Dear all,

Find below an advocacy document against the on going privatization of water and sewage services in Lagos, Nigeria. Kindly circulate among members of your network and other relevant publics. We request groups supporting this anti water privatization campaign to endorse this declaration, by appending their names, and addresses at the spaces provided below.

Kindly copy all endorsements to blfnigeria@yahoo.com

Regards

BABATOPE BABALOBI
The Bread of Life Development Foundation/WaterWatch Box 14055, Ikeja,
Lagos, Nigeria


DECLARATION AGAINST LAGOS WATER PRIVATISATION

We the undersigned individuals representing various organizations under listed below, having critically examined the on going plan by the Lagos State Government, Nigeria with the support of the World Bank, to privatize the delivery of Water and sewage services to the 14m people of the State; and Noting that:

1. The on going privatisation process of the Lagos State Water Corporation is not inclusive, open, transparent, and participatory. So far, the Lagos state Government has vigorously pursued the policy without any consultation, discussion, or approval by grassroots organizations that represent the peoples of the state, including water users and consumers, workers, women and children groups, farmers, fishermen and women, labour and trade groups, civil society groups, and private firms.

2. The 'Lagos model' of Private Sector Participation (PSP) in the delivery of water and sewage services, seeks to relinquish all control over water resources to the private sector through commercialization, privatization, and commodification of water.

3. No Environmental Impact Assessment has been conducted on the civil works planned under the privatization exercise. The privatisation process therefore constitutes a threat to diversity of water ecosystems and Lagosians who rely on them, and will lead to ecological devastation.

Hereby affirm that:

1. Access to safe water is a universally a basic human right and is essential to human life. The peoples of Lagos state must control water, as a public trust and an inalienable human right.

2. The National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy in Nigeria states that the national policy is to guarantee free access for the poor for the "basic human need" level of water supply and sanitation.

3. The Lagos State Governments, as primary duty bearer, must take concrete steps to respect, protect and fulfill Lagosians right to water and sewage services.

4. Furthermore, projects intended to develop water resources in the state, must be based on respect for the rights of all Lagosians, and must provide full and meaningful participation in decision-making.

5. Water is social and cultural good and should not be treated as a commodity governed by the rules of market. Any pricing scheme introduced to manage water resources must allow the poor to satisfy their basic needs.

6. Water privatization all over the world, including in African countries like Ghana, and South Africa, has been shown to decrease access to clean and affordable water and discriminate against poor and under-represented communities who cannot pay "market prices" for water.

We demand that:

That privatization cease to be used as a condition on international lending to finance the development of water and sewage resources in the State; and

We resolve to:

Mobilize members of our organizations to advocate against the on going privatisation of the delivery of water and sewage services in Lagos State, Nigeria. As part of this campaign, we support the organization of a "Human chain against Water Privatisation' on March 22, 2005, in Lagos.

Signed:


NAME ORGANISATION EMAIL

For further details of this campaign, contact:

The Bread of Life Development Foundation/WaterWatch Box 14055, Ikeja,
Lagos
+234-14759088, +234-17942833, +24-8035897435
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waterwatch_nigeria
www.blf.kabissa.org
blfnigeria@yahoo.com

Contact person: BABATOPE BABALOBI
Executive Director, The Bread of Life Dev. Foundation
www.blf.kabissa.org
+234-17942833

Why donors fear Kagame’s war on graft

Photo 1


By: Andrew M Mwenda

Last week I was in Kigali, this time at the heels of a cabinet decision to impound all luxurious four wheel drive vehicles bought at government expense and driven by ministers, security and military chiefs, "foreign experts" and their local handlers. In a morning crackdown, all the big men and women of this republic woke up to find that police constables along the main roads were stopping and taking away their vehicles and leaving them to walk to office.

The international donor community, known all over Africa for its corrupt and profligate life styles which they indulge in the name of fighting poverty, was this time caught with their pants down. They claim to fight poverty while riding in luxurious four-wheel drive vehicles, sitting in opulently furnished offices, earning obscene salaries and living in executive mansions. In a bold act of defiance, Rwanda impounded even those vehicles belonging to donor projects. After cleaning his own government of corruption, he has now taken on the profligacy of the international aid industry and its experts are now scared.

In a discussion with President Paul Kagame, he told me that he had looked at some of the "poverty reduction" projects and they smelt bad. "There are projects here worth only $5m and when I looked at their expenses, I found that $1m was going into buying these cars, each one of them at $70,000. Another $1m goes to buy office furniture, more $1m for meetings and entertainment, yet another $1m as salaries for technical experts, leaving only $1m for the actual expenditure on a poverty reducing activity. Is this the way to fight poverty?" he asked as I shifted with glee in my chair.

Already, the government is auctioning these vehicles and so far has gotten over $3m from the sales. Mr Kagame has now issued a new directive, saying government should not purchase cars for its officials with more than 2,500cc. But there is more: the government has placed a ceiling on mobile telephone expenses for all its ministers, military and security chiefs to 50,000 Rwanda Francs (Shs150,000), and also ordered MTN Rwanda to cut off their international roaming access.

The directive also stops the holding of workshops, seminars and conferences on poverty reduction in posh hotels like the Intercontinental, Mille Collins etc, insisting they should be in government owned buildings at no cost. The order also requires all government ministries, departments and agencies to move from privately owned buildings where they pay high rents to government owned buildings.

I told Kagame that whereas some of the most highly skilled Africans are going to Europe and North America to clean streets and toilets, our ‘development partners’ send us ‘technical experts’ on these projects at indvidual monthly salaries of between $10,000 and $20,000 a salary that could pay 12 Africans of better training and experience and save this continent from severe brain drain. In fact, most of these so-called ‘experts’ are a miserable, career-stranded lot in their own countries, but are dumped in Africa and other poor countries through foreign aid protocols.

Donors never shy from lecturing our governments on fiscal frugality yet their aid driven projects are the most profligate. Of total project aid to Uganda's ministry of Health, 93 percent of it goes into technical assistance (i.e. salaries and allowances for the experts) and overheads (i.e. four wheel drive vehicles, opulent office furniture, computers, stationary, tea and cakes).

Only a miserable 7 percent of this aid goes into purchase of drugs. Now you understand why, in spite of a huge health budget, our people cannot find drugs in hospitals. We in the media have been shouting ourselves hoarse against government corruption. It is time to expose the worse forms of profligacy which forces our governments to pile up huge sums in debt.

In fact, of the total money from the Uganda government budget to the ministry of Health, 98 percent reaches its intended beneficiaries, clearly showing that inspite of its corrupt ways, the government of Uganda is a better evil than donors. Of total project aid to Uganda, 68 percent goes into overheads and technical assistance. Only 32 percent to its intended beneficiaries.

A few weeks ago I presented the above facts to President Yoweri Museveni and asked him to act. My heart bleeds to say he is so deeply discredited by his inability to tackle corruption in his government, and his own profligate public administration expenditure that he lacks moral authority to take on donors.

The other reason is that his regime lives off this coalition of mutual deceit with donors that both are fighting to eradicate poverty in Uganda. Kagame, however, is able to act boldly because he occupies a moral high ground in fighting corruption, has ensured fiscal frugality and also because his government pursues strategies of survival - not necessarily dependant on donor approval.

In Rwanda, ministers and other high ranking public officials resign and or are fired by the week because of allegations of corruption. From the lowest clerk in a government office to the most powerful minister or military or security chief, no one is immune to jail when they steal; none close to the president, none distant from him. You steal, you get jailed.

If there is some prima facie case that you stole, but there isn’t not enough evidence to convict you in a court of law, then you are asked to resign or get fired. What a tough guy this Kagame man is!!

Share

By Edward Clay

What happened in Rwanda in three months from April to July, 1994, was unprecedented in the history of the world. It was unprecedented considering that between 800,000 and one million people were killed within only three months.

I was High Commissioner to Uganda in 1994, and non-resident Ambassador to Rwanda. And by a curious coincidence, I had in 1964, a full 30 years earlier, worked in Burundi. I visited Rwanda for the first time and presented my credentials to the then President Habyarimana a month before his assassination was used to precipitate the final act of the Rwandan disaster.

It was not until the massacres of 1994 were well advanced that I and others even began to speak of genocide. We had been warned in advance by some that this was planned. Failing to recognise the validity of those warnings was at least a failure of information and of understanding and analysis.

When I returned to Rwanda in July 1994 just before the fighting ended and again just after, I saw in a compound of a tea company the car of one of their managers. Among the items on the passenger seat was his ID card. Its main feature was the word "Hutu" reflecting the universal practice of labelling Rwandans according to their ethnicity. He had been killed notwithstanding his ethnicity.

It was a series of steps which took past Rwandan governments from describing their citizens by their ethnic origin to begin to divide Rwandans into those for and against the government, and eventually to describing them as "cockroaches".

In that way they de-humanised people, they created the notion that some citizens were inconvenient, a sign of lack of political hygiene, that they could, and eventually should, be stamped underfoot.

Radio Mille Collines made of this name-calling a broadcasting policy. They propagated and nurtured it before most of us were aware that there was an extermination plan. In doing so, they spread the inhuman assumptions which led people to believe, when the time came, that they could and should kill those who were Tutsis.

My other point concerns the nature of governments. The Rwandan government's persecution of its citizens was a long and dishonourable theme in the first three decades of that country's independent history.

What has happened since the genocide of 1994 is unprecedented. The world's response after the event has been to recognise a massive failure. But the soul-searching since 1994 has led the United Nations General Assembly to designate today, April 7, as the International Day of Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda.

Two, Resolution 58/234 of last 23 December calls on all member-states to implement the recommendations of the independent Inquiry into the actions of the UN in Rwanda during 1994; and three, it calls upon all States to act in accordance with the Genocide Convention to prevent any recurrence of events of the kind that occurred in Rwanda.

What has been done to try to prevent a recurrence?

First, there has been a recognition that States cannot just carry on as if what happens inside their borders is strictly their own affair.

Second, there has been a great advance in acceptance that human rights are or ought to be a central concern of the international community as well as of national governments.

Third, there has been agreement that genocide is a peculiarly vile crime requiring its own unique remedies. All States are enjoined to help search for and prosecute those accused of genocide in the case of Rwanda. The UN has established the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda. From the outside, the European Union has worked hard to improve its own capacity to react quickly to crises. Its "Operation Artemis" last year helped, in cooperation with the UN, to prevent acts of genocide in Ituri.

Finally, there has been general recognition that Africa's poverty increases the competition for what resources there are within countries. Making a successful use of those resources and that goodwill depends as much on African governments, and on the way they govern, as on anything else.

Given the pernicious role of Radio Mille Collines, it is not surprising that the role of information has been scrutinised also: those who are information-poor, dependant on only one medium, often controlled by government, are also suffering from a serious form of poverty. They are vulnerable to propaganda of the worst kind.

One of the first acts of the British's Department for International Development (DfID) in Rwanda after the genocide was to fund the establishment of a radio station designed to be independent of factions and to promote reconciliation. We continue to provide support to help develop free and independent media.

Any fair-minded and sympathetic person must recognise and applaud the progress the Rwandans have made in the past 11 years: their efforts to achieve national reconciliation; their determination to ensure that never again can there be a recurrence of 1994; the referendum on a new constitution and the milestone represented by their elections two years ago.

The European Union and its member-states play a major role in supporting Rwanda; in supporting the efforts of the UN Secretary General to provide a stronger UN role in the effective prevention of genocide; and in supporting African efforts to strengthen its own peace-keeping and conflict-prevention capabilities.

My government, which had no traditional links with Rwanda, is now that country's largest bilateral development partner.

Today we condole with the people of Rwanda as they and many of us remember their suffering. We commemorate with them the dead; and we offer our solidarity and support to all those who suffered so grievously and survived. We salute that nation's efforts to achieve reconciliation and development. We hope our collective efforts will make a reality of that promise of "never again".

Sir Edward Clay is Britain's envoy to Kenya.

People's Media:

This paper discusses Direct Action - the proper method of anarchist activist action. In it I try to consider some theoretical issues that we don't usually get a chance to discuss in the midst of political campaigns. Some of the issues raised will be, the role of anarchists in other political movements, the difference between direct action and symbolic action, the various traditional types of direct action and the proper attitude of activists towards the police and the media.

* * * * * * * *

"Direct Action" is the distinctive contribution of anarchists in the realm of political method. While reformists advocate the ballot box, liberals have their lobbying and their letter writing, bureaucrats have their work through "the proper channels" and socialists have their vanguard parties, we anarchists have direct action. Political tendencies other than anarchism may adopt direct action as a method but its historical origins and its most vigorous proponents are anarchist. Because direct action is a political method, before we can properly understand it and its place in anarchist practice we must first examine the nature of anarchist political activity.

Ideally, anarchist political activity promotes anarchism and attempts to create anarchy. It seeks to establish a society without capitalism,patriarchy or State, where people govern themselves democratically without domination or hierarchy. As I have argued elsewhere, this is an activity which is inescapably revolutionary in nature and which is best carried out collectively in an organisation dedicated to that purpose. While anarchists remain without a political organisation of their own, the main avenue for promoting anarchism is to participate in, contribute to and provide leadership in other political movements. Our objective in participating in other political movements and campaigns should be to show that anarchist methods and ways of organising work. The best advertisement for anarchism is the intelligence of the contributions of our activists and the success of our methods. Anarchists should strive to provide living examples of anarchy in action. As we will see, direct action is one of the best possible ways of doing this.

Two dangers in Anarchist Political Practice

Before I go on, I want to highlight here two problems which may occur with anarchist political activity which both stem from a tendency to be utopian in our political demands. Anarchists are often utopian in their rejection of any political activity oriented towards the state and in their failure to establish a realistic connection between their ends and their means. This sort of utopianism is not a virtue but instead contributes to anarchism's continuing political irrelevance to the majority of Ugandans.

Anarchism and the State.

In a capitalist economy the activities of "private enterprise" are rigorously excluded from public scrutiny and control. We have no input into the decisions about production and investment which determine the basic conditions of our existence and which are made in corporate board rooms. In many cases, if we don't like what we see happening around us, the only option open to us is to try to change government policy. Thus most forms of politics today are oriented towards the state. Most obviously, electoral politics seeks to determine the identity of those few individuals who supposedly "control" the state. Most forms of "political protest" also hope to induce, or to force, the state to take some action to address the protesters' concerns. Yet anarchism is largely defined by its rejection of the state as a mode of organising to meet social needs and anarchists have traditionally - and rightly - been extremely suspicious of any suggestion that we can succeed in using the state to serve our ends. It may therefore be tempting for anarchists to proffer "social revolution" as the solution to all problems.

Anarchists may argue that the problems that people face are the results of an insane social and economic order and that only a revolution and consequent creation of anarchy will solve them. But people have problems and face difficulties here and now which need to be addressed and they cannot wait for the revolution to solve them. Thus in rejecting attempts to force the state to address our needs or serve our political ends we must offer realistic alternative methods of achieving our goals, if we are to be relevant to the struggles of people today. Sometimes this may be possible. Sometimes we can organise together, without relying on the state, to address and solve our problems here and now. As we shall see below, this is the essence of "direct action".

Often, however, it won't be possible to provide genuine solutions to people's problems, within the existing order, without recourse to the state. Whether we like it or not certain social needs are, in current circumstances, only going to be addressed by the state. Access to medical resources, secure housing, educational qualifications or income support are for most people only going to be available as the result of state action. Relations between the sexes are also another area where the state seems to be the only plausible existing instrument of social policy. Domestic violence protection orders and state funded IDP camps may not be much of a solution to the problems created by violent or abusive partners but for some women they are all there is. For many women they are a necessary step on the road to escaping a cycle of abuse. The society wide education campaigns which are necessary to challenge sexist attitudes likewise can only be carried out with state support.

Until anarchists constitute a sizeable portion of the community and are capable of providing these services - or alternatives - themselves, activists concerned about these issues will be justified in turning to the state for help in addressing them.

Furthermore, legislation by the state *can* represent a real political victory. This may be because the passing of legislation acknowledges and gives weight to changes which have already occurred in the political consciousness of society at large or it may be because the legislation actually makes a real difference to the living conditions of ordinary people. Legislation guaranteeing a minimum wage, public health-care, health and safety standards at work or a decent standard of living for those excluded from work represents a genuine political victory for the majority over NRM-O. Not only do such state provided services make a vast difference in the quality of life of those who otherwise would have no or little access to them but they also dramatically increase the possibility of political action. The less time Wanainchi have to spend struggling to meet their basic needs, the more time they have to criticise and challenge the existing order.

The traditional anarchist hostility towards the Museveni's state then should be tempered by the recognition that, while it continues to exist, it is an important site of class struggle. If we reject attempts to exert pressure on the regime we may render ourselves irrelevant to the real needs of large elements in society. Calling only for revolution is not going to interest anyone who needs real change now. Anarchists must provide workable solutions for Wanainchi here and now. Sometimes this will involve recourse to the state.

Anarchism and Ends and Means.

One of anarchism's historical strengths has been its insistence on the connection between ends and means. Anarchists have insisted that libertarian outcomes will not result from authoritarian means and, more generally, have been sensitive towards the ways in which compromises made in the realm of political methods may corrupt us or infect our goals. Sometimes, however, this has lead to an over simplistic equation betweens our means and our ends. Anarchists often fail to address properly the *political* question of how our methods relate to our goals. An example of this is the pacifist claim "If everyone refused to fight there would be no wars" Now this is clearly true, in fact tautologically so. But pacifism does not follow from this truism. It does *not* follow that the best way to prevent wars is to make an individual commitment to refuse to fight in them. The connection between our actions and the goal of peaceful world is a *political* one. It is political because it involves the workings of the whole set of power and economic relations which structure our social and personal decision making. For our activities to have their intended effect they must be taken up by others and whether or not this will take place will depend on a whole set of political and economic factors. It is not at all clear that our refusing to fight will cause sufficient numbers of others to do so and thus make war impossible (in fact, this just seems wildly implausible). The best way to prevent wars may be to address the social systems and the injustices which cause them. It may even involve fighting.

More generally then, for our means to be suitable to the ends we seek we must be able to tell a realistic story about exactly how our activities will bring our ends about. This story will have to take account of the economic and political realities which affect our lives. It is often not realistic to believe that everyone else around us will immediately follow our example.

The best forms of anarchist politics avoid these two forms of dangerous utopianism and offer people genuine hope and occasional success in their struggle for a better world. Direct action is a crucial component of such a politics.

Direct Action.

The distinguishing feature of direct action is that it aims to achieve our goals through our own activity rather than through the actions of others. Direct action seeks to exert power directly over affairs and situations which concern us. Thus it is about people taking power for themselves. In this it is distinguished from most other forms of political action such as voting, lobbying, attempting to exert political pressure though industrial action or through the media. All of these activities aim to get others to achieve our goals for us. Such forms of actions operate on a tacit acceptance of our own powerlessness. They concede that we ourselves have neither the right nor the power to affect change. Such forms of action are therefore implicitly conservative. They concede the authority of existing institutions and work to prevent us from acting ourselves to change the status quo.

Direct action repudiates such acceptance of the existing order and suggests that we have both the right and the power to change the world. It demonstrates this by doing it. Examples of direct action include blockades, pickets, sabotage, squatting, tree spiking, lockouts, occupations, rolling strikes, slow downs, the revolutionary general strike. In the community it involves, amongst other things, establishing our own organisations such as food co-ops and community access radio and tv to provide for our social needs, blocking the freeway developments which divide and poison our communities and taking and squatting the houses that we need to live in. In the forests, direct action interposes our bodies, our will and our ingenuity between wilderness and those who would destroy it and acts against the profits of the organisations which direct the exploitation of nature and against those organisations themselves. In industry and in the workplace direct action aims either to extend workers control or to directly attack the profits of the employers. Sabotage and "go slows" are time-honoured and popular techniques to deny employers the profits from their exploitation of their wage-slaves. Rolling and "wildcat" strikes are forms of open industrial struggle which strike directly at the profits of the employers. However, industrial action which is undertaken merely as a tactic as part of negotiations to win wage or other concessions from an employer is not an example of direct action.

As the examples of direct action in the community above suggest, there is more to direct action than responding to injustices or threats by the state. Direct action is not only a method of protest but also a way of "building the future now". Any situation where people organise to extend control over their own circumstances without recourse to capital or state constitutes direct action. "Doing it ourselves" is the essence of direct action and it does not matter whether what we are doing is resisting injustice or attempting to create a better world now by organising to meet our own social needs. Direct action of this sort, because it is self-directed rather than a response to the activities of capital or state, offers far more opportunities for continuing action and also for success. We can define our own goals and achieve them through our own efforts.

One of the most important aspects of direct action is the organisation involved in order for it to be successful. By organising to achieve our goals ourselves we learn valuable skills and discover that organisation without hierarchy is possible. Where it succeeds, direct action shows that people can control their own lives - in effect, that anarchy is possible. We can see here that direct action and anarchist organisation are in fact two sides of the same coin. When we demonstrate the success of one we demonstrate the reality of the other.

Two Important Distinctions

Direct action must be distinguished from symbolic actions. Direct action is bolting a gate rather than tying a yellow ribbon around it. Its purpose is to exercise power and control over our own lives rather than merely portray the semblance of it. This distinguishes it from many forms of action, for example "banner drops" such as those often engaged in by Greenpeace, that look militant but, in my opinion, aren't. These actions do not directly attack the injustices they highlight, but instead seek to influence the public and politicians through the media. Any action directed primarily towards the media concedes that others, rather than ourselves, have the power to change things.

Direct action must also be distinguished from moral action. It is not *moral* protest. By moral protest I mean protest which is justified by reference to the moral relation to some institution or injustice that it demonstrates. Moral protest usually takes the form of a boycott of a product or refusal to participate in some institution. Such actions seek to avoid our complicity in the evils for which existing institutions are responsible. No doubt this is morally admirable. But unless these actions themselves have some perceivable effect on the institutions which they target, they do not constitute direct action. Direct action must have some immediate affect to demonstrate that we can exert power. It should not rely entirely on others taking up our example. Our own action should have such an affect that we can point it out to others as an example of how they can change - and not just protest - those things which concern them. Boycotts, for instance, therefore are *not* examples of direct action. If only those who organise a boycott participate in it, it will almost invariably be ineffective.

Of course, these distinctions are overdrawn. Any action at all involves some exercise of power. By acting at all, in any way, we overcome our passivity and deny that we are helpless to affect change. Any action short of revolution is to some extent both moral and symbolic. Capital, patriarchy and state have the power to undo all our efforts short of revolution. Any form of protest can be effectively prevented if the state is willing to employ the full range of its resources for authoritarian repression and control. The only form of "direct action" which cannot be contained by the state is popular revolution. This is the ultimate direct action that anarchists should aim for, when all people organise to destroy the existing order and cooperate to run society without capitalism, patriarchy or authority.

Implications.

So given that any action will be less than ideal, how should we assess potential direct actions? I would suggest that possible direct actions should be assessed both as examples of direct action as described here and against the broader criteria for anarchist actions set out above. That is, of any action we should ask:

1) to what extent does our action affirm our own power and right to use it?

2) does it advance the theory and practice of anarchy and, in particular, will it build the anarchist movement?

Some further questions we can ask ourselves to help determine the answers to these are as follows. Firstly, will it draw others in? Is it the sort of activity which encourages other people to become interested and involved? Actions which necessitate a high degree of detailed organisation or secrecy are unlikely to score highly against this criterion. Will it succeed in achieving its defined objectives? For instance, will a blockade actually stop work on a site for some period? Successful actions are the best advertisement for anarchist methods. Are the politics of the action obvious or at least clearly conveyed to those who witness it? If the targets of our actions relate only obliquely to the issue which they are intended to address or the goals of our activities unclear to those not "in the know" then we are unlikely to convince others of the relevancy of anarchism. For this reason we must always be conscious of the messages which our activities convey to other people and try to ensure that this is the most appropriate possible. What consequences will result from the action for those involved in it? Actions which involve a high risk of police beating or of arrest with consequent heavy fines or imprisonment may reduce the willingness or capacity of those affected to engage in further political activities, if any of these things occur. Very few people are radicalised by being hurt by the police, most are just scared. Often the hours spent dealing with legal hassles for months after an arrest could have been more productively spent in other political activity, if the arrest was not necessary. Finally, how will the action transform the consciousness of those involved in it? We should aim to engage in activities which establish within us an increased awareness of radical social and political possibilities, broaden our base of skills and leave us confident and empowered. Sometimes actions may have other, less welcome, effects on the psychology of those involved. Unsuccessful actions may leave us feeling disempowered and embittered. Actions which involve a high degree of aggression, confrontation or potential violence may breed hostility and aggression within us which might hamper our ability to work productively in other political circumstances.

By assessing our political activities against these criteria and asking these questions and others like them, I believe that we can ensure that our actions have the greatest chance of achieving our goals and thus demonstrate the superiority of anarchist methods of political action.

Some consequences

Anarchists and the police

The relation of activists and demonstrators to the police is a contentious issue in activist politics in Uganda. This is not the place to give a detailed treatment of the politics of various ways of relating to the police. But a brief consideration of some of the matters discussed in this paper can, I believe, aid discussion of the issue by ruling out a number of possible (bad) answers to the question of how we should treat the police.

The first implication of the politics of direct action with regards to our relations with the police is that, wherever possible, we should disregard the authority of the police. Direct action is action which acknowledges our own power and right to exercise it. To the same extent that we recognise the authority of the police and obey their instructions we are relinquishing our own right and power to act as we would wish to. So it is actually essential to direct action that we do not concede the right of the representatives of the state to restrict our activities. Of course, for tactical reasons, we may have to acknowledge the consequences that may occur when we ignore the law and may even have to negotiate with police in the attempt to minimise these. But it is important that, in doing so, we remember at all times that although they have the means to do so, they have no right to restrict us in our liberty.

The discussion of the necessity of a *political* analysis of the relation between our ends and our means is also crucial here. Any strategy of dealing with the police must take account of their role as a political - and ultimately a class - force. The police force exists to defend the status quo and the interests of the ruling class. Individual police officers may occasionally have reservations about doing so but, when push comes to shove, that is their job. A police officer who doesn't follow the orders of the state is no longer a police officer. As anarchists therefore, the police, not as individuals but as an institution, are our enemies. They exist to defend all that we wish to destroy. In their defence of private property and the state, the police are backed up by the armed force of the state. Behind the police lies the military who, as numerous historical examples illustrate, are ready to step in and restore "order" if the civilian population becomes too unruly.

Once we recognise the police force as a political institution and that its members therefore necessarily stand in a certain political relation to us then a number of things become clear.

Firstly, any attempt to "win over" the police, one by one, is doomed. We can win the cooperation of the police for precisely as long as we fail to genuinely threaten the existing social order. As soon as our activities begin to threaten the interests of the state or the profits of the ruling class the police will move to disperse/arrest/beat us, as sure as night follows day. Of course, individual police may be moved by personal convictions. But as I suggested above, this does not change their *political* relation to us and the necessity of them acting against us. It's their job and if they refuse to do it they will (ultimately) lose it. A gentle cop does not remain a cop for long. Attempts to win over the police may succeed in winning over individuals then, but at the cost of them ceasing to be members of the police force. We will never to able to win the cooperation of the police as a political force when it counts.

Secondly, the fact that the police are ultimately backed by the armed force of the state determines that any attempt to resist or overcome the police through violence will ultimately fail. While the state and ruling class are secure politically and can succeed in maintaining the passivity of the majority of the population, they can defeat any attempt to threaten them through violent means. The state has more repressive force at its command than we can ever hope to muster. This is *not* a pacifist position. We have every *right* to employ force in the attempt to resist the violence of the state. Where a specific act of violence against the state will achieve a particular tactical objective, without provoking crippling repression or a disastrous political backlash, then we would be justified in committing it. But as a political *strategy*, in a non-revolutionary period, attempting to overcome the state through force is doomed.

The beginnings of an anarchist politics with regards to the police force, then, are to be found in a conscious hostility towards them as an institution, tempered by an awareness of the tactical realities of dealing with them. Recognising that the police are our class enemy is itself an important gain in political consciousness. This is not to deny, however, that there may be tactical advantages to not antagonising the police. Indeed, antagonising the police is a sure way to guarantee extra hassles for protesters. So it should never be done unnecessarily. But in our care to avoid creating unnecessary trouble for ourselves we must remember that the source of the confrontation and violence which sometimes occurs around the police is the police themselves in their attempts to protect an unjust - and ultimately itself violent - social order.

Anarchists and the Media

The other important area of politics where my discussion of direct action has significant practical consequences is in protesters' relation to the media. This is an issue which often generates heated discussion within activist groups and which can have a significant effect on their politics. Again consideration of the politics of direct action allows us to go some way towards settling this question.

As I suggested earlier any protest where protester's are acting entirely for the sake of media attention or - as actually often occurs - are even being directed in their activities by the media is not a case of direct action. Such "media stunts" do not themselves seek to address the problems which they highlight and are instead directed to getting other people (usually the government) to solve them. Thus in as far as we are concerned to be practicing direct action we should shun this sort of involvement with the media. We should not "perform" for the cameras or reporters.

Yet, because an important criteria for a successful anarchist action is its success in reaching other people and convincing them of the efficacy of anarchist techniques, we can't really ignore the media. Sadly, the only contact many people have with political events around them is through television or the papers.

From these two facts, I believe, the rudiments of an anarchist stance towards the media emerge. Anarchists should neither ignore the media or perform for it. Instead we should remain true to our own politics and seek to achieve our ends through our own efforts. While we do so we should welcome media attention which might spread news of our activities and so help build an anarchist movement. When we cooperate with the media we should do so without compromising the integrity of our own politics and without distorting either ourselves or our message. Once we compromise our politics for the sake of media attention then we are no longer conveying the success of anarchist methods.

Finally the advantages of direct action should encourage us to make maximum use of our own and community media in attempting to reach out to others. Rather than relying on the capitalist press to communicate our message to the people we should do it ourselves. Community papers, radio and television are themselves examples of direct action in the media.

A final note.

This paper has discussed and advocated the politics of direct action within the broader context of the purpose of an anarchist politics. Direct action has many virtues, not least that it is, in essence, itself anarchy in action. But direct action is not the only form of worthwhile political action. Anarchists should remain open to the possibilities of an entire spectrum of political methods. Any form of politics that involves people and transforms their consciousness in a progressive way may be useful in the struggle to build an anarchist movement and ultimately a revolution to create anarchy. Which particular political movements and methods deserve our support can only been decided within the framework of a well theorised, consciously anarchist, politics. This paper is intended as one small contribution to the project of developing such a framework.

By Simon Kasyate
Kampala



State House yesterday got involved in the case in which the Director of Information at the Movement Secretariat, Mr Ofwono Opondo, was reported to have shoplifted two items from Uchumi Supermarket at Garden City mall in Kampala.

Sources at Garden City revealed that three plain-clothed intelligence officers from State House and one officer from the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) visited the Uchumi premises and took down statements.

"They asked to take the statement of our country manager, the security personnel that handled Ofwono and also took a copy of Ofwono's statement," said a source who preferred anonymity.

However the Presidential Guard Brigade (PGB) has denied any involvement in the case. Lt. Edson Kwesisa, the PGB spokesman, said he was not aware of any officers of the Brigade investigating the matter.

"PGB does not investigate matters that are committed outside our jurisdiction," he said.

Opondo is suspected to have shoplifted a pair of underwear and a Bic pen from the supermarket. He was reportedly fined after recording a statement with the store's security department under a false name.

In a letter to The Monitor yesterday, Opondo said the paper's story, "which hit me a little below the belt, was exaggerated and generally tried to scandalise my names before my family, friends, and right thinking people."

He said he had only forgotten to pay for a Bic pen, but denied that any other items were involved. Opondo added that he neither recorded a statement nor got fined.

But The Monitor saw a copy of the Uchumi statement purportedly signed under the name John Richard Okello, 39. It read in part: "I got these items in shelf but put the pen in pocket and a loose under pant together with my handkerchief. I am sorry for the mishap."

Uchumi management was tightlipped on the presence of the intelligence officers at their premises yesterday and declined to comment on the shoplifting incidence.

"Shoplifting is part of the supermarket business and as far as we are concerned, this is no special case," Uchumi country manager David Njenga said. "Our interest in such a matter is recovery of the goods and payment of the fine which was done, so what is the big deal?"

Sources at the same supermarket said cases of shoplifting are recorded daily. "Some do it deliberately, but others simply forget to pay and then pay the fine and it ends there," said an attendant who declined to be named.

The Spokesman Money Scum

By Lominda Afedraru


The Commercial Court has ordered the Director of Information at the Movement Secretariat, Mr Ofwono Opondo, to pay over Shs6.5 million he owes a money lending firm, Kenroy Investment Ltd.

The Deputy Court Registrar, Mr John Keitirima, made the order recently following Opondo's failure to appear in court to defend a suit the firm filed against him for recovery of the money.

"Summary judgment is hereby entered against the defendant in default of appearance in court as provided for in the law," Keitirima ruled.

Earlier on, Mr Evans Tusiime, the lawyer representing Kenroy, had asked court to enter a judgment against Opondo because he had failed to appear in court to seek leave and defend the case.

Tusiime argued that his office served Opondo with the court summons on February 3 to defend the matter within 10 days but he failed.

He said Opondo refused to sign the consent agreement with them.

Court heard that in 2002, Kenroy Investment Ltd gave Opondo a Shs3 million loan.

The management of the firm reached an agreement with Opondo to pay back the money with in 15 months with an interest of 5 percent per month.

It is alleged that Opondo paid part of the loan leaving a balance that accumulated to Shs6.5 million including unpaid interest.

Court heard that Opondo gave the firm a Barclays Bank cheque that bounced.

African War Criminal

This a part 1 investigation of Yoweri Museveni's "dark Heart"!

Jeffrey Steinberg:

Former President George Bush gave an interview to {Parade} magazine, in which he stated: ``I don’t want to be at the head table anymore. I care about being a good citizen. I don't join boards of directors, and I don't go into business deals. I've had every Opportunity to join in putting a petrochemical plant in Kuwait, a chance to make money. I haven't done it. The way I make a living is giving speeches. Get paid a lot of money for giving a speech. No conflict of interest.'' This statement was an outright lie; a lie that Sir George Bush arranged to appear in the pages of a weekly newspaper insert that reaches millions of households in every part of the United States. George Bush does, indeed, have a very important foreign corporate affiliation: In May 1995, the Canada-based Barrick Gold Corp. created an international advisory board around the personal leadership of Bush, and Bush was designated ``honorary senior adviser'' to that board--a legal fiction to disguise the former President's active role as chief business developer for the company. What, then, is Barrick Gold Corp.?

- The destruction of Africa -

It is understandable that Bush did not wish to advertise his ties to Barrick. The company is not only an important corporate element of the London-cantered Club of the Isles and the British global raw materials cartel—a British link that might prove embarrassing to Sir George, at a point when Anglo-American relations remain at a low point, and when British propaganda organs are leading an all-out assault upon the U.S. Presidency. But, Barrick, along with the South Africa-based Anglo American Corp., is engaged in a strategic metals grab in Central Africa, which is being abetted by the greatest genocide per capita In modern times. From April 1993, when Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, on behalf of London, launched the genocide of the Hutu majority in Rwanda, through to the ongoing invasion by the same Museveni-led forces in eastern Zaire, Central Africa and the Horn of Africa have been turned into a killing field. Local, British-sponsored ``counter gangs'' have been unleashed to depopulate a region that possesses the world's richest strain of precious metal deposits, while a string of Club of the Isles metals cartels, including Barrick, moves in for the kill.

As you will read below, the invasion of eastern Zaire, by the combined armies of Rwanda and Uganda, which began in September 1996, coincided with the Barrick and Anglo American metal grabs in the very same area. The net result of the invasion, and the simultaneous launching of an ``internal'' rebellion by long-time British provocateur Laurent Kabila, was the depopulating of a string of camps that were holding Rwandan Hutu refugees. Thousands of those refugees were killed in the fighting between the British-backed invaders and French-supported Hutu guerrillas; at least another quarter of a million refugees were driven into the wilderness, to face death by disease and starvation; and another half a million fled back across the border into Rwanda, to face likely extermination at the hands of the Tutsi. {EIR} first exposed this policy of genocide on Aug. 19. 1994, in a cover story titled ``The British Hand
Behind the Horror in Rwanda.'' Then, on Oct. 28, 1994, in a {Special Report} titled ``The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,'' we revealed the existence of the secretive Club of the Isles, the House of Windsor-led oligarchic institution cantered upon a tightly knit Alliance of European princely families, London-based financial and insurance houses, and food and raw materials cartels. The Club of the Isles in turn deploys the resources of the global environmentalist movement, headed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund), and its funding arm, the 1001 Club, as a Propaganda and paramilitary arm of their one-world ``New Dark Age'' agenda. Under the WWF umbrella, the British Crown has built up a string of strategically located nature preserves and national parks, which serve as staging grounds for cross-border incursions, as training grounds for terrorist gangs, and as command posts for British ``former'' SAS commandos to direct the killings in every part of sub-Saharan Africa. As we document below, in joining the advisory board to Barrick Gold, and throwing his political clout into facilitating Barrick's worldwide strategic metals grab, George Bush, has cast his lot with a collection of very unsavoury characters, including Barrick's chairman, Peter Munk, and with the entire Canadian Bronfman gang. Barrick and the South African Oppenheimer family's Anglo American Corp. are at the cutting edge of a Club of the Isles drive to recolonize a severely depopulated African continent, by busting up the post-colonial nation-states, beginning with Zaire; and then creating privately owned micro-states, in which what is left of the indigenous population is impressed into slavery. The novelist Joseph Conrad described these conditions graphically in his 1899 book {Heart of Darkness}. Unless
the oligarchy is stopped, Bush and his friends intend to re impose those conditions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

British-backed the mining companies are stealing Zaire's patrimony

by Richard Freeman

When the forces of Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni overran eastern Zaire in October 1996, under the guidance of Baroness Lynda Chalker, the head of Britain's Overseas Development Office, this military phase was the culmination of an invasion of Zaire which had been ongoing for the past three years: the theft of Zaire's wealth and patrimony. Zaire, as a nation, is being dismembered. Its various energy-rich provinces, including Shaba and Kivu, are being encouraged to form separate micro-states. Already, because of the economic dislocation
forced on Zaire over the past seven years, most of the provinces act semi-autonomously from the central government; for example, Shaba province issues its own currency. In the following report, we document some of the most important features of this genocidal looting operation.
On Sept. 21, 1996, a tiny Toronto, Canada-based raw materials company, Banro Resources Corp., obtained the concession to mine gold in Zaire's central-east province of Kivu. The rich concession starts in the town of Bukavu, and extends southward. Bukavu was the site of one of the major Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire, which was teeming with half-starved women and children. Banro needed this site cleared of people to begin its mining operations; the clearing started with Uganda's invasion of Zaire in mid-October. Banro appears to be a cut-out for the Anglo American Corporation, which is the world's biggest mining company, and a key cog in the international oligarchy's Club of the Isles raw materials cartel. In August 1996, Toronto-based Barrick Gold obtained a gold mining concession in Zaire's northeast province, Haut
Zaire, which reportedly covers 83,000 square kilometres. The Hollinger Corp.-allied Barrick is chaired by Peter Munk, and its strategy is shaped by the international intelligence network of former U.S. President George Bush, who is honorary senior adviser to its international
advisory board. Also during 1996, the tiny Vancouver-based raw materials company Consolidated Eurocan, headed by international wheeler-dealer Adolf Lundin, began work on
exploiting the Tenke-Fungurume copper-cobalt mines in Zaire's southernmost Shaba province, near the border with Zambia, which has the richest cobalt reserves in the world. Cobalt is a strategic metal, crucial in forming alloys with steel and other metals, giving them great strength and heat resistance. Some 40% of cobalt's use is in aircraft gas turbine engines, and 10% is in magnetic alloys. Consolidated Eurocan is purchasing the mining property in phases, for a quarter of a billion dollars, which is a ``song,'' for a property that could yield many tens
of billions of dollars in revenues. Consolidated Eurocan is in a joint venture in this deal with Anglo American. Simultaneously, over the past 18 months, the American-based, Canadian-run American Mineral Fields, of former DeBeers Diamond executive Jean-Raymond Boulle, has obtained the Kipushi zinc mines in Shaba province, one of the largest sources of zinc in the world; the Vancouver- and Cayman Islands-based Panorama International has obtained significant cobalt holdings in Shaba province; and, Zaire's diamond company, MIBA (Zaire is one of the three largest diamond producers in the world), has been thrown open to bidding and takeover by foreign firms.

- The `Second Great Scramble' -

When Maj. Gen. Paul Kagame, the Rwandan defence minister, recently called for a new Berlin Conference to set new borders for African states--referring to the 1884-85 Berlin Conference of the imperialist powers which ratified the national borders that are now in effect in Africa--he had in mind the fragmentation of Zaire into mini-states as a paradigm for all of Africa. The first Berlin Conference occurred during what was called the ``Great Scramble,'' during the 1880s and 1890s. Imperialist Britain and France led the way, and were joined by Belgium, Italy, and Germany, in grabbing up the raw material wealth of Africa. The Berlin Conference codified the Congo, which included present-day Zaire, as the personal property of Belgium's King Leopold II.
Leopold II worked the Congo like a plantation, with brutal methods. For example, Congolese Africans who did not meet their production quotas had their arms amputated. This time around, the British are making a move to push the Belgians and French entirely out of Central
Africa, and, at the same time, they don't want to have the expense of running a nation-state, an institution that they don't like anyway. Rather, they deploy the companies of their global raw materials cartel to buy up sections of a country. They keep the people needed to run the mining
and related enterprises alive at subsistence levels, and the rest of the population is treated as useless eaters, left to starve or be butchered. Driving the British actions this time, is another
``Great Scramble.'' The international financier oligarchy, grouped around the House of Windsor, knows that the world financial bubble--which they themselves created--cannot be sustained, and will burst. They are getting out of paper financial instruments and into hard commodities: precious metals, such as gold; strategic metals, such as cobalt and tantalum; base metals, such as copper and zinc; energy supplies; and increasingly scarce food supplies. They want to own the physical assets, or, better still, own the mine production facility for these assets. As the price of the hard commodity asset goes up, the oligarchy makes super-profits. At the same time, they have finger-tip control over the minerals, food stuffs, and so on upon which human life depends. They plan to exercise a food- and raw materials-control dictatorship
in a post-collapse world. The international oligarchy already owns extensive raw materials holdings. But they now seek to obtain those holdings in Africa, Ibero-America, and Asia, which they don't control. Mineral-rich Zaire is in their target sights. Zaire's mineral belt is located in the eastern and southern part of the country (see {{Figure 1}}). It is a crystalline belt that runs alongside the Great Rift, a geological fault running from the Jordan River Valley in the Middle East, south through the Gulf of Aqaba, through Central Africa (where Zaire is located), down to southern Africa.

- IMF, World Bank, financiers cut off credit -

Most of Zaire's raw materials holdings are owned by the state, and President Mobutu Sese Seko has resisted selling them to foreigners. A seven-year campaign, including a total credit and aid cut-off of Zaire, has been waged to force Mobutu to give in. At the centre of the campaign has been the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the international banks, which are run by the same oligarchic forces that run the global raw materials cartel. On June 29, 1960, Zaire obtained its independence from Belgium, although, as with many African countries, it was only a partial independence, because the countries were kept in economic backwardness. In the case of Zaire, in 1961, its first elected President, Patrice Lumumba, was assassinated. Mobutu, who had been an Army general, was made President in 1965. In 1967, he declared that all the minerals in Zaire's subsoil belonged to Zaire, and nationalized the foreign mining holdings, which meant principally Belgium's two all-powerful companies, Union Miniere and Societe Generale. According to one source, ``The Belgians were so angry at Zaire that they took with them all their records and plans needed to mine.'' Despite difficulties, and while never enjoying true economic developments that would have brought a decent standard of living to Zaire's now 40 million people, Zaire nonetheless was able to harness and mine some of its immense raw materials wealth. A sample of what Zaire accomplished can be gleaned from the report of the {Minerals Yearbook}, published by the Bureau of the Mines of the U.S. Department of Interior (Vol. III). In 1988, among the world's raw materials mining countries, Zaire held the following rank, for the following commodities:

Cobalt -- world's largest producer and exporter Diamonds -- 2nd in the world Copper -- 5th in the world Tin -- 12th in the world Zinc -- 20th in the world

Zaire also mined other commodities, such as barite, boron, magnesium, and gold. Because of historical ties, Zaire shipped a good amount of these goods to Belgium. In the 1960s, in order to run its mining operations, Zaire created the state-owned La Generale des Carrieres et des Mines du Zaire, which is known by its acronym, Gecamines. One of its other important state owned companies was based in Kivu province, the Societe Miniere et Industrielle de Kivu, known by its acronym Sominki. When Belgium granted Zaire independence, it bequeathed to Zaire about $5 billion in debt, which Belgium had run up. By the late 1980s, Zaire's debt stood at about $8 billion--a large debt for a small economy based on raw materials and food, but no manufacturing. Zaire got further and further behind on its debt payments, and finally defaulted on most of it in the early 1990s. This was the excuse that the banks wanted. They demanded that Zaire pay the debt, but also, joined by the World Bank and others, demanded that Zaire ``democratize'' its government and, especially, privatize its state-owned raw materials mining concerns. Privatization had three components: slashing the social services provided to miners by law, laying off half the workforce at Gecamines, and selling more than half of the different properties of Gecamines and Sominki to foreign investors. Secessionist movements were started in Shaba province; the net effect would be to dismantle the Zairean state.

The banks organized an international credit cut-off, meaning that Zaire could not get the money to purchase mining machinery, spare parts, and other essential imports. The West had always denied Zaire technology transfer, as long as the raw materials wealth was primarily in Zairean hands. Around 1993, the World Bank and IMF declared a credit cut-off to Zaire. A senior source at the U.S. Geological Survey reported on Nov. 27, 1996, that the World Bank and its loan guarantee agency, the Multi-Lateral Investment Guarantee Corporation (MIGA), recommended to Zaire that it would not get new money until it agreed to ``modernize,'' that is, privatize, its mining operations, by selling off sections of state holdings. At about the same time, the governments of Belgium, France, and the United States cut off all official government aid to Zaire. Currency warfare was unleashed in 1990, and has continued to this day. At one point, the Zairean currency, the zaire, depreciated from a few new zaires to the dollar, to 3,250 to the dollar. This devaluation meant that Zaire earned almost nothing for its foreign exports. As the U.S. Geological Survey source explained, ``The economy went down the tubes. Mining production today is 10% of what it was in the late 1980s. Because of the economic dislocation, most of the provinces are operating on their own.'' Indeed, between 1987 and 1993, cobalt production fell 82%, and copper production fell 90%. As a result, exports of minerals and metals, which accounted for three-quarters of Zaire's foreign exchange earnings, dried up.

Zaire's ability to service the debt, should it choose to do so, disappeared. The conditions of life for the population worsened, in a country in which living conditions were already bad. In 1990, only 39% of Zaireans had access to safe drinking water. Infrastructure is virtually nonexistent. In 1994, Zaire's infant mortality rate was 111 deaths per 1,000 live births, i.e., an 11% infant death rate, more than 13 times that in the United States. In 1992, the last year for which figures were available, 335,000 Zairean children under the age of five died. In 1994, life expectancy in Zaire was 53 years, lower than in 1990. Under this assault, President Mobutu opened the door to privatizing Zaire's patrimony, although still not at a rate fast enough to satisfy the World Bank vultures.

- The corporate invasion -

At the heart of the invasion of Zaire's mining properties, are the Canadian mining companies and the Oppenheimer family-run Anglo American Corp., which often takes the Canadian companies under its wing in joint ventures. The Canadian mining companies started an invasion of Zaire in 1994, which reached a flood tide in 1996. This was the opening shot of the ``Second Great Scramble.'' The Canadian mining companies represent forward beachheads for the Commonwealth-cantered British Empire (see {EIR Special Report,} May 24, 1996, ``The Sun Never Sets on the New British Empire''). Behind the companies, lurks the shadowy presence of the Oppenheimer family's Anglo American Corp., the linchpin of the Club of the Isles' raw materials cartelization strategy. We look at three examples. First, the takeover of Sominki, in Kivu province, by Toronto-based Banro Resource Corp. Zaire has three eastern provinces: Haut Zaire, in the northeast; Kivu, in the centre-east; and Shaba (formerly Katanga), in the southeast. Kivu province is second in richness of raw materials, after Shaba. The leading mining concern in Kivu is the Societe Miniere et Industrielle de Kivu, or Sominki. Sominki was formed in 1976 as an amalgamation of nine companies that had been operating in Kivu province since the early 1900s. It operates 47 mining concessions, encompassing an area of 10,271 square kilometres. In 1996, Banro Corp. of Toronto bought 36% of Sominki, raising some of its money for the purchase by floating shares in Singapore. Banro was previously a small financial institution, with little apparent aptitude for mining.

The impression is that it was reconfigured as a company for the special purpose of this purchase, perhaps acting as a front for someone. (Who that someone is, will become clear.) Another large chunk of Sominki was bought by the Belgium-based company Mines D'or du Zaire, or MDDZ. Owning 60% of MDDZ is Cluff Mining Co. of London, and controlling 65% of Cluff is Anglo American Corp., the world's largest mining company and a key component of the Club of the Isles. On Sept. 21, 1996, Banro and MDDZ announced their merger, with Banro selling its shares to MDDZ. The new Banro-MDDZ company consolidated a 72% stake in Sominki, while the government of Zaire holds 28%. The Banro-MDDZ entity has announced that it plans to acquire that 28% from the government. The overall enterprise is essentially a vehicle for Anglo American. According to various Banro corporate reports and news releases, Banro was anxious to get its mining operations started as quickly as possible. However, the Sominki mining zone that Banro acquired started in the town of Bukavu, the centre for the major camp for Rwandan refugees who had fled to Zaire, with nearly a million people.

To get mining started, the entire zone would require clearing. Suddenly, as Uganda launched its invasion of eastern Zaire, near Bukavu, in mid-October, there was firing on the Bukavu refugee camp, supposedly against ``Hutu rebels'' who were hiding there. The military attack on the camp forced hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee Kivu province, back to Rwanda. But, who did the firing? While a clear answer is not forthcoming, it may have involved portions of the newly acquired Sominki apparatus itself. For, in acquiring Sominki, Banro did not just acquire a company; it acquired the effective governmental structure of the entire Kivu province. According to a Banro corporate press release, ``Sominki owns an extensive infrastructure which includes repair shops, machine shops, electrical shops and a large fleet of Land Rover vehicles. In addition, it operates six hydroelectric sites, a number of air strips, and 1,000 kilometres of roads. Sominki is virtually self-sufficient. The company has about 5,000 employees.'' The release added, ``In fact, Sominki is {the de facto government providing all the essential services for the Kivu Province}'' (emphasis added).

Banro/Anglo American effectively stole a good chunk of the government of Kivu. This is the British model for the Second Great Scramble. As a mining company, Sominki has its own explosives supplies and access to weapons, i.e., it has the capability to carry out such an attack, or is in a commanding position to influence, those who fired on the refugee camps. The second example, is that of American Mineral Fields (AMF), which is based in Hope, Arkansas, but run from Canada. AMF has acquired from Gecamines the Kipushi copper-zinc mine, one of the world's premier copper-zinc mines, located in Shaba province (copper and zinc are often mined together). The Belgians developed Kipushi and began mining in 1925. At its peak in 1988, the Kipushi mine produced 143,000 tons of zinc, and 43,000 tons of copper. Its total known and probable reserves stand at 22.6 million tons, grading 2.1% copper and 13.8% zinc. AMF is the brainchild of its owner, Jean-Raymond Boulle, a former executive for DeBeer's Diamonds. In turn, AMF signed an agreement with Anglo American, which allows Anglo American to invest up to $100 million in any AMF venture in Shaba province, representing up to a 50% equity stake in the venture, including the Kipushi mine. Once again, ubiquitous Anglo American shows up. The third example, is that of tiny Consolidated Eurocan of Vancouver. In 1996, Eurocan finalized a deal that will allow it to purchase from the state mining company Gecamines, a 55% interest in the Tenke-Fungurume copper-cobalt deposits. Eurocan will pay a quarter of a billion dollars over 72 months for its stake, but the stake is worth potentially tens of billions of dollars in revenues.

According to a Eurocan spokesman on Dec. 18, Tenke-Fungurume, located in Shaba province, represents the largest operating cobalt reserves in the world. It has geological reserves of 222 million tons of copper and cobalt, with potential reserves of 1 billion tons. Consolidated Eurocan is owned and run by Canadian wheeler-dealer Adolf Lundin. One U.S. mining source reported, ``There is no way that Eurocan can develop the mines on its own. It doesn't have the capabilities. It will have to sell off shares to established mining companies, most likely Iskor and Gencor, to work the properties.'' Iskor and Gencor are both South African companies, and part of the British raw materials cartel. Thus, these Canadian companies, in some cases stalking horses for Anglo American, are gobbling up Zaire's gold, copper, zinc, and cobalt reserves. Add to this, the Barrick Gold purchase of a huge concession in Haut Zaire, and the fact that there is now discussion of opening up the major government-owned diamond mining company, Societe Miniere de Bakwanga (MIBA), to foreign investors. MIBA accounts for 40% of Zaire's official diamond exports. The remaining 60% are developed by artisanal miners, i.e., prospectors, who then sell the gems to ``Israeli diamond buyers and to [international gem dealer] Maurice Templesman,'' according to a knowledgeable source. The Belgian-born Tempelsman, who squired around Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis before she died, is an international tycoon. He is former president of the U.S. Africa Society, a group that is influential in the shaping of U.S. government Africa policy.

Encampment is NRM, LRA 11th point programme, commandment
By Samuel Olara
The atrocious conditions of the camps have been well documented. However, little has been discussed in the media about the origin, and if any, the legal instruments governing the creation of these dreaded concentration camps. There is no article that stipulates the declaration of camps in the NRM ten-point programme, the ideological thinking behind the Luwero war fought between NRA and UNLA (1981-1986).

Similarly, in the Ten Commandments that the LRA allegedly uses as an ideology to guide their brutal struggle against the Museveni administration, nowhere is the use of encampment articulated. Inspite of this, both parties are united by the 11th point Programme and Commandment, respectively, which they have jointly helped conceive, and implement.


CASH FOR ARMS: Lt. Gen. Salim Saleh
Having failed to defeat the LRA by conventional military attack by 1996, the NRM/NRA/UPDF devised the 11th point programme to "deny the LRA access to both food and human resources" using encampment, to defeat the so-called "mystical army". Secondly, it is widely believed that the 11th point programme was advocated by the NRM as a means to punish, emasculate and humiliate a recalcitrant population, particularly when after the 1996 presidential election President Museveni still found the people of the north to be "recalcitrant, unrepentant, and unyielding."

In October 1996 after the May Presidential elections, President Museveni's Advisor on Political Affairs, Major Kakooza Mutale, deployed in Gulu; and set in motion the recruitment and deployment of the Popular Intelligence Network (PIN); whilst addressing rallies in which people were told that a big military confrontation with Sudan was imminent.

Following Mutale's tour, the UPDF started forcefully removing people from their homes, enforced in some instances by the shelling of villages in Pabbo, Opit, Anaka, Cwero, Unyama, Awach, KocGoma, Amuru and Anaka, to mention but a few. The aim was to drive people out of their homes and into concentration camps. The shelling was supported with aerial bombardment. However, the NRM government has consistently stated that the UPDF only shelled rural areas where it suspected that the LRA was present.

To enforce this 11th Point Programme, in July 1996, important changes were made in the high level of military command in Gulu. The 4th Division Commander based in Gulu Brigadier Chef Ali (RIP), was transferred and replaced by Lt. Col. James Kazini, a first cousin to the First Lady. To politically sooth the negative impacts of the implementation of this programme, President Museveni's younger brother, military-cum politician, Lt. Gen. Salim Saleh was also sent to Gulu as Presidential Advisor on Military Affairs. Both commanders are known for their die-hard views on implementing the "military solution" based on the assumption that the Acholi supported the rebels; even though rebels were killing Acholi daily.

Saleh's politico-military strategy was to use the Acholi population to provoke the LRA through policies such as the creation of Acholi paramilitary youth brigades to fight LRA or groups for economic production through his Divinity Union Ltd.

These policies drew the local population directly into the conflict between NRM/NRA/UPDF and rebel LRA, and made the local population sitting targets for the LRA.

One unforgettable incident took place on the road between Parabongo and Pabbo where some civilians unearthed an LRA arms cache and handed it to the area Commander Salim Saleh, who insisted on giving them cash. In reprisal, the LRA chopped off 80 heads of the local population and lined them along the road, as a deterrent. They then ordered the local people to vacate the countryside, in what has become their 11th Commandment; in so doing, they have helped NRM/UPDF implement its 11th Point Programme of Encampment of Acholi.

Almost immediately after the move to drive people out of their villages, members of the Acholi Parliamentary Group sought audience with then Minister of State for Defence Amama Mbabazi, and expressed concern about the government and UPDF's unconstitutional conduct. According to the ARLPI report "Let my people go"; the Minister's response was: "Since the people in Acholi supported the rebels, the Army had no choice but to move people away from their villages in order to deny the rebels food and information". He further noted that he "did not believe that the reported atrocities committed by soldiers were true." Mbabazi later repeated the same statements to a delegation from the EU, who had visited Gulu and had in fact, voiced the same concerns.

The decision to create camps was officially announced by President Museveni on the 27th September 1996 to members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Office of the President and Foreign Affairs. Former Member of Parliament (MP) for Chua Constituency, Livingstone John Okello Okello, recalls that on that date the MPs from the North raised serious objections about the plan to move the population of Acholiland into camps, and that at the end of the meeting the President agreed to consult with the military saying that he would let them know about his decision, something which never took place.
Officially the UPDF denies that it ever used force to make people move away from their villages. According to the then Army Public Relations Officer, Lt. Khelil Magara (RIP), "People came voluntarily to the camps … nearer to UPDF detachments … since it is not possible to dispatch a soldier at every homestead in Acholi." (New Vision 6th July 2001).

However, the evidence shows that this was a deliberate war policy. Maj. Gen. Salim Saleh, in charge of military operations in Gulu, at that time, indicated one year after the move took place that the Army acted alone in creating camps because it "suspected bureaucracy and politicking over the issue".(The Monitor, 26 October 1997).
In Pabbo, people quoted former Deputy 4th Division Commander Lt. Col Lakara as saying in an address at the trading centre, that "all rural areas should be left free for the UPDF to finish the rebels in a matter of few months".

The LRA position vis-à-vis the UPDF/NRM was to use the civilians as a tool in their campaign. Observers believe that in pursuit of their objective the LRA devised the 11th Commandment, one that stipulates the assault on the civilian population. These brutalities on the civilians played well into the NRM's 11th Point Programme and enabled the UPDF implement a deliberate non-intervention policy against LRA attacks, as a strategy to force the people into camps.

As a result, between the 7th and 12th January 1997, LRA rebels allegedly murdered more than 412 men, women and children in Lokung, Padibe and Palabek, in Kitgum District; one of many gruesome murders in Acholi. This triggered the first wave of flights to the so-called military detaches which were deliberately erected far away from the local villages and trading centres.

Most political observers agree that this 11th NRM point programme, which was in line with the LRA's 11th Commandment, brought about the widely known "non-intervention" policy from the UPDF, to drive out those reluctant to leave their villages. In Kitgum for instance, when non-intervention was skillfully adopted, the acting Brigade Commander of the 503 Brigade based in Pajimu barracks, Lt. Col. Edson Muzoora (now exiled) was on "official leave."

Over time, this policy of encampment began to fall apart, as people dared to return to their villages. But the UPDF then came up with the 48 hour ultimatum on the 4th October 2002, ordering people back into the concentration camps.

Of course, both the LRA and the government have been told many times over that their IDP policies are counter productive. First, the LRA cannot use the camps as justification for the continuation of the war since it was partly responsible for creating the camps. Secondly, the M7 regime can no longer absolve itself of the responsibility of creating the camps. Thirdly, both sides can no longer continue to force people to live in the camps indefinitely since it is clear that as a military tool, the concentration camps have failed to bring victory to either side of the conflict. Finally, it is high time that all Ugandans and the international community rejected any attempt by either the government or the LRA to continue to hold the people in the camps anymore.

As the Acholi Religious Leaders have aptly put it in their pastoral letter, will NRM and LRA"Let my People Go"?


The writer is a human rights advocate resident in the UK. olarasamuel@hotmail.com

Silent Voices:

The Ugandan army has moved hundreds of thousands of civilians against their will into “protected villages” that offer little security and hardly any assistance, and has victimized ordinary people with brutal raids against suspected LRA militants.

While the death toll from direct violence reaches into the tens of thousands, chronic food and water shortages in the 200 makeshift settlements throughout the north have also exacted a heavy price. In November 2004 alone, MSF recorded staggering death rates in six camps in Lira and Pader districts, with many dying from preventable diseases like malaria, respiratory disease, and diarrhea. Recent peace overtures from both the LRA and the government have not led to a noticeable improvement of the situation for people living in deplorable conditions and in constant fear. GULU district councillors have accused UPDF soldiers of killing civilians in displaced people's camps and in the villages.


The LC5 councillor for Lalogi sub-county, Ben Acellam, said the UPDF shot dead three women in the sub-county, adding that two of them had children, one aged seven months and another aged two.


He said the UPDF 4th division commander, Col. Nathan Mugisha, had promised to take action against the killers but so far nothing seemed to have been done.

"UPDF soldiers are arresting and killing civilians in the villages on the allegations that they are rebel collaborators," he said during a meeting at Gulu district council hall on Tuesday.


Richard Oweka Kagwa, without giving the number of civilians arrested and killed by the UPDF, said some civilians were killed by the army in Awach and Cwero villages in Aswa county.

The councillor for Koch Goma sub-county, Tom Ocitti, said five soldiers and two civilians died when the UPDF opened gunfire against each other due to poor coordination.


ANOTHER DARFUR?

U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland compared the situation to the well-publicised problems in Sudan's Darfur region.

"If they go out (of camps), they are killed as much, or raped as much or worse as in Darfur, by the Lord's Resistance Army and others," Egeland said in a recent statement.


Museveni has rejected the comparison, but that hasn’t stopped aid workers continuing to make it.

“One hundred percent of the population is affected by this kind of crisis -- it’s huge,” Gael Griette, an expert covering Uganda for the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), told AlertNet.

Griette said that the entire rural population of Acholiland was in displacement camps.

“People have been cut off from their livelihoods, cut off from everything. They are in camps with nothing, and insecurity is very high,” he said.

“In terms of magnitude and acuteness we can compare what is going on in Northern Uganda to Darfur.

“What is very different between the two crises is the way it is addressed in terms of funding, humanitarian agencies being present in the field, and on top of all it is very different in the way it is being covered in the media.”

Griette said one of the reasons northern Uganda did not get much media coverage was because the LRA had been terrorising the local population for so long that the crisis was seen as old news.


“But this is short-sighted because the crisis has tripled in terms of the number of people affected and multiplied by five or six in terms of acuteness in the past two years -- more or less the same time as the Darfur crisis,” he said.