From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 09:54:52 EDT
Jendayi E Frazers 4-Point Plan
Written by Sofia Tesfamariam
Wednesday, 02 September 2009
http://alenalki.com/index.php?option=com_content
<http://alenalki.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5916&Itemid=1
> &task=view&id=5916&Itemid=1
On 25 August 2009, the sad news about the death of Senator Edward Kennedy
was everywhere; it seemed everyone wanted to say something about the man who
had done so much in his lifetime. He was a man of integrity and great
honesty, a man who will be remembered for his courage, humanity, and passion
for life. He stood tall for justice and equality and most of all, he stood
for the dignity of all mankind. His colleagues will remember him for his
great skill and political dexterity, his is a life any American youth can
recite and remember with great pride. When my friend called me that morning,
I assumed he was calling to ask me if I had read the news about Kennedy. I
told him that I had and that it was a sad day for America. He quickly
realized that we were talking about two different news items.
He was calling about the shoddy 25 August 2009 Wall Street Journal article
"Four Way to Help Africa" authored by Jendayi E. Frazer, the former US
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. I could tell he was angry
and thought I better read it for myself and see what had him so incensed.
After I read it, I understood why he was reacting the way that he did. My
mind wondered back to Kennedy, who he was and what he stood for, and
wondered how two Americans, both supposedly working for the interests of
America and the American people, could be so different. While Kennedy
fulfilled his political ambitions and served his nation without condoning
and facilitating the death and destruction of others, Frazer's abrasive
character, incompetence and total lack of diplomatic acumen on the other
hand, leaves behind trails of bloody footprints all over the African
continent where thousands of people have been killed and displaced and their
homes and villages pulverized in conflicts she fueled and instigated.
Let us take a closer look at what she proposed in her childish 25 August
2009 article. Her very first recommendation gave away her true motives. It
was a call to put Eritrea on the list of countries that sponsor terror, and
this is the incoherent explanation she offered:
".Al Shabaab recruits young Americans to become suicide bombers. It also has
turned Somalia into a haven for mujahedeen fighters from Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The al Qaeda East Africa cell is based in Somalia and was
responsible for the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Mrs. Clinton laid a wreath in Kenya to commemorate the embassy bombing. She
can help prevent a future attack on our diplomatic missions and citizens in
the Horn and East Africa by taking direct action against Eritrea today."
Everyone, including Frazer knows that there is absolutely no proof that the
individuals responsible for the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
are in any way related to the Al Shabbab or the Union of Islamic Courts.
That is pure fiction-Frazer's fiction concocted to justify her illegal
interference in Somalia. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead Americans
once again. It should be recalled that Frazer had tried to prevent the US
media from writing about the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. At
first Ethiopia claimed it was facing "imminent threat" from the UIC, then
the story changed and Ethiopia claimed it was "invited" by Abdulahi Yusuf
and Ali Mohammed Ghedi to invade Somalia, and then came the outlandish
unsubstantiated story about an "Islamic caliphate" taking over the Horn.
Ethiopia's two-year occupation of Somalia resulted in the greatest
humanitarian disaster in that country since the fall of the Siad Barre
government. Over 20,000 innocent Somali civilians have been slaughtered,
Somalia's infrastructures are in shambles, Ethiopian forces have tortured
and raped Somali women, destroyed their markets etc. etc. Blaming Eritrea
for her own incompetence, miscalculations, personal mistakes and blunders
will not advance US interests in Africa and in no way help Africa or the
people of the Horn. Instead of admitting her mistakes and apologizing to the
Somali people, she wants to now come up with another lie to cover up her
crimes in that country.
It is unfortunate that she has chosen to become a mouthpiece for Meles
Zenawi. Putting Eritrea on the list of countries that sponsor terror is
Meles Zenawi's dream and wish. He believes, as Frazer obviously does, that
they, as the instigators, planners and executioners of the illegal Ethiopian
invasion and occupation of Somalia, would be absolved of the international
crimes committed in Somalia, if Eritrea were to take the blame. Frazer and
Zenawi should be held personally accountable for the deaths of thousands of
innocent Somalis that were labeled "extremists", "jihadists",
"fundamentalists", "insurgents" etc. etc. "hunted down" by Meles Zenawi's
mercenary forces and extra judicially massacred.
Frazer wants to put Eritrea on the list of countries that sponsor terror
because the Government of Eritrea disagreed with the US-backed Ethiopian
invasion and occupation of Somalia and the installment of various
Transitional Federal Governments (TFG) in Somalia against the wishes and
aspirations of the Somali people. Eritrea believes that the only rational
solution to the crisis in Somalia is political, not military, and has
consistently called for external non-interference in Somalia. If we follow
Frazer's reasoning we would have to put Edward Kennedy on the list for his
views on Iraq. He too disagreed with the Bush Administration, he did not
want war, and he opted for a political solution to Iraq.
Her second proposal was to "oppose congressional legislation to extend the
trade preferences in the African Growth and Opportunity Act to all
developing countries". She offers very little explanation for her argument
and I bet she is trying to appease her dictator friends and of course the
predatory transnational corporations and US retailers who have benefited the
most from AGOA. Here is what she wrote as she shamelessly touted AGOA's
success:
".Thanks to this legislation 40,000 jobs were created in Lesotho alone,
mostly for women in the textile sector .extending the same trade preferences
to hypercompetitive Cambodia and Bangladesh-each of which individually
exports more apparel to the U.S. than all of sub-Saharan Africa
combined-will undermine the program's success in Africa."
What success is she talking about? Any honest analyst will tell you that
AGOA has been a total failure. Frazer wants us to believe that she is
concerned about Africa's access to US markets and that Cambodia and
Bangladesh are somehow to blame for Africa's inability to take advantage of
the "opportunities" under AGOA. The trick is not to punish Cambodia and
Bangladesh for developing their industries and competing in the world
market, it is to help Africans to do the same.
Almost 10 years since the introduction of AGOA by the Clinton
Administration, oil imports to the US from Nigeria, Angola and Gabon still
make up over 94% of Africa's export to the US under AGOA. So who benefited?
As we shall see later, the much touted "success" in the textile sectors were
a gross exaggeration and in some cases actually reversed development of
these sectors and destroyed nascent industries. Many African economists and
analysts had reservations about AGOA and I, as a longtime Africa observer,
had strong reservations about it and said so. I was actually happy when
Eritrea was unceremoniously removed from the list.it turned out to be a
blessing in disguise.
I was not alone in my suspicions of AGOA; here are some of the voices that
were just as skeptical and critical of AGOA from the very beginning, voices
that were ignored and gagged by the likes of Frazer:
".African countries are pressured to adopt WTO-like, and even WTO-plus,
provisions relating to intellectual property rights protection, investment
and financial liberalisation, and labour - all in exchange for some illusory
benefits. The AGOA is a US law enacted by the US for the purpose of securing
opportunities for US businesses, to the detriment of African economies. It
offers no benefits for African economies. The AGOA is a Trojan horse used to
trap African governments into giving up their legitimate rights under the
WTO."-(Dakar Manifesto 2001)
". we reject on principle the "conditionality" approach, which tramples on
the sovereignty of African nations and the democratic rights of its people
to shape national policy."-( Letter signed by 35 Africa based NGOs)
".This is a matter over which we have serious reservations... To us this is
not acceptable."- (Former South African President Nelson Mandela )
AGOA is the "Africa Recolonization Act"-(Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)
".the only groups targeted for assistance are the multinationals who largely
control Africa's trade and access to rich markets."-(The Association of
Concerned African Scholars)
".To argue that AGOA will be the means by which we can penetrate the US
market is a delusion. The main effect of AGOA is to link aid to economic
reform, [such as] the dismantling of a states regulatory environment. There
are no benefits, and the costs include clear manifestations of deepening
structural adjustment and deregulation. AGOA is simply another way of
undermining Africa's ability to mobilize domestic resources for
development."-
(Charles Abugre, director of the Integrated Social Development Center in
Ghana)
There are several conditions that have to be met to become eligible for
AGOA, including one that says that the country has to have a "market-based
economy" and has to "eliminate all barriers to US trade and investment".
There is also a provision of AGOA that is not listed amongst the formal
conditions for eligibility and is not often mentioned by Frazer and her
cohorts. It is the one that says that unlimited duty-free exports of
textiles and apparels are allowed only if they are produced with American
raw materials. In addition, the President has the authority to suspend duty
free apparel if they "cause serious damage, or threat thereof" to the
domestic US industry. So Africa, with its unlimited raw materials had to
sell in the world market at lower than cost to others who then turn around
and sell finished products to Africans who then make the apparel to send to
the US. It is actually mind boggling that African leaders actually agreed to
do it, essentially destroying their own farmers.
Since Frazer mentioned Lesotho's textile sector, let us take a look at
Lesotho and three other countries, Madagascar, Namibia, and Uganda to
appreciate the effects of AGOA on nascent African textile industries.
Imagine my shock when I found out that there were over 50 Taiwanese-owned
clothing factories in Lesotho, a very small country (the size of Maryland)
that is completely surrounded by South Africa. The way Frazer talks about
Lesotho, you are led to believe that the people of Lesotho owned the
factories that were producing these AGOA eligible products. The Taiwanese
sought to take advantage of AGOA and Lesotho's proximity to South Africa's
good roads, highways and ports to ship million of jeans, T-shirts and other
apparel to American stores such as the GAP, K-Mart, J.C Penney at low cost.
As for the thousands of new jobs for women, Frazer forgets to tell her
readers that the job migration to the capital was a result of the collapse
in rural farming which used to be entirely run by women. The men in Lesotho
used to earn a good living by going to mine in South Africa, but they have
lost their mining jobs because South Africa stopped importing foreign
workers, and decided to use mechanized mining, leaving the men in Lesotho
without any livelihood. That is how the women of Lesotho became the
breadwinners.
So there was no real increase in overall employment and because only women
were being hired at these plants to sew and thread etc. the men were left
unemployed and desperate. The situation did not create wealth for the people
of Lesotho. Corporate America benefited from cheap labor and transportation
costs. As a matter of fact, despite what Frazer wants us to believe about
Lesotho, the textile industry in Lesotho was well underway before AGOA ever
came into the picture and AGOA may have actually irreversibly stunted its
growth and development. The real and serious challenge to Lesotho is what
happens to it in 2015 when the initiative ends and Lesotho made products no
longer have privilege to enter the United States market.
AGOA was a nightmare for the people of Namibia, they became victims of the
predatory transnational corporations like Ramatex Textile & Garment Factory,
a Malaysian company moved to Namibia in 2001 to take advantage of AGOA. The
plant turned cotton (imported duty free from West Africa) into textiles for
the US market. Herbert Jauch, head of research and education for the Labour
Resource and Research Institute (LaRRI) in a 26 March 2008 Report stated
that:
".A study carried out by LaRRI in 2003 found widespread abuses of workers
rights, including included forced pregnancy tests for women who applied for
jobs; non-payment for workers on sick leave; very low wages and no benefits;
insufficient health and safety measures; no compensation in case of
accidents; abuse by supervisors; and open hostility towards trade unions
etc.Ramatex used a significant number of Asian migrant workers, mostly from
China, the Philippines and Bangladesh. Although the company claimed that
they were brought in as trainers, most of them were employed as mere
production workers with basic salaries of around U$ 300 - 400 per month
which were higher than their Namibian counterparts..."
http://alenalki.com/images/stories/sep2009/Closed%20Ramatex%20Factory.jpg
In the end, Ramatex, the only beneficiary under AGOA in Namibia, closed its
factory leaving hundreds and thousands of Namibians unemployed. Rauch
writes:
".Ramatex represents a typical example of a transnational corporation
playing the globalisation game. Its operations in Namibia have been
characterised by controversies, unresolved conflicts and tensions.Worst
affected were the thousands of young, mostly female workers who had to
endure highly exploitative working conditions for years and in the end were
literally dumped in the streets without any significant compensation.Ramatex
had shown the same disregard for workers when it closed its subsidiary Rhino
Garments in Namibia in 2005."
On 19 November 2007 the Namibian paper quoted President Pohamba as saying:
".AGOA has not yielded the desired results as far as American investment is
concerned despite the incentives provided by African governments to
potential investments."
http://alenalki.com/images/stories/sep2009/-Uganda.jpg
The story of Tri-Star in Uganda is basically the same story of exploitation
and destruction of nascent indigenous industries, plunder of abundant human
and material resources and another example of how African governments have
squandered the peoples' resources in order to curry favor with Washington.
Lowery Museveni's Ugandan government promoted Tri-Star in order to cash in
on AGOA. During its operation, Tri Star imported fabric from Asia and then
made finished clothing products for US markets, even though there is ample
cotton in Uganda. Instead of investing Uganda's resources on establishing
milling factories, the Government of Uganda chose instead to do what was the
quickest and best option for US importers. The expectations were high.
According to a report published by the BBC in 2004:
".The Tri-Star apparel factory in the Kampala suburb of Bugolobi is bright
and clean. Large motivational signs urge staff to build the nation. Banners
on the wall read "Made in Uganda, sold in USA".Tri-Star supplies clothes to
a range of US companies.There are more than 2,000 workers at the site,
stitching clothes to sell to American companies such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney
and Target."
Judy Auma, a Uganda based Staff Writer for African Executive wrote the
following about Tri Star, in a January 2007 article:
".The factory, which was launched 5 years ago, received high government
support and was viewed as an opportunity for Uganda to exploit USA's tariff
and quota free market. Ugandans were made to believe the establishment would
not only nurture a rich and stable market for Uganda's struggling cotton
farmers, but also become a reliable source of employment.Since its
inception, the factory has neither bought a single bail of Uganda's local
cotton nor exported a stitch from locally produced fabric. Worse still, it
has promoted nearly zero growth in terms of employment and the development
of the cotton sector."
The company left the country without repaying any of its debts, leaving
behind a destitute workforce and an industry struggling to remain afloat.
What about Madagascar, the other nation that Frazer and company tell us
benefited from AGOA? It too has not fared well. A segment of the population,
again, only women, may have benefited from its textile sector, but all that
is at risk today, not because of anything of their doing but because of
political problems in that country that may disqualify Madagascar from the
AGOA list. As for AGOA benefiting the Malagasy people, let us take a look at
the statistics. A 29 March 2009 Africa Rising report says:
".the promised AGOA benefits have not translated to a better life for
Madagascar's people. Madagascar ranks at 143 out of 179 countries measured
by the United Nations' Human Development Index Despite its economic progress
on paper, the country ranks 164th in terms of gross domestic product per
capital.
Reports surfaced in June 2009 about Washington threatening to pull the plug
on Madagascar's AGOA certification. These reports said:
".Madagascar could be removed from eligibility for trade preferences under
the African Growth and Opportunity Act due to a recent change in government
that the U.S. has determined was "undemocratic and contrary to the rule of
law. the State Department has classified the change in government as a coup
d'etat and is therefore moving to suspend assistance to the government of
Madagascar."
Madagascar is a good example of the US State Departments hypocrisy and
duplicity. Everyone knows that Ethiopia is by no means a democratic country
and that the minority regime has:
Violated international law and the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commissions'
final and binding delimitation decisions and numerous Security Council
resolutions on Eritrea and Ethiopia, it has also violated both the African
Union and the United Nations Charters by invading and occupying sovereign
Eritrean and Somali territories
Committed international crimes in Somalia including rape, murder and wanton
destruction.
Violated and continues to violate the human rights of the Ethiopian people
by detaining thousands across the country for voting against the regime in
the 2005 elections. Thousands more are being held on trumped up charges,
including Birtukan Medeksa, a prominent Ethiopian opposition leader and a
judge. It should be noted here that Ethiopia is one of the countries used by
the Bush Administration in its extraordinary rendition program where
prisoners are taken to places like Ethiopia where in secret CIA run prisons
they are interrogated and tortured.
Committed genocides in the Gambela, Ogaden and Oromia regions of Ethiopia.
Genocide Watch and other rights groups are seeking a ICC indictment against
the regime.
Yet, the US State Department that is threatening to remove Madagascar from
the list for violating one of the AGOA conditions today, has refused to take
any punitive actions Meles Zenawi's regime that has committed even graver
crimes.
I am in no way suggesting that Ethiopian textile workers pay for the crimes
committed by Meles Zenawi and his regime by having their AGOA status
revoked, I am however suggesting that the US State Department, if it wants
to salvage its fledgling credibility, can "look the other way" and don't
punish the Malagasy textile sector workers for the "coup" in Madagascar, for
which they had no part. Madagascar may turn out to be the only "success"
story on AGOA.
Today, the US State Department's own Inspector General in his August 2009
agrees with this author and others who were skeptical of AGOA from the
get-go. Here is what he said in his scathing Report about Frazer's Bureau of
African Affairs and AGOA:
".the economic impact of AGOA has been limited even though most of
sub-Saharan Africa is now in AGOA. Many African countries have yet to
benefit substantially from AGOA preferences. Poorly developed
infrastructure, a lack of affordable credit, weak merchandising, and an
inability to meet U.S. phytosanitary regulations are among the many factors
that thus far have limited the intended trade promotion and diversification
effects of AGOA. The bulk of AGOA exports result from petroleum and other
extractive industries. When U.S. imports of African petroleum products are
excluded, the sum of trade for which AGOA can make some boast for promoting
is relatively small."
Johnnie Carson, the new US Secretary of State for African Affairs ought to
take a closer look at AGOA and make realistic and non-parasitic
recommendations to the Obama Administration.
Frazer's 3rd recommendation was something about having a summit in the White
House for her favorite dictators from Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. Why would
Obama want to associate himself with these leaders and shake their blood
soaked hands? I used to think the Congo Holocaust was the one that took
place during the colonial era under King Leopold. I thought wrong.there have
been more deaths in the Congo since independence than in Congo's entire
history.the last 10 years being the most deadly. In 2001-2008, over 6
million Congolese lost their lives in the resource conflicts instigated and
financed by US and UK allies Lowery Museveni of Uganda and Paul Kagame of
Rwanda. A U.N. report describes Frazer's favorite dictators, Kagame and
Museveni, whose mercenary regimes are responsible for the carnage in the
Congo as "the mafia dons of Congo's exploitation".What does that make her?
>From the CIA planned murder of Patrice Lumumba until today, the United
States has played a major role (with the United Nations) in the stifling of
the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people. The United States backed
the 1996 and 1998 invasions of the Congo by its allies, Rwanda and Uganda.
Despite Frazer's vocal denials, Rwanda again in 2008 occupied sovereign
Congolese territories. A recent UN report on the Congo has some damning
information that France, Washington and the UK would like to see swept under
the rug. The Congo saga is too long to be addressed in one sitting.
Contrary to what Frazer eludes in her piece, Clinton didn't go to Goma in
Eastern Congo where the United Nations has recorded at least 200,000 cases
of sexual violence against girls and women in the region since 1996 because
she managed to get "clearance"; she went there because, unlike Frazer who
has never been to any of these camps all over Africa, Clinton, a mother and
a woman herself, cared enough about the suffering of the women there. I just
hope that Hilary Clinton having seen the horror with her own eyes can find
the compassion in her heart to say ENOUGH. I hope she can convince the Obama
Administration to change course in Africa and stop propping up dictators and
murderers and stand up for the suffering people of Africa.
The Obama Administration, if it is serious about bringing change to Africa,
should listen to all African leaders, especially those that have differing
views on certain issues. Just dealing with, and appeasing regimes that lap
up to Washington is not in the best interest of their people or the United
States. Three is nothing inherently superior about America's leaders, they
are human and fallible. They too can learn from other leaders with distinct
experiences and knowledge. Contrary to what Frazer and junior diplomats like
her think, Africa is not so desperate to have relations with the United
States, especially a predatory one. Africa is seeking partnership, not
patronship and certainly not re-colonization.
Frazer's final recommendation was to move AFRICOM to Liberia, another US
client state, which is the only country in Africa that wants AFRICOM in its
territory. African governments and their people have rejected the
establishment of AFRICOM anywhere in Africa. If Frazer is suggesting that
AFRICOM gets established against the wishes of the people of Africa, then
she obviously has not learnt any lessons there. Africans will not allow the
re-colonization of Africa-no matter what pretext is used.
Frazer and her ilk mistake power for prestige, mistake "fear" for respect,
and forget that it takes immense courage to make peace and instigating wars
and conflicts are the work of cowards. As a matter of fact, they have become
sad examples of how little they have learned despite their educational
credentials. Frazer is typical of what is desperately wrong with Washington.
Her corrupt and vindictive demeanor coupled with her total lack of knowledge
about Africa and its people has cost Africans plenty. I have long called for
regime change at the US State Department's Bureau of African Affairs and
felt vindicated when the Report released in August 2009 by the Department's
Office of the Inspector General cited Frazer's incompetence and
mismanagement as one of the many problems that has plagued that office.
Frazer can do us all a favor and go back into hibernation for a long, long,
long time. The Obama Administration can do just fine without her self
serving idiotic recommendations.
The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle!
