Africa News blog

Soccer match creates Arab diplomatic rift

Why was Edwin Dyer killed?

Edwin Dyer was among a group of Western tourists kidnapped on the Niger-Mali border after attending a festival of Tuareg culture in late January.

Four months later the Briton was killed by al Qaeda’s North African wing, which had been demanding the release of Abu Qatada, a Jordanian Islamist being held in Britain.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb said Dyer’s death was “a tiny portion of what innocent Muslims taste every day at the hands of the Crusader and Jewish coalition”.

Although Dyer was killed on May 31, news of his death was not released until June 3, a day before President Barack Obama gave a speech in Cairo intended to mend fences with the Muslim world.

Analysts suggested that AQIM may have intended Dyer’s death as a message to the American president.

Or was the reason more prosaic?

Last month, Algerian media said AQIM was demanding 10 million euros ($14 million) for Dyer and a Swiss national the group was also holding.

Western Sahara poser for UN

Morocco serves as the backdrop for such Hollywood blockbusters as Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Body of Lies. The country’s breathtaking landscapes and gritty urban neighbourhoods are the perfect setting for Hollywood’s imagination.

Unbeknown to most filmgoers, however, is that Morocco is embroiled in one of Africa’s oldest conflicts – the dispute over Western Sahara. This month the UN Security Council is expected to take up the dispute once more, providing US President Barack Obama with an opportunity to assert genuine leadership in resolving this conflict. But there’s no sign that the new administration is paying adequate attention.

The story of Western Sahara would make quite a movie. There was high diplomatic intrigue when Moroccan troops occupied the territory, after Spain abandoned its long-time colony as Generalissimo Franco lay dying in 1975. The subsequent war between Morocco and the Algerian-supported Polisario Front, which sought Western Saharan independence, furnished plenty of action sequences in the desert. There is also the real human tragedy of the Western Saharan refugees, who have languished in exile for more than three decades.

In 1991, the Security Council created the UN mission in Western Sahara, MINURSO, whose mandate has been ritually reauthorized ever since. MINURSO’s original task was to organise a referendum in Western Sahara in which the residents would vote up or down on self-determination. Morocco, on the other hand, lobbied that tens of thousands of Moroccans be counted, a demand that Polisario resisted. 

Morocco’s latest stance is that Rabat share power in Western Sahara with indigenous groups. An autonomy proposal Morocco advanced in 2007 is in fact a credible starting point for negotiations aimed at a power sharing agreement. But Polisario will not discuss power sharing until Morocco recommits to a referendum on self-determination.

It has long been assumed in Western capitals that the Western Sahara question will be resolved through power sharing, but such a solution cannot simply be imposed. Only a negotiated settlement can bring about comprehensive peace.

Stumbling block for the Pharaohs?

Egypt might have won the last two African Nations Cup tournaments but the Pharaohs seem to have hit a stumbling block when it comes to the World Cup.

For all their prowess at the last two continental championships, and their glittering array of successes at club level, Egyptian soccer is becoming increasingly haunted by the spectre of continued failure to make it to biggest footballing showpiece of them all.

That means a pressured preparation for the country ahead of the start of the vital final phase of qualifiers for the 2010 finals in South Africa.

Already protesting supporters have managed to disrupt training during the week in Cairo as the Pharaohs prepared for Sunday’s Group C game against Zambia.

Sections of fans, hurling insults at goalkeeper Essam Al Hadari, were confronted by other supporters and training had to be halted. Al Hadari remains a figure of some derision after leaving Cairo favourites Al Ahli in acrimonious circumstances for a career in Switzerland.

While this is essentially an old and now tedious issue that long ago should have been laid to rest, it was the spark this week for a broader demonstration of the nervousness of the Egyptians on the eve of the start of the business end of the qualifiers.

They have a quality side, albeit aging, and a great reputation for being almost impossible to overcome at home. But there is also a psychological hurdle that Egypt must get over in the World Cup.

from Global News Journal:

Is Bouteflika set for a hollow victory in Algeria election?

Reuters has interviewed Benjamin Stora, Professor of Maghreb history at Paris IX University and one of the world's leading authorities on Algeria. Stora predicts a hollow victory for Abdelaziz Bouteflika in April's presidential election and says it will take a new generation of leaders to bring change to a country where social problems are profound and there is 70 percent unemployment among young adults (according to official figures). Below is a partial text of the interview.

Q - What is the significance of Algeria changing its constitution to allow Abdelaziz Bouteflika to run for a third term? A - Algeria is an Arab-Muslim country with a strong revolutionary tradition marked by abrupt changes, reversals, overthrows and coups. It's true there has never been a long continuity at presidential level. Presidents had been imprisoned (Ben Bella), or died (Boumediene), or been deposed (Chadli) or assassinated (Boudiaf), or given up politics (Zeroual). This is the first time we see this sort of continuity at the state level. This is disorientating for many Algerians and has provoked a torrent of commentary in Algeria about a Tunisian-style continuity. The widespread suspicion is that the current president wants to be president-for-life. This comes not just from his political opponents but also from intellectuals inside Algeria and in exile and from journalists. Algerians reject this notion as counter to their revolutionary tradition.

Q - But how much power does Bouteflika really have? For all the past change of leaders, haven't the same people kept power? A - In Algeria, there is this very strong feeling that things happen behind the scenes, that the people who are at the front of the stage aren't really those who hold power. This feeling has been particularly strong since Boudiaf was assassinated. But it's not entirely true in the case of Bouteflika. Of course, there are still decision-makers in the security services but Bouteflika has imposed his authority in particular on the top ranks of the army. He is surrounded by security services and a faction of the army, and a lot of new business people who have gotten rich very quickly. Some of these new rich are former Islamists. Even some former FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) officials have become wealthy. That was one of the results of Bouteflika's national reconciliation.

Q - How stable is the Algerian government? A - There is a certain stability, it's illusory to think this regime is unstable or weak. There is a tactical alliance among these different forces.

Q - So what are the main threats and challenges that Bouteflika faces? A - The first problem is the young. We see it in explosions of violence in soccer stadiums, in urban violence and harragas, the boat-people trying desperately to reach France. Several thousand young people try to escape to France by sea. These young people see no future, no solution. The unemployment level is very high, and enormous among young people. The second big problem is the collapse of the oil price, which has fallen from $140 to $40 in 9 months. The Algerian economy is going to be hit severely because the gas price is indexed to oil. Algeria is 90 percent dependent on hydrocarbons. So welfare redistribution, social security, health care, education are facing terrible budget cuts. Beyond that, the big challenge is the modernisation of society. Each president has represented a period in the history of Algerian independence. Ben Bella stood for revolutionary Third World enthusiasm; Boumediene stood for the stabilisation of a strong, authoritarian state; Chadli represented a sort of Gorbachevian transition, the end of the one-party state; the presidents of the 1990s were consumed by the civil war. Q - Is there a risk of a social explosion? A - One cannot rule out a social explosion, but it would be without danger for the regime if it doesn't find a political expression. The state just pulls back and lets the situation degenerate. There are riots, everything is trashed, but there are no political consequences. The regime has very strong international support from everyone -- Europe, the United States, the Arab world, Russia, China, Iran. Their diplomatic strength is having united all these extremes, from Raoul Castro to Hu Jintao to Nicolas Sarkozy. The Europeans are more dependent on Russian gas than on Algerian. But there is a quest for stability. It's the biggest Mediterranean country and no one has an interest in seeing instability spread from Israel/Palestine.

from Global News Journal:

Does Algeria now have a president for life?

After the Algerian parliament changed the constitution to lift presidential term limits, north Africans are asking whether Algeria now has a president for life.

In making the change, Algeria has followed a route taken in recent years by other African countries such as Cameroon, Chad and Uganda, all of which removed the limit of two presidential terms.

The change means that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika looks certain for relection in the April 2009 election, although he has not yet confirmed he will stand.

Democracy campaigners see it as a dark day for the economically powerful but politically fragile country, which has a history of violence and intolerance.

Time for colonial masters to pay up?

Italy settled its colonial era dispute with Libya at the weekend with $5 billion in compensation for wrongs done during colonial rule. The money will be invested in a major new highway as well as used for clearing mines and other projects. Both sides say that will allow them to make a new start.

Relations between Libya and Italy had been especially difficult and this was a very specific dispute, but Italian colonialism did not last all that long in Africa – even if there were episodes of particular nastiness while it did.

What about the far more important colonial players in Africa: Britain, France and Portugal? Not only was their presence far longer lasting, but they were more heavily involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which sapped the strength of west and central Africa for centuries and forced millions of its people into death or slavery. Calls for reparations from some quarters have never died down.

The colonial powers later carved up the map of Africa for their own administrative convenience and with little regard for those living there. Independence movements were often suppressed with heavy force — including in Algeria, the former Portuguese colonies and Kenya.

Since independence, the former colonial powers have given billions of dollars in development aid and other assistance. They generally have far better relationships with former colonies than Italy had with Libya.

But is it time for other former colonial powers to apologise and pay up for misdeeds on the continent? Or should the past be left for the history books?