This article was written by Jerry Okungu on July 15, 2005

As Kenya prepares itself to be evaluated under NEPAD’s African Peer Review Mechanism, Jerry Okungu explains the purpose of review mechanism and points out that “the biggest challenge that NEPAD and the APRM should deal with in Africa is how to accelerate and give momentum to the continent’s reform and development agenda.”

As the G8 meeting held last week takes a back seat in the world’s news networks, here at home, Kenyans are bracing for their first Peer Review Process, an activity under the New Partnership for African development. This mechanism will make it possible for African countries that have subscribed to it to be assessed on their projected development goals as per their national policy programmes. The main purpose of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is to foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices that will lead to political stability, high economic grown, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration through sharing of experiences and reinforcing successful best practices, identifying deficiencies and assessing the needs for capacity building for each participating country.

Like in all countries participating in the APRM, if carried out properly, the process should see improved governance for sustainable development in Kenya through review and adoption of policies and practices that will conform to the agreed values, codes and standards contained in the Declaration on Democracy, Corporate, Political and Economic Governance of the African Union.

Here in Kenya, a countrywide APRM activity has been activated that will see various drivers and stake-holders exchange views and opinions on the NEPAD-APRM process in eight provincial centers. The workshops have been designed to be all-inclusive in terms of provincial districts and various interest groups like the civil society, religious organisations, trade unions, the business community, NGOs, the political class, civic leaders and the public service.

The APRM itself has many phases of involvement. First there are the lead technical experts whose job will be to deal with the four areas that require technical expertise. Their primary role has been to develop various research instruments and supervise the fieldwork, gather data, analyze and produce a report on Kenya’s performance in the areas stated above. It is the report emanating from this field research that will guide the external panel of experts, led by H E Graca Machel into gauging Kenya’s reform agenda against the standards, values and codes set out by the African Union under its Declaration on Democracy, Corporate, Political and Economic Governance. Most Kenyans must be wondering what NEPAD is all about.

Traditionally, Africa’s development partners have been the wealthy nations of the West, most of whom colonised the continent in the past, and a few more advanced nations from the East whose interest in Africa has been more ideological than commercial. From the West, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Portugal readily come to mind. Others are United States, Canada and Australia, themselves former colonies of Great Britain. From East Europe we have had USSR, former super power during the cold war, China, Japan and a handful of East European states that used to revolve around the red bare.

Apart from bilateral trade and donor funding from the rich nations direct to their African clients, the same wealthy nations have over time set up funding and lending institutions that have grown over time into empires of their own. Such institutions that readily come to mind in the area of development are DFID of Britain, USAID of the USA, SIDA of Sweden, CIDA of Canada, GTZ of Germany, The World Bank and the IMF among others.

What NEPAD is championing is the philosophy of home grown partnerships as the primary concern as opposed to total dependence on foreign partners whose interests and priorities may not necessarily rank Africa’s issues on the top of their agenda. More so, the politics of foreign aid has become so lethal in recent years that some poor nations of the world have had their lifelines cut off due to political differences with the donor nations.

In creating NEPAD, African nations are being encouraged to cultivate domestic partnerships before venturing out. The more reason governments in Africa are being asked to rope in the private sector, the civil society, religious organisations, NGOs and the political class to join hands together and formulate policies that work well for their conditions. Involving all aspects of the society in policy formulation empowers every citizen and in the process every one owns the development process. The biggest challenge that NEPAD and the APRM should deal with in Africa is how to accelerate and give momentum to the continent’s reform and development agenda.

Jerry Okungu is the executive director of Infotrack and consulting

Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums
Read more Africa related articles by Jerry Okungu at: Club Afrika Portal
Recommend Club Afrika to your friend: Click Here
Invite your friend to Club Afrika Forums: Click Here

Social bookmark this

Writes: Ken Ramani

At a recent regional conference of chiefs of intelligence and security held in Khartoum, Sudan President Omar el Bashir called for the proper definition of the term terrorism.

He argued that the current definition was relative and blurred to a point of causing friction among nations in the fight against terrorism.

Sudan’s Second Vice-President Osman Taha called for the removal of the country’s name from the United States’ list of sponsors of international terrorism.

Sudan has previously been accused of hosting Osama bin Laden, a suspected mastermind of the 1998 terror attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

Khartoum has also suffered America’s wrath, which saw its pharmaceutical plant hit by smart missiles on suspicion that it was being used to manufacture biological weapons, a claim Washington is yet to prove to date.

Osama, the defacto leader of the al-Qaeda Network, has become a walking nightmare to the terror-paranoid West. Despite the existence of 12 international Conventions Against Terrorism, there is no globally–accepted definition as countries continue to disagree over the politically-correct meaning of terrorism.

The United Nations says international terrorism and transnational organised crime are closely interrelated and connected, for example, through trafficking of drugs and arms, and money laundering. To the UN, a comprehensive programme to counter international terrorism would be more effective if it was coordinated with the struggle against transnational organised crime.

The African Union Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, however, defines a terrorist act as any act which is in violation of the criminal laws of a State and which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury or death to, any person...or may cause damage to public or private property, natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage...."

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the self-appointed global policeman — the United States of America and its sidekick, Britain — amounted to an act of terrorism, in the strictest sense of the term, but the two countries won’t accept such definition! The two powers invaded Iraq on the pretext of destroying its suspected weapons of mass destruction.

If truth be told, Washington and London’s main intention was to oust Saddam Hussein, whom they regarded as a threat to their economic interests in the Gulf.

But when patriotic Iraqis took up weapons to liberate their country from American and British occupation, Washington and London justified their presence by claiming they were there to fight terrorism.

The two countries have since abandoned the line of argument of weapons of mass destruction and stuck with the purported "war on terrorism" against Iraqi freedom fighters.

This takes me back to President Bashir’s dilemma as to what, actually, is terrorism?

The destruction of Afghanistan by Americans five years ago is still fresh in our memories. Currently, Washington and London marines are committing serious human rights and war crimes in Iraq with abandon.

How the war on terror has been, and is being fought, has left many observers wondering what became of the West’s claim to respect of human rights.

Analysts argue that the resentment in the Arab world over the way Iraq and other Muslim countries have been treated has complicated the war on terror.

It has made Osama’s al Qaeda Network look like the only formidable body that, after the former Soviet Union and Saddam’s Iraq, can stand up to the US and smoke out its marines the region.

This would perhaps explain why few, if any, Arabs are willing to volunteer information on terrorist agents to the US, an arrogant and powerful country seen as only interested in installing regimes that will guarantee its continued exploitation of oil in the Gulf.

Closer home, it is not far-fetched to argue that terrorism still remains one of the main threats to the security, stability and well-being of regional countries. Countries perceived to be satelites of US and British interests are at a greater risk.

The terrorists have the determination and capacity to strike high profile targets anywhere, anytime, using newer and lethal means.

As the September 11, 2001, and recent attacks in Britain confirmed, no country is immune to acts of terror.

Experts point out that terrorism and transnational organised crime thrive in Africa, more so in the anarchic Horn and Great Lakes region.

A recent report titled "Why Fighting Crime Can Assist Development in Africa" by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) blames this on the vast geographical region and proximity to the Middle East and South-Asia.

The Middle East is perceived to be the epicentre of planning, training and funding terrorism as well as source of hard drugs.

The preponderance of Western interests in Africa has been both a blessing and curse to the continent.

The many European facilities and installations in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa have become attractive and soft targets of belligerent groups.

It would make a lot of sense if the US and its partners in the war against terrorism changed strategy.

Bombing innocent civilians in the Middle East is drawing poor African countries into fighting the West’s own wars on our soil.

Like WWI, WWII and the Cold War, Africa is again being used to fight other people’s wars.

This is so because terror groups have little capacity to stage massive terror attacks in Western countries, compared to Africa — with its porous borders and poor mechanism to detect terror activities.

If our Parliament passes the controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill, Kenya will be one of the few countries to effect anti-terrosim laws in Africa.

The country will also benefit from the logistical support of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), a UN initiative to curb terrorism.

A pledge to fight terrorism is one of the 12 protocols that the Heads of State of ICGLR are expected to sign in Nairobi in December.

However, the regional countries making up ICGLR will have to overcome certain challenges for the initiative to succed. This is in recognition of the fact that although the countries subscribe to various sub-regional organisations, there is need to formulate mechanisms for cooperation to counter terrorism.

The Khartoum Declaration, in which chiefs of security and intelligence from 16 East African countries pledged to share information on terrorism activities, could be the best way to fight the threat, at least for now.

As Kenya’s chief spy Wilson Boinnet said, it is time to leave the seminar benches and be ready to engage true terrorists in street combat.

To me, the US and British soldiers in Iraq are worse than the faceless terrorists they are fighting.

The writer is a public relations officer in Nairobi, Kenya.

Article was originally published in The East African Standard
Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums
Read more Africa related artcles at: Club Afrika Portal
Recommend Club Afrika to your friend: Click Here
Invite your friend to Club Afrika Forums: Click Here

Social bookmark this

By John Kamau

When he stepped down as South Africa’s first black president in 1999, Nelson Mandela baffled many world leaders who, had they been in his position, would have preferred to cling on — perhaps for life.

By quitting after just one term of five years, Mandela surprised even his former jailors, who coalesced around the now faded National Party (NP), and many wondered what a "New South Africa", as it was touted, would be without Mandela.

There was a good reason for that worry for Mandela had given a new lease of life to the Rainbow Nation and a chance to forgive and forget.

No man, he would tell his critics, had suffered more than he did during his 27 years in jail. Mandela has critics who do not think that he is the one who holds South Africa together. Allister Sparks, South Africa’s veteran commentator and the author of Beyond the Miracle, a book on post-apartheid South Africa puts it candidly: "To portray Mandela as the last pillar protecting us from catastrophe is absurd.

People have been making doomsday scenarios about South Africa all my life and I’m sick of them."

But Mandela has had no equal and still towers over the politics of South Africa like a colossus, long after he quit office. Still humble despite the accolades he has received (see separate story), Mandela is usually surprised by the kind of reception he gets.

"When I see the support that I get in cities I visit, I do not know what I have done to deserve this merit… All I can say is that this is not a tribute to an individual, it is a tribute to a country," he once said in Toronto.

As President, Mandela was much more concerned with the weakening Rand and some of his critics accused the Western press of failing to report on the real situation in South Africa.

But there are those who do not blame Mandela for failing the revolution.

In his book Against Global Apartheid, South Africa scholar Patrick Bond claims that enormous pressure was put on the ANC leadership to prove that it could govern with "sound macroeconomic policies".

"It became clear that if Mr Mandela tried genuine redistribution of wealth, the international markets would punish South Africa.

"Many within the party understandably feared that an economic meltdown would be used as an indictment not just of the ANC but of black rule itself," he wrote.

Caught in this dilemma, the ANC abandoned its policy of growth through redistribution and later on, under President Thabo Mbeki, adopted an IMF programme that included mass privatisations that saw the creation of a new black elite but led to mass layoffs and wage cuts in the public sector.

Indeed as late as July this year, as the G8 Summit prepared to open at Gleneagles, Scotland, we all listened to South African activist and former municipal councillor Trevor Ngwane — a key critic of Mandela’s — allege that Mandela had sold the South African revolution to Western capitalistic interests.

The discussion, hosted by the "War on Want - Make G8 History" campaigners, centred on privatisation and the big lie that was Tony Blair’s Commission on Africa report.

Ngwane, the chairman of the Soweto Anti-Privatisation Forum, took on Nelson Mandela — who was absent — and the African National Congress.

Given the aura that surrounds Mandela, only a few people have the courage to say that apartheid is not dead in South Africa and to blame it on political leadership starting with Mandela.

"Apartheid based on race has been replaced with apartheid based on class," Ngwane bellowed into the microphone. He has been taking on the new Rainbow nation via his Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee.

"When they disconnect electricity and water because of non-payments we reconnect them", he says.

Activists claim that they do it in the name of Nelson Mandela, who promised them access to basic services such as electricity and water.

"The ANC taught us these tactics," Ngwane once said after he was arrested and jailed for two weeks for leading a demonstration in 2002 against Johannesburg’s mayor, Amos Masondo.

Has the Mandela magic failed in post-apartheid South Africa? Internationally he remains an enigma and is still respected and controversial. Mandela has not even spared US President George Bush from criticism.

"Bush is now undermining the United Nations," Mandela told the International Women’s Forum after Bush started the Iraqi War. At that time Mandela said he would support action against Iraq’s former President Saddam Hussein only if the UN orders it.

"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

Years later Mandela has been proved right and America is knee deep in a quagmire in Iraq as it fights an old enemy — the Al Qaeda — in a foreign country.

Unlike South Africans who can take on Mandela, world leaders shy from engaging him in any controversy.

On this occasion, spin-doctors in Washington were forced to respond with humility. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "Nelson Mandela was a great leader.

He remains a great man. [Bush] expresses his gratitude to the many leaders… who obviously feel differently than Mandela. He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust."

Even when Mandela twisted the knife by saying that all that Bush was after was Iraqi oil, Washington remained silent.

On Tony Blair he said: "He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain."

Article was originally published in The East African Standard
Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums
Read more Africa related artcles at: Club Afrika Portal

Social bookmark this