Africa News blog

Somalia’s mean sealanes

It’s the stuff for a Hollywood blockbuster to rival Ridley Scott’s 2001 thriller “Black Hawk Down”: A bunch of 50 Somali pirates in speedboats and heavily armed with grenade launchers clamber aboard a Ukranian ship in the Gulf of Aden. They overwhelm the 20-man crew and take control of the ship and its dubious cargo of 33 battle tanks, supposedly destined for the Kenyan military. Six days later and with US navy ships stalking, a shootout breaks out on board among the pirates, killing three.

The hijacking of the MV Faina is only the most high-profile of what is turning into the biggest scourge of sea piracy in modern times. According to the International Maritime Bureau, presumed Somali pirates have attacked more than 60 ships in the area this year. It’s piracy alert website reported on Sept. 26 that four ships had been attacked in the Gulf of Aden within a 48-hour period.

“Intelligence sources revealed that there are now three suspicious vessels in the Gulf of Aden believed to be pirate mother vessels looking to attack ships with the intent to hijack,” it said.

Somali pirates taking advantage of chaos onshore, where an Islamist insurgency has raged for nearly two years, have intensified attacks this year on vessels plying the main water route linking Asia and the Middle East to Europe. Somalia has been a dysfunctional state since 1991. The upsurge in piracy has sent shipping insurance costs soaring tenfold, according to Lloyds List, and prompting shipowners to call for tougher international action. The alternative would be rerouting sea trade through the Cape of Good Hope, adding thousands of miles to the journey.

An international coalition of 19 states has been scrambling to keep the waterways in the region safe, but its own warships run the risk of deadly attack. France has been championing international action against Somali pirates. It sent its commandos twice this year to rescue its yachts seized in the region and is now spearheading United Nations action to deal with piracy.

What should be the correct international response to the problem? Should the world’s big powers increase their military presence in the Gulf of Aden to protect vital sea lanes? How should the international community address the fundamental issue of chaos in Somalia itself? Can piracy in the region be contained without a solution to the Somali crisis?

How quickly can Zimbabweans expect economic change?

For Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people, the true meaning of the signing of a power-sharing agreement between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC would be how quickly it leads to an improvement in their daily lives. An economic crisis that began in 1998 has turned the once prosperous Southern African country into a basket case economy with the world’s highest inflation at over 11 million percent. Millions of Zimbabwean’s who have fled across the borders to escape unemployment and severe shortages are waiting to see if the political deal will result in economic rebound paving the way for their return.

The agreement negotiated by South African President Thabo Mbeki provides for the sharing of power between veteran President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Tsvangirai takes on the new role of Prime Minister with extensive powers, with Mugabe’s 28-year hold on power significantly eroded.

But will Tsvangirai wield sufficient powers to place the new coalition government on a new policy track needed for rapid economic reform? Will the international community be confident enough to unlock the needed economic rescue package to help accelerate economic change? How quickly can the collapsed commercial farming sector start to turn around? How will business raect to the new deal? Most important, how quickly will ordinary Zimbabweans begin to feel the impact of the power-sharing deal? Read the following insights from two leading analysts and have your say.

Marian L. Tupy, The Cato Institute

“The government should trust the ingenuity of the Zimbabwean people and allow their creative energies to rebuild teh country with minimum bureaucratic hindrance.” (Read full analysis)

John Makumbe, University of Zimbabwe

“The major political party, the MDC, has devised a very promising economic recovery and rehabilitation programme for the transitional period. It is my considered view that if that programme is effectively implemented, the Zimbabwean economy could recover within as short a period as two to three years.” (Read full analysis)

Trust the ingenuity of the Zimbabwean people

Marian L. Tupy, The Cato Institute 

All economies, no matter how decrepit, can be revived through good institutions and economic freedom. That said, it is impossible to predict how quickly the people of Zimbabwe will be able to enjoy a notable improvement in their standard of living.

Zimbabwe today is one of the least politically and economically free countries in the world. The speed of Zimbabwe’s social and economic recovery will depend on the speed and extent of reforms.

Of immediate concern to the economic revival is hyperinflation, which will have to be stopped through dollarization or the establishment of a currency board. Taxes will have to be made simpler and lower to encourage productivity, and minimize tax evasion. Trade will have to be liberalized to allow influx of cheap imports to relieve the suffering of the Zimbabwean population. The business environment will have to be made friendly to private entrepreneurs through far-reaching deregulation.

Much will depend on the government’s success in ending political violence in Zimbabwe and restoring property rights or offering compensation to those whose land was expropriated by Mugabe. Respect for the sanctity of people and property will be an important part of a larger, long-term, goal of restoring the rule of law to Zimbabwe. Of course, the above is not an exhaustive list of reforms that the government will have to undertake, but it is a start.

The new government must realize that the future prosperity of Zimbabwe will not be achieved through dollops of foreign aid or micro-management by the World Bank and the IMF. The government should trust the ingenuity of the Zimbabwean people and allow their creative energies to rebuild the country with minimum bureaucratic hindrance.  

Recovery possible in three years

 John Makumbe, University of Zimbabwe

 The signing of an agreement between Robert Mugabe’s ZanuPF party and the two formations of the MDC marks the beginning of an exciting period in the political history of Zimbabwe. The national economy has been devastated by, inter alia, disastrous political and economic policies formulated and implemented by the Mugabe regime. Fortunately, most of the development and economic infrastructure still remains largely intact, and the Zimbabwean economy could recover from the current meltdown in a fairly short time.

Zimbabweans are reputed to be hard-working people. Although many highly skilled Zimbabweans have since left the country for greener pastures both in the region and further afield, the country still boasts a highly skilled labour force.

There is also significant goodwill from several developed countries, and some of them have already promised to provide significant amounts of money to assist Zimbabwe in its economic recovery programme.

The major political party, the MDC, has devised a very promising economic recovery and rehabilitation programme for the transitional period. It is my considered view that if that programme is effectively implemented, the Zimbabwean economy could recover within as short a period as two to three years. Part of the MDC’s RESTART programme seeks to attract both domestic and foreign direct investment in order to revive previously existing industries as well as expand the ones that are currently operating at 25% to 30% of their original capacity. The RESTART programme also seeks to encourage as many skilled Zimbabweans as possible to return home and help in re-building the shattered economy.

Several development co-operation agencies have already indicated their interest in resuming or renegotiating appropriate development assistance programmes with the new and inclusive government of Zimbabwe. The RESTART programme will also focus on the revival of the crucial agricultural sector by, for example, creating a land commission to examine such matters as multiple land holding practices, under-utilisation of arable land, and the critical shortage of agricultural inputs. The restoration of a vibrant agricultural sector will re-energise the Zimbabwean economy to recovery in a very short time, indeed.  

How will Zuma’s resumed court battle affect South Africa?

Jacob Zuma, the embattled leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) launched a big fight for his political life on Aug. 4, asking the  Pietermaritzburg High Court to dismiss a graft case against him that could stop him becoming president next year. If his application is rejected, a full corruption trial could follow later this year and South Africa could head into a protracted period of tension and uncertainty. Read the following insights from leading analysts and have your say on how the legal process could affect South Africa:

Keith Gottschalk, the University of the Western Cape (see full analysis)

“Jacob Zuma’s Zuma’s legal team has already proved, year after year that, if you have a bottomless pocket such as taxpayers, you can protract litigation, U.S.-style for the better part of a decade.”

Rainette Taljaard, Helen Suzman Foundation (see full analysis)

“If the arms deal was the loss of innocence for South African’s ruling party, the Zuma trial will be the collateral damage to constitutional structures with long-term consequences.”

Adenaan Hardien, Cadiz (see full analysis)

“If anything is giving market participants sleepless nights, then it has to be what Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni and his Monetary Policy Committee will decide when they meet next week.”

Markets shrug off Zuma case

Adenaan Hadien, Cadiz Holdings

Pietermaritzburg may well have been brought to a standstill with the resumed corruption case of Jacob Zuma in the High Court, but I suspect the same would not be true for local markets.  Certainly, if last week’s market performances are anything to go by, then reactions are likely to be muted.  Last Thursday, the Constitutional Court dismissed all four of Zuma’s appeals to prevent the state from using potentially damaging evidence against him in his corruption trial.  On Monday, Zuma’s legal team submitted an application for a permanent stay of prosecution, arguing that his constitutional rights have been violated.  This application and the round of appeals which may follow if, as is expected, it was rejected, would again delay things. On the week, the local currency gained over 4% against South Africa’s trading partners’ currencies and bonds enjoyed gains last seen in the late-1990s.  Equities put in a more mixed performance on the week, due to the oscillating woes of resources against financials and industrials.  The performances of bonds were even more impressive, given the higher-than-expected consumer inflation figures released on Wednesday.  Granted, Thursday’s producer inflation numbers were more encouraging.

It is not that the Zuma trial is not important.  That the leader of the majority political party is on trial for corruption is certainly a big deal.  But the saga has dragged on for so long that there is a sense of numbness creeping in.  There is also a positive spin to all this.  Notwithstanding vitriolic noises sometimes made by allies, and while there have certainly been casualties in a brutal battle for succession in the ruling party that has extended to key political institutions, South Africa’s democracy remains firmly intact.  If anything is giving market participants sleepless nights, then it has to be what Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni and his Monetary Policy Committee will decide when they meet next week.  Last week’s performances suggest that there isn’t too much sleep being lost at the moment.

Holding pattern dawns in Zuma saga

 Raenette Taljaard, Helen Suzman Foundation  

ANC President Jacob Zuma’s quest for a pre-trial stay of prosecution looks certain to  perpetuate uncertainty and an uncomfortable ongoing holding pattern and turmoil inherent in these dramatic events.

These compounded uncertainties do not only affect the South African economy with perceptions of political risk ratcheting up as key members of the new ANC leadership step up the rhetoric as Zuma goes to court but also creates tremors for core constitutional institutions and the bench in South Africa. After upholding the search and seizure warrants used against Zuma and rebuking his legal team for what amounts to delaying tactics, the Court also discouraged pre-trial legal wrangles of the kind that started in Pietermaritzburg.

Various options are on the table for Zuma: playing for time through delaying tactics; if convicted a possible Constitutional amendment to stay prosecution for a sitting President, or a general amnesty for the arms deal.

New revelations alleging corrupt activity on the part of President Thabo Mbeki in the arms deal – which he chaired as head of a Cabinet Sub-committee – have been dismissed but will fuel the ongoing perceptions that Zuma’s is a selective prosecution, adding fuel to an already burning fire that appears set to singe the judiciary. Unless there is a full account of what happened in the arms deal – a scenario unlikely on the eve of the fourth democratic poll – the rumblings of conspiracy will continue to eat away at the heart of the ruling party irrespective of former President Nelson Mandela’s calls for unity as the party celebrated his 90th.

What appears certain, irrespective of which route is the most likely denouement of the Zuma saga, is that the rule of law, constitutionalism and the South African bench will never be quite the same. If the arms deal was the loss of innocence for South Africa’s ruling party, the Zuma trial will be the collateral damage to constitutional structures with long-term consequences.

No quick end seen in Zuma case

Keith Gottschalk, The University of the Western Cape

Jacob Zuma’s legal team has already proved, year after year that, if you have a bottomless pocket such as taxpayers, you can protract litigation, U.S.-style for the better part of a decade.

    The Presidency currently has a line item budget of 10 million rand per year for Zuma’s legal expenses. By South African standards, this is a record. It will certainly enable his legal team to appeal every point of procedure, then if necessary the verdict, and sentence. Each appeal starts with a delay of six or nine months on the court rolls, repeated as it winds it way upwards through a full bench of the High Court, followed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, followed by the Constitutional Court.

    Sooner or later Zuma’s lawyers will also discover that above the highest court in South Africa lies the new Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal, based in Windhoek, already resorted to by Zimbabwean white ranchers.

    In short, it’s unimaginable that Zuma’s trial will have concluded by election day in 2009. The last appeal might well stretch even beyond a one-term Zuma presidency, which would end in 2014.

      There are several analogies in other western-style governments. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney shrugged off similar allegations to those against Zuma. Israeli Prime Minister Erhud Olmert was not prosecuted for illegally receiving money, but has announced his early retirement.

    Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi faces more serious claims than Zuma – allegations that he bribed judges. Italy’s ruling party reacted by passing a law forbidding the prosecution of a prime minister. Then they retroactively changed corporate accounting law to pre-empt another prosecution. At the same time a top ANC leader smeared South Africa’s judges as “counter-revolutionary”, Berlusconi smeared his judges as “Reds”.

Mandela at 90: How should his legacy be preserved?

Tributes poured in on Friday as anti-apartheid struggle icon and international statesman Nelson Mandela celebrated his 90th birthday.

Mandela is revered globally for using his personal charm to promote reconciliation in a racially divided country on the verge of a racial bloodbath after his release from 27 years in apartheid jails for battling white domination. The emerging multiracial or rainbow nation he moulded is seen as his greatest legacy. 

Johannesburg’s leading daily, Business Day, referred to this in its editorial: “It is no exaggeration to state that it is highly unlikely there would have been a negotiated transition from minority to majority rule in SA had it not been for Mandela’s wisdom, humility, dignity under pressure and willingness to compromise in the interests of peace.”

Former South African President F.W. de Klerk, the country’s last white ruler,  referred to Mandela in his tribute as “the most famous South African who ever lived and is universally regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century”. The South African government, which Mandela headed, said in its birthday message: “Your vision has implanted in our society the seeds of social cohesion and national reconciliation to which prosperity will look back with awe and admiration.”

But 14 years after the election of Mandela marked the end of apartheid, South Africa is struggling with  serious political, economic and social issues compounded by rifts and tension within the ruling African National Congress, which was the vanguard of the liberation struggle. Is Mandela’s legacy under threat? Send a birthday message to Madiba and have your say on how his great legacy should be preserved.

How has the G8 delivered on its Africa Action Plan?

This week’s G8 summit in Japan marks 6 years since the group of the world’s top industrial nations adopted a comprehensive action plan to support initiatives to spur the development of Africa. The G8 Africa Action Plan adopted at a summit in Kananaskis, Canada, in 2002 was seen as the biggest boost to Africa’s own home-grown development initiative, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD. The G8 Plan pledges to help Africa tackle the main obstacles to its development — from promoting peace and security, to boosting trade and implementing debt relief to expanding education, health facilities and fighting HIV/AIDS.

As a followup to the Action Plan, the G8 at its 2005 summit in Scotland agreed to double aid by 2010 to $50 billion, half of which would go to Africa. But as G8 leaders prepared  for this year’s summit in Japan, the Africa Progress Panel set up to monitor implementation of the 2005 commitments issued a gloomy report last month. It said under current spending the G8 would fall $40 billion short of its target. Other aid agency officials accused the G8 of backtracking on its pledges to Africa.

But some analysts argue that agreements reached at the 2005 summit were just a part of the G8 Africa Action Plan which offers a far more comprehensive framework for dealing with the continent’s problems. Britain under Prime Minister Tony Blair played a leading role in placing Africa’s problems at the top of the G8 agenda. The UK progress report details London’s implementation of the G8 Action Plan including its role as lead international partner in Sierra Leone after helping to end civil war in the former colony in 2002. US President George W. Bush has won praise in Africa for commiting more of the administrations’s resources to Africa’s war against HIV/AIDS.

But overall, has the G8 kept faith with Africa in the implementation of the Africa Action Plan? How have the decisions of the G8 helped your country or your personal life? Has NEPAD shown enough capacity to keep the G8 focused on its pledges? Is the G8 likely to switch its focus from Africa to more pressing global issues like soaring oil prices and the threat of inflation and recession in its own member countries? Have your say.