The Future of Africa
09-11-2001 and beyond

Nigeria: UK Blocks Abacha Proof
By Tom Akilo

It is now accepted that most of Nigeria’s military rulers stole billions of dollars. What is not known is who helped them hide the money and where. Reports now say most of it is held in banks in London and other places in Europe.

Testifying in the UK recently, “Prince Boja Ajibola, Nigerian High commissioner, told the Commons International Development committee that most of the money plundered was held in British and other European banks.”

But the UK government has frustrated the efforts by the Nigerian government to recover this money. The money looted by Sani Abacha, one of the military rulers, is estimated to be more than $4 billion. Although other European countries seem to allow the investigations to continue, the British authorities say they won’t co-operate until someone has been charged with the crime. Already one of the sons of Sani Abacha has been charged but Britain says there is no sufficient evidence to proceed.

British Multinationals
The Nigerian rulers normally loot the country through foreign multinationals. UK companies dominate the Nigerian economy. Prince Biola said the most common form of corruption had involved multinational companies agreeing to contracts that inflated prices from which Nigerian government officials were paid commissions. He called for accountancy to toughen audits to reveal such illegal payments.

The UK fears such investigation will expose the lie that African leaders are singularly involved in corruption and not together with various multinationals operating in the continent. Perhaps another consideration is the fact that such a revelation could expose the banks to other charges. Paying back such huge sums of money may weaken the UK economy.

Liberia: Pressure on “Diamonds”
By African Perspective Staff

The Liberian government is under intense and aggressive pressure from the UK government that accuses it of supporting rebels in Sierra Leone. The government in London has used every means at the UN Security Council to get sanctions imposed on Liberia. For some time the UK and US governments have been trying to get the Liberian government condemned for what they say is support for rebels who are selling ‘blood diamonds.’

The UN, under pressure from London and Washington has condemned Liberia, Gambia and Burkina Faso for spreading instability in the region. Recently, the Gambian UN Ambassador wondered whether there was a ‘hidden agenda to mount a smear campaign against the Gambia.’

The UK and US want imposition of ‘widespread sanctions including an expanded arms embargo, a ban on Liberian diamond and timber exports, on Liberian-registered flights and a travel ban on government and military officials’.

The UK deputy ambassador to UN said: “There can no longer be a shadow of a doubt that President Taylor has been callously prolonging the conflict for personal gain.”

Western governments now have several African governments under sanctions. These sanctions are normally imposed in an undemocratic way because UN Veto members like the UK stage- manage the UN Security Council voting. In the past they have imposed sanctions on Sudan, Libya, Liberia, Angola and others where there are governments that do not toe the western line.

The British government has aggressively intervened in the West African nation of Sierra Leone. It is easy see the reason for this aggressiveness. British multinationals once used to have exclusive access to the country’s diamond wealth. Now the Diamond fields are in the hands of the rebels. The UK has made a large troop deployment there. Recently, the rebels seem wiling to negotiate. The British army officials think they can defeat them militarily.

But the British Foreign Minister has clearly stated that: “The proof of the rebel’s commitment to peace will be whether they give up control of the diamond fields.”

The rebels in Sierra Leone are quite unpopular because of their brutality. So is the puppet government in Freetown. The British-backed regime is so unpopular that it recently postponed an arranged election for fear that it cannot control the outcome in the current situation.

The European Union has now joined the British and the American governments in putting pressure on Zimbabwe in a bid to undermine the Mugabe regime. Some members of EU have started scaling down the Aid they give to Zimbabwe as the presidential elections in that country approach. This is similar to actions taken by the US, the UK and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Zimbabwe: EU Cutting Aid
By Alex Kunene

The European Union has now joined the British and the American governments in putting pressure on Zimbabwe in a bid to undermine the Mugabe regime. Some members of EU have started scaling down the Aid they give to Zimbabwe as the presidential elections in that country approach. This is similar to actions taken by the US, the UK and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The rationale behind the move seems to make conditions so hard for the population that they will vote against President Mugabe in the coming presidential elections next year. The IMF and the World Bank have already frozen all loans to that country. As well they have continually given a gloomy picture of the economy so as to discourage investors from putting their money there.

Some of the EU members said they are now redirecting their aid to non-governmental organizations. This means they will try to aid bodies that are opposed to the current regime as they did during last year’s parliamentary elections. Sweden has already said it will slash its $700 million annual aid to only $400 million. The remaining money will go to “civic bodies”.

A Swedish Foreign Affairs Ministry Press Secretary said: “The government has resolved to cut back on bilateral development cooperation with the government of Zimbabwe. The decision will involve a 45 percent cutback in donor assistant for the period 1999-2001 and the virtual cessation of all development cooperation with the government of Zimbabwe.”

The Spokesperson added: “We know that we are one of the first countries to take this measure of stopping aid to the government, but we know that other countries are actively discussing this.”

Undermine independence
The ruling party in Zimbabwe has become more vocal as the outside interference mounts. It has declared that it will not relinquish power to the Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, which it accuses of being the favorite of ‘imperialists’. MDC took 57 seats in the last elections. ZANU-PF, the ruling party, won 62 out of the 120 seats for the nations parliament.

Joining the anti-Mugabe crusade is the German government. It has also downgraded its relationship with Harare. A German diplomat was quoted by Zimbabwe Financial Gazette as saying: “Zimbabwe belonged to the intensive partnership level but it was relocated a couple of months ago to potential partner level.”

Germany will now channel aid through the opposition and other bodies and little through the government for what it calls a breakdown in the rule of law.

Many governments in the west oppose land reform in Zimbabwe even when they are so limited to be useful to the majority of the people. The Mugabe regime has supported land occupations mostly by its supporters. But genuine land reform has yet to take place. The EU and other governments seem to be preparing for this by creating opposition bodies that do not favor any redistribution of land in Zimbabwe. They do this while claiming they are championing democracy in that country.

The German spokesperson summed up the intention when he stated: “One way of restoring the rule of law and attracting donor support for land reform would be to accept Malloch Brown’s proposals which are in fact the proposal of UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, South African and Nigerian presidents Thabo Mbeki and Oluseguni Obasanjo.”

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Answer to Terrorism? Colonialism"

Paul Johnson wrote, "America and its allies may find themselves, temporarily at least, not just occupying with troops but administering obdurate terrorist states. These may eventually include not only Afghanistan but Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Syria. Democratic regimes willing to abide by international law will be implanted where possible, but a Western political presence seems unavoidable in some cases." Johnson added that he suspects that "the best medium-term solution will be to revive the old League of Nations Mandate System, which served well as a 'respectable' form of colonialism between the wars."