Friday, January 28, 2005

Mbeki stirs the ghost of Churchill

So South African President Thabo Mbeki is back in the news again. But this time the focus is not on substantive issues such as Aids or African peacemaking, rather it is the ghost of Winston Churchill.

In a speech to the National Assembly in Sudan, Mbeki made reference to the writings of Churchill noting that he felt the great leader held racist views. This is evidenced for Mbeki in Churchill's book entitled the "The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan" which chronicles the British campaign in Sudan.

Referring to African Muslims, Churchill writes: "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live".

Africans as lazy, incompetent and fanatical . . . sounds fairly racist to me.

Following Mbeki's speech, headlines pronounced "Mbeki slams Winston Churchill" and "Mbeki blames British imperialism for Sudan's problems". On the radio the British public took exception to Mbeki's approach to their war hero. Newspapers such as the Telegraph criticised Mbeki's "extraordinary weakness" at laying the "present problems at the door of the late 19th century".

The incident is a curious one, though.

Headline in the Guardian
Surely, no one can take exception to the fact that Churchill, like many contemporaries, looked upon Africans with views that by today's standards were undeniably racist. His writing confirms this.

Something else is going on when people get worked up about a reference to Britain's colonial past. Mention of the reality and legacy of colonialism seems to immediately hit an emotive nerve.

Besides those who wish to deny Britain's colonial history altogether, some commentators seem to take from Mbeki's speech what they want to hear.

The Telegraph hears Mbeki blaming all current problems in Africa on the past. Others hear an accusation that whites today still have to pay for what their forefathers did even though that was generations ago.

But Mbeki's speech, if anyone takes the time to read it, is doing none of this.

He is not lambasting whites en masse. His target audience was not the former colonial powers. He is not just taking a cheap shot at Churchill. When reading his speech it is obvious that, given he was speaking as a South African on an anniversary celebration of the 1956 Sudanese independence, he is attempting to make a link between Sudanese and South Africa history.

Sudan was the first African country to receive independence from its colonial masters; South Africa was the last, in 1994. Mbeki's message is simple. Both countries share a troubled history, sometimes linked with the brutal exploits of the very same men, such as Kitchener, who Churchill glorifies in his book, and this history means much has to be done to set the present right.

"In the end the point I am making is that our shared colonial past left both of us with a common and terrible legacy of countries deeply divided on the basis of race, colour, culture and religion. But surely, that shared colonial past must also tell us that we probably need to work together to share the burden of building the post-colonial future," Mbeki says.

His message is forward looking. He does not hide from the responsibility of African countries. He is not trying to divert attention from Africa's failings by playing the race card as some commentators seem to think.

I do not intend to write a defence of Mbeki. His approach to Zimbabwe, Aids and a number of other issues are problematic. Mbeki could have used the opportunity in Sudan to question the Sudanese government's human rights record. But, interestingly, this is not what the mainstream media seem to focus on either. Rather, it is his comments about a dead Prime Minister that get them talking.

The reaction to Mbeki's views on Churchill tells us more about those that reacted to it than Mbeki. Sadly, these reactions are still influenced by stereotypical views of Africa, as Mbeki implies.

Some journalists, not to mention certain politicians in South Africa, seem to be obsessed with trying to look for a chink in Mbeki's armour that is going to expose him as another African despot. Are they looking for echoes of Mugabe in his comments? This seems to be what they perversely want to hear.

Few take the time to listen, reflect and grapple with the reality that colonialism does still affect the African continent, whether those of us alive had anything to do with it or not. Would it have not been more remarkable if Mbeki did not mention colonialism in a speech on an occasion celebrating African independence?

Sometimes I wonder if Mbeki's critics see him as politician with the strengths and weaknesses as any other or if they are still struggling to see past his skin colour.

As a politician he has made mistakes. As an African leader, surely he is correct in continually pointing out the failings past and present of those that colonised the place and continue to exploit it.

Churchill made a massive contribution to history, but, like all people, Mbeki included, he clearly has flaws. Being precious about Churchill's legacy is hardly being true to the complexity of history. Treating Africa as if it does not have a colonial past and that this does not impact on the present is equally as myopic.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 28 January 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Original article, here.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Instilling fear into scaremongers

According to pool safety expert Stephen Tate, there are 27 ways that you can be killed or injured in a swimming pool. An interesting, although somewhat irrelevant, fact I learnt the other night while watching 'So You Think You're Safe?' on television. The programme claims to explore 'the hidden dangers of going about your daily routine, and offers advice on how to avoid those dangers'.

The show focused on the terrible things that can happen to you while on holiday. It offered essential advice. It issued warnings such as do not swim in crowded swimming pools, avoid pools if floating faeces are present and try not to make yourself into a human antenna by carrying an umbrella with a metal spike on top in a thunderstorm.

Such programmes, besides offering invaluable and practical advice for the desperately stupid, highlight the obsession there is the West with personal safety.

Last year a school in England banned parents from bringing homemade cakes to the school cake sale. The school requested that parents bring only shop-bought cakes, as it could not be guaranteed that homemade cakes would be produced in accordance with health and safety regulations.

Every second advert tells us that our houses are germ infested. We are urged, in the interests of our families, to buy new products to destroy them. A different food scare hits the media every month from radioactive salmon through to toxins in animal feed.

There used to be a Red under every bed - now there are microscopic organisms bent on wiping us out.

Of course there are things to fear in this world. If you live in South Africa it is healthy to have a consciousness about crime. If you live in the UK it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that hanging out outside of pubs at closing time can be hazardous to your health. We do not live in a risk-free society.

There are, of course, those who live in desperately insecure environments, notably the poor. But my gripe is with those who are largely secure but feel they are not.

It is striking that never before in the history of world have particular populations, certainly those in the West, been more secure in terms of shelter, food and basic safety, yet fear of germs, crime, foreigners and terrorists is increasing.

Does relative security make people lose all perspective?

Only in the Western world can someone have the luxury to be preoccupied by the potential for food poisoning from a homemade cake or have the time to count how many ways you can be injured in a swimming pool. Or find the mental energy to worry that their detergent only kills the germs on the surface of the toilet and not those under the rim.

Do you know you can sign up to get SMS messages from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK to get instantly notified next time there is a food scare?

I do not have problem with the FSA. It is right that they inform the unsuspecting public if something dangerous is out there. But their SMS system tells us more about those that subscribe to it than those offering the service.

Who really wants to walk around with what amounts to a mobile-Grim Reaper in their pocket? The last thing I want is my mobile phone reminding me that a killer bag of crisps is on the loose. Next people will be checking for FSA messages while shopping, just in case.

I am sick of being told I should be scared. I am tired of companies marketing their products using threat and panic. But what I am most worried about is that advertisers and the media soften us up for the politicians who use the same tactics to frighten people into voting for them.

Advertisers alert us that there are germs out there. Politicians tell us our enemies are breeding them and waiting to unleash them on us as soon as they get the chance. It is part of the same cycle of scaremongering.

I want the media to stop telling me about the dozens of ways I can die and instead focus on all the ways I can live life more fully. A little bit of risk is part of the human condition and should be celebrated, not exaggerated. Let's fight back against fear.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 21 January 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.



Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Professional Development Course: Reconstruction after Conflict and War

In February 2005 the Office of Psychosocial Issues, an international organisation and group of consultants based at the Free University in Berlin, will be offering a Professional Development Course on Reconstruction after Conflict and War. The course aims to utilise the skills of two international facilitators working in the area of psychosocial support, community development and trauma management. The course is targeted at community workers and staff working directly with and supporting victims/survivors of political conflict. The 6–day course, for a maximum of 20 participants, will be held in two parts, the first in Northern Ireland and the second part in at a time and place to be confirmed. The course is awaiting accreditation from the Open College Network. Full funding is available for Northern Ireland-based participants and the event will be residential based. For more information download course information by clicking here.

Professional Development Course

In February 2005 the Office of Psychosocial Issues, an international organisation and group of consultants based at the Free University in Berlin, will be offering a Professional Development Course on Reconstruction after Conflict and War. The course aims to utilise the skills of two international facilitators, David Becker and Brandon Hamber, working in the area of psychosocial support, community development and trauma management. The course is targeted at community workers and staff working directly with and supporting victims/survivors of political conflict. The 6–day course, for a maximum of 20 participants, will be held in two parts, the first in Northern Ireland and the second part in at a time and place to be confirmed. The course is awaiting accreditation from the Open College Network. Full funding is available for Northern Ireland-based participants and the event will be residential based. For more information download course information by clicking here.

Sunday, January 9, 2005

Tsunami begs spending rethink

"It is easier to imagine the death of one person than those of a hundred or a thousand . . . when multiplied suffering becomes abstract," the Peruvian novelist and politician Mario Vargas Llosa wrote in his book The War at the End of the World.

The Asian Tsunami disaster has created 'multiplied suffering'. The destruction, in part because of the power of television, is, on one level, only too real. On another, the magnitude of it is really intangible to those of us thousands of miles away.

I know I cannot capture the destruction in words. I find myself not wanting to reel off statistics of the number of dead and the horrible ways in which they died. The media's ever-present body count, generally rounded off to the nearest thousand, adds to the unreality of it all. It belies the impact on each individual affected.

A catastrophe of this nature creates a sort of existential void. Why does it happen? How can we respond? The easiest way is to give money. Money somehow reconnects us to those hurting. It makes us feel we are doing something.

The British public are on course to give over £100-million pounds. The British government promises to match what the public raise.

The US government promises $350-million and the US public have found nearly $200-million for the victims. Both the UK and US governments have also supplied military personnel and equipment to help with relief and reconstruction. The world in total has raised over a billion pounds.

But is it really enough?

What is £100-million to a British government that found £6-billion to fight an illegal war in Iraq? The National Priorities Project estimates that the US will spend $152-billion on the war in Iraq by the end of January 2005.

Various companies pat themselves on the back for their donations. Vodafone is giving £1-million and BP found £1,6-million. But each record profits of somewhere between £8- and £10-billion a year. According to Jonathan Freedland, writing in the Guardian this week, Vodafone's donation is the equivalent of one hour of its profits.

But we should never look a gift horse in the mouth says the old adage. I do not want to rubbish the amounts given. It is encouraging that companies, governments and celebrities are making sizeable donations. The public too has responded generously. A recent story in England focused on children who sold their Christmas presents to make a donation.

But somehow I am still not satisfied by all this. I cringe when I read headlines such as 'Great Brits give £110m'. The great British public also spent £240-million on presents for their pets this Christmas, according to Churchill Insurance.

I do not mean to knock individual generosity. To be fair the poorest 10% of British society allocate three per cent of their household income to charity a year. Governments should not be lambasted when they make an effort. But something is still skewed here.

One hundred or two hundred million in Tsunami aid from the British government is minuscule compared to a GDP of £1,2-trillion. At a broader level, UK foreign aid in total only counts for 0,4% of the GDP still less than the UN-recommended 0,7%. Governments talk about their donations as if it is a personal gift from them or politicians. But it is taxpayers' money. Surely, somewhere, the public should have a say on how this is spent not only on this disaster but across the board in terms of foreign aid and poverty reduction.

The UN estimates that $900-billion was spent on military acquisitions worldwide in 2003, this went up to $950 billion by the end of 2004. The world is set to hit the $1-trillion mark on military expenditure a year. Foreign aid is at a maximum of $60-billion. This is a global disgrace.

What needs to be done in terms of this disaster, not to mention worldwide poverty, is bigger than you and I. Governments must curtail military spending and increase foreign aid.

Personally, I feel wracked with guilt when I think of the small donation I made to the Tsunami appeal. I wonder if government officials feel the same way?

More is needed on top of charitable donations. Each of us has a responsibility to put pressure on our governments to make a real difference in the lives of all who are suffering. Maybe in addition to financial contributions we could all write letters to our local politicians or sign up to campaigns aimed at redirecting public funds in more constructive ways.

If anything, we should all be humbled by what has unfolded before us in the last two weeks. It is a wake-up call if nothing else. We can all do more.

To donate to the Disasters Emergency Committee visit http://www.dec.org.uk.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 January 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Friday, January 7, 2005

Dr Brown, I presume?

The African explorer David Livingstone set out in 1865, at the age of 52, on his final and famous journey to Africa. At roughly the same age, almost a century and a half later, Gordon Brown, another Scot with grand ideas, has travelled to the continent.

Brown, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer or Finance Minister, leaves behind the alleged rifts between himself and Tony Blair for a fleeting six day visit to Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa. As he grinds through his relentless schedule in Africa the tensions with Blair, which will ultimately determine whether Brown will follow him as British Prime Minister or not, may well seem a million miles away.

Brown's African mission is to put Africa at the centre of plans for the G8, for which the UK holds the presidency this year.

Remarkably, however, Brown was last on the continent seven years ago for a short stopover in Johannesburg. He can hardly claim to have a feel for the place. This has not stopped him, though, from routinely arguing for an aid injection and a debt relief strategy for Africa over the last ten years.

In a recent speech he called for a Marshall Plan for the developing world. He has argued that at least $50-billion more a year in foreign aid is needed, effectively doubling the current amount spent by the rich countries on aid. His government, he says, is committed to an ongoing process of debt relief. He has stated that insisting on payment of debts by certain African countries is "unjust" because "it offends human dignity" and is "morally wrong".

Importantly he has reiterated a commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals. These include the promises by wealthy nations to assist in ensuring that by 2015:

- Every child will be at school.

- Avoidable infant deaths will be prevented.

- Poverty will be halved.

So Brown is making the right noises as far as addressing poverty in Africa is concerned.

Of course, in reality, the goals he talks about are a long way off. He has confessed, for example, that in sub-Saharan Africa at present progress, poverty would only be halved by 2150; a remarkable 135 years behind schedule.

His visit to Africa will undoubtedly help bring home the reality of some of the more desperate parts of the continent. Hopefully this will strengthen his seeming resolve to meet his commitments.

Needless to say there is no room for complacency. There are many lofty ideals and pledges the world has failed to meet. Most affluent countries are still not complying with the recommended level of 0,7% of GDP for foreign aid, Britain included. There is no guarantee any of the prosperous nations will follow through on the proposed plans or alter their trade and debt practices.

Paul Ashwin / Edinburgh Castle on the day of the
Make Poverty History March / CC BY-SA 2.0
This is one of the reasons The Make Poverty History campaign was launched in the UK on January 1, 2005. It is a coalition of UK-based charities, unions, nongovernment organisations and celebrities, who have come together to demand that well-off countries increase aid, improve working conditions for the poor, cancel world debt, and use fair trade practices. The coalition is part of the worldwide Global Call to Action Against Poverty which plans to continue to robustly raise the issue of poverty in 2005.

So the stage is set once again for a showdown between the sweet-talking governments and campaigners. Somewhere in the middle of this are the African governments, many of whom will have to get their own act together if they are to become genuine "partners" in the new wave of development Brown promises. But that is another story.

In the meantime, in the spirit of the new year, and in defiance of the Tsunami tragedy that marked it, I feel I want to give Gordon Brown the benefit of the doubt. I long for the day when there is a good news story about the African continent.

So, right now, as Chancellor Brown, in his open-neck shirt and chinos presses the flesh with dozens of expectant Africans, I am going to cut him some slack. I want to see if he can put his money where his mouth is.

This is his big test. If he can deliver the goods, and survive the whiplash smile of Tony Blair and dodge the political daggers in Britain poised for his back, he may well be a British Prime Minister to be remembered.

If he fails, unlike Dr Livingstone, I cannot imagine anyone with a serious social conscience sending out a Henry Stanley-style search party to rescue him from the political wilderness. Brown will either ride on the wave of goodwill that is currently sweeping the UK, or he will find his political career, like Livingstone's heart, buried in Africa.

To find out more about The Make Poverty History campaign.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 14 January 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Wednesday, January 5, 2005

Professional Development Course

In February 2005 the Office of Psychosocial Issues, an international organisation and group of consultants based at the Free University in Berlin, will be offering a Professional Development Course on Reconstruction after Conflict and War. The course aims to utilise the skills of two international facilitators working in the area of psychosocial support, community development and trauma management. The course is targeted at community workers and staff working directly with and supporting victims/survivors of political conflict. The 6–day course, for a maximum of 20 participants, will be held in two parts, the first in Northern Ireland and the second part in at a time and place to be confirmed. The course is awaiting accreditation from the Open College Network. Full funding is available for Northern Ireland-based participants and the event will be residential based. For more information download course information by clicking here.