Group items tagged

development finance siphoned from Africa, whether through the extractive industries, or land grabs, are unlikely to be revealed as the IMF scrapped mandatory information exchange. Global watchdogs, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) remained beholden to high-income nations as a ‘subsidiary’ unit in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Meanwhile, the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB), founded and finance by the ‘big four’ accounting firms – maintaining units in secrecy jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands – prefers multinationals to self-regulate trade via arms length transfer. What this effectively does is enable multinationals, conducting 60 per cent of global trade within rather than between corporations, to determine the future of entire continents such as Africa, where primary commodities – extracted by corporations, account for 80 per cent of exports.

Studies by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) revealed, ‘Many countries do not have sufficient mechanisms to protect local rights and take account of local interests, livelihoods, and welfare. Moreover, local communities are rarely adequately informed about the land concessions that are made to private companies. Insecure local land rights, inaccessible registration procedures, vaguely defined productive use requirements, legislative gaps, and other factors all too often undermine the position of local people vis-à-vis international actors.’[1]

South Africa endorsed the comparative advantage development model as part of its home-grown structural adjustment programme, GEAR (Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy). As a consequence of this and other flanking policies, the quality of the composition of its exports has been primitivised and it is more commodity dependent than it was during Apartheid.

Third, it is unclear why Mbeki views the US AFRICOM as important. There is already a multilateral body legally charged with maintaining peace and security – the United Nations. The castration of the UN Security Council by the US invention of the concept of pre-emptive war and its invasion of Iraq serves only to weaken the thrust of Mbeki’s case. Not to argue for Africa‘s rights, at the very least, under settled international law is a glaring and pandering omission.

Recently the South African Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu told Parliament that she wanted the defence force to provide a rite of passage for young people..."l

No doubt there are many weary and heavy hearted mothers and fathers across the country that would perceive this as the answer in dealing with their wilfully delinquent and errant adolescents, more out of desperation in the hope that some stern discipline from figures of authority will wise them up to the requirements of life.

There are many things that as citizens we do need, and there are many things that the Minister of War and the ANC should be doing for this country, but they have chosen not to – instead they hang yourself on the view that “...We can do that for this country, because that is the one thing we need...” . Sure! You do need to co-opt some of the youth into the army to protect you and your ilk against the rest of the youth and all the workers who take to the streets in righteous indignation to protest against your inept overnment of crony capitalism.

America's record is clear - it simply wants control of land (food), water, minerals and energy resources for its own benefit, plus cheap labour. Africom is there to 'command' and prop up servile local elites who will allow American multinationals to take whatever they want. Sadly many of our leaders already eagerly follow the US example of plunder for personal profit and will be happy to get a small personal share of the spoils while their people are impoverished.

An identification with British imperialism means that a critique of Empire can be felt as an attack on an aspect of one’s self. To condemn the Empire is equated with attacking the nation, or it is read as a pious attempt to make people feel guilty for their past. The backlash from the right-wind media against the academics critiquing Biggar’s flawed project reveals this sensitivity operating in the public sphere. Jo Johnson’s criticism of safe spaces can also be considered in this light. The implication that minority groups may require additional security to participate in higher education is read as an attack on (implicitly) white students’ right to express themselves.

I’d argue that British universities are already safe spaces for colonial apologists. There is a popular reluctance to confront the Empire as a white supremacist force that irrevocably disrupted the historical trajectories of the societies that it subjugated. And there is also a reluctance to take the necessary steps to make universities safe for students of colour. In this context the furore about Biggar’s project and Johnson’s policies should not be considered debates about freedom of speech; they are battles over the decolonization of universities.