The African Sun Times

More information

Thursday, May 18, 2006

OBASANJO: TRAGEDY OF A WOULD-BE STATESMAN

OBASANJO: TRAGEDY OF A WOULD-BE STATESMAN
By Chika Onyeani
African Sun Times - www.africansuntimes.com
Edition: May 19-25, 2006

Snippet "But it is sad that President Olusegun Obasanjo brought this tragedy upon himself, opening himself to the assessment of history as to how he squandered a magnanimity to exude statesmanship and be accorded an recognition as an international statesman in exchange for an unbridled ambition which, in the end and in this case, has dealt him a severe blow.  To this author, the tragedy of Shakespeare's MacBeth is the tragedy of President Obasanjo. Of course, no one is wishing the same ending, but had he avoided the sycophants, which in the case of MacBeth were the three witches, we would today be looking at a man we would have been very proud to place on a rung just a little below Nelson Mandela.  But having tried to circumvent the new charter of the African Union, for which he served as Chair for two years, could we honestly believe that what President Obasanjo orchestrated in the last eight months was the exercise of an democrat?  Only historians would answer that question is due time."

The majority of Africans in the Diaspora are today breathing a big sigh of relief, after witnessing Nigerians step back from the precipice of an impending doom, to an applause of the whole world in saying no to dictatorship in the guise of democracy.  Yesterday, members of Nigeria's upper house, the Senate, voted 49 to 47 to kill a constitutional amendment which would have allowed the President, in this case, President Olusegun Obasanjo, to extend his term of office for another four years, as against the present constitution which limits the office holder to only two terms or eight years of a four-year term.  The debate leading to the vote was quite acrimonious, and the intimidation and threat of violence both for those who supported the term extension and those opposed to it were rather fever-pitched.

In any way you view the situation, President Obasanjo is the great loser, whether the vote had passed or as it is now, in its defeat, having singularly destroyed a statesmanlike aura of an credible defender and practitioner of democratic ideals.  There are those who would argue that the process itself, of allowing the debate in any form it took, is itself a mark of the democrat that Obasanjo is.  However, it is the perceived attempt at undermining this process which has international observers of the President angry and confused as to his credibility in democratic pretentions. 

It has to be acknowledged though that President Obasanjo never once publicly made known his intentions of running for another four years in office.  But the adage has always been that actions speak louder than words, and his actions spoke quite loud and there was absolutely no doubt in the minds of Nigerians that he was certainly encouraging those who wanted what has now been dubbed "third term elongation."  Even in his speech today to the National Executive Committee of his party, the PDP, Obasanjo never made any attempt at denying his interest in running for another four years.  "Throughout the period," he could only say,  "I resisted the invitation to be drawn on either side and I maintained studied silence. I was maligned, insulted and wrongly accused but I remained where I am and what I am and I remained focused."  Most observers believe that if he weren't interested, he would have joined the ranks of Mbeki of South Africa, Mpaka of Tanzania, Konare of Mali and current Chair of the African Union Commission, in coming out forcefully from the onset of these high octane machinations to rebut any interest in extending his rule for another four years, and discourage those who made themselves his surrogates in advocating for his stay. 

Of course, President Obasanjo cannot disavow that he was instrumental in bringing this crisis on the people of Nigeria.  On October 30, 2003, during what was billed as a major policy initiative in combating corruption in Nigeria, Transparency International had invited the President to be its keynote speaker on the subject: "Corruption in Nigeria - '"A Journey from Pond of Corruption to an Island of Integrity.'"  Out of the blue, Obasanjo told his audience that some elements in Nigeria were encouraging him seriously to consider running for a third term or four more years in office.  It was like a thunderbolt of news to Nigerians, who had up till that point never heard any discussions from any quarters about the President being encouraged to run for a third term.  It was like a spigot had been opened for the sycophantic sharks to smell blood and attack, especially in enumerating the accomplishments of their candidate, and in essence why he is the best thing that happened to Nigeria.

And these people had a lot to sing about.  During his first four years in office, Obasanjo seemed to have picked the children of political cronies to serve in his cabinet as rewards for their support.  But when he was voted back into office in 2003, he did an abrupt turn: he selected technocrats, individuals with impeccable credentials, to serve in key positions in his cabinet, the most notable being Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a former World Bank high official to serve as Minister of Finance, as well as Mr. Nuhu Ribadu to serve as Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission, more or less an anti-corruption czar.  Obasanjo gave these technocats considerable latitude to run their respective departments and achieve perceptible results. 

One of the greatest achievements of the Obasanjo administration, which his supporters shout with delight as acknowledged by the international community,  is the debt forgiveness of $18 billion of the country's debt, but which his critics contend at a heavy cost to the country for parting away with $12 billion in immediate repayments to the Paris Club that no other country has emulated.  Also the supporters point to Nigeria's external reserves which hit an all-time high of $28.9 billion as at 15th December, 2005, but which was expected to rise to $35 billion due to increased crude oil prices, and this even after having already paid $6 billion of the $12 billion Nigeria had agreed to pay back to the Paris Club.  Also, this year, Transparency International, the organization that catalogs how corrupt individual countries are, upgraded Nigeria's standing on its index of the most corrupt countries from being a perennial No.2 to Bangladesh's No.1, to that of No.6.  (Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa, followed by Tunisia, South Africa and Namibia, in that order.  Countries that took higher positions than Nigeria include No.1 Chad and Bangladesh, followed by Turkmenistan, Myanmar and Haiti).  These supporters also see the increased number of foreigners in the country as a stabilizing influence of the administration.

On the war on corruption, even Transparency International has commended the Obasanjo administration's efforts, especially with the swash-buckling Nuhu Ribadu going after miscreants no matter how high they are in society, though opponents have accused the EFCC (Economic and Financial Crime Commission) of being selective in who they go after.  Of course, one of the most bizarre case being that of the former Governor of Bayelsa State, one of the richest oil producing states in the country. The governor, Chief Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, had been charged in Britain with money laundering, arrested by the Police in London and placed under house arrest.  After 67 days, under the full view of the Police, he escaped disguised as a woman and returned to Nigeria, where he promptly resumed his office as Governor.  He was later impeached by the Bayelsa House of Assembly and his case is before the courts.  There is also that of Governor Joshua Dariye from the Plateau State of Nigeria who the London police accused of money laundering, but again returned to Nigeria. 

But no corruption case has so far reached the level of that Mr. Tafa Balogun, former Inspector-General of Police, the highest ranking officer of the Nigerian Police Force, who allegedly stole more than $300 million.  Obasanjo fired him, and he was arrested, jailed and served only six months and asked to restitute $30,000.

Nothing, his supporters say, more than recommends him as an democrat when in 1979, as a military dictator of Nigeria, he decided to become the first military man to hand over power peacefully to a democratically elected civilian government.  After leaving office, Obasanjo proceeded to establish himself as an international statesman, becoming one of the founders of the African Leadership Council.  In fact, at one time, he was rumored to be in running for the Secretary-Generalship of the United Nations.  But then, a very atrocious dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, had taken over the government, and promptly manufactured a coup attempt against his government, implicating Obasanjo and promptly jailing him on his return to the country.   Most Nigerians believe that had fate not taken Abacha away, he would have executed Obasanjo. 

There are these last issues that many of Obasanjo's former admirers and current critics view with an incredible amount of sadness as to how, given his relationship with Abacha, he could have the disingenuousness of following in Abacha's footsteps.  Before God saved Nigerians from his iron-clad hand of totalitarian dictatorship, Abacha, after five years in office, had also attempted to perpetuate himself in office by intimidating all the six government appointed political parties to select him as their consensus candidate to run as an civilian president.    The sad and funny part of what went on during the debate proceeding the Senate's vote yesterday, is that the same sycophants who were singing Abacha's praises of being the best thing that happened to Nigeria, and how Nigeria could break up without Abacha, were the same individuals who also championed this attempt to extend Obasanjo's term in office.

Without enumerating what his critics see as Obasanjo's misrule, they point to the glaring poverty in the country, and the horrible condition that most Nigeians now live.  What most worries Nigerians is not the lawlessness of the government, especially in obeying court orders, but the glaring non-maintenance of law and order by the police who are seen as extremely corrupt.  People are robbed and shot, some times in broad daylight.  There have been many high profile killings and the perpetrators are yet to be brought to justice.

No area is anger more expressed than in the energy sector.  Here is a country which is the fifth largest oil producing country in the world, yet most cities in Nigeria lack electricity.  All the promises of increased electricity supply in the country are yet to materialise after seven years in office.  The list could go on and on of what Obasanjo has not accomplished, and wouldn't be able to accomplish even if he were to stay for another 20 years.  Hence, they believe there is hardly anything to recommend extending his rule for another four years. 

There is no denying the fact that there is no country without problems, but it is sad that President Olusegun Obasanjo brought this tragedy upon himself, opening himself to the assessment of history as to how he squandered a magnanimity to exude statesmanship and be accorded an recognition as an international statesman in exchange for an unbridled ambition which, in the end and in this case, has dealt him a severe blow.  To this author, the tragedy of Shakespeare's MacBeth is the tragedy of President Obasanjo.  Of course, no one is wishing the same ending, but had he avoided the sycophants, which in the case of MacBeth were the three witches, we would today be looking at a man we would have been very proud to place on a rung just a little below Nelson Mandela.  But having tried to circumvent the new charter of the African Union, for which he served as Chair for two years, could we honestly believe that what President Obasanjo orchestrated in the last eight months was the exercise of an democrat?  Only historians would answer that question is due time.

Chika Onyeani is the author of the internationally acclaimed best selling and controversial book, "Capitalist Nigger: The Road to Success."  His blockbuster novel, "The Broederbond Conspiracy," is due out in June, 2006. Onyeani is also the publisher and editor-in-chief of the award-winning African Sun Times newspaper, as well as a Fellow of the New York Times Institute of Journalists.  Hear Onyeani interviewed where he tells more than 10,000 other authors worldwide how to be a bestselling author on: http://www.wbjbradio.com/viewshow.php?id=50&aid

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 4:57 PM (0) comments

Friday, May 05, 2006

BLACKS NEED TO RETHINK DARFUR AND IMMIGRATION

There is something sad about our people in this country - blacks. We have this syndrome that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or that the enemy of my friend is my enemy, or that the friend of my friend is also my friend. This is idiotic thinking, which has landed us into too many unnecessary positions. Let's take the case of the situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Speak to many blacks, more than 75% don't know, or even if they knew, don't understand what is going on there. The other 25% who understand have limited knowledge about the geopolitics of Africa and look at it from the prism of the American government's policies vis-a-vis African-Americns in this country.

Most of the informed blacks view U.S. intentions in Africa with suspicion. Of course, who wouldn't, knowing what America has done in Iraq. Let's face it, I wouldn't advocate U.S. troops in Africa, but how do we stop the carnage in the Darfur region where more than 200,000 lives have been lost, and countless number expelled from their homes by the Sudan-government supported rebel group, the janjaweed. Over two million have been routed from homes and are mostly in refugee camps. "Oh, why should the U.S. government be going to the Darfur when it did nothing when Katrina hit New Orleans." Therefore, if America wants to intervene humanitarianlly, it must either have bad intentions or just want to get its hand on the rich resources of the country. Sudan, it so happens, possesses oil, and it must be because of George Bush's insatiable hunger for oil, that is driving this so-called humanitarian attention on the Sudan. No, America government didn't do much for us in New Orleans, they must have ulterior motives in going to Sudan.

It is this type of thinking that makes me angry. Now, the so-called elite don't realise that Sudan has mortaged its oil to the Chinese. China has blocked any attempt to imposing sanctions on the Sudanese government. They don't only supply Sudan with its military needs, which they use in killing black Africans, they also have used their veto vote at the United Nations to block U.N. action in the country. But our people would rather give a pass to China - the friend of my friend is my friend. B.S.

Again, I don't understand why African-Americans are always giving a pass to the Arabs. The Arabs have done nothing but oppress black people throughout history. They invaded north Africa in the 10th century and are still there. They started the slave trade, yet as we continue to demand reparation from the whites, we have never asked the Arabs for the millions of Africans they abducted into slavery. The sad part of this is that the Arabs are still enslaving black Africans - what is happening in the Darfur region is nothing but a continuation of the ethnic cleansing that the Arabs have designed to remove black Africans from that region of the world. We have this sympathise for the Arabs in Palestine, but they are just as bad as the Arabs in Africa who murder black Africans. We cheer Osama bin Laden because he has issued an intifada and invited his band of guerrilas to Sudan to support the Arab government. My question has always been, why should have any kind of sympathy at all for Osama bin Laden. The man ordered the destruction of American embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania, "to teach America a lesson." But bin Laden didn't want to teach the lesson in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and many more Arab states. It selected two African countries where more than 300 people died. This man is an enemy of black people, period.

African-Americans must begin to evolve their own foreign policy initiatives, and understand that because the U.S. government necessarily treats them in a manner not to taste, doesn't mean that America shouldn't use its might to help their brothers and sisters in Africa. We must abhor imperialism in any form, but from my own vintage point, I see development dollars in everywhere America has landed. Look at Asia, and look at Africa and see the disparities. You know the kind of infrastructure America builds when they land in a place, not the kind of destruction they have caused in Iraq, that is the kind of development we need in Africa - infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. You know what is good about infrastructure development, is that when you kick out the imperialists you get to keep the infrastructure, they don't up root and take them with them.

We shouldn't be shouting imperialism all the time. The Black leaders in Africa are doing a lousy job. In 47 years, they are yet to help the masses see the benefits of independence.

The problem in Darfur is that Arabs are ethnically cleansing the area to remove any vestiges of Black Africans in the area so that they could Arabise the area. Blacks should get that into their heads. And stop this stupid love area of the Arabs. That's what I say about Darfur: evolve Black American policies in Africa, which looks for the interest of the people there, and not tied to US policies in America. They are not interchangeable.

IMMIGRATION

Now, let's turn to the immigration rallies and how Blacks feel about these rallies and immigration in general. Despite some of the Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and others coming out to support the rallies, yet there is angst and fear within African American communities that these new set of immigrants are again going to be lording over Blacks. We are the least common denominator when it comes to jobs. Hispanics immigrants are taking jobs that Blacks are supposedly supposed to be getting. The nervousness is palpable. Now, the rant is that these immigrants organizers shouldn't be adopting Martin Luther King's civil rights tactics, as if they have a monopoly on how the organizers should operate.

First of all, Black leaders in America, just like their African counterparts, have failed Black Americans. Most of these people should up only for photo-ops, something that they feel will give them maximum publicity. According to figures just released, more than 72% of African American youths without high school are unemployed, while only for whites it is 34% and only 19% for Hispanics.

What Black leaders are not discussing is how to retrain these unemployeds so that they could be unemployable, I think I have said that before. Blacks need to compete with others. Every immigrant that comes here, we play dead, and let them walk all over us, or we cry how they are discriminating against us. Eastern Europeans have come here and they are getting all kinds of jobs. Until we realise that we have to have at least 150% of the production of the other Americans, blacks can hardly make it. Right now, we are all operating at 50% capacity, which means it is going to take a long time for us to bridge the gap. You can't operate at this level and think you could compete with the other groups. It is not going to happen.

Black leaders need to begin to address the issue of retraining black youths, whether they are high school drop outs or not. They should be trained in skilled jobs.

All this chest beating is not going to solve any problem.

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 1:40 AM (2) comments

Sunday, March 19, 2006

CHARLES TAYLOR SHOULDN'T BE LIBERIA'S PRIORITY

This week, the newly installed first ever woman democratically-elected president of an African country, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has been the toast of America, from her address to a joint-session of the U.S. Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives - and a feat only a few women have had the privilege), to her meeting at the United Nations, and then to a boisterous welcome by 53 members of the African Ambassadorial Group in New York. Some time this week, she will be meeting with U.S. President George Bush. She has within three months of her taking her oath of office, accomplished a feat that most African leaders will never dream of accomplishing in their lifetime presidencies.

Of course, Mrs. Sirleaf is playing to her greatest strength, as an internationally recognized bureaucrat. Apart from serving as Vice President of the African Regional Office of both Citibank in Kenya, and Equator Bank (HSCB) in Washington, DC, she was also Assistant Administrator and then Director of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), essentially a position equivalent to that of Assistant Secretary-General of the UN. After her speech to the joint-session of Congress, interrupted with lots of applause and standing ovation, Congress decided to increase the $100 million allocated to Liberia by another $50 million, making a total of $150 million, but far lower than the over $300 million America had given during the transitional period.

But behind all these hoopla and status cheering applause, is the fate of former warlord and President of Liberia, the exiled Charles Taylor, the man who plunged Liberia into 14 years of strife, murder of over 200,000 Liberians and dislocation and mayhem of incredible proportions. Charles Taylor is now in exile in Calabar, the capital of the best talked-about tourist states in Nigeria, Cross River State.

Charles Taylor is in Nigeria, after Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo offered and African leaders agreed to have him resign and go into exile in Nigeria, after the whole world coalesced in a demand, led by U.S.'s George Bush, that he stepped down for the good of Liberia. In 2003, whilst African leaders were trying to broker an easy resolution of the Liberian problem, the United Nations justice tribual seating in Sierra Leone issued a warrant for Taylor's arrest, charging him with war crimes. The charges asserted that "Taylor created and backed the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone, which is accused of a range of atrocities, including the use of child soldiers." The U.N. prosecutor also said that "Taylor's administration had harbored members of Al-Qaeda sought in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." But the crisis came to a boiling point during Taylor's official visit to Ghana when the U.N. issued the indictment, placing Ghana's President Kufuor in a big diplomatic mess. But with the advise and backing of South African President Thabo Mbeki, against the urging of Seirra Leoneon President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, Ghanaian police refused to effect the warrant for Taylor's arrest, who quickly returned to Monrovia.

But on August 10, Taylor went on national television in Liberia and announced that he would be resigning and leaving office the next day. On August 11, accompanied by Presidents John Kufuor of Ghana, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, and Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique and in a plane provided by Obasanjo, Charles Taylor resigned and flew to Nigeria where he was provided with houses for himself and entourage. So far, it would appear that Mr. Taylor has obeyed Nigeria's condition for granting him the asylum - non-interference in the political affairs of Liberia.

Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf should be commended for stirring away from the Taylor debate, though patently and importantly connected to the Liberian situation. She has made it plain in many speeches that her priorities are the rebuilding of Liberia and reconciliation for Liberians, job employment and educational opportunities for the teeming thousands of former child soldiers, and the provision of basic amenities to the Liberian people. Originally, she had said that Charles Taylor was not on her list of priorities, but unfortunately agitators, stridently led by some in the United States, are bent on making Charles Taylor's arrest that of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's first priority as well as her first headache.

Of course, there is no doubt that the United States Congress in November, 2003, had passed a bill that included a reward offer of $2 million for Taylor's capture. On December 4 the same year, Interpol issued a "red notice", suggesting that countries have the international right to arrest him. Taylor is now on Interpol's Most Wanted list, noted as possibly being dangerous, and is wanted for "crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention." Now, don't tell me that with Nigeria's porous security borders, the shark-infested mercenary legion would not have been out for blood in collecting the $2 million reward, if Taylor didn't have the means of protecting himself, which goes a lot to be mindful and frightened about what is happening right now.

As I said earlier, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is being pressured to do something about Charles Taylor and on March 17, 2006, she formally requested that Nigeria hand over Charles Taylor. It is very unfortunate that outsiders are luring her away from her stated priorities. The Charles Taylor case is a Pandora's box for Mrs. Sirleaf. She should stir clear from it. Those who want Charles Taylor's head on a plate should go ahead and get it for themselves. I am sure that Mrs. Sirleaf is more than cognizant of the fact that as obnoxious and criminal of Taylor's murderous regime, he still has a lot of supporters in Liberia and that there is no need to reopen the festering discontent.

Of course, Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo has an even higher burden in helping President Sirleaf succeed in Liberia, by not allowing her to jump into the minefield that is Charles Taylor. And the way he could do this is borrow a leaf from the canny President Abdoulaye Wade, who agreed to turn over dictator Hissene Habre of Chad to the International Court of Justice, but with the understanding that only at the approval of the African Union. Of course, being on the ground floor and wearing the shoes, and knowing where it hurts most, African leaders refused to allow Hissene Habre extradited.

Already, it seems Obasanjo has learned from Wade's politically astute actions. He has said that he would consult with other African leaders, and I must add he should have the African Union have the last say as to whethere Charles Taylor should be allowed to become a martyr in the mode of Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia who died recently and became a hero, rather than the butcher and common criminal he is. We have a saying that "Trouble de sleep, 'Inyanga' go wakem." Let the trouble that is Charles Taylor continue to sleep in Nigeria.

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 1:59 PM (0) comments

Sunday, February 05, 2006

WHO'S A TRUE AFRICAN-AMERICAN

Snippett: "As I pointed out earlier, Prof. Guinier's mother is white and her father immigrated from Jamaica. The question then arises as to what locus standi does she have for bringing up these charges since essentially she has been the beneficiary of what she is accusing others of doing? Should the children of immigrant blacks be discriminated against though they are fully American citizens? My wife is an African-American and I am an African. Why should our children suffer because I am an immigrant to this country; why shouldn't they be accorded the same rights of citizenship as accorded to the first generation Europeans and Asians?"


Former right-wing Republican presidential candidate, Mr. Alan Keyes, who is grappling at any straw to lift his drowning carpet-bagger campaign for the senate in Illinois, has chosen to fan the flames of inter-cultural bigotry by accusing his Democratic senatorial candidate Mr. Barack Obama of not being a true enough African-American. Mr Keyes was quoted in a New York Times article of August 27, 2004, titled "'African-American' Becomes a Term for Debate," to have said that "Barack Obama claims an African-American heritage," Mr. Keyes said on the ABC program "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. "Barack Obama and I have the same race - that is, physical characteristics. We are not from the same heritage."

Mr. Keyes continued in the quote, "My ancestors toiled in slavery in this country. My consciousness, who I am as a person, has been shaped by my struggle, deeply emotional and deeply painful, with the reality of that heritage."

It is yet to be understood what former Ambassador Keyes meant when he said that he and Obama may have the same "physical characteristics" but are not from the "same heritage." Yet Mr. Keyes acknowledges that his "ancestors toiled in slavery in this country," in effect acknowledging the fact that, if we were to assume the "slavery" he talks about is that of his African ancestors, both he and Mr. Obama might be from the same stock. Why Mr. Keyes would want to disown Obama's African-Americaness is beyond comprehension. Mr. Obama's father was a black man from Kenya in Africa, who died in 1982. His mother is a white woman from Kansas. It has been drowned into our heads that if your blood is 1% black, then you are negro/black/African-American, since the term 'mulatto' has become pejorative, and we are quick to criticize and cast aspersions at individuals who, like Tiger Woods, may want to acknowledge their other ancestors. So, it becomes a matter of serious concern when in the height of trying to win a vote, a candidate like Alan Keyes decides to inject this inter-cultural bigotry and question the authentic African-Americaness of Barack Obama, or would Mr. Keyes prefer Obama to disenfranchise himself by acknowledging his other ancestry to call himself African-White-American so that Mr. Keyes could corner the African-American vote and have himself elected to the Senate? What some people of Keyes' political persuasion could do to get elected is beyond imagination.

Of course, Ambassador Keyes is not the first to raise the issue of the twirling divide between immigrant blacks and native African-Americans. It has become an issue that has been raging in the black community since both Prof. Lani Guinier, a Harvard Law Professor and Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the chairman of the Harvard's African and African-American department, ignited the controversy at an reunion of the third Black Alumni Weekend of Harvard University which took place from October 3-5, 2003, which was estimated to have drawn more than 600 former students.

According to the Harvard University news of January-February, 2004 there was a lot of pleased talk at the reunion about the increase of black students at the university which has 'ballooned' to 530 or about 8% of Harvard's 2003 enrolment. However, the celebratory mood of the evening was broken by Prof. Guinier who charged that the majority - perhaps as many as two-thirds - of the students were not true African-Americans, but West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples. She was followed by Prof. Gates, Jr. who supported her charges. Mind you, Prof. Guinier's mother is white and her father immigrated from Jamaica.

It is quite pathetic that these highly regarded and prominent black scholars should be making these kind of charges rather than extolling the virtues of what the immigrant groups impact on the consciousness of the African-American psyche as role models for success. Prof. Guinier, the first female black tenured Harvard professor, it should be recalled, came to public attention in 1993 when President Clinton nominated her to be the first black woman to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and then withdrew her name without a confirmation hearing. Prof. Gates, Jr. has profited immensely from his writings and filming about historic achievements of Africa which were not known before, and we have a lot to thank him for.

Why wouldn't we thank him? For instance, here is how the announcement for his series on Africa on PBS was made, "For centuries, the history of much of Africa has been hidden from the world, lost to the ravages of time, nature and repressive governments. Now, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. uncovers an Africa most people never knew existed. In WONDERS OF THE AFRICAN WORLD WITH HENRY LOUIS GATES JR., Gates challenges the widespread Western view of Africa as the primitive "dark continent" civilized by white colonists. He shatters myths as he tells the true stories of proud lands filled with great civilizations, cities and centers of learning long before any Europeans set foot there. He also shares his poignant personal odyssey as an African American, the great-great-grandchild of slaves, returning to the cradle of black civilization. The six one-hour programs air on PBS Monday-Wednesday, October 25-27, 1999.

"I wanted to bring this lost African world into the consciousness of the larger public, black and white," says Gates, chair of Afro-American studies at Harvard and director of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research. "It's important to debunk the myths of Africa being this benighted continent civilized only when white people arrived. In fact, Africans had been creators of culture for thousands of years before. These were very intelligent, subtle and sophisticated people, with organized societies and great art."" It is inconceivable that someone who has praised the accomplishment of his ancestors to the high-heavens should turn around to question the zeal with which the children of these ancestors should be pursuing their education in America.

As I pointed out earlier, Prof. Guinier's mother is white and her father immigrated from Jamaica. The question then arises as to what locus standi does she have for bringing up these charges since essentially she has been the beneficiary of what she is accusing others of doing? Should the children of immigrant blacks be discriminated against though they are fully American citizens? My wife is an African-American and I am an African. Why should our children suffer because I am an immigrant to this country; why shouldn't they be accorded the same rights of citizenship as accorded to the first generation Europeans and Asians?

Can you imagine this type of infantile discussion taking place within the Asian community? Of course not. They are more than welcoming to the new arrivals and do everything to ensure their upward mobility as it benefits their society. It isn't about fighting with or overcoming the new Asian immigrants so that they could progress. They are both progressing together. In the New York Times article I quoted earlier, Dr. Bobby Austin, an administrator at the University of the District of Columbia was quoted to have said that "some people feared that black immigrants and their children would snatch up the hard-won opportunities made possible by the civil rights movement." Dr. Austin unfortunately goes on to say "We've suffered so much that we're a bit weary and immigration seems like one more hurdle we will have to climb. People are asking: 'Will I have to climb over these immigrants to get to my dream? Will my children have to climb?'"

Why, why, why? Why should this be the question that African-Americans should be asking of their black immigrant brothers and sisters rather than how Asian immigrants have effectively seized the enrolment at the top colleges of America, without as much as a whimper from African-American leaders? It is not a question we should be discussing; if we were smart, our focus should be on how the ‘true’ African-Americans could learn and emulate the black immigrant group to bring sanity to both our collective psyche.

The type of divisive discussion now going on within the black community will heighten in the next few years as black immigrants, especially Africans, decide to make their homes in America rather having one foot in America and the other foot in Africa. It will heighten especially with the new entrepreneurial class of Africans who are bent on following the same foot steps that other immigrants have followed in climbing out of the doldrums of the economic poverty ladder. It will heighten as the schism widens as to who controls the black community as black immigrants lament the invasion and economic stranglehold of the black community by other non-black immigrant groups.

As much as the ‘true’ African-Americans fear the erosion of their perceived gains hatched by black immigrants, let me categorically state that black immigrants, be they Africans or West Indians, are not going to stand idly by and let Asian-Americans overwhelmingly seize the miniscule opportunities that white America has thrown to us. They intend to compete. It is a matter of pride.

C

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 12:48 AM (0) comments

Monday, January 30, 2006

THE CON-ARTISTING OF OPRAH WINFREY

THE CON-ARTISTING OF OPRAH WINFREY

Oprah Winfrey, the most powerful voice on television throughout the whole world, has inadvertently allowed herself to be conned twice by a relatively unknown, and as it has now turned out, author who completely fabricated it seems every page of what he had written in a so-called memoir of his. The first time was on October 26, 2005, when in one of her shows, Oprah trotted out the author, a man known as James Frey, and sat him beside herself as she does with her guests. What had drawn Oprah to James Frey was a book he had written, a book which he said chronicled his life of being an alcoholic, drug addict, as well as a criminal. Yes, brothers and sisters, recounting this kind of life really made a deep impression on this money-magnet of a powerful woman.

In that October 26 show, which had been advertised as "The Man Who Kept Oprah Awake at Night," Oprah described the book, "A Million Little Pieces," as "like nothing you've ever read before. Everybody at Harpo (Harpo is Ms. Winfrey's more than a billion dollar company) is reading it. When we were staying up late at night reading it, we'd come in the next morning saying, "What page are you on?". In the intervening period, she showed a segment whereby employees of Harpo Productions said the book was revelatory, with some of them choking back tears. Later on, Oprah herself was shown wiping tears from her eye, and then said, "I'm crying 'cause these are all my Harpo family so, and we all loved the book so much."

Well, let me tell you what happened with Oprah's endorsement of the book - the sales sky-rocketed by more than 3 million copies (hard copies) at $22.95 a copy in just three months. That's the kind of power that Oprah possesses when she endorses a book. Just do the math!!

With that kind of endorsement and astronomical sales figures, and coupled with envy or just the pure need to verify facts, investigative journalists started asking questions. One of the best known investigative web-sites is called "The Smoking Gun," www.thesmokinggun.com, and members of the site are pretty good at unearthing facts about issues. The journalists at The Smoking Gun (TSG) went through page by page of James Frey's book, and found out that most of what he had written were all lies. They went to work and began interviewing the individuals, or events that the author, James Frey, had written about in the book. The first story they debunked was Frey's account of how, under a large dose of one of the most hallucinatory and deadly drugs in America called "crack", he drove his car into a policeman in a small town in Ohio, one of the states in America. Well, you can't run down a policeman in America, and so a wild melee ensued. That is of course the story that James Frey told in his book, which turned out to be mostly lies.

When the article about this man who had appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show - of course, you instantly become a celebrity when you appear on her show - was made public, Frey issued a statement, denying that he had fabricated most of what he wrote in his book, and in fact, threatening legal action against the chaps at The Smoking Gun.

In another much publicized show, called the "Larry King Live," on the CNN network, (by any means a lot smaller than Oprah's show), by the way Oprah is on the ABC which you might not have heard but surely you have heard of the CNN, Mr. Frey drafted his mother on to Larry King's show to buttress his lies.

But in a show of shame, which she termed support, Oprah, out of character, maybe this youngman hatched some voodoo/juju on her, called the show to say, despite the fact the book was a total fabrication, she said she still supported the essence of the book. "We support the book because we recognize that there have been thousands and hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been changed by this book," Oprah said. "The underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates with me. And I know that it resonates with millions of other people who have read this book and will continue to read this book." The backlash against her was instantaneous - she was roundly criticized for supporting lies.

That was how James Frey conned Oprah Winfrey the first time and he is now a multimillionaire. In fact, he even has a second book, which I won't mention here that's again on the New York Times bestseller list. I really don't give a damn about the New York Times bestseller list, okay. They know my book, Capitalist Nigger, belongs there but have refused to put it up there, so I say let them go f--k themselves.

So, Oprah had to do something quickly to redeem her high reputation and credibility, and of course her bottom line, which is the profit margin of her company - Harpo Productions (by the way, if you don't know, Harpo is Oprah spelt backwards). First, she issued a statement saying that she was sorry for having called the Larry King Show to express support for James Frey, and regretted being 'duped.'

But everything she said was music to Mr. James Frey, who was already plotting another way to con Oprah again. Oprah issued a command to Mr. Frey, and the person directly involved in handling him at the Random House publishing company, Dan Talese, to appear on her show, so that she could quiz him about whether he told lies in his book. This reminds me of the story of the young girl in a village who had returned from school, and as soon as she got home, started crying on top of her voice. Her mother tried to find out what was wrong with her and why she was crying, but the girl bellowed more cries. Eventually, the mother threatened to beat the shit out of her if she didn't tell why she was crying. The girl, relented and said, "a boy did something to me," and she pointed where. The mother demanded who and where the boy was. "Okay, let's go," the mother said. When mother and daughter reached where a group of young men were, she said to the daughter point out the boy. The girl pointed to the boy. The mother marched over to the boy, and threatened him and commanded him to lie down. The boy of course quickly complied. She summoned her daughter and said get on top and do it back to him. That's how I feel about Oprah's command to James Frey. It was music to the boys ears, so was Oprah's command to James Frey. It was music to his ears.

So, James Frey appeared again on Oprah's show. Oprah's appearance was stern, angry, and no-nonsense. She berated James Frey with questions, and he answered, mumbled actually, with yes to all her questions. "Yes, I lied about that, yes, that was a lie, yes I made that up." Americans would say, "bullshit."

You know what Oprah has really done, boost James Frey a second time, and boosted his book sales even more. You know why, because everybody now wants to find out what the fuss is all about.

Do you know why I am particularly pissed about the whole episode - guess. Well, I am pissed because about a month and half ago, Oprah had a show in which she talked about the word "Nigger" and said the word was inordinately offensive to her and she didn't want anybody around her to use it. But thanks to Don Cheadle of the "Hotel Rwanda" fame, who challenged her about the relevance of the word as it applies to black people, the other black guests were like poodles, who though had disagreed with her, suddenly changed their minds and said the word was offensive to them as well. In fact, the young hip hop artist, said he was thinking about not even using, "nigga" that young blacks use as calls of endearment to themselves. Can you just imagine, if Oprah is bothered by the word, "Nigger", then the whole Black Race is in big trouble.

But more especially, I am pissed because of the title of my book, "Capitalist Nigger: The Road to Success," a book that hundreds of thousands of people said is liberating their minds; Oprah has refused to invite me to talk about my book. But our people are discarding Oprah's fame of endorsement and are making "Capitalist Nigger," the bestseller it has been.

What a disgrace that she has allowed this rotten egg to be rubbed on her face by allowing herself to be conned twice by this con-artist-excellence!!

So, I urge you to go out there and purchase your own copy of "Capitalist Nigger," which millions of Black people are talking about and have acclaimed as liberating their minds from the syndrome of victim mentality. Let's show Oprah that we can create our own five million book sales without her endorsement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Chika Onyeani is the author of the explosive bestseller, "Capitalist Nigger: The Road to Success," and whose forthcoming book, "The Broederbond Conspiracy," will soon be published. Onyeani is the publisher and editor-in-chief of the largest and only weekly African newspaper in America, the award-winning "African Sun Times."

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 11:40 AM (2) comments

Saturday, November 19, 2005

GENDER EQUALITY: AFRICA TRUMPS AMERICA

By Wednesday next week, November 23, 2005, the Liberian Elections Commission would be making the final announcement of the winner of the just concluded run-off election in that country. Barring any thunder from God himself, it seems certain that Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf will be declared the next President of Liberia, bringing to an end 14 years of misrule in that country. International observers, including Africans, led by the former Nigerian Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, have called the election free and fair, with the caution that there might have been very minor irregularities which are not enough to overturn the result of the election. It is always bewildering to hear this caveat about elections in Africa - "free and fair although there were minor irregularities to overturn the results." How do you measure the amount of fraud or vote rigging in an election? Fraud and vote rigging are fraud and vote rigging, by any other name!!

So, by this time next week, we shall be celebrating the election of the first female president in Africa. A distinction has to be made here that she is the "first female elected president in Africa," it is not that she is the first female Head of State, that honor belongs to Ms. Ruth Sando Perry, also of Liberia.
In the earlier election, Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf had come in second to Mr. George Weah, the internationally renowned footballer (soccer player), who led the field of 14 candidates with a 29% percent of the vote to Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf's 19%. Whether this front-runnership in that first election gave Mr. Weah a false-sense of automatic acclaim as the shoo-in President, could be discerned by his utterances so far after the results of the run-off. He has charged fraud and irregularities, which the Elections Commission is investigating. Despite the over-whelming evidence of the apparent win of Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf, the Liberian Elections Commission's chairperson has warned her supporters and Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf not to declare herself the winner until that Wednesday, November 23, when the results will be officially announced.

This writer had already noted and voiced great concern about George Weah's utterances during the election campaign. He had been quoted in press reports from Liberia that as president, journalists "who are writing negatively" against him would pay dearly with their lives. "What you write about others today will cost your lives," he was quoted as saying, charging that the press was "being paid $20 and $50 to write anything against him and his CDC party."

Mr. Weah's charges were not totally unfounded, as the National Transitional Government of Liberia itself had expressed "outrage and indignation about the level of reportage being carried out by some media institutions." The Press Union of Liberia joined in the criticism by saying that it "frowned on the professionalism and misconduct of journalists during this process." The organization had been troubled that "media institutions are allowing their airwaves and pages to be used by political opponents to castigate and rain profanity at each other."

"The Union is particularly outraged over the Tuesday, 1 November edition of the SKY-FM 50-50 talk show and a special program broadcast on Star Radio on Wednesday, 2 November on which the two stations, without regard for the other side, hosted Jonathan Sogbie alias Boye Charles and Dionysius Sebwe to castigate CDC presidential candidate George Wearh." The PUL went on to say that "the two programs were unfair because they sought to attack reputation of Mr. Weah without giving him the chance to respond."

However, the same PUL also issued another statement, condemning the "profanity published in the Wednesday edition of the Bi-lingual Newspaper titled, "Why Sirleaf Divorced - The True Story."
No matter the provocation, the ominous warning from Weah could not have been taken lightly, because Africa is filled with presidents and leaders who believe that the press is an enemy, to which everything must be done to stop them from performing the task of independently informing the public. Everyday, one president or another is throwing journalists after journalists in jail or threatening to execute them. Therefore, if George Weah lost the election fairly and squarely, it is good for the press in Liberia.

It would appear from the above that this is an analysis of the election, but it is not. This is about how Africa has trumped America when it comes to gender equality, with the election of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as President of the Republic of Liberia. Though America has had two female presidential candidates, it has not come close to achieving the same kind of gender equality that Africa has witnessed in the many past years. In fact, it is still a rarity and still a wonderment to see women appointed to important positions in America.

Compared to Africa then, America is far far behind in gender equality, though there is always attempts to paint Africans as chauvinistic. As was mentioned earlier, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is not the first female head of government in Africa. Africa has had prime ministers, deputy presidents and women in highly important positions in government.

In South Africa, after President Thabo Mbeki fired his deputy president, he selected Mrs. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka to replace him. As much as the Western press continues to malign Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, nothing is being made or said about the fact that in Zimbabwe the Vice President is Joyce Mujuru, who was a general during the anti-colonial period with the name Teurai-Ropa Nhongo, whose motto was "shed blood." When President Abdoulaye Wade came into office, he appointed Mame Madior Boye as Senegal's first female Prime Minister. Nor do we forget Ugandan Vice President the Hon. Dr. Wandira Speciosa Kagibwe, who quit her exalted position because her husband used to beat her up after she would return from a cabinet meeting and he would want to know she had been, imagine!

From 1980-91, Alda Neves da Graca do Espirito Santo was the Deputy Head of State and president of the National Assembly of Sao Tome and Principe. Today, the Vice President of The Gambia is Aisatou N'Jie Saidy. First female Prime Minister in Mozambique, Luisa Dias Diogo, is tipped to become the next President of that country, if former President Nelson Mandela's current wife, Graca Marcel, doesn't upstage her.

There is even not the need to dwell on the number of Africa women holding highly sensitive positions across the continent, nor the high number of them in the different parliaments in respective African countries.

Again, when it comes to women in legislative houses, Africa still trumps America as well. The wallowing in praise of the increase in females elected to the current U.S. Senate is quite pathetic compared to Africa: there are now 14 female senators in the U.S. senate - 14 percent of the total number. What's the big deal compared to Rwanda where the percentage is 50%, the highest in the world.

This writer used to feel quite amused, insulted and down-right dumbfounded at the palpable ignorance of American women when they would charge that African women were victimised by the men. It always seemed that there is no point in educating them to the fact that an African woman who has the same qualification as a man would hold the same position as that man, whether it is in the government or industry.

Therefore, when it comes to gender equality, America is far behind Africa in accomplishing what the women of Africa have accomplished, despite the short number of years of independence, compared to the more 250 years of American independence.

We must congratulate Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf when she is officially announced as the new President of Liberia, but she is hardly blazing the trail of novelty in Africa.

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 11:55 AM (0) comments

Sunday, November 06, 2005

ROSA PARKS: One Woman's Eternal Act of Defiance That Changed a Nation

On October 24, 2005, word came that Rosa Parks had died at the age of 92, and the kind of honor bestowed on her at death has never been bestowed on another woman in the history of America - her body lying at the Capitol Rontuda of the United States Congress, a honor that had been reserved for U.S. presidents and war heroes. The U.S. Congress had voice-voted unanimously that the body of Parks will lie in honor in the Rotunda on Sunday and Monday “so that the citizens of the United States may pay their last respects to this great American.” Some of the other people so honored have included Presidents Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Vice President Hubert Humphrey and recently President Ronald Reagan.

But Rosa Parks had not always been regarded as this “great American.” In fact, she was regarded as sub-human being in the 1940s and 50s, especially in the town of Montgomery, Alabama, where she lived. But on the 1st of December, 1955, Rosa Parks’ one-woman eternal act of defiance would change America, and catapult the meteoriic rise of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On that Thursday, December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks had finished work as a seamstress and boarded a Montgomery city bus on her way home.

She had sat with three other blacks in the fith row, being the first row that blacks could sit on. A few stops later, the front four rows were filled with whites, and one white man was left standing. At that time, blacks and whites were not allowed to seat on the same row of seats, and when all the seats in the front part of the bus were filled, blacks were then ordered to vacate the seats they were sitting. With the white man standing, the bus driver ordered the four blacks to vacate all four seats and move to the back so that the one white man could sit. The other three blacks obeyed and vacated their seats, but Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat. She was arrested and detained by white policemen.

Africans, we are speaking of 1955 in the southern part of the United States of America where blacks were not allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites, where blacks were not allowed to use the same toilets as whites, where blacks were not allowed to attend the same school as whites, but where earlier in 1776, Americans had stated as follows in their declaration of independence that they “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Just how many times did we in our quest for independence quote these words, which would appear to ring hollow in hindsight.

So this woman called Rosa Parks didn’t realise that her decision of defiance against the orders of the white bus driver would change the cause of history in America. Just imagine what would have happened if she had obeyed like the other three blacks, but she did not.

Her defiance lit the fuse that will propel the Civil Rights Movement to its greatest era of achievements. After her arrest, the then President of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), E.D. Nixon figured that this was the arrest that the organization had been waiting for to challenge the Jim Crow laws in the south. First, the police wouldn’t tell him why Mrs. Parks had been arrested; so, he had to call on a white lawyer sympathetic to blacks to call the police and find out why she had been arrested. They finally bailed Mrs. Parks out.

But the blacks in the Montgomery city cried “never again,” and they were determined that they would not tolerate being abused after paying their money to a bus company owned by their city. It was a decision that blacks nowadays seemed to have forgotten how to apply. Blacks decided that they would no longer ride the city buses. That night, Blacks met and decided to boycott the bus services. Remember, Rosa Parks was not the first black to have been arrested for refusing to get up for a white person; in fact, it wasn’t the first time Rosa Parks had been humiliated by the same driver. In 1943, she had paid her fare to the same bus driver, but as the law stated then, she had to go back out and then enter through the back door, reserved for blacks. But before she could get back on the same driver had closed the door and drove off.

It was left to Jo Ann Robinson, a professor at the all-black Alabama State College, and a member of the Women’s Political Council in Montgomery to initiate a boycott of the bus companies. She and her students passed out fliers that urged blacks to boycott the bus companies, and use any other means of transportation or walk to their jobs.

Whites never thought that the boycott would be effective; they never thought that blacks would be united in the same act of defiance that had separated America from its parent, the British government. But they were mistaken. The boycott started on the 2nd of December, 1955, and lasted for 381 days, more than a year. Blacks found other creative ways of going to work, until the white businessmen realised how the boycott was causing them to lose money - the area which matters most to white people. All their attempts at sabotaging the boycott had failed, including bombing the home of Martin Luther King, and enacting laws to force black taxi cabs off the streets. They failed woefully because blacks were united in their resistance at being humiliated.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. became who he was because one woman, Mrs. Rosa Parks, insisted on an act of defiance that changed America. It changed America because it was Mrs. Parks defiance that led to King being chosen as the first president of newly organized Montgomery Improvement Association. Then on January 10 and 11, 1957, with the ministers from the MIA joining others in Atlanta, Georgia, was founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, that then elected Martin Luther King as its president. And the rest of the Civil Rights era is history.

Looking at Mrs. Rosa Parks lying at the Capitol Rotunda under the magnificent Dome of the U.S. Congress, I feel saddened that we have lost the lesson that her one eternal act of defiance should have thought us: we have it in our power as Blacks to change our own history. She did.

# posted by Chika Onyeani @ 12:11 AM (1) comments