victims of the recent violence have been the Kikuyus. But beneath these simplistic tribal battle-lines lie the historic patterns of uneven resource distribution in Kenya.

The biggest issue is that of land. "The state had showed a blatant bias in favour of one tribe at the expense of the rest at the time of independence when the land left behind by the British was to be distributed among the local people," says an economics professor at the University of Nairobi, who wishes to remain anonymous, as he is a government employee. Kikuyus bought much of the land in Kenya -- even in non-Kikuyu regions -- as they dominated the first administration of Jumo Kenyatta and were given preferential treatment in the award of loans for buying land.

"That resulted in Kikuyu families holding land in the midst of other tribes, especially in the fertile Rift Valley, the main region of turmoil in every wave of electoral violence that Kenya has seen since a multiparty system was introduced in 1992," the professor explained.

The Dec. 2007 elections were not the first perceived to be rigged. They were not the first to lead to post-electoral violence. Similar spurts of tribal violence -- mainly anti-Kikuyu -- also took place in the run-up to the 1992 elections and, on a much larger scale, during and after the 1997 elections.

Another big issue is that of housing and water in the localities where the poorest people live. The issue is directly related to corruption. "The gap between the few rich and the majority poor has widened so greatly over the last decade that even if a common Kenyan is able to raise resources and wants to build a proper house, he finds bureaucratic hurdles at every step which cannot be overcome without extra money for corrupt officials," says Ogutu.

There are no middle class neighbourhoods in Nairobi. There are either slums, or posh, rich localities.

"Under [President Daniel arap] Moi’s and Kibaki’s governments, the rich have gotten super rich and adopted a culture of conspicuous consumption with big cars and bigger houses. On the other hand, the poor have been further impoverished and conspicuously so. The middle class has shrunk, with the very few moving up but most of them barely surviving the slide down into the economic and social abyss," says the professor. The violence that has taken on tribal characteristics is in fact rooted in the widening class divisions between the rich and poor of the country.

The poor thought that democracy and elections would help them influence government policy. Odinga raised expectations by campaigning as the people’s candidate and a champion of the poor. He received votes across tribal divides.

"After the peaceful transition of power in 2002, most Kenyans actually had faith that they can bring about another change through their vote. Hence, the large turnout and the peaceful December elections," says Ogutu. "That faith is irreparably dented. Raila shaking hands with Kibaki is cosmetic and, at best, a momentary and tenuous truce. It won’t change a thing for them. They’ll be back on the street sooner or later." (source)

[post continued...]

Nahum Grymes (J. Holiday)



Okay so I've been hearing all over that J. Holiday is Eritrean. And from what I can gather online it appears to be the truth. And not a surprise, especially when you look at his features.

I do hope that he takes the opportunity to speak about his nationality and use the media platform to express some Pan-African pride.

[post continued...]

Gnarles Barkley: "Run"



Run (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Mumia: It ain't the voting that counts it's the counting



It ain't the voting that counts it's the counting (listen/download)

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning journalist, former President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, and author of "Live From Death Row", "Death Blossoms", "All Things Censored", “Faith of Our Fathers” and the recently released “We Want Freedom”. A resident of Pennsylvania’s death row since 1982, new evidence, including the recantation of a key eyewitness, new ballistic and forensic evidence, judicial racial prejudice, and a confession from Arnold Beverly (one of the two confessed killers) points to his innocence. Mumia continues to fight for a new trial with the support of tens of thousands around the world.

[post continued...]

Mumia: The madness called home, Kenya.



The madness called home, Kenya (listen/download)

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning journalist, former President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, and author of "Live From Death Row", "Death Blossoms", "All Things Censored", “Faith of Our Fathers” and the recently released “We Want Freedom”. A resident of Pennsylvania’s death row since 1982, new evidence, including the recantation of a key eyewitness, new ballistic and forensic evidence, judicial racial prejudice, and a confession from Arnold Beverly (one of the two confessed killers) points to his innocence. Mumia continues to fight for a new trial with the support of tens of thousands around the world.

[post continued...]

Obama is not King.



We welcome Mel Reeves as a contributor to The Liberator. Mel is a freelance writer, activist and organizer living in Miami, Florida and will be contributing regularly to The Liberator. He is also the former editor of the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder newspaper in Minneapolis and the Miami Times.

Obama is not King: The presidential candidacy of Barack Obama has spawned lots of banter about Martin Luther King Jr, whose birthday the country recently observed. Obama has been mentioned in the same breath as King, as the fulfillment and embodiment of the civil rights leaders’ dream. Obama’s supposed symbolism is misleading and represent gross misrepresentations of the truth.

So let me take a moment to set the record straight.

Now when we consider the idea of Obama as the fulfillment of Kings’ dream we should refer to the great one himself. In his now popular, “I have a dream,” speech delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at the 1963 March on Washington, King elucidated his vision of things to come.

“I have a dream,” proclaimed King; “that this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal,’”… that, “sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood,”… that, “even the state of Mississippi, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice”… and that, “my four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The fulfillment of Kings vision has yet to come to pass. Even Obama admitted as much last Sunday in a speech at King’s former church, Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta. Obama, explained that, “for most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.”

However, the talk about the Senator’s possible election as president of the US as culmination of the civil rights movement reveals a popular misconception about King and a misreading of his most popular speech. It exposes how few people actually read the entire text. (If they had it wouldn’t be so popular) Because within it lies a radical critique of US society and a clarion call to continue the struggle. It is not the innocuous pablum, which the revisionists have assigned to it.

In actuality, King’s vision was about collective progress, not individual progress. Obama rightly pointed out during the South Carolina debate that MLK would probably not have endorsed either candidate including Obama. Obama is right King would not endorse anyone who was tied to the power structure, which he saw as the source of our problems as people (black, white, Latin, Asian, Native, women, etc.).

Obama --no matter how folks want to see him-- is still indeed tied to this social/economic/ political system and does not represent a break from the power structure. This is true despite his misleading and disingenuous mantra of “change” and “hope.” Recognizing this, the human rights leader would have viewed the idea of Obama winning the presidency not as a sign of the advancement of the race, but as nothing more than tokenism.

King enlightened us on the problem of tokenism in his essay “The Sword that Heals.”

“Still another technique had begun to replace the old methods for thwarting the Negroes’ dreams and aspirations. This is the method known as tokenism…Tokenism is a promise to pay. Democracy in its finest sense is payment. The Negro wanted to feel pride in his race. With tokenism the solution was simple. If all twenty million Negroes would keep looking at Ralph Bunche [insert Obama] the one man in so exalted a post would generate such a volume of pride that it could be cut into portions and served to everyone. A judge here and a judge there, an executive behind a polished desk, a high government administrator all these were tokens used to obscure the persisting reality, and discrimination.

Those who argue in favor of tokenism point out that we must begin somewhere; that it is unwise to spurn any breakthrough, no matter how limited. There is a critical distinction, however, between a modest start and tokenism. Its [tokenism] purpose is not to begin a process, but instead to end the process of protest and pressure. It is a hypocritical gesture not a constructive first step.”

Enough said!

Ironically, Obama’s race is merely a smoke screen making it harder for folks to see who and what he really represents. But in the process of fooling folks he is also standing the history and intent of the Civil Rights movement on its head. He is accomplishing this through revision and inference.

[post continued...]

Obama versus King.



We welcome Chigozie Onyema, a member of the Kwame Ture Society (KTS), a student organization founded at Howard University to further the development, dissemination of knowledge, and the advancement of the Africana studies discipline. Members of KTS will be regularly contributing to The Liberator.

Obama versus King: Is Obama the successor to Dr. King? Many have touted Obama as the next great exemplar of black activism and progressive thinking. His victory in the Iowa Caucus has asserted him as a force to be reckoned with, but we must ask—is he really cut from the same cloth as King?

No. Obama’s proposed policies contradict those of King. Although they both harbor desires to connect with people along the racial and economic divide, King never compromised his core values or the interests of his people. In 1967 at the Riverside Church in New York, King delivered his “Beyond Vietnam” speech, stating “it seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program... Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.” King was vilified by the establishment for this speech, which included President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Johnson accused King of throwing it in with the communists. Time magazine said the speech was “demagogic slander that sounded like a script from Radio Hanoi (Vietnam radio station)."

Today the Iraq War, in many ways has replaced the Vietnam War on our political agenda. This war, far from defending you and me, is an attempt to control precious resources throughout the Middle East and dictate policies to other nations through its stranglehold on resources. This war is, in all likelihood, a prelude to wars that could take place in Africa and Latin America as the US competes with other imperialist powers like China and the European Union. Where is Obama in this dangerous battle over power and lucre? Is he, like King, a man of conscience opposing the immorality of such wars? No, when asked if he would withdraw troops by 2013, the end of his first term, Obama made no such commitment. In fact, in 2007 he agreed to support surgical missile strikes in Iran, and the invasion of Pakistan, which would expand this immoral war.

The apparent breakthrough of having a black man as president could lull us into complacency on this war issue. In that same Riverside Church speech King called the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world,” having a black man continue that legacy certainly places him in direct opposition to King and firmly in the same category as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the other main stream candidates who do not oppose this war and future wars of aggression. The idea of Obama’s candidacy as the fulfillment of King’s “Dream” is not only inaccurate, but is an insult to King’s true legacy.

[post continued...]

Another Earcie: Lesser Known Photographs.



Received this email today from Liberator illustrator Melodee Strong:

Greetings friends! I was just made aware [that] a fellow artist in [the] North Side Minneapolis community has suffered a stroke this past December and unfortunately has to close his studio at Homewood Studios and move into a rehab home. Earcie Allen is a photographer. He was in the middle of a project documenting the Women of the North Side and was going to have a show at the Homewood Studios Gallery next month. That has changed. Some of Earcie's closest friends have found a collection of his less known photographs and decided to show this work in place of the North Side Project.

I have only been able to speak to Earcie a few times when I was at the studios in the past but during those moments he made an impression on me. He is such a beautiful and talented person. I hope that some of you will be able to come out to his show and support his recovery. I am sure that most of you working as artists or doing the things you love could understand how hard it would be for your soul to not be able to do those things any longer. As some of you know, last year my mother also suffered a stroke. Although her recovery has been remarkable, most cases can be very devastating. It has been hard to watch my mom get back to her old self as I am sure it will be just as hard for Earcie's family and friends.

For more information about Earcie and his show, please go to www.homewoodstudios.com
Click in the calendar link and his studio link.

The show is titled- Another Earcie: Lesser Known Photographs by Earcie Allan. The show runs from 2/1-2/27, the opening reception is 2/15 from 6-9 pm. Hope to see you there!

[post continued...]

Afro:Baile.

[post continued...]

Mumia: The idea of a black president.



The idea of a black president (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Mumia: Pakistan after Bhutto.



Pakistan after Bhutto (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Genocide in Kenya?



Human Rights Watch says opposition ODM Party members have been witnessed inciting the violence in Rift Valley and Kenyan blog "Chronicles of the Kenyan Genocide" suggests that the election conflict is being used as a mask to enable violent groups to remove Kenyans from their homes, land and property.

(CBC) Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan on Saturday said he has seen evidence of "gross and systematic" human rights abuses in Kenya's Rift Valley.

Close to 700 people have been killed and 255,000 forced from their homes in the province following last month's disputed election, which returned President Mwai Kibaki to power.

After visiting the region, Annan, who is trying to broker a political solution to the crisis, told reporters that while the conflict may have been triggered by disputed elections, it has evolved into "something else.

"Let us not kid ourselves and think that this is an electoral problem. It is much broader and much deeper," Annan said after visiting the towns of Eldoret and Molo in western Kenya.

He also flew over Nakuru, the regional capital of the Rift Valley. Until recently, the city of 300,000 has been largely spared the ethnic clashes that followed the Dec. 27 vote.

Hundreds of homes were reported to have burned in Nakuru on Friday, but armed gangs at multiple checkpoints are preventing journalists from seeing the damage on the ground.

Members of President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been targeted by groups accusing the president of stealing the elections.

Annan said he was shocked by the scenes he witnessed and that those responsible must be held responsible for their deeds.

"We saw gross and systematic human rights abuses of fellow citizens," Annan said in Nairobi after his visit. "Impunity cannot be allowed to stand."

On Saturday, police brought 16 charred corpses to the mortuary in Nakuru. Officials expected the death toll would rise amid reports of sporadic gunfire.

Nine bodies were also taken to the morgue Friday afternoon, police said. (source)

[post continued...]

Zimbabwe teachers strike for fair pay.



(SW Radio Africa) After embarking on a "go-slow" action since rejecting the offer of a 1,000% pay increase by government, teachers in Zimbabwe have finally decided to conduct a full-on strike. The Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) said its members will not be reporting for work until their demands are met. PTUZ president, Raymond Majongwe, blasted government officials for spending a fortune on all the wrong issues while the teachers simply want to be able to report to work and live a decent life.

Majongwe said they are demanding a minimum salary of Z$1.7 billion per month. This includes a monthly transport allowance of Z$352 million and a housing allowance of Z$240 million per month. They are also demanding regular salary reviews in order to keep up with inflation, which is unofficially estimated to be 150,000%.

Majongwe criticised government and ruling party officials for spending billions on less important agendas. He pointed to a report on the state television ZTV this weekend that showed ZANU-PF officials in Matabeleland South, ululating as they unveiled 18 brand new 4x4 vehicles to be used in the party's election campaign. "There is corruption in the corridors of power," said the outspoken activist. He added: "Their children have the luxury of going to schools outside the country."

And salaries are not the only issue. We spoke to a teacher who described the dire conditions under which the schools are operating. Charles Mabwadarika, a Harare based teacher, said there are no books for the students to read or to write in. The furniture in the classrooms is old and in a state of disrepair. Students are being crammed into small spaces where they learn standing up or sitting on the floor. There is also not enough chalk for teachers to use.

Union officials say teachers cannot live on their current salary. Government is not communicating with the teachers, so it appears students at state run schools will not be learning for some time to come.

Meanwhile, workers at the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) are reported to have been on a go-slow for the past fortnight. Their dispute with government is also over salaries. (source)

[post continued...]

Ngugi wa Thiong'o on ethnic cleansing in Kenya.



(BBC) Ngugi laments Kenya violence: Writers must sometimes feel like the Greek prophetess Cassandra, gifted to see the future but fated not to be believed.

What is unfolding in Kenya could as well have been lifted from my novel Wizard of the Crow where the ruling party and the opposition parities engaged in Western-sponsored democracy become mirror images of one another in their absurdity and indifference to the poor.

The picture of men and women burnt down in a church where they had gone for refuge still haunts my mind. A child running away from the fire was caught and hurled back into the flames.

One of the few survivors was quoted as saying: "But they knew me; we were neighbours. I thought Peter was a friend - a good neighbour. How could Peter do this to me?"

I had heard the same puzzled cry from Bosnia. I had heard the same cry from Iraq. I had heard the same, same words from Rwanda: "We were neighbours; we'd married into each other. How could this happen?"

And now I hear the same cry from Eldoret North in my beloved Kenya. For me this burning of men, women and children in a church is a defining single instant of the current political impasse in Kenya.

And this must be separated from accusations and counter-accusations of rigged elections by the contending parties.

Rigged elections is one thing - it can be righted by any mutually agreed political measures - but ethnic cleansing is another matter altogether.

What is disturbing is that this instant seems to have been part of a co-ordinated programme with similar acts occurring in several other places at about the same time against ordinary members of the same community.

Ordinary people do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill their neighbours.

Ethnic cleansing is often instigated by the political elite of one community against another community. It is premeditated - often an order from political warlords.

Or it may be the outcome of an elitist ideology of demonising and isolating another community.

Either way the aim is to drive members of the targeted community from the region.

Premeditated

Frantz Fanon, the intellectual visionary of the Third World, had long ago warned us of the dangers of the ideology of regionalism preached by an elite whose money can buy them safe residence in any part of a country.

A single instance of premeditated ethnic cleansing can lead to an unstoppable cycle of vendettas - a poor-on-poor violence - while those who tele-guided them to war through the ideology of hate and demonisation are clinking glasses in middle-class peace at cocktail parties with the elite or the supposed enemy community.

This crime should be investigated by the United Nations.

If it is found that a political organisation has run a campaign on a programme that consciously seeks to isolate another community as a community, then they ought to be held fully accountable for the consequences of their ideology and actions.

It is often easier to blame a government when it is involved in massacres. This is as it should be.

A government must always be held to higher standards, for its very legitimacy lies in its capacity to ensure peace and security for all communities.

But what about if such a massacre is inspired by a programme of an opposition movement?

This ought to receive equally severe condemnation from all and sundry, for being in opposition does not give an organisation the right to run on an ideology of isolation and hate targeted at another community.

An opposition movement is potentially a government of tomorrow. A programme that such a political organisation draws while in opposition would obviously be the programme they'll try to implement when in power.

That's why such acts must be condemned even when they are clothed in progressive, democratic-sounding words and phrases.

I therefore call upon the United Nations to act and investigate the massacres in Kenya as crimes against humanity and let the chips fall where they may.

For the sake of justice, healing and peace now and in the future I urge all progressive forces not to be so engrossed with the political wrongs of election tampering that they forget the crimes of hate and ethnic cleansing - crimes that have led to untimely deaths and the displacement of thousands.

The world does not need another Bosnia; Africa certainly does not need another Rwanda. (source)

[post continued...]

Time for federalism in Kenya.



(East African Standard) Devolution can cure skewed distribution of nation’s wealth: On July 20, 1963, Ronald Ngala warned Kenyans that anyone trying to stop the Majimbo (regional) Government was digging their own grave.

Does it seem to have come to pass, 43 years later? Does Kenya seem to urgently need a federal system of Government?

Our meddling with a centrist unitary system of government seems to have failed. Do we need to rethink our nationhood?

Nothing lends credence to this view as clearly as the latest distribution of roads’ construction funds by the Ministry of Roads and Public Works. It is scandalous that close to four and a half decades after Uhuru, the distribution of development should still be so lopsided. One would have understood and excused this in the days of Jomo Kenyatta when even the smallest path in the then larger Kiambu District was tarmacked, at the expense of more justified roads elsewhere.

For, we were a nation in infancy in the Jomo Kenyatta days, fresh from the traumatic experience of the Emergency. We were trying to know and accept each other. Those were the years I went to Primary School in Nairobi. I learnt all about the amoeba, the spirogyra and the paramecium in Gikuyu. We understood it as a matter of course that all the good things should go to Central Province. We were made to believe that the Mau Mau had brought independence. They said the Mau Mau had come from Central Province. Moreover, the President was also from Central Province. Other people would have to wait for their turn to produce their President before the good things of life could go to their regions.

When President Moi came to power in 1978, he promised Kenyans that he was going to follow the footsteps of Jomo Kenyatta. And he did. Overnight, the whole place was awash with hitherto little heard of people from Rift Valley Province. They occupied a disproportionate number of positions in the Public Service. They directed most projects of significance to their province. Some have since been condemned as white elephant projects.

Come December 2002 and Kenyans deluded themselves with the belief that they had crossed the valley of ethnicity. Even Luo Nyanza, which has traditionally been allergic to leadership from Central Province gave President Mwai Kibaki an astounding 98.9 per cent of the Presidential votes. But the Kibaki Government has instead reintroduced ethnicity of distressing proportions.

Why would Nyandarua District get Shillings 956 million for road construction, while the bulk of Luo Nyanza districts get less than ten million shillings each?

Why should Nyeri get Sh785 million, while Moyale, Kisii Central, Nakuru, Trans Nzoia and Bomet get much less.

Something is wrong with the use of our taxes. In the lead to independence in 1961, the small tribes formed themselves into the Kenya African Democratic Union (Kadu) whose leaders were the late Ronald Ngala, Jean Marie Seroney, Masinde Muliro, John Keen and Daniel arap Moi. The prompting was their fear of political and economic dominance by the numerous Luo and Kikuyu, who were the stalwarts of Kanu. They were concerned that Kanu would form a Government that would concentrate the national wealth in the hands of these two communities. They therefore advocated for a majimbo government, which would devolve both political power and economic wealth.

It was with a majimbo constitution that Kenya went to independence. Our leaders knew even that early in our national life that we could never trust any one tribe with the welfare of other tribes. Now we are old enough to remember what Kenyatta and Moi did, and still older enough to see what Kibaki is doing. To counter this, the so-called big tribes are today busy lining up their own tribesmen to take over the Presidency from Kibaki at next year’s General Election. They want to redirect national wealth to their communities. But what will happen to the small tribes? What special kind of genetic engineering, or genetically modified foods do they need to eat so that their women can produce enough children who will grow up fast enough to give them the numbers to produce His Excellency the President of the Republic Kenya?

The portrait of an inequitable Kenya replicates itself over and over, from the Kenyatta days to the present.

Each time the President makes senior appointments to Public office, more than half of the people are from his community. These are then flavoured with a smattering of politically correct individuals from other places, beginning with communities that claim con-sanguinity with, and propinquity to, the ruling community. It is the same in the Judiciary and in foreign missions, as it is in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries and heads of parastatals. People who are well past retirement age remain in office running down our institutions. They are in office to serve themselves and their communities.

The founders of the Kenyan nation were right. They came back from Lancaster with the correct Constitution.

Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya messed up with it. Ngala, Muliro and Moi allowed them. Kenyatta wanted to use a unitary constitution to oppress the rest of Kenya. Mboya thought, for his part, that he would soon succeed Kenyatta and use the new Constitution the same way Kenyatta was doing.

We should stop pretending that we can ever be one people, sharing equally in the national resource. Two years ago, they took to Othaya Sh595 million for water development and to the larger Meru Sh429 million.

The rest of Kenya’s 72 districts got Sh5 million each. This was in a year when tax collection was as follows: Central Province Sh1.8 billion, Nyanza Sh6.9 billion, Western Sh5.5 billion, Rift Valley Sh5.56 billion, North-Eastern Sh43 million, Coast Sh2.7 billion and Eastern Sh920 million. Who is cheating whom? No, I want to enjoy the benefits of my tax in Emanyulia as they enjoy in Othaya. I want devolution of wealth. (source)

[post continued...]

Mumia: Praying with the devil.



Praying with the devil (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Mumia: The economics of gangsters.



The economics of gangsters (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Maya Angelou (Clinton) + Toni Morrison (Obama).




When I saw the Maya Angelou endorsement of Hillary Clinton I scratched my head. Her video doesn't really say much about why I should vote for Clinton besides the fact that Angelou admires her as a woman. So it was kind of interesting when I saw that Toni Morrison, one of Angelou's strongest counterparts in the pantheon of black female writers, who also infamously called Bill Clinton the "first black president", endorsed Barack Obama.

[post continued...]

Waving Goodbye to Hegemony.



A very well written and visionary piece -- regardless of my opinion of the vision. This illustrates the importance of being visionary and far seeing. What's funny to me is that this type of vision is not new. Leaders of ancient West African "empires" such as Mali, Ghana, and Songhai built "empires" peacefully through diplomatic relations and trade. Religion (largely Islam) was used as a diplomatic tool. Converts were encouraged to practice Islam as they saw fit -- even to continue practicing their indigenous religions -- adopting it more as a gesture and tool towards unity and solidarity than as a forced conquest or crusade. Nations were encouraged and ushered into empire through mutual economic and security benefits. Therefore, one glaring omission from the vision put forth in this article is the basic idea of Sankofa -- looking back in order to move forward wisely. Why make it so hard -- acting like a wheel needs to be reinvented -- when we could simply look back and realize that a historical model is there already waiting to be modified and reapplied.

(NY Times) Waving Goodbye to Hegemony: Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it’s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It’s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn’t happen — and almost as if history itself doesn’t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.

It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.

Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

The Geopolitical Marketplace

At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.

The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an “East-West” struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle.

In Europe’s capital, Brussels, technocrats, strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a German member of the European Parliament, calls it “European patriotism.” The Europeans play both sides, and if they do it well, they profit handsomely. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the self-described “friend of America,” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army; the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well, binding it closer to the E.U. even if it never becomes a member. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya, Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year, with others waiting in line and begging to join?

Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe from Venus, but in reality, Europe is more like Mercury — carrying a big wallet. The E.U.’s market is the world’s largest, European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance. And if America and China fight, the world’s money will be safely invested in European banks. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro, claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the European project. Yet today, Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in “worthless” dollars. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. It doesn’t help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. With London taking over (again) as the world’s financial capital for stock listing, it’s no surprise that China’s new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York. Meanwhile, America’s share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. Gisele Bündchen demands to be paid in euros, while Jay-Z drowns in 500 euro notes in a recent video. American soft power seems on the wane even at home.

And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn’t educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region’s answer to America’s Apec.

The East Asian Community is but one example of how China is also too busy restoring its place as the world’s “Middle Kingdom” to be distracted by the Middle Eastern disturbances that so preoccupy the United States. In America’s own hemisphere, from Canada to Cuba to Chávez’s Venezuela, China is cutting massive resource and investment deals. Across the globe, it is deploying tens of thousands of its own engineers, aid workers, dam-builders and covert military personnel. In Africa, China is not only securing energy supplies; it is also making major strategic investments in the financial sector. The whole world is abetting China’s spectacular rise as evidenced by the ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product — and China is exporting weapons at a rate reminiscent of the Soviet Union during the cold war, pinning America down while filling whatever power vacuums it can find. Every country in the world currently considered a rogue state by the U.S. now enjoys a diplomatic, economic or strategic lifeline from China, Iran being the most prominent example.

Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia’s rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America’s economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle — of which China sits at the center — has surpassed trade across the Pacific.

At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America’s grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country — friend of America’s or not — wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries — the so-called Stans — China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the “NATO of the East.”

The Big Three are the ultimate “Frenemies.” Twenty-first-century geopolitics will resemble nothing more than Orwell’s 1984, but instead of three world powers (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia), we have three hemispheric pan-regions, longitudinal zones dominated by America, Europe and China. As the early 20th-century European scholars of geopolitics realized, because a vertically organized region contains all climatic zones year-round, each pan-region can be self-sufficient and build a power base from which to intrude in others’ terrain. But in a globalized and shrinking world, no geography is sacrosanct. So in various ways, both overtly and under the radar, China and Europe will meddle in America’s backyard, America and China will compete for African resources in Europe’s southern periphery and America and Europe will seek to profit from the rapid economic growth of countries within China’s growing sphere of influence. Globalization is the weapon of choice. The main battlefield is what I call “the second world.”

The Swing States

There are plenty of statistics that will still tell the story of America’s global dominance: our military spending, our share of the global economy and the like. But there are statistics, and there are trends. To really understand how quickly American power is in decline around the world, I’ve spent the past two years traveling in some 40 countries in the five most strategic regions of the planet — the countries of the second world. They are not in the first-world core of the global economy, nor in its third-world periphery. Lying alongside and between the Big Three, second-world countries are the swing states that will determine which of the superpowers has the upper hand for the next generation of geopolitics. From Venezuela to Vietnam and Morocco to Malaysia, the new reality of global affairs is that there is not one way to win allies and influence countries but three: America’s coalition (as in “coalition of the willing”), Europe’s consensus and China’s consultative styles. The geopolitical marketplace will decide which will lead the 21st century.

The key second-world countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia are more than just “emerging markets.” If you include China, they hold a majority of the world’s foreign-exchange reserves and savings, and their spending power is making them the global economy’s most important new consumer markets and thus engines of global growth — not replacing the United States but not dependent on it either. I.P.O.’s from the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) alone accounted for 39 percent of the volume raised globally in 2007, just one indicator of second-world countries’ rising importance in corporate finance — even after you subtract China. When Tata of India is vying to buy Jaguar, you know the landscape of power has changed. Second-world countries are also fast becoming hubs for oil and timber, manufacturing and services, airlines and infrastructure — all this in a geopolitical marketplace that puts their loyalty up for grabs to any of the Big Three, and increasingly to all of them at the same time. Second-world states won’t be subdued: in the age of network power, they won’t settle for being mere export markets. Rather, they are the places where the Big Three must invest heavily and to which they must relocate productive assets to maintain influence.

While traveling through the second world, I learned to see countries not as unified wholes but rather as having multiple, often disconnected, parts, some of which were on a path to rise into the first world while other, often larger, parts might remain in the third. I wondered whether globalization would accelerate these nations’ becoming ever more fragmented, or if governments would step up to establish central control. Each second-world country appeared to have a fissured personality under pressures from both internal forces and neighbors. I realized that to make sense of the second world, it was necessary to assess each country from the inside out.

Second-world countries are distinguished from the third world by their potential: the likelihood that they will capitalize on a valuable commodity, a charismatic leader or a generous patron. Each and every second-world country matters in its own right, for its economic, strategic or diplomatic weight, and its decision to tilt toward the United States, the E.U. or China has a strong influence on what others in its region decide to do. Will an American nuclear deal with India push Pakistan even deeper into military dependence on China? Will the next set of Arab monarchs lean East or West? The second world will shape the world’s balance of power as much as the superpowers themselves will.

In exploring just a small sample of the second world, we should start perhaps with the hardest case: Russia. Apparently stabilized and resurgent under the Kremlin-Gazprom oligarchy, why is Russia not a superpower but rather the ultimate second-world swing state? For all its muscle flexing, Russia is also disappearing. Its population decline is a staggering half million citizens per year or more, meaning it will be not much larger than Turkey by 2025 or so — spread across a land so vast that it no longer even makes sense as a country. Travel across Russia today, and you’ll find, as during Soviet times, city after city of crumbling, heatless apartment blocks and neglected elderly citizens whose value to the state diminishes with distance from Moscow. The forced Siberian migrations of the Soviet era are being voluntarily reversed as children move west to more tolerable and modern climes. Filling the vacuum they have left behind are hundreds of thousands of Chinese, literally gobbling up, plundering, outright buying and more or less annexing Russia’s Far East for its timber and other natural resources. Already during the cold war it was joked that there were “no disturbances on the Sino-Finnish border,” a prophecy that seems ever closer to fulfillment.

Russia lost its western satellites almost two decades ago, and Europe, while appearing to be bullied by Russia’s oil-dependent diplomacy, is staging a long-term buyout of Russia, whose economy remains roughly the size of France’s. The more Europe gets its gas from North Africa and oil from Azerbaijan, the less it will rely on Russia, all the while holding the lever of being by far Russia’s largest investor. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provides the kinds of loans that help build an alternative, less corrupt private sector from below, while London and Berlin welcome Russia’s billionaires, allowing the likes of Boris Berezovsky to openly campaign against Putin. The E.U. and U.S. also finance and train a pugnacious second-world block of Baltic and Balkan nations, whose activists agitate from Belarus to Uzbekistan. Privately, some E.U. officials say that annexing Russia is perfectly doable; it’s just a matter of time. In the coming decades, far from restoring its Soviet-era might, Russia will have to decide whether it wishes to exist peacefully as an asset to Europe or the alternative — becoming a petro-vassal of China.

Turkey, too, is a totemic second-world prize advancing through crucial moments of geopolitical truth. During the cold war, NATO was the principal vehicle for relations with Turkey, the West’s listening post on the southwestern Soviet border. But with Turkey’s bending over backward to avoid outright E.U. rejection, its refusal in 2003 to let the U.S. use Turkish territory as a staging point for invading Iraq marked a turning point — away from the U.S. “America always says it lobbies the E.U. on our behalf,” a Turkish strategic analyst in Ankara told me, “but all that does is make the E.U. more stringent. We don’t need that kind of help anymore.”

To be sure, Turkish pride contains elements of an aggressive neo-Ottomanism that is in tension with some E.U. standards, but this could ultimately serve as Europe’s weapon to project stability into Syria, Iraq and Iran — all of which Europe effectively borders through Turkey itself. Roads are the pathways to power, as I learned driving across Turkey in a beat-up Volkswagen a couple of summers ago. Turkey’s master engineers have been boring tunnels, erecting bridges and flattening roads across the country’s massive eastern realm, allowing it to assert itself over the Arab and Persian worlds both militarily and economically as Turkish merchants look as much East as West. Already joint Euro-Turkish projects have led to the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, with a matching rail line and highway planned to buttress European influence all the way to Turkey’s fraternal friend Azerbaijan on the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

It takes only one glance at Istanbul’s shimmering skyline to realize that even if Turkey never becomes an actual E.U. member, it is becoming ever more Europeanized. Turkey receives more than $20 billion in foreign investment and more than 20 million tourists every year, the vast majority of both from E.U. countries. Ninety percent of the Turkish diaspora lives in Western Europe and sends home another $1 billion per year in remittances and investments. This remitted capital is spreading growth and development eastward in the form of new construction ventures, kilim factories and schools. With the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the E.U. a year ago, Turkey now physically borders the E.U. (beyond its narrow frontier with Greece), symbolizing how Turkey is becoming a part of the European superpower.

Western diplomats have a long historical familiarity, however dramatic and tumultuous, with Russia and Turkey. But what about the Stans: landlocked but resource-rich countries run by autocrats? Ever since these nations were flung into independence by the Soviet collapse, China has steadily replaced Russia as their new patron. Trade, oil pipelines and military exercises with China under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization make it the new organizing pole for the region, with the U.S. scrambling to maintain modest military bases in the region. (Currently it is forced to rely far too much on Afghanistan after being booted, at China’s and Russia’s behest, from the Karshi Khanabad base in Uzbekistan in 2005.) The challenge of getting ahead in the strategically located and energy-rich Stans is the challenge of a bidding contest in which values seem not to matter. While China buys more Kazakh oil and America bids for defense contracts, Europe offers sustained investment and holds off from giving President Nursultan Nazarbayev the high-status recognition he craves. Kazakhstan considers itself a “strategic partner” of just about everyone, but tell that to the Big Three, who bribe government officials to cancel the others’ contracts and spy on one another through contract workers — all in the name of preventing the others from gaining mastery over the fabled heartland of Eurasian power.

Just one example of the lengths to which foreigners will go to stay on good terms with Nazarbayev is the current negotiation between a consortium of Western energy giants, including ENI and Exxon, and Kazakhstan’s state-run oil company over the development of the Caspian’s massive Kashagan oil field. At present, the consortium is coughing up at least $4 billion as well as a large hand-over of shares to compensate for delayed exploration and production — and Kazakhstan isn’t satisfied yet. The lesson from Kazakhstan, and its equally strategic but far less predictable neighbor Uzbekistan, is how fickle the second world can be, its alignments changing on a whim and causing headaches and ripple effects in all directions. To be distracted elsewhere or to lack sufficient personnel on the ground can make the difference between winning and losing a major round of the new great game.

The Big Three dynamic is not just some distant contest by which America ensures its ability to dictate affairs on the other side of the globe. Globalization has brought the geopolitical marketplace straight to America’s backyard, rapidly eroding the two-centuries-old Monroe Doctrine in the process. In truth, America called the shots in Latin America only when its southern neighbors lacked any vision of their own. Now they have at least two non-American challengers: China and Chávez. It was Simón Bolívar who fought ferociously for South America’s independence from Spanish rule, and today it is the newly renamed Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that has inspired an entire continent to bootstrap its way into the global balance of power on its own terms. Hugo Chávez, the country’s clownish colonel, may last for decades to come or may die by the gun, but either way, he has called America’s bluff and won, changing the rules of North-South relations in the Western hemisphere. He has emboldened and bankrolled leftist leaders across the continent, helped Argentina and others pay back and boot out the I.M.F. and sponsored a continentwide bartering scheme of oil, cattle, wheat and civil servants, reminding even those who despise him that they can stand up to the great Northern power. Chávez stands not only on the ladder of high oil prices. He relies on tacit support from Europe and hardheaded intrusion from China, the former still the country’s largest investor and the latter feverishly repairing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil rigs while building its own refineries.

But Chávez’s challenge to the United States is, in inspiration, ideological, whereas the second-world shift is really structural. Even with Chávez still in power, it is Brazil that is reappearing as South America’s natural leader. Alongside India and South Africa, Brazil has led the charge in global trade negotiations, sticking it to the U.S. on its steel tariffs and to Europe on its agricultural subsidies. Geographically, Brazil is nearly as close to Europe as to America and is as keen to build cars and airplanes for Europe as it is to export soy to the U.S. Furthermore, Brazil, although a loyal American ally in the cold war, wasted little time before declaring a “strategic alliance” with China. Their economies are remarkably complementary, with Brazil shipping iron ore, timber, zinc, beef, milk and soybeans to China and China investing in Brazil’s hydroelectric dams, steel mills and shoe factories. Both China and Brazil’s ambitions may soon alter the very geography of their relations, with Brazil leading an effort to construct a Trans-Oceanic Highway from the Amazon through Peru to the Pacific Coast, facilitating access for Chinese shipping tankers. Latin America has mostly been a geopolitical afterthought over the centuries, but in the 21st century, all resources will be competed for, and none are too far away.

The Middle East — spanning from Morocco to Iran — lies between the hubs of influence of the Big Three and has the largest number of second-world swing states. No doubt the thaw with Libya, brokered by America and Britain after Muammar el-Qaddafi declared he would abandon his country’s nuclear pursuits in 2003, was partly motivated by growing demand for energy from a close Mediterranean neighbor. But Qaddafi is not selling out. He and his advisers have astutely parceled out production sharing agreements to a balanced assortment of American, European, Chinese and other Asian oil giants. Mindful of the history of Western oil companies’ exploitation of Arabia, he — like Chávez in Venezuela and Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan — has also cleverly ratcheted up the pressure on foreigners to share more revenue with the regime by tweaking contracts, rounding numbers liberally and threatening expropriation. What I find in virtually every Arab country is not such nationalism, however, but rather a new Arabism aimed at spreading oil wealth within the Arab world rather than depositing it in the United States as in past oil booms. And as Egypt, Syria and other Arab states receive greater investment from the Persian Gulf and start spending more on their own, they, too, become increasingly important second-world players who can thwart the U.S.

Saudi Arabia, for quite some years to come still the planet’s leading oil producer, is a second-world prize on par with Russia and equally up for grabs. For the past several decades, America’s share of the foreign direct investment into the kingdom decisively shaped the country’s foreign policy, but today the monarchy is far wiser, luring Europe and Asia to bring their investment shares toward a third each. Saudi Arabia has engaged Europe in an evolving Persian Gulf free-trade area, while it has invested close to $1 billion in Chinese oil refineries. Make no mistake: America was never all powerful only because of its military dominance; strategic leverage must have an economic basis. A major common denominator among key second-world countries is the need for each of the Big Three to put its money where its mouth is.

For all its historical antagonism with Saudi Arabia, Iran is playing the same swing-state game. Its diplomacy has not only managed to create discord among the U.S. and E.U. on sanctions; it has also courted China, nurturing a relationship that goes back to the Silk Road. Today Iran represents the final square in China’s hopscotch maneuvering to reach the Persian Gulf overland without relying on the narrow Straits of Malacca. Already China has signed a multibillion-dollar contract for natural gas from Iran’s immense North Pars field, another one for construction of oil terminals on the Caspian Sea and yet another to extend the Tehran metro — and it has boosted shipment of ballistic-missile technology and air-defense radars to Iran. Several years of negotiation culminated in December with Sinopec sealing a deal to develop the Yadavaran oil field, with more investments from China (and others) sure to follow. The longer International Atomic Energy Agency negotiations drag on, the more likely it becomes that Iran will indeed be able to stay afloat without Western investment because of backing from China and from its second-world friends — without giving any ground to the West.

Interestingly, it is precisely Muslim oil-producing states — Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, (mostly Muslim) Kazakhstan, Malaysia — that seem the best at spreading their alignments across some combination of the Big Three simultaneously: getting what they want while fending off encroachment from others. America may seek Muslim allies for its image and the “war on terror,” but these same countries seem also to be part of what Samuel Huntington called the “Confucian-Islamic connection.” What is more, China is pulling off the most difficult of superpower feats: simultaneously maintaining positive ties with the world’s crucial pairs of regional rivals: Venezuela and Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan. At this stage, Western diplomats have only mustered the wherewithal to quietly denounce Chinese aid policies and value-neutral alliances, but they are far from being able to do much of anything about them.

This applies most profoundly in China’s own backyard, Southeast Asia. Some of the most dynamic countries in the region Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are playing the superpower suitor game with admirable savvy. Chinese migrants have long pulled the strings in the region’s economies even while governments sealed defense agreements with the U.S. Today, Malaysia and Thailand still perform joint military exercises with America but also buy weapons from, and have defense treaties with, China, including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation by which Asian nations have pledged nonaggression against one another. (Indonesia, a crucial American ally during the cold war, has also been forming defense ties with China.) As one senior Malaysian diplomat put it to me, without a hint of jest, “Creating a community is easy among the yellow and the brown but not the white.” Tellingly, it is Vietnam, because of its violent histories with the U.S. and China, which is most eager to accept American defense contracts (and a new Intel microchip plant) to maintain its strategic balance. Vietnam, like most of the second world, doesn’t want to fall into any one superpower’s sphere of influence.

The Anti-Imperial Belt

The new multicolor map of influence — a Venn diagram of overlapping American, Chinese and European influence — is a very fuzzy read. No more “They’re with us” or “He’s our S.O.B.” Mubarak, Musharraf, Malaysia’s Mahathir and a host of other second-world leaders have set a new standard for manipulative prowess: all tell the U.S. they are its friend while busily courting all sides.

What is more, many second-world countries are confident enough to form anti-imperial belts of their own, building trade, technology and diplomatic axes across the (second) world from Brazil to Libya to Iran to Russia. Indeed, Russia has stealthily moved into position to construct Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor, putting it firmly in the Chinese camp on the Iran issue, while also offering nuclear reactors to Libya and arms to Venezuela and Indonesia. Second-world countries also increasingly use sovereign-wealth funds (often financed by oil) worth trillions of dollars to throw their weight around, even bullying first-world corporations and markets. The United Arab Emirates (particularly as represented by their capital, Abu Dhabi), Saudi Arabia and Russia are rapidly climbing the ranks of foreign-exchange holders and are hardly holding back in trying to buy up large shares of Western banks (which have suddenly become bargains) and oil companies. Singapore’s sovereign-wealth fund has taken a similar path. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia plans an international investment fund that will dwarf Abu Dhabi’s. From Switzerland to Citigroup, a reaction is forming to limit the shares such nontransparent sovereign-wealth funds can control, showing just how quickly the second world is rising in the global power game.

To understand the second world, you have to start to think like a second-world country. What I have seen in these and dozens of other countries is that globalization is not synonymous with Americanization; in fact, nothing has brought about the erosion of American primacy faster than globalization. While European nations redistribute wealth to secure or maintain first-world living standards, on the battlefield of globalization second-world countries’ state-backed firms either outhustle or snap up American companies, leaving their workers to fend for themselves. The second world’s first priority is not to become America but to succeed by any means necessary.

The Non-American World

Karl Marx and Max Weber both chastised Far Eastern cultures for being despotic, agrarian and feudal, lacking the ingredients for organizational success. Oswald Spengler saw it differently, arguing that mankind both lives and thinks in unique cultural systems, with Western ideals neither transferable nor relevant. Today the Asian landscape still features ancient civilizations but also by far the most people and, by certain measures, the most money of any region in the world. With or without America, Asia is shaping the world’s destiny — and exposing the flaws of the grand narrative of Western civilization in the process.

The rise of China in the East and of the European Union within the West has fundamentally altered a globe that recently appeared to have only an American gravity — pro or anti. As Europe’s and China’s spirits rise with every move into new domains of influence, America’s spirit is weakened. The E.U. may uphold the principles of the United Nations that America once dominated, but how much longer will it do so as its own social standards rise far above this lowest common denominator? And why should China or other Asian countries become “responsible stakeholders,” in former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick’s words, in an American-led international order when they had no seat at the table when the rules were drafted? Even as America stumbles back toward multilateralism, others are walking away from the American game and playing by their own rules.

The self-deluding universalism of the American imperium — that the world inherently needs a single leader and that American liberal ideology must be accepted as the basis of global order — has paradoxically resulted in America quickly becoming an ever-lonelier superpower. Just as there is a geopolitical marketplace, there is a marketplace of models of success for the second world to emulate, not least the Chinese model of economic growth without political liberalization (itself an affront to Western modernization theory). As the historian Arnold Toynbee observed half a century ago, Western imperialism united the globe, but it did not assure that the West would dominate forever — materially or morally. Despite the “mirage of immortality” that afflicts global empires, the only reliable rule of history is its cycles of imperial rise and decline, and as Toynbee also pithily noted, the only direction to go from the apogee of power is down.

The web of globalization now has three spiders. What makes America unique in this seemingly value-free contest is not its liberal democratic ideals — which Europe may now represent better than America does — but rather its geography. America is isolated, while Europe and China occupy two ends of the great Eurasian landmass that is the perennial center of gravity of geopolitics. When America dominated NATO and led a rigid Pacific alliance system with Japan, South Korea, Australia and Thailand, it successfully managed the Herculean task of running the world from one side of it. Now its very presence in Eurasia is tenuous; it has been shunned by the E.U. and Turkey, is unwelcome in much of the Middle East and has lost much of East Asia’s confidence. “Accidental empire” or not, America must quickly accept and adjust to this reality. Maintaining America’s empire can only get costlier in both blood and treasure. It isn’t worth it, and history promises the effort will fail. It already has.

Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It’s very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace the U.S. as the world’s sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.

I believe that a complex, multicultural landscape filled with transnational challenges from terrorism to global warming is completely unmanageable by a single authority, whether the United States or the United Nations. Globalization resists centralization of almost any kind. Instead, what we see gradually happening in climate-change negotiations (as in Bali in December) — and need to see more of in the areas of preventing nuclear proliferation and rebuilding failed states — is a far greater sense of a division of labor among the Big Three, a concrete burden-sharing among them by which they are judged not by their rhetoric but the responsibilities they fulfill. The arbitrarily composed Security Council is not the place to hash out such a division of labor. Neither are any of the other multilateral bodies bogged down with weighted voting and cacophonously irrelevant voices. The big issues are for the Big Three to sort out among themselves.

Less Can Be More

So let’s play strategy czar. You are a 21st-century Kissinger. Your task is to guide the next American president (and the one after that) from the demise of American hegemony into a world of much more diffuse governance. What do you advise, concretely, to mitigate the effects of the past decade’s policies — those that inspired defiance rather than cooperation — and to set in motion a virtuous circle of policies that lead to global equilibrium rather than a balance of power against the U.S.?

First, channel your inner J.F.K. You are president, not emperor. You are commander in chief and also diplomat in chief. Your grand strategy is a global strategy, yet you must never use the phrase “American national interest.” (It is assumed.) Instead talk about “global interests” and how closely aligned American policies are with those interests. No more “us” versus “them,” only “we.” That means no more talk of advancing “American values” either. What is worth having is universal first and American second. This applies to “democracy” as well, where timing its implementation is as important as the principle itself. Right now, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the hero of the second world — including its democracies — is Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

We have learned the hard way that what others want for themselves trumps what we want for them — always. Neither America nor the world needs more competing ideologies, and moralizing exhortations are only useful if they point toward goals that are actually attainable. This new attitude must be more than an act: to obey this modest, hands-off principle is what would actually make America the exceptional empire it purports to be. It would also be something every other empire in history has failed to do.

Second, Pentagonize the State Department. Adm. William J. Fallon, head of Central Command (Centcom), not Robert Gates, is the man really in charge of the U.S. military’s primary operations. Diplomacy, too, requires the equivalent of geographic commands — with top-notch assistant secretaries of state to manage relations in each key region without worrying about getting on the daily agenda of the secretary of state for menial approvals. Then we’ll be ready to coordinate within distant areas. In some regions, our ambassadors to neighboring countries meet only once or twice a year; they need to be having weekly secure video-conferences. Regional institutions are thriving in the second world — think Mercosur (the South American common market), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf. We need high-level ambassadors at those organizations too. Taken together, this allows us to move beyond, for example, the current Millennium Challenge Account — which amounts to one-track aid packages to individual countries already going in the right direction — toward encouraging the kind of regional cooperation that can work in curbing both terrorism and poverty. Only if you think regionally can a success story have a demonstration effect. This approach will be crucial to the future of the Pentagon’s new African command. (Until last year, African relations were managed largely by European command, or Eucom, in Germany.) Suspicions of America are running high in Africa, and a country-by-country strategy would make those suspicions worse. Finally, to achieve strategic civilian-military harmonization, we have to first get the maps straight. The State Department puts the Stans in the South and Central Asia bureau, while the Pentagon puts them within the Middle-East-focused Centcom. The Chinese divide up the world the Pentagon’s way; so, too, should our own State Department.

Third, deploy the marchmen. Europe is boosting its common diplomatic corps, while China is deploying retired civil servants, prison laborers and Chinese teachers — all are what the historian Arnold Toynbee called marchmen, the foot-soldiers of empire spreading values and winning loyalty. There are currently more musicians in U.S. military marching bands than there are Foreign Service officers, a fact not helped by Congress’s decision to effectively freeze growth in diplomatic postings. In this context, Condoleezza Rice’s “transformational diplomacy” is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.

That’s right. In true American fashion, we must build a diplomatic-industrial complex. Europe and China all but personify business-government collusion, so let State raise money from Wall Street as it puts together regional aid and investment packages. American foreign policy must be substantially more than what the U.S. government directs. After all, the E.U. is already the world’s largest aid donor, and China is rising in the aid arena as well. Plus, each has a larger population than the U.S., meaning deeper benches of recruits, and are not political targets in the present political atmosphere the way Americans abroad are. The secret weapon must be the American citizenry itself. American foundations and charities, not least the Gates and Ford Foundations, dwarf European counterparts in their humanitarian giving; if such private groups independently send more and more American volunteers armed with cash, good will and local knowledge to perform “diplomacy of the deed,” then the public diplomacy will take care of itself.

Fourth, make the global economy work for us. By resurrecting European economies, the Marshall Plan was a down payment on even greater returns in terms of purchasing American goods. For now, however, as the dollar falls, our manufacturing base declines and Americans lose control of assets to wealthier foreign funds, our scientific education, broadband access, health-care, safety and a host of other standards are all slipping down the global rankings. Given our deficits and political gridlock, the only solution is to channel global, particularly Asian, liquidity into our own public infrastructure, creating jobs and technology platforms that can keep American innovation ahead of the pack. Globalization apologizes to no one; we must stay on top of it or become its victim.

Fifth, convene a G-3 of the Big Three. But don’t set the agenda; suggest it. These are the key issues among which to make compromises and trade-offs: climate change, energy security, weapons proliferation and rogue states. Offer more Western clean technology to China in exchange for fewer weapons and lifelines for the Sudanese tyrants and the Burmese junta. And make a joint effort with the Europeans to offer massive, irresistible packages to the people of Iran, Uzbekistan and Venezuela — incentives for eventual regime change rather than fruitless sanctions. A Western change of tone could make China sweat. Superpowers have to learn to behave, too.

Taken together, all these moves could renew American competitiveness in the geopolitical marketplace — and maybe even prove our exceptionalism. We need pragmatic incremental steps like the above to deliver tangible gains to people beyond our shores, repair our reputation, maintain harmony among the Big Three, keep the second world stable and neutral and protect our common planet. Let’s hope whoever is sworn in as the next American president understands this.

Parag Khanna is a senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation. This essay is adapted from his book, “The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order,” to be published by Random House in March. (source)

[post continued...]

Mario. "Do Right"

[post continued...]

Wes Fif = (Jeezy + Ross).



These bass frequencies are addicting. It's nothing too new: Wes Fif is just a hybrid of Young Jeezy and Rick Ross. I guess I like this dude for the same reason people drink Red Bull with their favorite liquor.

Wastin Your Time (listen/download)
I Love It Baby (listen/download)
Out Yo Mind (listen/download)

[post continued...]

Black Power: Revisiting the Model and Meaning.



The National Association of Kawaida Organizations (NAKO) presents a symposium on The Black Power Movement, "Remembering Audacious Black Power: Revisiting the Model and Meaning."

Saturday, February 2, 2008 / 5pm - 8pm / Admission is $15
Restoration Plaza (in the Skylight Gallery) [1368 Fulton Street / Brooklyn NY 11216]

Dr. Maulana Karenga wrote for the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper (7/19/07), "…In the summer of '66, Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (NY), then chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, called together a group of leaders from across the country to discuss the meaning of Black Power as a Movement, to mark off areas of essential attention for practical initiatives and to plan a series of conferences to harness the best ideas and energy of the Movement and push it forward in collective and concrete ways."

Three members of that steering committee will discuss their mandate and more. They are Chuck Stone, Cheikh-Omar Abu Ahmed, and Dr. Maulana Karenga.

Chuck Stone: Former Tuskeegee Airman in WW II; from (64-67) Special Assistant to Rep. Adam Clayton Powell; editor of the Chicago Defender and Founding President of the National Association of Black Journalists; author of university textbook, Black Political Power in America; and, professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Cheikh-Omar Abu Ahmed: participated in the freedom rides to break the color barriers under James Farmer; founder of the Congress of Racial Equality; organizer under Byard Rustin for the March on Washington; and, co-founder with Adam Clayton Powell Jr. of the Black Power Conference of 1966.

Dr. Maulana Karenga: Professor of Black Studies, California State University-Long Beach; Chair of The Organization Us and the National Association of Kawaida Organizations (NAKO); Creator of Kwanzaa, Kawaida, and the Nguzo Saba: author of Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community and Culture; author of the university textbook Introduction to Black Studies; and, vice-chair of the steering committee for the Black Power Conferences.

For further inquires, call 718-523-3312 or 718-398-1729 (nakoinfogroup@yahoo.com). Also on Saturday, March 1, 2008 there will be a public meeting regarding the Black Farmers
at Restoration Plaza [1368 Fulton Street / Brooklyn, NY 11216]

[post continued...]

Kenya: What can we do?



My friend asks about the situation in Nakuru, Kenya: "What can we do? What can I do? If you know, please help me NOT standby and watch this Rwanda-like Atrocity continue without attempting to take action. I may be in Japan, but I am not too far to do what I would want someone to do for me if the table was turned."

My 3 simple rules:

1) Write about and discuss the situation in consistent, organized, collective spaces. Meaning: not via spontaneous email threads, facebook groups, not in a casual disorganized, temporary manner. ORGANIZE your discussion! Be STRATEGIC! For example, do it right here on The Liberator blog or in The Liberator Magazine -- all are welcome -- OR your local study group or community/family meetings. I beg of us all, make our spaces of discussion consistent. That is how they become powerful and useful. Anything else is at a high risk for becoming intellectual masturbation. In these spaces, more specific ideas will surface that are more creative, relevant and powerful than any one person could possibly list or suggest for you. It is the consistent, collective space that must be the foundation so that ideas may be manifested as sustainable and effective -- powerful.

If you do not belong to a consistent, collective space I suggest you get to work on that before you do anything else, lest you get overwhelmed and narcissistic with your own thoughts for no reason. We've been down this road already with Hurricane Katrina, right? Sitting there crying on our couches -- it is a practically useless action in the end, and it is shameful, frustrating and perhaps psychotic of us if we continue to repeat it.

But before you say you don't belong to a collective space, take a good look at your life. Are you on a sports team? Do you take dance classes? Do you make music with a band or group? Courage is taking existing non-politically aware spaces and making them aware. There are no prerequisites -- you don't have to be surrounded by "righteous" or "pure" group members. These are things I'd prefer to strive for together rather than alone. If I can become "righteous" on my own but cannot assist anyone, my righteousness is merely an exercise of my ego and, in my opinion, is relatively worthless. So do not feel pressured into thinking you have to already be or think or act a certain way in order to be apart of helping. Yet be open to growth and changing if you discover that this is what is required for you to truly be of help.

And political awareness doesn't have to distract from your collective spaces' primary function. However, it should enable your collective space to "be in the loop" and to participate and "do something" when needed. After all, your band might not have planned the Montgomery Bus Boycott if this were 1955, but would your collective have been aware of the planning and participated and contributed to the organized effort when called upon?

It's time to realize that power means exactly being able to "do something" when we need to do it. And time to realize that we cannot have (the) power (to do something) without organization. The organization does not have to be massive, just consistent! "Where two or more gather" -- as long as that space is consistent.

If we understand this, and continue to do nothing to achieve these necessary steps to organization, I believe our tears become spit in the eyes of those who suffer.

2) Interview folks who know more than you about the situation in order to learn what is really going on and what help from you, if any, is desired -- again, I predict that organized action, even gestures, are what is needed and desired, rather than the tears or gestures of individuals. And then write about those interviews, transcribe them, share them and use them for your own education.

3) Ignore western media as much as possible.

[post continued...]

Mumia: False history and its consequences.



Teaching False History And Its Consequences (listen/download)

[post continued...]

NewHero. Angry. Jaded. DirtyHero. Corrupt.



While watching the newest episode of The Wire last night, I developed what I call another TV Theory -- you know those thoughts you have while watching TV or a movie or something that you think are just so profound? Well, I'm admitting it may not be revolutionary or a major contribution to anyone's canon, but I thought it was an interesting enough idea to share.

Basically, I noticed that there were five categories into which all of the different adult character groups fit into. Everyone -- school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists (perhaps with the exception of the drug dealers, you tell me):

You got your new hero school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists -- the cats who are new to their respective institution, are naive yet still eager to create change.

You got your angry school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists -- the cats who were once new heroes but hit a brick wall and are now just full of contempt for their institutions and their jobs and pretty much disappointed, disillusioned and stressed out.

You got your jaded school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists -- the cats who are way past being angry and have adopted a sort of quiet anger. They don't really care about the success of the institution enough to be stressed about it and don't care about the failure of the institution enough to continue to try and improve it in any fundamental way, they just go through the motions and do just enough work to continue to please their authority figure.

You got your dirty hero school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists -- the cats who are optimistic yet not so naive as to believe that they can create change without getting their hands dirty and also were strong willed (or stubborn) enough to leap over the purgatory of being jaded.

And you got your corrupt school teachers, policemen, politicians and journalists -- the cats who have advanced past their anger and past being jaded and past trying to be a dirty hero to realize that if they just stopped spinning their wheels trying to change a system that just won't change, they could satisfy some of their personal life desires and goals by stealing from or cheating their institution.

I thought it was pretty interesting and relevant to what I've experience since being in the "real world".

[post continued...]

FESPACO Africana Film Festival documentary.



"FESPACO" is a documentary film about the intricate relationship between Black Americans and Africans, captured on film at one of the world's largest film festivals – FESPACO, which takes place bi-annually in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Narrated by Danny Glover and written, directed, and produced by Kevin Arkadie (Writer, Producer, Creator of "New York Undercover;" writer of "The Temptations") , it's more "Reels" than "Roots", told from a point of view inside the world's black independent film movement. While it's a film about film, specifically Black film, the dramatic thrust of the documentary involves six filmmakers from the African diaspora who cross the Atlantic to enter their films into competition in West Africa. The results are surprising, enlightening, and often inspiring. Producing are Ivory Coast Productions and PRAI (Promoting Reel African Images).

The movie will have its official U.S. premiere at the Los Angeles Pan African Film And Arts Festival at the Magic Johnson Crenshaw 15 Theaters in Baldwin Hills. Currently, there are two screenings:

Sunday, February 10 at 1:25pm and
Monday, February 18 at 11:00am

The Pan African Film And Arts Festival takes place from February 7 to 18. Their website is paff.org

[post continued...]

The Brotherhood.



I love the intention and purpose of Harlem's Brotherhood Sister Sol organization and this short film, "The Brotherhood" -- created by a Brotherhood Sister Sol alumni who now goes to NYU Tisch Film school and is also working on a second film for the "Sister Sol" aspect of the organization for the women -- does an excellent job of capturing that intention, that purpose as well as the history of the program.

One challenge that I think must be put to us all -- and that the Bell Hooks/Paul Gillroy interview that Nikki posted the other day challenges us to do as well -- is for us to not give up on a critique of the capitalist ethic even as we build successful institutions within the capitalist paradigm. The book "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex" covers this in depth.

But basically I'm saying that while we take advantage of the non-profit (or NGO) loophole, we must also continue to envision and be courageous enough to attempt to advance past this paradigm, because it is inherently one in which our institutions are not funded (therefore owned and totally controlled) by the people who they serve. The Liberator is guilty of participating in the capitalist paradigm as well, so a challenge such as this one does not dismiss the work of our institutions. But what we must do is continue to remember, envision and act to supersede that paradigm in order to fashion a more perfect independence for our communities.

Check out this great video, and visit the Change Makers website. Also leave some feedback for the filmmakers. Your comments will help the organization in a competition for funding because one of the deciding factors on who gets the money is how many people have posted comments about the film/organization.

[post continued...]