Sean Jacobs's Blog, page 329

Borderlines: The tale of a state in limbo

Borderlines (2015) is Michela Wrong’s debut novel. Taking the perspective of a British narrator named Paula, it tells the tale of a newly-independent fictitious African nation named North Darra, which relapses into border conflict with its neighbour. Although the country is never mentioned, Wrong’s North Darrar looks very much like the real African nation of Eritrea. The story very much seems like a fictionalized account of events and anecdotes that took place in Eritrea in the last decade, events which Wrong has written extensively on in other publications.

In this well-written novel, Wrong weaves the picture of a curious and naive British lawyer who lands in Africa for the first time, carrying with her all the stereotypical images of the continent. And, at least initially, the bond between North Darra and Paula, seems driven by her career more than anything else. As the story unfolds, Wrong depicts a country encapsulated in an early decolonizing process, trying to present itself to the world amid acute shortages of skilled human power, resources, and paranoid political leadership. Paula encounters a society that is generous, simple, hopeful, and yet ruled by a culture of pervasive paranoia. The paranoid culture, as the narrator Paula eventually understands, results from the long years of colonial rule, isolation, and political corruption. The commingling of seclusion, detachment, and inwardly looking culture further reinforce, according to one of the characters in the novel, the trauma and mutual distrust in the society:

Half the residents are related to each other and the other half fought alongside one another during the liberation struggle. They loathe or love each other, often simultaneously (102).

The story is roughly divided into three parts. The first section is where the narrator lands in a country that is yet going through the early steps of decolonization. Described in vivid detail are: impressive and ruined buildings; hope and anxiety; sense of loss and victory; as well as the seemingly monotonous life of the diplomatic and expatriate communities. In the second part, Paula and her team collect facts and evidence about the border conflict, as part of her preparation to represent the country in the international court of justice in The Hague. The third part chronicles hopeful stories of citizens who are gradually zombified. Paula also gets involved in the internal affairs of the country, campaigning against the political system’s corruption, which effectively ends the job that sent her there in the first place.

What is interesting is that Wrong’s writing avoids a simplistic over-generalization about the population of North Darra, that reduces a people’s complexity into one-dimensional stereotypes. Different characters such as Dawit, who doubles as operations and opposition; the truly devoted yet ambitious revolutionary character of Dr. Berhane; and the pleasant personality of a government agent named Abraham all help paint the book’s multi-faceted landscape. The descriptions of a monotonous and slow daily life, the wearisome entrances into the world of international law where time is jagged into an eternity, punctuated by a sudden course of actions that result in unexpected outcomes, are symbolic representations of the country and its fate. Although at times the narrative seems extended, the story also benefits from the author’s wonderful curiosity for detail. This allows the author to create an interesting picture of the country by intertwining small stories into a bigger image of a state in limbo.

 

A Luta Continua: A triumph for press freedom in Mozambique

One day after the international day of democracy on September 15, it was truly a day of democracy in Mozambique. A court in the capital city Maputo ruled last week that the academic Carlos Nuno Castel-Branco and the journalist and editor Fernando Mbanze had not committed a crime “against the security of the state” when publishing and distributing an open letter critical of then-president Armando Guebuza. Both were acquitted after the judge gave, what the Mozambican newspaper Verdade called, a “lecture on democracy.” The presiding judge, João Guilherme, defended the economist’s right to voice his opinion and criticize government decisions because all this is “perfectly acceptable in a democracy.”

Leia no @Verdade de hoje a lição de Democracia dada ontem pelo Juiz João Guilherme #Moçambique pic.twitter.com/LZDoR1Q0Lk

— Jornal a Verdade (@verdademz) September 17, 2015

“Mr. President, you’re out of control,” began the academic’s verbal attack on the President, which was published on Facebook and reprinted in the newsletter MediaFax and other outlets in November 2013. Castel-Branco is one of the most important Mozambican academics and co-founder of the independent Social and Economic Studies Institute (IESE). His letter resonated with young people in the cities and was widely shared on social media.

Castel-Branco accused Guebuza of using the then escalating conflict with the opposition party Renamo and his handling of other security problems as a pretext for the suppression of all forms of opposition. He warned that this repression paved the way for fascism supported by big capital, alluding to Guebuza’s involvement in extractive industry. The Guebuza family and in fact many members of the ruling party Frelimo benefit from the recent natural resource boom. The boom has increased conflicts with the opposition, including Renamo, over distributing its spoils. The letter was an attempt to uphold a culture of debate that, in Castel-Branco’s eyes, Guebuza had tried to expunge by insulting those “who have ideas about national problems”—such as rising inequality as a consequence of economic growth—and could contribute to solving them by sharing their knowledge and expertise.

The letter did exactly that—generate a debate. Elísio Macamo, professor of African Studies at the University of Basel, did not agree with Castel-Branco’s accusations, but was outraged about the decision to put him to trial and saw it as a political move, as the trial was announced during an election year. In a Facebook post, Macamo criticized the emotional and personal nature of Castel-Branco’s letter, which, as he said, did a disfavor to the academic community by mixing personal animosity with productive exchange between a “critical academia and a responsible government.” He also engaged in a deeper discussion, arguing that “freedom of expression is not absolute” and that such freedom is not in danger in Mozambique in the way that some civil society actors make it seem. But he also defended the “brilliant” economist and denounced Frelimo’s silencing of dissent.

But for Frelimo—a party that has done everything to maintain its unity and cohesion since it came to power after the country’s independence in 1975—there is little space for debate. In fact, the trial was a “major test of freedom of speech and the press in Mozambique.” The public prosecutor accused Castel-Branco of libeling the president and Mbanze with abusing the freedom of the press by distributing the letter. Amnesty International warned that a conviction “would set a dangerous precedent.” The accused were “simply exercising their right to freedom of expression by speaking out about the governance of Mozambique,” Amnesty International’s Director for Southern Africa said. If it was a crime, it should have been covered by the amnesty law passed by parliament in August 2014 that tossed out all state security offenses between March 2012 and August 2014 as part of a deal with Renamo. But rather than invoking the amnesty law, Castel Branco and Mbanze sought to use the trial as a defense of freedom of expression and democracy.

Last week’s verdict is a triumph of democratic values in Mozambique, but the struggle is not over—a luta continua. Several events have demonstrated that press freedom is in danger in Mozambique. When the prominent lawyer and professor Gilles Cistac died in March this year, civil society actors believed that he had “died because he supported freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy.” Cistac argued that the Constitution allowed the establishment of autonomous provinces, which Renamo’s president Dhlakama had called for. The murder of veteran journalist Paulo Machava in August prompted the chair of Mozambique’s union of journalists to state that “This is once more a way of trying to silence journalists in our country.” Machava reported on crime and had investigated the death of well-known journalist Carlos Cardoso in 2000, who had written about pervasive corruption among the national political elite.

There are many reasons why Frelimo has limited press freedom. Chief among them is the fact that Frelimo attempts to control the flow of information on the armed confrontations it has had over the last few years with Renamo—a few days ago, Renamo president Dhlakama was attacked by unidentified gunmen that, according to one account, resembled the state Rapid Intervention Units.

Whether one sees the country in danger of sliding down the path of repression or not, the issue has been to accept to listen to difference. As Mozambican writer Mia Couto said in his recent acceptance speech for an honorary doctorate, the country needs to avoid being “selectively deaf. We listen to those who are close to us, those who obey us, those whom we like hearing. We listen to those from our own party, above all those who do not criticize us. Everything else does not exist, everything else is a lie, everything else is slander. Everything else is said by ‘the others’.” Tolerance from all sides is what Mozambique needs to overcome the seemingly everlasting polarization and achieve true reconciliation.

Losing London

“To journey is to be human. To migrate is to be human. Human migration forged the world. Human migration will forge the future,” writes Ishtiyaq Shukri in his first essay following his deportation from London’s Heathrow airport in July.

August 2015

I entered the world traveling. My first journey was the 1,4000km trek from Johannesburg to Cape Town, although I don’t remember it. I was just two weeks old at the time. I have lived fully in the world ever since. My first plane journey was when I was five. I still have the ticket with the old orange tail and blue flying springbok of South African Airways at the time. I still have the specially tailored jacket I wore on the flight.  I remember staring at the surface of the water in my glass on the tray table, absorbed by how still it remained despite our great speed. My first international journey was when I was ten. With hindsight, South African apartheid had already made its mark because I remember noticing black and white people socialising together in public and black faces on billboards for products that were advertised with white faces in South Africa. I remain grateful for that first exposure so early on in life, and the enduring awareness that life could be otherwise than it was in 1970s apartheid South Africa.

Thirty-seven years later, on 14 July 2015, I embarked on yet another journey. On that day, I boarded a flight to London. The journey started like all the others that had gone before – with sights set on one’s destination. I thought I was flying home. My wife of nineteen years is British. I have held permanent British residence since 1997. We own a home in London. The journey progressed, as all my journeys do, with an awareness of the space I am traversing, a throw-back to the road trips of my childhood, when my mother would lay out a map before our departure, and trace her finger on the route ahead, road trips during which my father would test our knowledge of the route by asking: “What’s the next town? How far is it? How long will it take to get there?” Three decades later, on 14 July 2015, my route was longer and the map global, but my awareness of the space being traversed as acute as ever. As my flight crossed the Mediterranean Sea, I became more aware of the privileges of my journey, because 30,000ft below, tens of thousands of desperate refugees were having to endure unimaginable ordeals to get to safety in Europe. Given my ties with Britain, I had no reason to suspect that in fact I was on a collision path all of my own, and that instead of flying to a city I thought of as home, I was really flying into a brick wall. Unlike all my previous journeys, on this occasion I would be denied the thing after which all travellers yearn – their destination. Upon arrival at Heathrow, I was detained for more than nine hours and then deported, my residence stamp of nineteen years cancelled. At no point did British Border Force officials attempt to contact my wife. No previous journey had prepared me for that, or the subsequent limbo, which at the time of my writing has lasted seven weeks.

This experience has been so disorienting, that I have on several nights since woken from dreams of being in London, in our house, in our garden, with family and friends. My body was returned, but my heart continued the journey. Had my trip gone to plan, I would have been in London till 19 August, but every day since then has been a day of waking up to the feeling of displacement that follows deportation, the alienating sense that comes with not being where one intended to be. I will always value the support I have had from family and friends, from my publisher Jacana Media for releasing my media statement, from my mentor Professor Isabel Hoffmeyr of the University of the Witwatersrand who led the petition to the British High Commissioner to South Africa which was signed by so many eminent scholars, writers, citizens and friends, to the London correspondent of the Sunday Times, Marvin Meintjies for covering my story, to Professor Neelika Jayawardane of Oswego State University of New York who wrote about my deportation on this site on 30 July, to English Pen who wrote to the UK’s Immigration Minister at the Home Office, James Brokenshire MP on 22 July 2015 asking for an immediate review and investigation of Border Force’s actions on 14 July, and to all those who interacted with the story on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. I mention you all at length because I see you all. Your support has been an anchor during the helium days when I have felt cut loose and adrift.

I am not new to the procedures of detention. I have now been detained three times by British authorities, so that when I was asked by Border Force officials at Heathrow on 14 July to step aside, my first thought was, “Here we go again”. My first detention was in December 1993, when I was detained for several hours upon arrival at Heathrow. I remember that the flight from Johannesburg to London was full. I also remember the return flight to Johannesburg being empty and that I had four seats in the central aisle to myself. Consider the date of my journey. Remember the political context in South Africa at that time. Fill in the gaps. They explain the disparity in passenger numbers between the two flights. Whatever the reason, I was the only passenger from my flight to be detained. The usual questions followed. Why I was coming to the UK. What my family background was. How I had paid for my flight. What work I did. How much I earned. How much money I had for the holiday. Where I would be staying. If I had a return ticket. How long I would be staying in the UK. But one question stands out: How, as a teacher, I could afford the time off work for a four-week holiday to the UK when the Christmas break is only one week long. That question stands out still, because in asking it British immigration officials demonstrated just how little they knew of my world, when I knew so much about theirs. In the end I was allowed through, on condition that I report to a police station every 24 hours for the duration of my stay. I objected and refused. I was not a criminal. I had done nothing wrong. As a black man in apartheid South Africa I had never been required to report to the police daily. Under no circumstances would I agree to do that in the UK. I was let through with the caution that it would be better for me upon departure if I had evidence that I had complied with the condition. I did not comply. I entered the UK. When the time came to leave, I was not asked for evidence of compliance. In fact, I don’t remember my passport even being checked and stamped, raising the question: Why the threat that it “would be better for me” – other than to intimidate and humiliate – when I was not tagged for follow-up?

My second experience of being called aside in Britain was on 28 August 2003, the day of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s evidence to the Hutton Enquiry into the death of the British government’s weapons expert, Dr David Kelly. I had spent the previous night in the queue on Bell Yard outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London to witness Tony Blair’s evidence first hand. I was writing The Silent Minaret at the time and this was a momentous moment. Mr Blair’s was only the second appearance by a serving British Prime Minister before an official enquiry. Setting aside the criticism that the remit of the enquiry was too narrow to be effective and that Mr Blair had himself appointed Lord Hutton to head the enquiry, as a citizen, as a Londoner, as a writer, I still felt it my duty to be engaged, to be there. After I left the court, I was approached by two police officers as I entered Waterloo Station, and asked to step aside. One officer questioned me, while his partner hovered behind me just out of view. The questioning officer would not give me his name, only his badge number. Officer 411LX of Brixton Police Station, asked me to confirm that I had been to the Hutton Enquiry. During the twenty-minute walk from the courts to the station, I had no sense of being followed, and certainly not by the police, leaving me to conclude that I must have been tracked and traced by CCTV cameras during my walk across the Thames. Why me? Why not stop me at the court? Why track me for all that time? That experience has left me in no doubt as to what a British government is capable of when it decides to tighten the screws, which is why I wrote about it in what would become my first ever published piece of writing.

My third step aside experience of 14 July 2015 is testimony to how far Britain has gone down the road of tightening screws. This most recent detention is reminiscent of my detention experiences at the hands of Israeli immigration officials whenever I have travelled to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israeli interrogations are intrusive, dehumanizing and grinding. But if you are inclined to think of British procedures as a soft touch by comparison, think again. While the UK’s Border Force prefers to call its interrogations ‘interviews’ – part of the same linguistic trick that attempts to camouflage British ghettos by calling them ‘inner cities’ – this euphemism in no way tames the realities of the procedure. At Heathrow, my luggage was scrupulously searched, and paperwork from my visits to Yemen singled out, set aside and taken away. I was photographed and fingerprinted. I was held in for several hours in an upstairs room in the airport. I was questioned in detail, my answers meticulously recorded. It is illegal to photograph British detention centres and deportation facilities, and so my mobile phone and baggage were also stored in a separate lock-up. None of these procedures is new to me. They are all variations of previous such encounters, and one draws on those precedents to remain calm, to remain upright and to cooperate. But what is new and altogether more enduring is that it was from Heathrow that I was deported for the first time, not from Israeli-controlled borders to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as I had so often expected would be the case. Yet I have written at length about Israeli procedures. Let me do so now about British procedures and tell you about the hidden world of UK deportation and the secret places they don’t want you to see.

*

At the various stages of the detention and deportation process, detainees receive letters – in English – from the Home Office explaining the process. The letters are hand delivered by Border Force officials, in my case, to my seat in the detention room where I was kept waiting. The first letter I received reads as follows:

NOTICE TO DETAINEE

REASONS FOR DETENTION AND BAIL RIGHTS

1. I am ordering your detention under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 or the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

2. Detention is only used when there is no reasonable alternative available. It has been decided that you should remain in detention because:

• There is insufficient reliable information to decide on whether to grant you temporary admission or release.

• You have not produced satisfactory evidence of your identity, nationality or lawful basis to be in the UK.

The letter is dated 14 July 2015 and signed in an unfathomable scribble by an immigration officer on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Consider that by the time of writing this letter, Border Force officials had already seen my passport, the permanent residence stamp giving me indefinite leave to remain in the UK, our marriage certificate and correspondence with the Home Office from 7 July 2015 regarding an appointment to have my residence stamp transferred into my new passport.

The second letter I received informed me that I would have my fingerprints taken. It is also dated and signed with the same unfathomable scribble.

What followed the fingerprinting session, during which I was also photographed, was an in depth “interview” with two male officers in a closed room inside the closed room where I was being kept. One of the officers asked the usual questions – why I was coming to the UK, where I would be staying, how much money I had – writing down all my answers. The other was mostly silent. From my answers they learned that I was in the UK to visit my wife, that we had a home in London, that I have never sought recourse to public funds in the UK, and that I had sufficient finances for my trip. He also specifically asked about my visits to Yemen. He had the paperwork from my trips there in his file. He asked why I went. I explained that I had gone to visit my wife who was living there at the time. He asked what she did there. I explained that she was the Country Director for Oxfam, Yemen. To those who don’t know what this kind of probing interrogation feels like, one curious effect is that somewhere deep inside one begins to doubt oneself. That must be part of the interrogator’s intention, and it left me feeling violated. When the first officer had finished his questions, the second officer spoke. He asked me for my wife’s name and date of birth. Then he asked if there were any extenuating circumstances for why I had not visited the UK since September 2012 for them to consider on compassionate grounds while they decided my case. It was not easy to share reasons. I had to tell these men who were detaining me in a closed room inside a closed room the details of my mother’s sudden illness and death in South Africa in 2013, our changed family circumstances through 2014, and my visit to my wife in Yemen in 2014, which meant there was little reason for me to visit the UK as she was not there. I had not volunteered these reasons, but I did share them when invited to do so on compassionate grounds. 

Shortly after the interview, I received the third letter.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971

NOTICE OF REFUSAL OF LEAVE TO ENTER

I note that you held Indefinite Leave to Remain following your marriage to a British citizen but you do not qualify as a returning resident under paragraphs 18 or 19 of the Immigration Rules (HC395) because you have been away from the United Kingdom for more than 2 years.

You have not sought entry under any other provisions under the immigration rules.

I therefore refuse you leave to enter the United Kingdom.

The letter is dated and signed, this time by a different signatory in a different unfathomable signature.

I wonder what meaning of “compassionate” that officer, whose name I don’t remember but whose face I always will, had in mind when he asked me to share my extenuating circumstances. I wonder what definition of “compassionate” the immigration officer had in mind when he or she signed the “NOTICE OF REFUSAL” and the “DIRECTIONS TO REMOVE A PERSON OR PERSONS” in that unfathomable signature – three times.

*

I have written novels about disappearances and abductions, but it is still difficult for me to talk about the feeling of powerlessness that comes from being boarded onto a plane not of one’s choosing, except to say: I hope those immigration officials never experience the humiliation. So if I can’t yet talk about the helplessness, let me describe the procedure, the spaces, the other deportees and the conversations I overheard.

Deportees pass through a separate security check out of view of other passengers. It is a closed-in area, and the apparatus is larger, more utilitarian, less fit for public viewing. Staff attending this process know why you are there. Ahead of me was a family of three: mother, adolescent son, and young daughter. They were being deported to Mexico. I will never forget the look of anxiety on that mother’s face. Her son smiled at her as he lifted their bags, the little girl seemed curious, tip-toeing to see, but that woman was terrified. While my luggage was being scanned, I overheard a conversation between two of the officers. They were talking about a deportation procedure from earlier that day. It was a brief exchange, and went something like this:

First officer: Did you get him onto the plane, then?

Second officer: I did. Handcuffed him and got him on.

First officer: Good for you.

What strength. What power. What force.

The embarrassment one feels at being dispossessed of one’s travel documents, of being escorted through the duty-free shopping area, of being walked past the other passengers queuing to board the flight, of having one’s passport and boarding pass handed to the captain upon embarkation for the duration of the flight, and of being handed them back only when one has disembarked after landing, is acute, the gut-wrenching feeling upon take-off that one is being torn away from one’s family and home, more than I can describe. But I am a writer, so l should try … That flight of deportation was a moment of great weakness and dispossession, a reminder that I am a muhajir, an immigrant at the mercy of the journey, and vulnerable to the powerful who would enact their power over me. I am not inclined to making public statements of faith, but during that tortuous flight, I drew strength from the reminder that the Islamic calendar does not start with one of the great moments in Islamic history – the birth of the Prophet Muhammed, the revelation of the Qur’an, victories in battle, the retaking of Mecca – but with a moment of weakness, the Hijrah, the first migration of Muslims into exile from Mecca to Yathrib, now Medina. In Islam, time is not measured by pomp and glory, but by humility and sacrifice.

*

It is right to acknowledge moments of weakness, when one has been kicked down. But that was then, and this is now. Weakness cannot be a permanent state. Travellers get up, brush away the dust and press on, made stronger by the fall …

People know instinctively when they have been unfairly treated, but let us set that aside and consider Home Office guidance to caseworkers on returning residents outlined in the Immigration Directorate’s Instructions, Chapter 1 Section 3, in particular:

• Paragraphs 19 and 19A (as inserted by Cm 4851) provide for the admission of a passenger in certain circumstances who has been away for more than 2 years if his ties with this country merit it.

• A passenger who does not hold an entry clearance for this purpose but is seeking entry under Paragraph 19, where it is likely, but it is not clear that he qualifies, may if appropriate, be given leave to enter Code 1 for 2 months and advised to contact the Home Office.

Why was I not afforded the benefits of Paragraphs 19 and 19A above and “given leave to enter Code 1 for 2 months and advised to contact the Home Office” when the option existed and when Border Force officials were aware of and had seen email correspondence on my phone regarding my attempts to set up an appointment with the Home Office in Croydon to have my residence stamp transferred to my new passport? Why did Border Officials decide that my ties with the UK did not “merit” the exceptional protection offered by these clauses? In addition to my personal family and property ties to the UK, I have always engaged actively and responsibly with public life and democratic processes in the UK. I have always voted in UK elections once eligible to do so. I have regularly engaged in writing with our local MP about issues that matter to me. I have never been a drain on state resources and at no point sought recourse to public funds. I have always paid taxes on income earned in the UK.

But there is more to life than property ownership and taxes.  The creative landscape of my life in Britain includes two novels written in my study in our London home, the first of which is set in London. It is in all senses a very London novel. The political landscape of my life in London includes Tony Blair’s election victory on 2 May 1997; the same year I received permanent residence. And even though “Education, education, education” was how the fresh-faced new Prime Minster set out his priorities for office that May, it is to me a great tragedy that he allowed his vision to be derailed and that now he is remembered instead for war, war, war. The architectural landscape of my life in London includes Shakespeare’s Globe, which opened in June that same year. It includes the British Library, which was opened in June 1998. I remember that date, not only because the opening was a much-anticipated event after the saga of its construction, but also because it was the same summer my wife and I bought our house. My London landscape includes the Reading Room at the British Museum, where I spent many hours writing The Silent Minaret instead of my PhD thesis. The Great Court in the British Museum, which opened in December 2000 is part of my London. I gravitated towards it more frequently than any other public space in the city. As anybody who has been will testify, few London experiences rival that of leaving behind a cramped, congested city and stepping into Europe’s largest covered public square. My London includes the London Eye which opened in 2000 and on which I rode several times to get the aerial views of London described in The Silent Minaret. Tate Modern and the Millennium Bridge, also opened in 2000, are part of my London, too. And so is 30 St Mary Axe, more commonly known as “The Gherkin”. From 2001 I saw construction progress to completion in 2003 during the regular drive back down Mile End Road from visiting friends in Plaistow. The Royal Albert Hall where a group of friends and I organized the London Concert for Afghanistan on 14 March 2002, following the US-led invasion of that country in October 2001, is part of my London. At a time the White House and 10 Downing Street were vilifying Afghanistan, the concert, organized in conjunction with four leading aid agencies to highlight their work in Afghanistan, also brought classical Afghan music to the Royal Albert Hall for the first time in the history of the venue and was broadcast around the world by the BBC World Service. My London landscape includes protest and dissent as on 15 February 2003 when I joined in the largest day of protest in history to demonstrate my opposition to the war in Iraq.

And as I witnessed London’s landscape change over nineteen years, I have also seen it torn apart, first on 9 February 1996 when the IRA bombed the Docklands Area of London in an explosion so forceful we were alerted to it when the windows rattled in our north London home eight miles away, and again on 7 July 2005 when London was rocked by the worst single terrorist attack on British soil. At 10:05 that morning, I was one of many commuters evacuated from the number 23 bus as it approached Edgware Road tube station, the site of one of the bombs, an experience that prompted me to write an open letter to the then British High Commissioner to South Africa, Paul Boateng on 21 July 2005, and to which I have yet to receive a response.

I mention these ties not because I glorify or value British experiences above all others. I am not star-struck by Britishness or Europeanness. In fact, I do not indulge these fake categories. To take the long view, our species is not British or European. We are all Africans. And while I am the recipient of the inaugural EU Literary Award, I have never been under the illusion that the twelve golden stars on the flag of the European Union shine for us – Europe’s “ethnic minorities”.  I am not star-struck and begging for access to Europe. I value these ties simply because I have a sense of belonging derived through marriage, family ties, residency rights, property ownership, the payment of taxes, public involvement and hard work. I list these ties for the record because when Border Force officials decided on 14 July that my ties with the UK did not “merit” the protection of Paragraphs 19 and 19 A, those were the ties they cut, and that was the life of 19 years which they negated in just nine hours. In the end, I, my ties and life meant nothing to them.

Why?

*

Before I proceed, let me be clear: I do not believe in race, largely because of my experiences of the excesses of South African apartheid, but also because the idea of race is a socially constructed fiction with no basis in science. There is only one human species – Homo sapiens. For those reasons I endeavour not to see the world through racial lenses and I do not write about race. One only transcends race by transcending it. My characters have names and histories. Readers fill in the rest. Having said that, however invented an idea, race regrettably remains a deeply-ingrained notion, a despicable plague that continues to infect the world in many heinous ways. So long as race remains an issue, the world will remain a primitive place. When Barack Obama was elected, I smiled, not because of the colour of his skin but because, at the very least, he is articulate and after two terms of George Bush’s buffoonery, that was a welcome change. (I’m not smiling any more.) So, in the face of my efforts to overcome race, I am vexed to wonder whether, given the evidence, had my name been John Smith, I would have been extended the benefits of Paragraphs 19 and 19A. But my name is not John Smith, and I have been to Yemen. That I believe sealed my fate at Heathrow and led Border Force officials to think that they could not take a chance on me, to decide that given all the options at their disposal, they would enact the harshest. Had John Smith’s circumstances of 19 years in the UK been mine, would British Border Force officials have cancelled his life on the spot?

My case is not the worst. Of that I am keenly aware. But it is part of the increasing heavy-handedness and outright hostility facing refugees and migrants at UK and EU borders, which is why I decided to share my experience.

In September 2013, Campaigns Coordinator for Right to Remain Lisa Matthews wrote:

The location of the border has shifted: no longer just at the port of entry or the territorial boundary of the UK, it has now encroached into schools and colleges, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, places of worship, the home, the private life … Migrants can feel the oppressive presence of immigration control all around them: in their homes, at their children’s schools, at the bus or tube station with stop and searches.

As an immigrant to the UK, I have lived in the centre of the immigration storm there, and mindful that, as John Berger wrote, “To emigrate is always to dismantle the centre of the world, and so to move into a lost, disoriented one of fragments”. In London I taught English to asylum seekers, migrants and refugees. My work put me in touch with men like Ali (not his real name), a blind asylum seeker from Iran who had been moved from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation more than twelve times in as many months. Such instability would be taxing on even the most able-bodied of people. For Ali, it meant constantly having to memorise his way around new accommodation and neighbourhoods, to relearn the location of everything from light switches, doors and gas valves to pedestrian paths and transport routes. Through my work I met women like Najla (also not her real name), an asylum seeker from Libya, so that when the Goethe Institute in Johannesburg invited me to speak on the topic of Europe in March 2006, I took the opportunity to share Najla’s story in my address entitled Fortress Europe.

What gives immigration control such power? Throughout my time in the UK and before, major political parties have gone to great lengths to demonstrate increasingly tougher stances on immigration. 2015 was an election year in Britain. In October 2014 Labour Leader Ed Miliband pledged that immigration was at the top of the Labour Party’s agenda and promised an immigration reform bill with “measures to address voter concerns”. During his campaign trail, Miliband – himself the son of immigrant parents – unveiled his “tough stance on immigration” ahead of the general election in May. If you have never heard the shrill tone of the immigration debate in Britain, if you have never witnessed the depths to which political parties will to sink to “address voter concerns”, look no further than the Labour Party’s shameful immigration mug. If you have wondered how Europe was capable of the hatred displayed in Nazi Germany, how a nation was primed to hate, this was how – through state-sponsored propaganda. The Conservative Party sets the same hostile tone with the UK’s Home Secretary Theresa May proposing in December 2014 to “kick out foreign graduates”. The malignant politics of the border has become all-pervasive, violating private spaces, usurping democratic processes, and infecting language. According to the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, 137,000 people crossed the Mediterranean for Europe during the first month of 2015, the majority fleeing from war. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres quoted on 1 July, “Most of the people arriving by sea in Europe are refugees, seeking protection from war and persecution.” Yet, bigoted language holds sway and despite the facts, on 30 July British Prime Minister David Cameron described them as “a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean”, adding that Britain would not be a “safe haven” for migrants. Speak, Mr Cameron, so that we can see you. By 24 August 2015, 2,373 people were killed trying to cross the Mediterranean, making this the deadliest year for refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean, and Europe the most dangerous destination. On 22 July English Pen wrote to the Immigration Minister James Brokenshire expressing alarm at the treatment I received at Heathrow and asking him to review the case as a matter of urgency. I am not aware of any response. However, on 13 August Mr Brokenshire told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper that Britain would be building more than two miles of high-security fencing in France.

What am I to do, watch silently while they tear up the world and rip apart lives? These are not the policies of the wise, but of the bigoted who legislate to placate a fearful parochial minority that neither knows nor cares for the world beyond its narrow horizon. Their policies fly in the face of human history, of British history, of Britain’s own hybrid genetic makeup, which is 40 per cent French and 30 per cent German amongst others, and of Britain’s own linguistic heritage – this mongrel language in which I am writing. Their policies betray their blood, and their words betray their language. To journey is to be human. To migrate is to be human. Human migration forged the world. Human migration will forge the future. We will sooner stop the tides in the oceans than the migration of people around their planet. In the meantime, if the British government is inclined to go against the tide of human history by building fences as in Hungary, let it have the courage to build them on British soil for the world to see.

For my part, I will continue to seek the reinstatement of my residency rights because they are exactly that – rights. I pray for the safety of my family and friends in Britain because until my case is resolved I cannot travel there easily. And I will continue to live fully in the world by travelling through it, on an African passport, just as I have always done.

Ishtiyaq Shukri is the author of The Silent Minaret and I See You.

Ghana Takes The Apollo

We arrived at the Apollo Theater to see hiplife superstar Sarkodie at 7:00 p.m., an hour before the show was supposed to start. At 8:00 p.m., the Apollo was barely half-full, none of the opening acts had taken the stage, and we were feeling anxious.

Three hours later, and after several heavy Afrobeats hitters brought a sold-out Apollo Theater to life, Sarkodie took the stage to deafening applause and gave one of the most energetic performances I’ve ever seen. The crowd was electric, dancing in the aisles and on the seats, spilling drinks, chatting, and rapping along with the music until well after 2:00 AM. Anyone in the Apollo Theater that night would have agreed that hiplife has made its way across the Atlantic to successfully stamp its impression in the birthplace of hip hop. In all, the show lived up to its title: “History in the Making”.

In many ways, the Sarkodie Apollo show seems like a feather in the cap for the New York area Ghanian community. Ghanian immigrants started settling en masse in the Bronx in the 1980s, and like any recent immigrant community, it took time for them to find their voice amongst the diverse peoples of New York. Today, after many years of the development of that voice, NY based Ghanian youth have formed artist crews, promoted parties, created production companies such as Boogie Down Nima, iRapTV, and Level 7 Films, and have been able to make an impact on cultural scenes both locally and internationally. Hiplife has remained a central organizing feature of this cultural production.

The resounding success of the Apollo show then, is an interesting watershed moment in Black Atlantic cultural exchange. This is especially because for an outside observer, hiplife can easily be misconstrued and difficult to categorize. Critics often describe it as just a blend of hip hop and highlife, a Ghanaian genre incorporating aspects of traditional Akan music and Western instrumentation. Add to that, artists constantly code-switch, rapping in local dialects as well as Western languages. To the average consumer, hiplife might seem like a Ghanaian version of American rap, but in reality it is the product of trans-Atlantic musical and cultural evolution.

However, if we start to parse some of the shared aesthetics between hiplife and hip hop, we can start to see that there are so many threads of influence fanning out, that its hard to assert any claim to origins for any one of them. One prime example of this are the fashion aesthetics of Ghana’s hiplife generation. Standing amongst the crowd at the Apollo of mostly Ghanians who painted the room in a myriad of bright hues, donning standout styles, and lots and lots of bling, I felt quite underdressed. Many people would easily recognize the bling aesthetic that hiplife artists (and fans) engage in, as being part of hip hop fashion since the early days of the art form. But, if we look back to Ghanian history, we can see royals of the Ashanti Empire adorned with gold jewelry as an indication of status and wealth as well. It wouldn’t be unlikely to suggest that in the 1970s, when the USA was enjoying an awakening of African consciousness amongst Black Americans, such images had made their way into the communities where hip hop was born, providing a model for an aesthetic of Black empowerment. The same goes for Ghanian cultural imports such as Kente and Batik, which enjoyed a particularly strong revival during hip hop’s early 1990’s “Golden Era”. When fans come dressed in their best outfits adorned with fancy accessories, and dancers on stage come out in outfits patterned with splashes of Kente and Batik, it shows that through the re-appropriation of their own traditions, they are able to participate both in their own cultural heritage and a global Black aesthetic. Such examples show that hiplife, rather than being a regurgitated copy of hip hop, is a beautiful product of complexity and adaptation of Ghanian culture to an inherently interconnected world.

While the Apollo show was in actuality the celebration of the triumph of a community, the man of the hour was clearly Sarkodie. When he came out he wore only a sleeveless black tunic, black pants and sunglasses, standing in stark contrast to the many freshly dressed, jewelry-adorned patrons and performers. An audience that had been laughing, dancing and drinking for hours, now swooned with his every move, spellbound by his presence.

However, Sarkodie definitely did not forget the greater community that surrounded him that night. Performing “Pon Di Ting” with Banky W, “M3gye Wo Girl” with Shatta Wale and “Chingam” with Bisa Kdei, Sarkodie shared the stage for several collaborations with the other artists. He also thanked the artists and fans multiple times throughout the show, keeping with hiplife godfather Reggie Rockstone’s original vision of the movement as a medium to uplift Ghanian youth. At the Apollo show it was clear that today’s hiplife artists remain proud of where they came from and whom they represent. They place a high premium on remaining true to themselves, and all throughout Sarkodie’s performance, that message remained loud and clear. It was refreshing to see a young and successful performer be so humble and focused on others. He closed out the show with his smash hit “Adonai”, and by the time he bowed and walked off the stage, every soul in the building was chanting and begging for more.

With all said and done, Sarkodie, Lighter, Banky W, EL, Kwaw Kese, Bisa Kdei and the whole crew who performed that night proved that Afrobeats don’t need African soil to flourish. And Harlem’s Apollo Theater can now count a Ghanian contribution to its roster of “history making” performances.

Awkward is the New Black, a short film on Youtube star Issa Rae

In 2012, Issa Rae, the American actress and writer, debuted her web series The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl (also known as ABG), equal satire and romantic comedy. Over two seasons, Rae almost single-handedly built her army of 200,000 loyal Youtube followers (using cunning grass-roots social media strategies) and millions of viewers in a relatively short space of time. Part of ABG’s appeal, was that the show was a breath of fresh air in an era that offered very little in terms of African American television; it revolved around “a quirky, misanthropic main character, like Liz Lemon but with more melanin.” ABG struck a chord with viewers around the world (Rae’s global appeal may also be sourced to her own background: Her father is Senegalese—her mother is African American—and she spent part of her childhood in Dakar.)

In a recent profile in The New York Times Magazine, Issa Rae expressed her frustration with the snail-pace of television. Two years ago HBO hired her to create a pilot. That pilot, Insecure, finally wrapped shooting last week after what seemed like an eternity of development. Luckily she hadn’t slowed down and has continued to put out a steady stream of content, mostly made by others, out on her Youtube platform (she’s sorta morphed into a Shonda Rhimes of web series). She also wrote a memoir, also called The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl, that became a hit and made the New York Times’ bestseller list.

From mid-2013 to mid-2014, I lived in Los Angeles and shot this short documentary as my University of Southern California thesis project, Awkward is the New Black, about Rae. In the film, I explore the journey of Rae’s web series, highlighting in particular how ABG (which started as a zero-budget exercise amongst friends) remedied the lack of complex representation of black characters on screen; and eventually became appointment viewing with the backing of Pharrell Williams. Without the gatekeepers of traditional TV, Rae was able to let her true voice flourish, and walked right into the gap that the big broadcast networks had left wide open. The documentary is a celebration of the series, and also a challenge to indie filmmakers to fully use the digital tools literally at their fingertips, so often taken for granted.

 

#RespecTheProducer | Broken beat in the Durban underground

In a week of rigorous bedroom studio tours, I got to tail esteemed writer Kwanele Sosibo as he dug into what it is that’s making the Durban underground tick. Gqom — a lifestyle? A religion? A fluid, ever-evolving variation of the three-beat broken beat scene? — is taking over dingy shebeens and, increasingly, high-end clubs in Durban. Made mostly in the bedrooms of young, excited and excitable producers and vocalists, the music has found its way onto a fertile Durban dance scene via a steady stream of datafilehost and kasimp3 links distributed on Facebook groups. Aided by a large footprint of Blackberry and Nokia mobile phone handsets, plus a mostly-young and social network-savvy fanbase, the Gqom sound has become flavour-of-the-month — of many months, even.

(This article is part of a series of articles on music producers throughout the African continent called #RespecTheProducer. Check out updates on tumblr and follow the Instagram account.)

On the Saturday morning that the Durban July was happening, we were busy setting up appointments with local superstars. I played attentive student while the master drilled his way into the bedrooms, living rooms, dancefloors and front porches — everywhere that Gqom had a footprint. We’d snuck our way into eThekwini at dusk on a Tuesday before with the aim of documenting the rapidly-rising, and changing, scene.

Nowadays, deejays such as Lag and 031, the former from Clermont while the latter is from Inanda, and artists like Bhejane and Madanone — from Umlazi and Inanda respectively, are redefining a brave world, wild with discontent and intent of partying it away. Armed with desktop computers, invariably-pirated versions of FL studio and Cubase 5, plug-ins, and entry-level condenser mics, audio interfaces, studio monitors, producers such as Sbucardo and Xtralarge are forging a sound and identity which has  forced the major artists who inspired them initially to slowly re-think their approach; to ‘switch it up’ in a sense. Think of these dudes as Julius Malema’s  Economic Freedom Front on pills, ready and willing to disrupt the state of affairs with their fuck-you attitude, their on-line footprint, rampant output, and incredible grassroots support.

The Gqom sound runs the gamut of township flavour — s’ghubu and its abundant variations — until it teases Afro-house and eThekwini groove without fully admitting to its Kwaito influence. Heavy drums. No bassline. Down-pitched and clipped vocal samples. A carnival of whistles. A dancefloor of percussive instruments. A lone synth running throughout the song. And the all-important hook. Mutant shit if you think about it. But to some, Gqom is the shoddily-dressed, talentless cousin to more refined hallmarks of isghubu, like House music.

Discerning listeners do tend to be the least interesting.

Most artists we held court with stated that none of the publications in Durban had given them page-space. Of the few whom features were written about were Umlazi producer DJ Bonnie, whose write-up was concerned with an ecstatic member of the audience asking him to marry her right after an impressive set at a local festival.

Like any underground scene, Gqom has its own shortcomings. Some artists are clueless about how to go about registering their music with a music rights organization like SAMRO. In the same breadth, there are artists who have a clear vision on how to go about achieving their goals, but have no infrastructure to operate within. They are the building blocks.

It’s hard to tell whether Gqom will implode or make its way onto the mainstream in much the same way Durban house did 10 years before. Aided by the fresh-faced duo of Sox and Tira, the four-beat sneaked its way from the coastline and held clubs in a throttle.

Who knows how things might turn out in the next six months? Qoh, a variant of ecstasy reported to fetch for as little as 20 Dibas (Rands), has gained a bad reputation due to the infiltration of fake product. There’s also bad press generated by drug-related deaths in clubs around Durban. Drug culture, especially ecstacy, is big around those parts, but its association with Gqom has lend a further blow to the  scene’s image, and is potentially what radio stations like Ukhozi FM and newspapers such  as Isolezwe haven’t bothered to touch it.

The pretty-boy image for which the mainstream advocates is exactly what Gqom is against. All it’s going to take is one artist to cause a revolution. Who will it be, and how will they do it? What will become of Gqom once it decides to lose its regional affiliations and infiltrate more than the underground scenes in the East and Western Cape, and as far in-land as the Limpopo province?

Ceeyah and Managerh of oBen10 performing at  Sbucardo’s party

 

Why should the colonist and his crimes be placed at the centre of the narrative? Kamel Daoud’s ‘Meursault, contre-enquête’

Kamel Daoud (b.1970) is a journalist who lives in Oran and writes a regular column for Algeria’s bestselling daily Francophone newspaper. His first novel, Meursault, contre-enquête, was published in Algeria in 2013, and later in France where it was highly praised. Daoud was the subject of a recent profile in the New York Times by the London Review of Books’ Adam Shatz following the translation of his novel into English. (I read a French edition published by Actes Sud in 2014, so quotations are my own translation.)

His starting point is the story told in L’Étranger, (“The Outsider”), Albert Camus’ novel of 1942. In that book the narrator, Meursault, who like Camus is a lower-middle class Algerian of European descent, shoots to death an Arab (who goes unnamed) one day on the beach. For this crime Meursault is condemned to death; though really, we are led to believe, he is condemned to death for failing to grieve in a socially accepted manner over his mother, whose death is announced in the first line of the book, ‘Mother died today.’ From this story, Daoud retrieves ‘The Arab’, giving him a name and a history: Moussa, the older brother of Daoud’s narrator Haroun. Why should the story be about Meursault, Haroun says, ‘It was my brother that took the bullet, not him!’ Why should the colonist and his crimes be placed at the centre of the narrative?

Haroun tells his story in the form of a monologue to a stranger in a bar, the same device with which Camus began his later novel La Chute (“The Fall”). The echo is deliberate, as it is in Daoud’s opening line, ‘Mother is still alive today’. This is not to say that Daoud imitates Camus but rather, I think, that he sees the two novels as entangled. The murder of his brother is the dominant theme in Haroun’s psychology, one that he cannot simply escape. In Arabic, Haroun tells us, Meursault is pronounced “El-Merssoul”, “one who has been sent”, or “the messenger”. ‘Not bad, eh?’ he jokes. Daoud delights in these plays on words, these doublings. Moussa for Meursault, Haroun’s love interest Meriem for Meursault’s Marie. This doubleness lies at the heart of the project of telling Moussa’s story, an act by which Haroun hopes to achieve ‘justice… not the justice of a tribunal, but that of balance.’

In a sense, Haroun is Meursault’s double for he has also committed a murder. The victim is a French colonist, and Haroun kills him for no particular reason, a few days after independence has been declared. On arrest he is treated with suspicion for not having joined ‘the brothers’ in the liberation struggle. Like Meursault, he is hated for something other than his crime, namely the fact he committed it on his own initiative and for the wrong reasons. ‘You should simply have done it before [independence],’ an officer tells him, ‘there are rules to respect.’ In making Haroun a murderer Daoud is not suggesting that some facile notion of “balance” requires that colonist and colonised be condemned in identical terms, but rather that a faithful portrait of him needs an honest reckoning with his guilt as well as his trauma.

As a journalist, Daoud is known for his critical perspective on contemporary Algeria. In particular, he has a vexed relationship with religion, as does his narrator. In one of the novel’s many casually witty lines, Haroun describes religion as ‘public transport which I don’t take – I like to travel towards God, on foot if necessary, but not on an organised trip.’ Nevertheless, the narrator and the novelist should not be confounded with each other. Indeed, the author drops several hints that the writer of the novel is in fact that unnamed stranger to whom Haroun tells his story in the bar over many glasses of wine. In one of the last lines of the book Haroun says to him: “Two unknowns with two stories on an endless beach. Which is the most truthful? It’s a private question. It’s for you to determine. El-Merssoul! Ha, ha.”

Between the Volcano and the Tyrant: Political Dissent Erupts in Ecuador

After 134 years of dormancy, Ecuador’s Cotopaxi volcano began spewing ash on August 13th. The 5,897-meter giant’s initial rumblings generated wide-spread panic due to its close proximity to the nation’s heavily populated capital, Quito. Possible mud and volcanic rock-flows pose a lethal threat to a population of 325,000 people that live near what is considered one of the world’s most dangerous volcanoes.

Unfortunately, this geological incident coincides with the growing political unrest prompted by the despotic measures taken by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa. A week before Cotopaxi’s awakening, 100,000 citizens marched against Correa in a nation-wide protest organized by indigenous communities and labor unions.

Groups such as the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, or CONAIE, have been extremely vocal about their discontent with the President and his policies. Indigenous groups have banded together against Correa’s recent platform that reduces welfare payments to the poor, restricts access to water sources, and permits oil drilling in ancestral property such as the Yasuni nature reserve in the Amazon rainforest. These policies ultimately favor multi-national corporations that are allowed to encroach upon indigenous land for mineral and petroleum extraction. To maintain this unjust economic situation, Correa has jailed various indigenous leaders to prevent further opposition to his policies.

Initially, Correa was heralded as an advocate for indigenous rights during the early part of his Presidency due to his ability to improve the living conditions of the poor. Ecuador’s oil revenue was used by the President to help modernize the nation and make it one of the fastest developing countries in Latin America. Many indigenous groups benefitted from Correa’s economic strategies that brought in money for social programs. However, a recent drop in oil prices and increased borrowing from China, has placed the nation in debt and eliminated many government services for the poor. This dramatic shift has consequently affected the living conditions of Ecuador’s indigenous people and their land that has been exploited for its resources.

Beyond indigenous concerns, other assemblages have joined forces with CONAIE to oppose another one of Correa’s unfavorable policies that seeks to raise inheritance tax to 77%. Assets such as residential property, businesses, technology, life insurance policies, and money can all be taxed by the government if their value exceeds the $34,500 threshold. While being promoted as a strategy to democratize property, many citizens fear that this measure will provide Correa’s with an absolute control that will send Ecuador along the same path as Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Accordingly, in an earlier protest against Correa’s inheritance tax, residents of the city of Guayaquil continually chanted “Ecuador is not Venezuela!”

These various political concerns are all the more valid when considering that Correa is preparing to change Ecuador’s constitution to allow him to become President indefinitely. Rather than be limited to two four-year terms, Correa is seeking to remain in power and continue to pass his agenda with the help of his sycophantic Congress.

In response to Correa’s proposed constitutional amendment, former President of Ecuador Osvaldo Hurtado told the Wall Street Journal that “The yearning of all autocrats is to stay in power for life, and that was Correa’s plan from the start.”

Correa’s progression towards totalitarianism reached a tipping point the same day Cotopaxi began showing signs of its imminent eruption. As if to reflect the volcano’s ominous message, 10,000 indigenous members marched on the Pan-American highway to reach Quito and voice their opposition against Correa. Along the way tree trunks, rocks, and burning tires were used to block major roads to paralyze transportation and commerce.

An indigenous woman participates in the anti-Correa rally in Quito. Source: Amazon Watch

To disband the march outside the Presidential Palace, police brutally clashed with citizens and arrested 47 people that included indigenous leader Carlos Peréz and Franco-Brazilian journalist Manuela Picq. Both detainees have been openly critical of Correa and were sought after by the police for incarceration. After her arrest, Picq’s visa was quickly rescinded yet her deportation was prevented by a judge that declared her detention was unlawful.

Manuela Picq and Carlos Peréz being arrested by police during anti-Correa protests in Quito. Source: Manuela Picq’s Facebook Account

“I’ve never seen anything like it before,” Patricia Gualinga, a Kichwa leader from the Amazon, told the Guardian. “Total brutality. They were using motor-bikes, horses and tear-gas bombs. You can’t imagine what it’s like if you didn’t see it.”

To quell the rising wave of opposition, Correa has conveniently used Cotopaxi’s recent activity to declare a “state of exception” that is meant to prepare the nation for natural disasters. However, many citizens are suspicious of this measure since it suspends constitutional rights that are essential liberties needed to depose of Correa.

Accordingly, CONAIE issued a statement in regards to the dubious “state of exception” that declares:

“We want to make it clear that the nationwide declaration of State of Exception is not justified to respond to the emergency presented by the Cotopaxi volcano, and the restriction of constitutional rights to the inviolability of the home, to movement, to assembly and to correspondence in the entire Ecuadorian territory even less so. It surprises us that this declaration includes zones that are not affected, especially when there are demonstrations underway demanding the president and his government rectify their policies directly impacting the rights and freedoms of [indigenous] Peoples and Nations, as well as Ecuadorians in general.”

The suspension of the constitution also terminates the press’ ability to inform citizens and the world about Ecuador. This form of censorship is in line with Correa’s oppressive tactics that continually silence local journalists and media outlets who condemn the president. Most recently, Martin Pallares, a former journalist for the Ecuadorian newspaper El Comercio, was fired from his position due to an anti-Correa tweet.

Pallares exposed Correa’s censorship methods in a recent New York Times’ article that stated:

“Journalists in Ecuador are warned on a daily basis about possible legal action that may be taken against us if we criticize the government, and the companies we work for constantly warn us of the risks we take by raising issues the government is particularly sensitive about. Newspapers are being forced to publish corrections, on the front page, with text, headers and layouts sent directly from the Presidency’s Secretariat of Communication.”

Ecuador’s state of emergency continues to be in effect which regrettably means that Correa has free reign to control the people’s rights, property, and ultimately their lives. Without the ability to protest or assemble, citizens are now disempowered and unable to rally against the rising authoritarian. The lack of media coverage about Correa’s political crimes has put a repressive gag over the mouth of the wailing country. This situation ultimately leaves Cotopaxi or the people of Ecuador to be the force that will oust Correa from his seat of power.

A Monument for the Mau Mau at last, but no land

Mau Mau heroes now have a monument, but no land.

Earlier this month, they were invited to the unveiling of this monument in Nairobi; a “memorial to the victims of torture and ill treatment during the colonial period 1952-1960.” They turned up in large numbers, the majority wearing bright red t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Shujaa wa Mau Mau” – Mau Mau hero.

In their hundreds, they were a sea of red and black amidst the green of Uhuru Park, watching avidly for when their monument would be unveiled in the section of this commons called “Freedom Corner.”

And while the British and Kenyan government and collaborating NGO representatives, all younger than the actual heroes, were sitting within an expansive white tent, these ageing freedom fighters were sat under the hot sun, waiting for the official ceremony to begin. Some were said to have arrived as early as 6 am.

Finally, we could say, at least some recognition for our people who were classified as terrorists until 2003. Finally something to honour the bravery of all freedom fighters and the significance of that period in our history.

But, as social movement activist Gacheke Gachihi asked, what can we gain from a narrative that continues to posit them as “victim” instead of victor over the British? And even while recognizing the inhuman excesses meted out against them, what are the motivations for a rewriting of history that perpetuates a narrative of their victimhood and, as is appearing to be more and more the case, erases the full extent of their struggle?

Spoken interminably at the monument unveiling was the word “reconciliation,” followed closely by “ending” and “closure.” It seems that this monument is also meant to make us reconcile our past with all features of British imperialism; the £90,000 monument (an incessantly repeated figure) is where all further questions about the ravages of empire stop.

Inevitably, it seems also to be the national burial site for the land question.

Not one mention of it anywhere at this launch.

It was the elephant in the room, the solid yet invisible presence that no one spoke about. It was clumsily replaced by other buzzwords: reconciliation, closure, victimhood.

And while they turned up in their numbers, the show could definitely have gone on without the Kenya Land and Freedom army for in many ways these heroes were the appropriate props for the speeches and photo opportunities of innumerable people who were not Mau Mau, yet who will revel in the after glories of the praise that will come from being “important” at this event.

It is reported that these important characters then later went off to drink at the Norfolk, the oldest and, undoubtedly, most colonial of Nairobi’s hotels (even President Roosevelt stayed here in 1909 when he came to shoot half our wildlife to “collect specimens for the Smithsonian institute”) and whose terrace is “rumoured” to be the site where Africans were often shot for sport.

Meanwhile the actual shujaas then walked home, 80-year-old grandmothers bent over with no shoes walking through busy Nairobi to go back to their rural homes.

And in the the Nairobi headquarters of the Mau Mau, Mathare constituency, life continued as normal for Monica Wambui, a 101-year-old Mau Mau woman who has been living in her mabati tin house for the last 50 + years, and with no water, permanent shelter and still having to find her own firewood to cook.

And for this shujaa wa Mau Mau in this picture, from Mathare, tells it all.

In this same place the descendants of these two heroes are caught in the spate of police killings that Mathare Social Justice Centre is working to document. And there will never be monuments for these young people who, in many ways, are also fighting for land.

A week later we are still being told about the £90,000 monument to “victims,” and being assailed constantly by the supposed generosity of the British government who solicited this monument at their “own” expense  (one twitter commentator remarked that this money is likely to have been easily raised from all the exorbitant visa fees Kenyans are charged to visit the UK) .

And in all the hyper-buzz about this memorial we choose to forget that the Kenya Land and Freedom army did not fight for a monument,

They fought for land.

Why General Gilbert Diendéré is derailing the political transition in Burkina Faso

The remnants of burnt-out tires litter the streets of Ouagadougou as ordinary Burkinabe resist the military coup threatening to completely disrupt the transition to democracy. On Wednesday, September 16th, the presidential guard—known by the French acronym RSP—seized the President and Prime Minister announcing the dissolution of the transitional government and proclaimed their commander General Gilbert Diendéré as acting head of state. With legislative and presidential elections scheduled to be held in less than four weeks, everyone is asking one question, why? Why would Diendéré and the RSP seek to completely derail an up till now peaceful process toward the country’s most democratic elections?

The official response: the organization of elections was deeply flawed. In April the transitional government reformed the electoral code to exclude politicians who supported a modification to presidential term limits in 2014 from running in the 2015 elections—popular uprisings ousted former president Blaise Compaoré from power when he attempted to modify the terms in October 2014. Despite the politically contentious nature of this electoral reform and a ruling from ECOWAS (the regional group of West African states) courts against the reform, the country’s Constitutional Court upheld it and several potential candidates were barred from contesting the elections. However, this doesn’t explain why the RSP decided to take this political debate as a pretext for a military coup, or why the RSP had threatened similar action previously during the political transition.

A better explanation exists for the actions of the RSP and for Diendéré, self-preservation. Created in 1996 by former president Compaoré, the elite unit of 1,200 to 1,300 men carried out the personal protection of Compaoré, as well as the tasks of a secret police force to ‘maintain order.’ After Compaoré’s fall, one of the major questions faced by the transition was what to do with the RSP. The transitional administration side-stepped this thorny problem for the better part of a year, until two days before the military coup. On the Monday before the coup, the Commission for National Reconciliation and Reform released a report to the Prime Minister in which the RSP received stark criticism for its lack of accountability to the military. The report describes the RSP as an army within the army; its final recommendation: dissolution.

Then there’s Diendéré. Compaoré’s right-hand man since before he came power, Diedéré is suspected of being in charge of the soldiers responsible for Thomas Sankara’s assassination. The on-going investigation into Sankara’s death was, by the way, put on hold because of the current coup. His list of dirty deeds doesn’t stop there. Diendéré is suspected of being involved in the murder of investigative journalist Norbert Zongo and his colleagues. He is also suspected of profiting from the less than spotless involvement of Burkina Faso in the crises of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Côte d’Ivoire through the trafficking of illicit goods and potentially arms. More recently, Diendéré is credited with resolving the military mutinies of 2011, although the more suspicious amongst Burkinabè wonder if he might not have also instigated or exacerbated them first.

Until now, Diendéré’s involvement and knowledge of nefarious back dealings throughout the sub-region have kept him safe. But when confronted with the end of Compaoré’s rule, the potential termination of the RSP, the exclusion of his political allies, and a Burkinabè people thirst for justice, it appears he has real cause for concern. What better way to insure his own future, even if it is exile, than by taking the country hostage?

For now, the strategy seems to have paid off. Senegalese president and current president of ECOWAS, Macky Sall, and the President of Benin, Boni Yayi, arrived last Friday (September 18th) to begin negotiations between the different groups in the political crisis. The mediation process restored a tenuous calm to the capital of Burkina Faso. It also guaranteed that Diendéré and the RSP will have a voice in a transition process from which they were previously excluded. Only time will tell if the military coup gambit will pay off completely and help Diendéré and the RSP escape their alleged past crimes.