Former Angolan Liberation Party, Struggles to Meet Social Expectations

As a youth, I was tremendously inspired by the story of Angola's struggle against Western imperialism. Lead by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), Angola won its independence but suffered from decades of a civil war fomented by the U.S. and apartheid South Africa. A large part of their mystique was a commitment, not just to independence, but to transforming Angolan society and investing in the social development of the nation's people. Angola was a Portuguese colony from the end of the 16th century until it achieved independence in 1975 through armed struggle. Colonial rule had neglected any focus on health care, education, or food sovereignty. How has the MPLA done after 35 years of political independence?

Today, Angola's civil war has ended and the MPLA remains the dominant party in the country. But it no longer remains the popular radical nationalist party it once was. Angola is rich in mineral resources and one of Africa's biggest exporters of oil however, the majority of the popular classes live in poverty and are excluded from the economic boom of the past few years. The export-oriented development model in Angola has generated enormous amounts of new wealth in the country but imports almost all of its food and basic medical supplies. The MPLA is currently working to meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, which include dramatically improving the lives of the poor in the areas of health, income, and education.

The video below is an inside account of life in Angola and the unresolved social development needs in the capital city of Luanda.

Angola from Nacho Salgado on Vimeo.

Missing the Point on Zimbabwe

After years of bitter controversy, Africa's most demonized leader is showing no signs of changing course. Agree or disagree with the politics of Robert Mugabe, it is absolutely clear that the West seriously overestimated its ability to manipulate the internal political saga within Zimbabwe. The meaningless exchanges in name calling, accusations of incompetence, and symbolic non-cooperation by the US and UK did not advance the strategic aims of either country, nor did they help transform Zimbabwean society. Both Mugabe and his Western detractors have largely missed the point about the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Robert Mugabe is coming fresh off the heels of a rousing speech before the United Nations in which he accurately accused Western countries of intentionally undermining a power-sharing deal between his party and the opposition MDC. The agreement came after months of accusations of election fraud, political violence and a sudden outbreak of Cholera that took the lives of hundreds of Zimbabweans. The power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe was designed with very little influence from either the United States or United Kingdom. The principal actors were the two political parties and the Southern African Development Community led by neighboring South Africa. There is no doubt that both the US and UK had hoped the agreement would fail. The apparent success of the South African arbitration signals the loss of a significant amount of political leverage over the situation in Zimbabwe by Western powers.

Regime change in Zimbabwe has been an explicit goal of both the United States and United Kingdom. The US had expected that record hyper-inflation in 2007 would force political change in Zimbabwe removing Robert Mugabe and his party from power. These calculations were wrong. The hyper-inflation also became a primary target of Mugabe who blamed the ailing economy on foreign interference and economic sabotage. The ZANU-PF was able to galvanize the military veterans from the national liberation struggle and the rural poor of the country while painting the opposition party as collaborators with the UK in the lead up to the disputed presidential run-off elections.

Even as Mugabe and his opposition counterpart Morgan Tsvangirai finally united to resolve long-standing political disputes and jump start the economy, the West has to date refused to remove sanctions. The result has been the vindication of Mugabe's criticisms as the African Union and SADC unanimously condemned all existing sanctions against the unity government. There is evidence to suggest that Zimbabwe will continue re-allocating lands from white land-owners to black farmers. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe spoke with CNN correspondent Christina Amanpour about the controversial land redistribution act which critics allege is the root cause of the nation's current economic turmoil. 10.8 million hectares, have been seized by the state over the past nine years from whites and given to black Zimbabweans.



So far, it is the most radical agrarian reform program ever in post-colonial Southern Africa. Acute inequality between black and white land-ownership is one of the unresolved issues in the region. In the televised interview, Mugabe made no apologies for the land seizures and restated his belief that he was acting in the national interests of his countrymen.

The international politics of Zimbabwe often obscure the principal contradictions causing underdevelopment within the country and the immediate need for both economic recovery and transformation. Zimbabwe was once one of the industrial giants of Africa. Decades of emphasis on primary commodity exports and Structural Adjustment Programs implemented after the fall of colonialism have contributed to a widely uneven economic development model in the country that have left it vulnerable to internal mismanagement, external price shocks and manipulation.

Zimbabwe's agricultural sector is the principal source of export revenue in the country. Decades of liberalization under the leadership of the ZANU-PF de-emphasized industrial development and contributed to lingering unemployment, lack of energy and poverty in urban areas. Now the country faces extreme shortages in both fuel and essential machine tools and technologies needed for manufacturing. The impact of these shortages have even caused Zimbabwe's highly dependent agricultural sector to suffer.

Neither Robert Mugabe nor Morgan Tsvangarai appear to have any idea how to resolve fundamental contradictions within the political economy of Zimbabwe. For example, both parties continue to overemphasize foreign investment rather than organize a coherent vision for industrial policy. Paradoxically, the rebel Robert Mugabe has been in the forefront of the unity government groveling for foreign investment into the Zimbabwean economy. The IMF originally offered over 400 millions dollars in unconditional support to Zimbabwe, a sharp reversal of the bank's previous refusal to lend funds to the former regime. But the funds have already heightened existing tensions within the unity government over how to spend the money and the IMF reversed course delaying payment of the funds.

The crisis in Zimbabwe is that the country is severely underdeveloped, the politicians have no unifying vision to move forward, and external actors have a vested interest in maintaining the uneven framework of the country's development. Emotional speeches and sanctions aside, the Zimbabwean people deserve better than the status-quo.

The New Radical Humanitarian Interventionists

The United Nations General Assembly has begun debate on a proposal to adopt the controversial Responsibility to Protect, which would allow nations to use military force to prevent genocide and other humanitarian crimes against vulnerable populations. In reaction, several political and civil leaders are raising concerns that "R2P" will inevitably favor western influential nations like the United States, who could use the cover of humanitarian intervention to further their own geopolitical ends in developing nations. American historian Noam Chomsky and Kenyan author Ngugi Wa Thiong'o were two of several panelists who presented their opposition to R2P at a recent press hearing in the UN. You can watch a video of the panel discussion here.

The UN debate is mostly focusing on the use of military force in cases where a genocide or war crimes are taking place. But there is no question that in the west there is a growing chorus of actors who would like to see the authority apply to an ever expanding definition of humanitarian crises. Some of these thoughts verge on revolutionary attacks against 20th century ideals of national sovereignty in the developing world in the name of assisting the world's poor.

A two-sided debate about intervention and development is in this months issue of the Boston Review as a part of a new forum in the magazine. Below are just a few descriptions of what the pro-interventionist believe the world would look like if richer countries did have such a right to intervene when necessary. The discussion is instructive for people considering the merits of "R2P".

Use Military Force to Oppose a Stolen Election

Peter Collier-

"So what could we do about a stolen election in Guinea-Bissau? The most radical suggestion is to use the provision of security as an incentive for accountability....To deter an incumbent from stealing an election, the consequences would need to be potent because the incumbent has so much to gain. We can reasonably assume that merely linking assessments of the conduct of the election to aid would not be sufficient. The president might genuinely despair a reduction in aid, but he will be more concerned for his own power. A link to security may, then, be more effective."

“The world's poorest countries have diverged from the rest of mankind. They will never tap their vast reservoir of frustrated human potential unless the international community provides basic public goods that go beyond the typical aid agenda.”

Nancy Birdsall (Center for Global Development)-

"First, find ways to foster sovereignty of the people instead of the incumbent government. Mo Ibrahim—the Sudanese founder of Celtel, the mobile phone service provider that has swept Africa—gives an annual prize to democratically elected African heads of state who step down (such as Mozambique’s Joaquim Chissano) when their terms end. Nicolas van de Walle, an Africa expert at Cornell University, recommends that donors make clear that they will halt aid where heads of state hang on beyond twelve years; that could apply today to Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Uzbekistan. Raghuram Rajan, while Chief Economist at the IMF, suggested that in post-conflict countries, voters might like the option of electing a non-national for one transitional term. For example were Somalia to settle down, Somalis would almost surely elect Nelson Mandela or Kofi Annan over any one of their warlords."

Replace State Sovereignty With International Security/Accountability

Peter Collier-

"Why is outside intervention necessary? The countries of the bottom billion are, paradoxically, too large to be nations, yet too small to be states. They are too large to be nations because, with rare exceptions, too many different peoples, with too many distinct ethnic and religious identities, live in them...If countries of the bottom billion are structurally unable to supply security and accountability, then some form of international supply is required."

"But more commonly, ordinary people are still befuddled by an outdated rhetoric: international pressure for accountability is presented by threatened elites as a return to colonialism. Protected by this conveniently emotive assertion, presidents grandly claim that they are defending national sovereignty. However, since they are usually not accountable to citizens, what they are really defending is presidential sovereignty."

Stephen D. Krasner-

"The only answer—and the one that Collier and others have come to reluctantly—is for external actors to exercise authoritative control over some state functions...Ideally, the assumption of executive authority results from a contractual agreement entered into voluntarily by all relevant parties."

"Political leaders in these states have every reason to horde power, especially when there are natural resources that can be looted. Citizens are rarely in a position to make credible threats of revolt, which might encourage leaders to create more responsive institutions. But, if third parties play a more decisive role—for example, by conditioning aid on good governance—there is some hope."

You can read counter-arguments to the pro-interventionists in the "Development in Dangerous Places" debate in the Boston Review.

Israeli Military Bombs the UN and Gaza Hospitals...Again?

The Israeli military bombed the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip earlier today destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies. The attack was accompanied by bombings of three hospitals in Gaza where officials say a chemical weapon called white phosphorous was used. In a rare apology to the United Nations, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "I don't think it should have happened and I'm very sorry." Today's news follows previous indiscriminate bombing campaigns that landed on a UN school, mosques and other public centers in Gaza. Israel's actions were met with widespread international condemnation of the Israeli military during an UN General Assembly emergency session on the Gaza crisis.

These attacks are part of an ongoing aerial and ground assault by the Israeli military aimed at disarming Gaza's governing party Hamas. To date over 1000 people have been killed in Gaza including more than 300 children. Bombings of UN facilities, hospitals and other public institutions are unacceptable whatever the justification by the US congress . Israel may be winning on the military front but the battle for hearts and minds in Palestine could be favoring Hamas.