Africa

Africa: Continent at the Crossroads

Online Features Editor Bryan Knight reports on the recent political developments in Africa and assesses the threats faced by the continent.

Sep 2, 2019 – by Bryan Knight

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced an ambitious initiative that would revamp an ancient trade network that connected the Eastern world with the West. This ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, as it is commonly referred to, was pitched as an investment project to develop and make way for China’s inter-continental trade. However, President Xi’s initiative has garnered particular interest from the West due to the rapid speed at which China has made its presence felt in Africa. China has funnelled billions of dollars in loans to fund infrastructural programs throughout the continent. Last year at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, Africa was promised an extra $60 billion through Chinese investments and loans.

countries such as Zambia and Djibouti have seen a vast rise in their national debt and face the possibility of defaulting on their loans

These high-value loans are offered despite there being a high risk of defaulting. Many African nations, however, have gratefully accepted these loans because China, unlike many international organisations, seems less concerned about the internal politics, credit history or human rights record of the borrowers. China’s loans have largely been used to fund infrastructural projects, such as the Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway which links the Nairobi capital to the coast of Mombasa. Since these projects have mainly been built and administered by Chinese-owned companies, they are seen as highly lucrative. However, countries such as Zambia and Djibouti have seen a vast rise in their national debt and face the possibility of defaulting on their loans. China’s willingness to offer such high-risk loans has attracted much scepticism.

Financial experts and commentators alike have accused China of orchestrating a neo-colonial mission through ‘debt-trap diplomacy’. Last year, Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton criticised China for using “bribes [and] opaque agreements” to politically entrap African nations. Bolton’s remarks, however, seem more rooted in anger at China, for undermining US interests in Africa, than a genuine concern for the continent.

President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China and President Cyril Ramaphosa. Photo Credit: South African Government

American influence in Africa had been in slow decline for almost two decades and has culminated in China dethroning the US as the continent’s largest investor in 2009. In December 2018, Bolton outlined the Trump administration’s Africa strategy which aimed to rival the investments made by China, Russia and Europe. He unveiled a new $50 million ‘Prosper Africa’ initiative which signifies a move away from US foreign aid to a mutually beneficial infrastructural and industrial investment. America’s new strategy, however, seems merely a drop in the ocean compared with China’s investments in the continent. The US is now faced with the task of atoning for its years of neglect of Africa. This is made increasingly difficult by the pressures of managing the series of racist remarks and scandals caused by the incumbent President.

What is apparent, however, is that China is extending its borders of influence as its ongoing trade dispute with the Trump administration continues. In 2007, a resolution was tabled by the UN General Assembly to condemn human rights abuses committed by the North Korean leader. Whilst the US-backed motion to denounce North Korea successfully passed, many were surprised to see that the majority of African nations either voted with China, abstained or were absent from the vote. This was viewed as an early sign of China’s increased power on the international scene.

President Xi’s self-titled ‘major-country diplomacy’ should be seen less as a new venture, than a renewed attempt to obtain influence in Africa. Chinese interest in the continent goes as far back as the days of Zhou Enlai, the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China. During the 1960s, Premier Enlai and his senior administrative staff set the foundations for diplomatic relationships between China and much of the newly independent Global South. The Chinese leader was aware of the anti-colonial wave spreading through Africa and knew that to gain leverage, he needed to create an anti-imperial coalition with the new nation states. After setting the principles for fair diplomacy and extensively touring Africa, Premier Enlai had established alliances between the two continents that would prove beneficial for the next fifty years.

The terms set in China’s contracts with its African partners remain shrouded in secrecy

Sino-African relations have been deemed extremely profitable for the Eastern superpower; however, Chinese vulnerabilities have begun to emerge. Trade tensions with the US have proved disastrous for the Chinese economy which has had a slowdown in growth. In 2018, the Chinese stock market was recorded as having had the worst performance and, consequently, saw a loss of approximately $2.3 trillion. As the Chinese economy experiences economic turbulence, it is feared that funding for African projects will significantly decrease and loans may be recalled. The terms set in China’s contracts with its African partners remain shrouded in secrecy, thus preventing the public from knowing which national resources have been used as collateral; this makes it almost impossible fully assess the damage that may be caused as a result of loan default.

The hypocrisy of the international community is not lost on anyone, as a new ‘scramble for Africa’ is taking place from all corners of the globe. One nation salivating at the thought of carving out influence in Africa is Russia. The annexation of Crimea has proven detrimental to Russia’s relationship with the Western world and, consequently, it is being forced to seek alliances further afield. The previously overlooked African continent not only offers markets and raw materials, but also allows Russia to undermine US and French influence. The difference between Russia’s Africa ambition versus the Chinese equivalent, is the complexity of the Kremlin’s plan and Putin’s denial of direct involvement.

In June, leaked Russian documents were published by the Dossier Centre, which seeks to uncover the criminal activity of the Kremlin. The documents exposed Russia’s mission to gain influence throughout Africa. The leading figure behind these efforts is Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman previously indicted for meddling in the 2016 US elections. Prigozhin, a Putin ally, is alleged to be using his private military company, The Wagner group, to carve out pockets of influence for the Kremlin. Russia’s Africa policy is being enacted through a host of methods such as military cooperation and training, utilisation of state-owned media, and the manipulation of loyal politicians. Whilst Russia maintains a high presence in Sudan and Madagascar, the Central African Republic (CAR) remains its most significant and strategic base.

Russia’s relationship with the CAR, in 2013, came as a surprise to international observers, since the African country was in the early stages of its ongoing civil war. Following the overthrow of former President François Bozizé, the country was catapulted into a state of disarray. Despite the UN formerly placing an arms embargo on the CAR, the Security Council permitted Russia to train the country’s army. Since then, Russia has engaged with the CAR both militarily and commercially. The country is seen as a key asset for Russia as it holds reserves of minerals such as gold, diamond and uranium. However, this partnership has aroused suspicion and created tension with France, the former colonial overlord. Additionally, there have been concerns that the Kremlin leased out the responsibility of training CAR troops to the controversial Wagner group. In the past year, three Russian journalists were killed trying to investigate the Wagner Group’s involvement in the region.

Whilst the world’s attention has been focussed on the activities of China and Russia, many have overlooked a rogue but extremely powerful player: Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom’s operations on the continent can be explained by two main reasons. The first being Saudi Arabia’s need for resources and secondly their wider political motives. Saudi Arabia is faced with an agricultural problem and, as a result, it is highly reliant on other nations for food supplies. Consequently, in 2008 King Abdullah advocated a land-grab policy as part of his ‘Initiative for Saudi Agricultural Investment Abroad’. Africa seemed an ideal location. Since then, Saudi Arabia has been exploiting its oil reserves in order to gain access to the continent.

Saudi Arabia has successfully severed most of Iran’s African alliances through using financial incentives

Saudi Arabia’s long-standing proxy conflict with Iran has spilt into Africa due to both countries seeking control of the Muslim world. The continent was of great importance to Iran’s international standing, especially prior to the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran’s partnerships in East Africa, specifically with Sudan, came into direct conflict with Saudi Arabia’s plans for the region. Saudi Arabia has successfully severed most of Iran’s African alliances by using financial incentives. The rivalry between both powers has especially caused havoc in Nigeria due to its heightening of religious divides; whilst Saudi Arabia opted to fund Sunni groups in the country, Iran backed Shia equivalents.

Since the sun set on its Empire, Britain has maintained economic links with many of its former African colonies. However, in this renewed scramble for the continent Britain has found itself to be a weak and unattractive player, lagging behind its competitors. Last August, former Prime Minister Theresa May conducted a three-day tour of Africa in hope of securing post-Brexit alliances with Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. May’s visit largely consisted of vague promises and ambitious forecasts. The awkwardness of her tour was clear to see, as Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta expressed dismay at the fact that it had taken over thirty years for a British Prime Minister to visit the country. Britain’s colonial and post-colonial history of exploitation in the continent are further obstacles to its alliance-building mission.

Britain’s colonial past is tainted as a result of the maltreatment of Africans, displacement of ethnic groups and land pillaging that occurred decades ago. One can clearly see how this uncomfortable history can hider Britain’s plans to secure trade relationships today. However, some of these unethical practices remain in use. One sector notorious for this is mining. In 2016, Anti-poverty charity War on Want released a damning report that revealed the extent to which British mining companies were involved in tax evasion, land degradation and the exploitative extraction of minerals from Africa. The report even highlighted how complicit these companies have been in the displacement of the Sahrawi people, through their continued mining in the disputed territory of Western Sahara. What is apparent, is that both Labour and Conservative governments have failed to regulate the international mining practices of British-registered firms. Consecutive prime ministers have preached about the importance of mutually beneficial relationships but, in practice, they have appeared willing to turn a blind eye.

The presumption of May’s government was that Britain could maintain a trading relationship where it imports raw materials from Africa and sells manufactured goods back to the continent. Unfortunately for Britain, these colonial-styled agreements are of an era long gone. Africa now demands more equitable trade agreements. One country which presented a favourable proposition was Germany. May’s Germanic counterpart, Angela Merkel, brokered a job-boosting agreement between Volkswagen and the governments of Ghana and Nigeria. Volkswagen agreed to build an assembly plant in Ghana, whilst creating training academies in both West African countries. This partnership, unlike those proposed by May, and France’s Emmanuel Macron, redresses the idea that Africa is merely a prop to boost Western economies.

African leaders must also take some responsibility for their predicament

With all these nations seeking a claim of the continent, its easy to view Africa as a helpless victim in a sea full of predators, but African leaders must also take some responsibility for their predicament. Corruption has proven a wildly destabilising force for many countries in Africa, as it not only misappropriates public funds, thus causing wider social problems, but also makes these nations reliant on foreign lenders in order to rid national debts. From the likes of Robert Mugabe and Omar Al-Bashir to the accused Jacob Zuma, modern Africa has never been far from corruption scandals. However, the tide is changing and opportunities for Africa’s prosperity are in abundance.

Let’s first look at the promising new generation of African leaders. Since poster-boy Abiy Ahmed began his premiership in Ethiopia, the country has rapidly transformed both politically and economically. Ahmed’s role in ending the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea captured the world’s attention, as it put an end to the long-fought border dispute which wreaked havoc for families caught in the middle of the communication ban. His other reforms have included liberalising the economy, ending autocratic practices and giving women and opposition leaders a greater voice in policymaking. Ethiopia has seemingly been electrified by ‘Abiymania’. This liberal form of leadership is one that Africa should expect to see in the near future.

African leaders have already seen the benefits of closer integration with its continental neighbours and have made steps towards such a goal. Regional organisations such as the East African Community and Southern Africa Customs Union have greatly invigorated the economies of member states and has encouraged political dialogue. West Africa made headlines in July after agreeing to adopt a single currency in 2020. This frequently-mooted plan hopes to integrate the economies of fifteen West African countries. Economists have expressed concern over how a single currency may impact the Eight counties which currently use the French-backed CFA franc. Another concern is that Nigeria, having the largest economy in the region, may abuse the power they will have over its regional counterparts. These plans are unlikely to crystallize by next year unless all fifteen nations meet the needed requirements.

The most promising opportunity of all? The African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA). One of Africa’s biggest problems has been its lack of intracontinental trade. In 2014, the African Development Bank reported that Africa’s internal trade stood at just 16%, this is in stark comparison to other continents, such as Europe with 70% and Asia with 51%. Signatories of the ACFTA pledge to drastically reduce tariffs of goods from other African countries and facilitate more trade between members. This agreement has been seen as a step towards an ever-closer union in the continent. After stalling plans last year Nigeria finally signed the agreement in July. Their finance and trade union leaders had expressed their concern that the ACFTA could create greater competition for Nigeria in terms of job opportunities and markets for goods. Eritrea is the only African nation outside this trading area but since reconciling with Ethiopia, they have expressed greater interest in the trading bloc.

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. Photo Credit: US Government

It’s easy to view the ACFTA as offering a pan-African utopia, but observers need to remain pragmatic. Comparing Africa to the European Union would be grossly unfair. Much of the continent gained formal independence as recently as the 1960s, meaning most countries are still in the process of reforming and experimenting with different political, economic and judicial systems. This differs greatly from European nations who have had centuries to establish their institutions. Even after the collapse of European empires, the continent was subjected to neo-imperialism programs such as Structural Adjustment by Western organisations. The European Union (EU), unlike the ACFTA, has only 28 member states. The ACFTA has over 50. The EU took over 50 years to organise itself. The ACFTA has only just come into effect. What Africa needs more than ever is time and space to grow. African leaders must establish common goals for the ACFTA and build the infrastructure needed for intracontinental trade.

With closer integration, Africa is better able to fight against the insatiable greed of international powers

African nations are in a prime position to determine the trajectory of their future. The continent has an abundance of resources, land and skilled labourers. The money entering the continent from the African diaspora far outstrips international aid by $9 billion; this provides Africa with both capital and a global network. African innovation, such as Kenya’s M-Pesa has become the envy of the world. With closer integration, Africa is better able to fight against the insatiable greed of international powers.

The continent now finds itself is in unchartered waters and must decide whether to wade through its challenges together or risk the dangers of proceeding alone. Africa must take inspiration from Ernest Henley, and find a way to be the master of its fate and the captain of its soul.

Ignoring Sudan: How Western guilt about the Arab Spring is being taken out on the Sudanese people

Jun 24, 2019 – by Adam Robertson Charlton

Western media coverage and our corresponding foreign policy is only ever as good as our last engagement. Just as success in Sierra Leone bred the hubris which lead to disaster in Iraq, the Black Hawk Down scenario in Somalia meant that when genocide contorted Rwanda, the West sat by and watched. Now, the Sudanese people are being punished for the mistakes that we made in Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. Whilst protesters are murdered and raped by the same security forces responsible for serial war crimes in Darfur, Western media fusses about Donald Trump meeting the Queen, and a war that happened seventy-five years ago. This tendency to tar a contemporary problem with a previous engagement is particularly acute in Africa. The failures of Western foreign policy, or media prediction in one region, are often extrapolated to the entire landmass, as though Africa were a country, and not a continent fifteen times bigger than Greenland, though few maps will show you that. What is happening is clear to see. Among the British and American commentariat, there is a sense that the crystal ball has broken down. Brexit, Trump, and the blind celebration of the Arab Spring have resulted in bruised egos, and an unwillingness to discuss Sudan, and indeed Algeria. This is no less true for the Foreign Office, which is clearly scared of involving themselves in what many perceive to be an encore for the Arab Spring.

Brexit, Trump, and the blind celebration of the Arab Spring have resulted in bruised egos, and an unwillingness to discuss Sudan, and indeed Algeria.

Yet the revolution in Sudan is profoundly different from those in Egypt and Libya. To lump it in with them is cowardice masquerading as ignorance. Having burnt our fingers once again in Africa, the entire continent is to be punished. Though Mubarak was a tyrant and ran Egypt into the ground through decades of neoliberal gangsterism, he was far more secular than most of the Egyptian opposition. Though Gadhafi was conservative, his fundamentalism was pallid when compared with the forces now ascendant in Libya. The Arab Spring may have been fueled by areligious grievances; unemployment, repression and the price of fuel, but the organs of opposition in many of the countries were hardline religious groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and worse. If we in the West are concerned about supporting the Sudanese opposition because it might seethe into a jihadi groundswell, then we are once again extrapolating events in one part of Africa, and projecting them onto another. The Bashir regime in Sudan was built on a bedrock of hardline Islamism. As is always the way with violent religious dogmatism, women were the primary victim. Interesting scholarship exists on the place of women during the Arab Spring, and women like Tawakkul Kaman in Yemen played significant roles in the popular uprisings. Yet women have been at the heart, and indeed every other organ of the Sudanese revolution. Whilst men have been able to leave the country to seek opportunities, it is often women who have had to remain; maintaining a family, and enduring the strict dress codes and brutal reprimands. It is, then, perhaps quite natural that women have been instrumental in instigating civil action throughout Sudanese society. It is certainly no harbinger of dormant extremism.

A dereliction of duty, and an attempt to avoid reminding us of the mistakes made during the Arab Spring

As with any moment of political rupture, there are extremist elements within the Sudanese opposition. Yet these are dwarfed by the general craving for greater liberty and a less draconian brand of religious governance. This is in stark contrast with the expressly fundamentalist views of much of the Libyan, Egyptian and Syrian opposition. The commitment to nonviolence is also striking, though how long this can last in the face of the regime’s thuggish paramilitaries remains to be seen. As mutilated bodies are recovered from the Nile, videos and stories that would have made headlines had they happened in Egypt, Libya and Syria do not even make the BBC News homepage. This is a dereliction of duty, and an attempt to avoid reminding us of the mistakes made during the Arab Spring. The UN, Security Council and NATO are behaving equally evasively. When the African Union – more a gentlemen’s club than an international organization for peace – has taken a firmer stance than the United Nations, the situation is dire indeed. It should be noted that the Sudanese regime retains the support of Egypt and other Arab League members. Rather than cowering in guilt after a blunder, Western governments ought to be able to appraise what went wrong and ensure that it does not happen the next time it is necessary to act. Instead, Western foreign policy swings erratically from gung-ho to guilty inaction based on the previous battle won or lost. Our refusal to engage the Sudanese regime with genuine intent, and our failure to support the Sudanese people in their struggle against it, makes the likelihood that we are forced to act to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, without adequate planning in place, all the more likely. What the regime believes it can get away with, it will. Without the plausible threat of an overwhelming international response, the Sudanese military and its paramilitaries will continue their campaign of murder, torture and sexual violence against the Sudanese people.

Western foreign policy swings erratically from gung-ho to guilty inaction based on the previous battle won or lost.

Britain has always had a double standard when it comes to Africa. During the Second World War, (the biggest news story of the past few days), Nazi prisoners of war were subject to the Geneva Convention. During the 1960s however, British forces regularly tortured Mai Mai rebels in Kenya. These were indigenous people fighting for freedom. The Nazis, were the Nazis. This double standard; where suffering somehow matters a little less if it happens in Africa, is once again on show. The media has a duty to report on the horrifying violence being perpetrated against the Sudanese people. In turn, we the people have a duty to stand in solidarity with Sudan, and exercise our rights as citizens of a democracy to put pressure on our elected officials, and demand action to prevent an even greater massacre. Let it not be said that the West stood by and watched again.

Nigeria hits the polls

With 73 million able to vote and 120,000 polling stations nationwide, Africa’s largest democracy braced itself for what was seen as its biggest election yet. In 1999, Nigeria finally emerged from the oppression of a military regime, allowing democracy to flourish for the first time in 33 years, with 2019 marking 20 years of free and democratic elections in the country. This election was, however, fraught with difficulty, with incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari doing battle with the opposition candidate Atiku Abubakar against the backdrop of widespread fears that the election would become paralysed by the radical insurgent group, Boko Haram.

The candidates:

Whilst there were some 73 candidates running for the presidential premiership, the two frontrunners were Buhari and Abubakar, the former from the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the latter being the leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

the two frontrunners were Buhari and Abubakar

Buhari has a long history in Nigerian politics, with his early career, at first glance, not serving him well from a PR perspective. For 20 months between December 1983 and August 1985, he served as the head of state for Nigeria following a military coup. Whilst he maintains that the real power of his time in office came from the orchestrators of the coup, his own role remains disputed and controversial, given the human rights abuses of the regime. Surprisingly, this may have done more to aid his public image, with him gaining the reputation of being strict and incorruptible. Alongside this, he is a self-confessed ‘born-again’ democrat, running on a platform of tackling corruption, reviving the economy and cracking down on the Boko Haram insurgency that continues to ravage parts of north-eastern Nigeria. He was elected president in 2015, after three unsuccessful attempts. This year, however, he was energetic with promises, taking his party’s symbol – a broom – with him on the campaign trail, and promising to take Nigeria to “the next level”. In the eyes of many, however, his approach to the economy has encouraged stagnation.

Abubakar is not without skeletons of his own

His opponent, Abubakar is a veteran candidate and political insider, running for presidential office three times, with no success. He has, however, served two terms as vice-president for PDP administrations and remains a leading businessman in Nigeria, with his expertise stretching from oil all the way to the soft drinks industry. Like his opponent, Abubakar also pledges to root out corruption and revive the economy through economic liberalisation – during both his terms as vice-president, he oversaw privatisations, indicating the same could be on the cards if he won the premiership. Abubakar is not without skeletons of his own, however, with him facing accusations of corruption which have yet to surface in court.

The election:

Whilst expectations across the world were high, the election saw the lowest ever voter turnout in Nigeria’s 20-year history of democracy, with only around a third of those able to vote heading to the polls. Political commentators have credited this with voter apathy, rather than the threat posed to voters by Boko Haram.

high voter turnouts were reported in areas under threat from Boko Haram attacks

Boko Haram, the West African branch of the Islamic State, has terrorised Nigeria since 2002, and its attacks remain mainly confined in the north-east of the country. Despite this, high voter turnouts were reported in areas under threat from Boko Haram attacks. Voting provisions were even made for the 400,000 people residing in refugee camps, displaced by the group’s activities in the region. Fears were not unfounded, however, as the national election was delayed by one week just five hours before it was to occur. This was in response to Boko Haram’s vow that they would disrupt the election. A recent attack had also been made by the group on a Nigerian governor’s convoy.

the election was certainly not without violence

To be under no illusions, the election was certainly not without violence, with there being reports of gunfire in some polling areas in south Rivers state. Alongside this, hundreds were forced to evacuate north-eastern Yobe state following attacks by Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, a splinter group.

With a result that surprised few, Buhari emerged from the political fray the victor, elected for a second term in office. The vote saw Buhari secure control of voters in the Muslim north of the country, whereas Abubakar’s PDP support came predominantly from the Christian south. Buhari received some 74% of the vote and a margin of 4 million votes, with the level of support he received in the north seeing him being jokily dubbed the “king of the north” in reference to Game of Thrones.

Whilst many celebrated, Abubakar was certainly not among them, labelling the result inaccurate and the election a “sham”. His accusations levied towards the APC included stating that Buhari was preventing people from voting, hence the low voter turnout, even vowing to take the matter to court. Buhari has adamantly denied this.

It is Africa’s leading oil producer but, addled with corruption and a lack of investment of the proceeds, the industry has stagnated.

Nigeria faces an onslaught of problems for the future. It is Africa’s leading oil producer but, addled with corruption and a lack of investment of the proceeds, the industry has stagnated. Nigeria has a large, growing young population, but a slow recovery from economic difficulties in 2016 has meant that unemployment remains high, with 25% of the working population out of work. Boko Haram and the Islamic State of West Africa persist as potent security threats in Nigeria, and corruption remains seemingly ubiquitous. Nigeria is certainly blessed with potential but hampered with difficulties.

With Buhari back in power, one question remains. Will he successfully tackle this many-headed beast and take Nigeria to “the next level”, or will he simply deliver more of the same?

Melania Trump: Fashion Faux Pas or Diplomatic Disaster?

Melania Trump shocks the world wearing a colonial helmet in Kenya.

For her first major solo international trip, similarly to her predecessors, Melania Trump flew to the African continent. During 5 days she visited Ghana, Malawi, Kenya and Egypt with the objective to promote USAIDS projects. She also came with the intention of improving the relationship between Africa and her husband as the latter, earlier on this year, allegedly described African countries as “sh*tholes”.

Melania Trump in Kenya [White House photography]

Mission accomplished in Nairobi National Park with her white Pith Helmet, a significant symbol of oppression and colonialism. Originally designed to protect the skin from the sun and from tropical diseases, it used to be worn by Colonial officials, soldiers, missionaries and more generally white westerners in Africa, Southeast Asia and the tropics. The visit took place at Nairobi National Park, a popular tourist area that usually attracts privileged Westerners, making the situation even worse for Melania Trump.

Her white Pith Helmet – a significant symbol of oppression and colonialism.

Recalling colonial memories in such an occasion is completely inappropriate and insensitive coming from the first lady of the United States. The African countries were welcoming Mrs Trump as their equals while she manifested her sense of superiority through this colonial helmet. Her actions have been described by Kim Yi Dionne, an African politics expert at UC Riversides as a “reflection of her out-dated understanding of Africa”. The message given by Melania Trump wearing a pith helmet is totally contradictory to her so-called will to appease the relationship with Africa and the United States. For that reason, she is completely discrediting herself.

It happens that the ex-model has taken a habit of carrying out her thoughts through fashion. One of the most broadcasted time was when she decided to wear a Zara jacket with “I really don’t care, do you?” written on the back, while visiting a children’s shelter on the US-Mexico border. Once again, very insensitive. She first affirmed that no specific messages were given by this piece of clothing and that it was just a jacket. Some journalists suspected her of wearing this jacket to irritate her husband. However, later on, she came back on her actions in an ABC News exclusive interview, and she admitted that there was indeed a message, not targeting the kids but the left-wing politicians which are criticising her. This was peculiar timing for such a message to be conveyed.

One of the most broadcasted time was when she decided to wear a Zara jacket with “I really don’t care, do you?” written on the back

Melania Trump has been interrogated about her unusual choice of accessories in Africa. She replied, “I want to talk about my trip not what I wear”. Yet again, why choose a hat with such a strong connotation if she really just want to focus on her trip’s objective? What is Melania Trump trying to achieve in wearing the Pith helmet?

There are different interpretations of Mrs trump’s action, but thinking she wasn’t aware of the consequences of her actions is not one of them. Is she trying to shock and create polemics to be spoken about and raise more attention towards herself and her husband? Is she subtly trying to deviate the audience’s attention from more dramatic subjects? Or last interpretation, is she trying to ensure the white supremacist electorate’s support? It’s hard to tell.

Melania Trump wearing pantsuit popularised by Hilary Clinton

On top of that, what are her political advisors doing? Melania Trump has a personal fashion advisor Hervé Pierre who also designed clothes for other first ladies such as Michelle Obama, Laura Bush and Hilary Clinton. She has about ten people surrounding her in her everyday life to give her advice about her image. How could they let her wear such connoted pieces of clothing? Hervé Pierre affirms he was not aware of Melania’s decision to wear the Zara jacket, he said he had in fact never seen it before and he has made no comment about the pitch helmet yet. Her entourage describes Melania Trump as determinate and stubborn, so perhaps she hadn’t solicited her advisors’ opinion.

Whatever her motivations, look out for her next public appearance, her clothes will probably be delivering their own message.

Zimbabwe’s Presidential Election

Even by post-colonial standards, Zimbabwe is a young country. Prior to 1980, the region was known as Southern Rhodesia after the British colonist Cecil Rhodes. Like South Africa, political power was controlled by white supremacist parties, but a gorilla war waged by the African Nation Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) during the 1970s resulted in British brokered elections. Lead by the black revolutionary Robert Mugabe, Zanu PF swept to power, and by combining support among impoverished rural Africans with violent state repression, the party has remained in power ever since. Under Mugabe’s rule, inflation hit 11.2 million percent in 2008, Zimbabwe slid to 154^th on the UN’s Human Development Index, and life expectancies plateaued at 40 years of age. In November of last year, 93-year-old Robert Mugabe was removed from office by the military. The initial reaction in Zimbabwe was jubilation, but his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, may not embody the change that Zimbabweans hoped for. In elections that were less violent than 2008, and yet still saw an attempted assassination and the killing of protestors by the army, Mnangagwa won with 50.8% of the vote. Zimbabwe’s opposition; The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has rejected the results as fraudulent. This has provoked a massive crackdown by the security agencies. Whist the MDC’s leading light, Nelson Chamisa, has managed to postpone Mnangagwa’s inauguration until the Constitutional Court has ruled on it, few believe this will break Zanu PF’s sinewy grip on power. What is the likelihood of one-party rule continuing? and what shape can international response be expected to take?

One Man, One Party:

History does not encourage hope for a peaceful transition from one-party rule to real democracy. Mugabe is gone, but Zanu PF was never a one man show, despite its characterization as such in the west. The death of Stalin did not transform the Bolshevik Party into a benign government. Bashir al-Assad was heralded as a moderate when he replaced his dead father as head of the Ba’ath Party in Syria. In both instances and many more, the political apparatus that surrounded these leaders had not been taken hostage by them, but actively participated in their crimes. To claim Mnangagwa was a conscientious-objector throughout the crackdowns, famines and massacres that Zanu PF inflicted whilst he was Mugabe’s right-hand man is absurd.

Mnangagwa is nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’ for a reason

Mnangagwa is nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’ for a reason. He may have avoided the tyrant trap of winning by 99.9%, and claimed to be as “soft as wool”, but his long career at the heart of Zanu PF speaks for itself. Less inducive still to a climate of genuine democratic transition is the fact that Mugabe was not overthrown by a popular revolt, but by the army, who subsequently installed Mnangagwa. Events in Egypt since Hosni Mubarak was toppled illustrate how rarely a military takeover results in a period of durable democracy. Even in the peaceful parliamentary elections that preceded the presidential poll, the EU Election Commissioner to Zimbabwe noted that Zanu PF votes were counted first. His observation that he had, “yet to learn why they will be released last”, is a lesson in assiduous acidity.[3]

While not as violent as the 2008 presidential election in which Nelson Chamisa suffered a fractured skull, the army shot and killed six civilians protesting the three-day delay on election results. Ongoing reports suggest killings and disappearances continue in Harare’s suburbs. Following Mnangagwa’s victory, arrest warrants have been issued for eight opposition leaders, belying any claim that the new president represents a meaningful break with the past. Outside of the capital, towns suspected of supporting the opposition have been blockaded by the army. Zanu PF’s litany of massacres is likely letting Mnangagwa employ a highly credible threat of force rather than genuine extreme violence to subdue dissent. The MDC have a history of backing down in the face of such violence, having withdrawn from the second round of the 2008 election to protect their activists. Should it come to outright conflict, Zanu PF are surely confident that the opposition would bulk once more.

The Global Response:

Unfortunately for Zimbabwe’s opposition, Nelson Chamisa is regarded by many as somewhat of a charlatan, having lied about an offer of American aid if the MDC had won the election. There are also broader geopolitical reasons for the MDC to fear a lack of US support. Zimbabwe has been subject to twenty years of American sanctions. However, the Trump administration may be willing to tolerate a similar regime with a less toxic leader. The US is losing out to China all over the world, and Africa is leading this realignment. The US may view the fall of Mugabe as an opportunity to combat this trend, and have condoned far crueler regimes than Zimbabwe’s out of strategic expedience in the past. China has long been Zimbabwe’s primary arms supplier, but some analysts have suggested that the fall of Mugabe could destabilize Sino-Zimbabwe relations.

The US is losing out to China all over the world, and Africa is leading this realignment.

This might present opportunities for the US to exploit at the cost of the MDC. Furthermore, the relatively impoverished nature of Zimbabwe’s neighbor states has always protected the regime. Even on the rare occasions when African governments break with decorum and criticize another African government – as Botswana did in 2008 – no regional power would be able to provide the humanitarian aid necessary to accompany a military intervention. In any case, Zambia’s refusal to offer opposition politician Tendai Biti asylum suggests regional powers are going to align with Mnangagwa.[8] Whilst much of this is conjecture, Zanu PF is a consummate survivor. The chance of revolutionary upheaval is slim, and the regime has a monopoly on deadly force. If the international community proves more tolerant of Mnangagwa than they did of Mugabe, one man and one-party rule could well continue, with only a slight change in personal. The appalling violence that has disfigured Zimbabwe’s brief history is in remission, but to subvert Ernst Fischer’s remarks about Soviet communism, Zimbabwe remains a panzer-democracy.

Abiy Ahmed: Ethiopia’s Man of the Hour?

In April, Abiy Ahmed was sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Ethiopia after the forced resignation of his predecessor Hailemariam Desalegn. When Ahmed proclaimed that “This is a very historic moment for Ethiopia”, few could envisage the actions that would follow his words. In only a few months of his premiership, Ahmed has ended the Eritrean border dispute and is seemingly leading Ethiopia down a promising path with his unprecedented reforms.

Desalegn had succumbed to sectional pressure and resigned in February, consequently leaving Ethiopia under a state of emergency. Months prior to him exiting office, Ethiopia had witnessed violent protests that resulted in hundreds of deaths. The initial motive behind the protests had been over disputed land rights but later morphed into cries of ethnic marginalisation from the Oromo and Amhara ethnic groups. Oromo protesters expressed feeling dominated politically, economically, and socially by the Tigrayan group, despite being the country’s largest group. The intensified ethnic tensions led the ruling coalition party, The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, to seek stronger leadership during such hostile and fragile times. Once picked as Desalegn’s successor, Ahmed wasted no time in setting a new agenda.

The most striking policy set out by Ahmed was his decision to end the long-running border dispute with Eritrea. In June, Ahmed stated that Ethiopia would finally accept a border ruling, made by a UN-backed border commission, and recognise the town of Badme as Eritrean territory. A series of diplomatic meeting followed which concluded with a declaration made, both by Ahmed and the Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, at a meeting in Eritrea’s capital, Asmara. An agreement was made which authorised the reconnecting of phone lines, resumption of airline service, and the opening of embassies between the two nations. At the historic signing, Ahmed gave a promising outlook stating that “The march toward peace might have been a long time coming but we have faith in the love and solidarity of our people”. Eritrea, formally a part Ethiopia before their 1993 secession, had maintained a largely hostile stance towards their southern neighbour – until now. Citizens of both nations were quick to express their jubilation on social media.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afewerki after signing the Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship (Source: Wiki Commons)

Since April, Ahmed has introduced a wave of unprecedented reforms. Initially, the state of emergency was lifted in a move to end state-conducted crimes against humanity and civilian suppression. Ahmed vehemently condemned the alleged acts of torture, by state officials, and the imprisonment of political dissidents. Shortly after, Ahmed fired the head of Ethiopia’s prison services and ordered the removal of three opposition groups from the government’s list of terrorist organisation. In line with his liberalising policy, bans were lifted on numerous websites and media publications. After China’s reported threat to limit Ethiopian investment and his acknowledgement of the country’s reliance on capital from the UAE, Ahmed set out to transform Ethiopia’s state-controlled economy through partial privatisation and the enticing of international organisations.

Ahmed has brought his youthful effervescence and diplomatic prowess to the government

When reflecting on Ahmed’s life, one may easily think his rise to power was pre-ordained. The 42-year-old has entered his premiership with experience from working with military intelligence to his involvement with international peacekeeping. Ahmed is the first Oromo Ethiopian leader. His ethnicity made him a prime candidate as he was able to reach out to the disgruntled group. Not only does his fluency in four of the country’s main languages arm him with diplomatic tools, but also his doctorate in peace and security studies. In 1995 Ahmed was assigned to Rwanda as a UN peacekeeper. Over a decade later, in 2010, Ahmed entered politics where he was quickly elevated to the executive committee of the Oromo People’s Democratic Organisation. Ahmed has brought his youthful effervescence and diplomatic prowess to the government and, consequently, has received comparisons to liberal leaders such as Barack Obama. Despite his seemingly irreproachable profile, he still has a sizeable opposition.

In June, at a Pro-Ahmed rally in the capital Addis Ababa, a grenade was set off on a crowd of Ahmed’s supporters. The blast killed two people and injured over 150 others. Prior to the rally, there were other attempts made to disrupt the event which led to the arrest of 9 police officers. Ahmed was aware of the internal and external threats he would face, and consequently ordered a cabinet reshuffle and the firing of potentially rebellious senior civil servants. His decision to hand over disputed territory has angered sections of the Ethiopian population, and his condemnation of state-committed human rights abuses has evoked similar contempt from Ahmed’s government agencies.

Drastic reform is needed to reverse years of economic mismanagement and isolation

Ahmed has adopted a country with many dire issues. Ethiopia is highly divided ethnically and culturally. The ruling coalition party is unified only by name, and the factions within it remain combative on a range of contentious issues. Drastic reform is needed to reverse years of economic mismanagement and isolation. Only by encouraging international investment, will Ahmed be able to end the critical foreign currency shortage and reduce their dependency on nations such as the UAE and China – whose motives remain questionable.

He has seemingly resuscitated Ethiopia from the brink of social calamity

Praise must be awarded to this new prime minister for the pace taken to enact such unprecedented diplomatic and governmental reforms. He has seemingly resuscitated Ethiopia from the brink of social calamity and has set an example for neighbouring African leaders. However, he still has a long way to go. In order for Ahmed to make long-term changes and truly democratise the country, he must change Ethiopia’s seemingly autocratic nature of governance. Whilst the vast power granted to himself and his cabinet may have been used positively so far, it is important to remember the unfortunate track-record set by many previous African leaders who began well-intentioned but, through despotism, left office in disrepute.

We are all A LOT older than we thought!

Carina Schlebusch led a team of researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden in a project combining genome mapping with anthropology in an effort to uncover genetic links between modern African populations and their ancestors. The findings may have unexpected implications for the early history of Homo sapiens, the modern humans.

Until now scientific consensus has placed the moment our species split off, as a genetically distinct and anatomically modern variant, at 200,000 years ago. The new evidence suggests the true split may have actually occurred between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago. The study was initially published in the Science journal.

genetics and archaeology continues to prove promising in helping us unravel our species’ complex history!

150,000 years is a significant jump in time! There has been tentative fossil evidence that pointed to a possible early Homo sapiens split – namely 300,000-year-old fossils found in Northwestern Africa and the 260,000-year-old Florisbad Skull in South Africa – but these remains exhibited slight anatomical differences to modern humans and so were considered predecessors.

The September 28^th study led by Schlebusch has been the first that, by sequencing the genome of seven individuals who lived are between 300 and 2000 years ago, has managed to provide more convincing evidence of earlier origin. They compared these genomes with modern Khoe-san populations of South Africa as well as with ancient Stone Age hunter-gatherer genomes in order to map the timeline showing human groups splitting off from each other.

One method of dating the splits, according to Seeker, is to look at the number of DNA mutations; “if we assume that DNA mutations occur in a clock-like manner, one can date when these populations or individuals split from each other”, said Schlebusch.

Very old photo of descendants of the Khoe-san people and their instruments. — A troop of musical descendants of the Khoe-san people. Source: wikimedia

This research illustrates that the Khoe-san people are the oldest branch on the human family tree (broke off from main branch 260,000 years ago, then split in two again 200,000 years ago) and, due to their early split, are the most genetically diverse human population on the planet. The reason this has not been apparent until now is because the ancestors of the Khoe-san people interbred with migrant farmer groups who came from East Africa to South Africa, having already interbred with other populations throughout the past 2000 years.

Having a fossil dated before this genetic mixing occurred allowed the researchers to accurately map the groups’ ancestry.

The history of how we became modern humans is especially messy. We did not evolve in one spot, but rather in multiple places simultaneously; “we see this gradual transition from archaic to modern forms in North, East, and southern Africa, and fossils of modern, transitional and archaic forms are found in all three of these regions,” Schlebusch said. The accepted chronology is that Homo erectus evolved into Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved into Homo sapiens in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe and West Asia, and Denisovans in East Asia. Homo sapiens then moved out of Africa, into Eurasia, wiping out as well as mating with populations such as Neanderthals or Denisovans.

Such genetic heritage variants, however small, can still exhibit adaptations, like resistance to higher altitudes or certain diseases, in modern day humans.

150,000 years is a significant jump in time!

The relationship between genetics and archaeology continues to prove promising in helping us unravel our species’ complex and chaotic African history and highlight our evolutionary past. The findings are still incredibly new and the scientific jury is still out on whether they are robust enough – as stated by scientist, anthropologist Todd Disotell at NYU, who said he is skeptical of the study’s conclusion. Regardless, this could just be the beginning as, according to Seeker, Schlebusch stated that the group is working on “several other African genetic projects involving modern day and Ancient Africans”; additional evidence may yet be revealed.

If you want to read more about studies involoving genomes and genetics give READ THIS where Alina Ivan looks at new research and guidelines relating to gene altering in foetuses and its possible medical uses…

Discover Morocco with Maroc ‘N’ Roll

Three weeks in Morocco inclusive of all flights, accommodation and travel for only £545 – sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

Well, that’s what I thought when I first saw the deal pop up on my Facebook feed. However, after a glance at the Overlanders website I was intrigued by this small family business which has been running tours around Europe and the Middle East in old school buses since the 60s. Maroc ‘N’ Roll is the original and possibly one of the most action packed trips they offer.

It seemed like an opportunity too good to miss.

I was intrigued by this small family business which has been running tours around Europe and the Middle East in old school buses since the 60s.

After meeting my fellow adventurers at the airport along with our guides and driver, our trip began in the windy city of Essaouira on Morocco’s west coast. Here we had a go at quad biking and horse riding which both involved taking in beautiful views of the beach and sand dunes. We also sampled a bit of the nightlife and had fun dancing and listening to live music on the rooftop terrace of Taros bar.

Next we travelled to the bustling and vibrant city of Marrakesh, where we haggled in the souks and enjoyed the delights of the main square, which came alive at night with drumming and snake charmers. A surprise thunderstorm also made our experience of the city more interesting, as in a matter of minutes the weather shifted from unbearable heat to torrential rain and we had to wade through the streets to get back to our hotel.

The next day we drove an hour into the Atlas mountains where we began our ascent of Mount Toubkal, which at 14,000ft is the highest mountain in North Africa. The trek took us through Berber villages and up into goat-populated hills. The first day we journeyed to base camp, and from there we rose at 4am the next day to continue on to the summit. I struggled a bit with altitude sickness, but when I made it to the top the sense of achievement was almost overwhelming and it all seemed worth it for the breathtaking views.

Once we’d scrambled down the mountain and were back in Marrakesh we decided to soothe our aching muscles by visiting a traditional Moroccan spa known as a Hammam. This involved getting naked in a steamy room, being lathered in oils, and enjoying a nice massage. It wasn’t until afterwards that we realised the boys’ experience had been less relaxing and more traumatising since they’d been offered massages of the happy ending variety!

We had one last night in Marrakesh and slept on the rooftop of our hotel, lulled to sleep by the humdrum of the traffic and the calls to prayer. The next day we drove a few hours east to Cascades d’Ouzoud; a stunning collection of waterfalls. Here we camped out under the stars and were treated to some delicious traditional couscous and tagine. For the more thrill-seeking amongst us there was the option to jump off the waterfalls but I just preferred swimming in the shallows and chilling with a good book.

After a couple of days we were on the move again and this time we drove to Ait Benhaddou, also known as the Hollywood of Morocco. Here we had a hotel in the desert with a pool exclusively to ourselves which added to the feeling of peaceful isolation. From here we were able to explore some of the set of Gladiator and see where parts of Game Of Thrones had been filmed.

We had one last night in Marrakesh and slept on the rooftop of our hotel, lulled to sleep by the humdrum of the traffic and the calls to prayer.

Next we journeyed to Todra Gorge and continued on to Merzouga, where for only 300dh (£25) we were able to go on a camel trek into the Sahara which included our evening meal. Like Lawrence of Arabia we rode into the desert astride our camels, wearing scarves around our faces to protect us from the wind and the sand. I was one of only a few of us who managed to get up at 4am the next day to see the sunrise over the dunes. It was definitely worth the early wake up call.

That same day we drove south, where we stopped to camp out overnight in a pine forest. The stark contrast in environment made me realise just how vast and varied Morocco is in terms of its landscapes. In the morning we fed some wild monkeys who weren’t scared to take fruit from our hands.

Our trip ended in the beautiful town of Chefchaouen, which is nestled in the Rif mountains and instantly recognisable by its blue and white buildings. From here we had a day trip to Paradise falls in Akchour, which is a collection of streams flanked by red rocks. This provided the perfect setting for us to all wind down and reflect after a couple of weeks of non-stop action.

I would definitely recommend Maroc ‘N’ Roll to anyone. If you want to fully experience the variety which Morocco has to offer, gain a local’s perspective and make some great friends then this is the trip for you.