By Kofi Akordor
Last week, in characteristic fashion, 14 African leaders left their national capitals in chase of the ever-elusive Golden Fleece. This time the expected lucky ground is New Delhi, the Indian capital and among those who attended were the leaders of South Africa, Tanzania, Algeria, Kenya, Egypt and Ghana.
One of the reasons for the gathering for what was dubbed the India-Africa Forum summit was, as expected, to bolster trade and political ties between India and Africa for the mutual benefit of their people. African countries carried to the forum what they have in abundance and which they showcase at such international fora — rich natural resources including strategic minerals such as uranium, which is a vital component in the nuclear industry, vast deposits of oil, gold, timber and many others without any added value, in addition to a vast market ready to be exploited.
The Indian leaders for their part told the African leaders what they always want to hear, that is, aid packages and investment opportunities. India has already pledged to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in development projects on the continent. This includes US$500 million in grants for development projects over the next five to six years.
India also pledged to double its line credit to African countries and regional economic groupings from US$2.15 billion currently to US$5.4 billion; allow duty-free imports from the poorest of the poor countries and provide preferential market access for exports from 50 least developed countries (LDC) of which 34 come from Africa.
With such tantalising offers one would expect African leaders to return to their capitals with broad smiles all over their face. But is that the reality? What India failed to tell the African leaders directly or openly was that India desperately needs Africa’s vast resources to support its growing industrial and technological advancement and to open bigger markets for its products in pharmaceuticals, automobiles, electronics and information technology.
Even though the doors to these fora are open to African countries as equal partners trying to shape mutual strategies with their hosts for common benefits, the end results do not support this position.
The Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Anand Sharma, in trying to debunk the notion that the New Delhi Forum was just another give-and-take affair, said the summit was a mere way for India and Africa to strengthen their bilateral ties and work together in the future as partners.
However, there are many who could not be convinced by such assurances. Mr Francois Moloi, South Africa’s High Commissioner to India, must have been speaking for the rest of the continent, when he observed that “Africa is no longer interested in economic partners who have a colonial mindset, or are looking just to exploit our natural resources”. He went on: “We want investment in our nation and we welcome economic partners — but it is also about developing a partnership for the long term, not just to have companies or countries come in and raid our country and then leave”.
This is not the first time African leaders have carried their problems to other continents for solution. On November 4 and 5, 2006, 49 African leaders gathered in Beijing, the Chinese capital, for the forum on China-Africa co-operation. At the end of that forum, the leaders from both continents proclaimed the establishment of a new type of strategic partnership between China and Africa.
China, like India, also signed agreements on agriculture and fishery, economic, energy and oil exploration with many African countries. Again, it was said that the Beijing Summit was to serve as a platform for the collective consultation and dialogue as well as co-operation mechanism for equal and benefits to the two partners.
Other objectives of the Beijing Summit include deepening and broadening mutually beneficial co-operation, encouraging and promoting two-way trade and investment, exploring new modes of co-operation and giving top priority to co-operation in agriculture, infrastructure, industry, fishery, IT, public health and personnel training to draw on one another’s strengths for the benefit of their people.
The Beijing Summit had gone ahead to set a trade target between Africa and China to reach US$100 billion by 2010, which as at the end of last year stood at US$73 billion. China has also pledged a package of aid and assistance measures to Africa, including US$3 billion in preferential loans over a three-year period and the exemption of more debt owed by poor African countries.
China as an emerging economy like India needs more resources including oil to fuel its growing industries and market for its products including textiles, automobiles, pharmaceuticals and electronics.
At the close of the year, from December 8 to 9, 2007, African leaders met their European counterparts in Portugal at the Lisbon Summit, again, to put the African problem on the international agenda. To remove any doubts of master-servant relationship, Mr Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid and for Relations with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries, had this to say: “Europe and Africa are natural allies. An indispensable partnership, strong and sincere between these two large and beautiful continents, can build a future of peace and prosperity. Together they can decisively create a new world order, fairer, more equitable and freer”. How I wish these words were true!
The Lisbon Summit also prepared the grounds for the Joint EU/Africa Strategy and Action Plan which is to provide a long-term vision for a strategic partnership between Africa and the EU for the benefit of the people of the two continents.
The hollowness of Mr Michel’s words did not take long to manifest, when the Lisbon Summit ended on a rather acrimonious note over trade deals between the two continents. What generated the acrimony were the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), designed to replace the then existing deals with African countries. The EU said if African countries failed to sign the EPAs, they could lose tariff-free access to European markets under rules laid down by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The African voice against the EPAs was raised by President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal and supported by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.
The two mentioned so far, according to objective analysts, have a common agenda. The hosts are more interested in Africa’s resources than in anything else. The Europeans feel they have been overtaken by events, following China’s emergence as a dominant economic power and are therefore ready to stake a strong claim on a big chunk of Africa’s resources. So the Lisbon Summit was mainly to help the Europeans retain what they have and expand their sphere of influence in the world’s richest naturally resourced continent.
There is a strong reason for China’s overtures to Africa and so is India’s, with India right at the heels of China, jostling for position in the new order of things. The question then is, Why should African leaders take delight trooping to other continents for solutions when their countries have all that others do not have? Why should they be the beggars when they are in a stronger position to determine how and where the bargaining should go?
China and India are two countries that made it without making themselves visitors at every economic forum in other countries and they made it without a fraction of what Africa is endowed with in terms of natural resources. What they have in abundance and which African countries must begin to cultivate are proper planning, foresight, setting of priorities, patriotism, determination, self-reliance and the will power not to play second fiddle to any external power.
If African countries can close their ranks, forge ahead in singleness of purpose and plan to utilise their resources meaningfully for development, they will not need all these pledges which at the end of the day will only entangle them the more in economic and political quagmire. Africa’s quest for solutions to its development cannot be found in foreign capitals but right here, deep in the mineral rich forests, ocean beds and beautiful coastline, given a more focused, incorrupt and visionary political leadership that is prepared to appreciate and utilise the tremendous human resource at its disposal. Until then, the objectives of these so-called international fora on mutual partnership and co-operation will remain a mirage that will not bring the Golden Fleece.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Food riots and national security
By Kofi Akordor
ON April 12, 1980, Master-Sergeant Samuel Kanyon Doe, then 39 years, shot himself into the Executive Mansion, Monrovia, the capital of Liberia. The then President William R. Tolbert Jnr. and his entire cabinet were slaughtered to herald what became one of Africa’s bloodiest military coups. Even though there were several underlying factors, what delivered the coup-de-grace was what was referred to as the Rice Riots of 1979. That was the year there were serious food shortages in Liberia and rice, the staple of Liberians, became scarce. You may not believe it, but inadequate rice supply brought a person like Doe to power in Liberia and subsequently created other characters like Charles Taylor and the rest in history
In 1991, Frederick Chiluba, a former bus conductor and trade unionist led a party to sweep Kenneth Kaunda out of office through a landslide victory, thanks to a serious economic downslide including an acute shortage of maize which constitute the basic food of most Zambians.
This year, the writing is clear on the wall – the world is going to suffer serious shortages, if the food-related riots in Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia are anything to go by. Apart from the global situation, the World Food Programme (WFP) has predicted that 27 sub-Saharan countries need help in respect of food shortages.
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has raised the alarm bells already, with the declaration that about 100 million people in poor countries, mostly in Africa, could be pushed deeper into poverty by spiraling prices. The World Bank, in response to this threatening calamity, has announced some emergency measures including the doubling of loans to African farmers.
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, has also ordered the release of US$200 million in emergency aid to alleviate food shortages in Africa and other parts of the world.
Apart from these temporary relieves, what is Africa doing about the food situation, in view of the fact that the continent has lived with food shortages over the years? Africa has battled food shortages and famine for several reasons. These could be either natural or what could be described as self-inflicted... Excessive wars, military strife and military coups have had their toll on food production in many parts of the continent.
Countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Cote d’Ivoire which have experienced civil wars and social conflicts have traditionally experienced food shortages of varied degrees.
Climatic conditions such as drought and floods and pestilences have also affected food production in many countries, especially of those in the Sahelian region and East Africa.
Notwithstanding these natural factors, Africa’s problems which include inadequate food production have been largely the combination of irresponsible political leadership, which has long term effect on food security, under investment in rural economies where agricultural activities take place and unfair international trade barriers which frustrate local farmers.
While many African governments make a lot of noise about increasing agricultural output, the situation on the ground suggests differently. Many food growing areas are not accessible to the marketing centres. This coupled with inadequate storage and preservation facilities means even the little that is produced go waste and never reach the consumers.
In Ghana, the construction of silos which were initiated during the Nkrumah era were never completed because of the political twist given to the enterprise by those in opposition at the time with the assistance of foreign interests that have everything to lose if Ghana were self-sufficient in food production. Factories that had been built to preserve agricultural produce have been neglected and abandoned while millions of dollars are spent importing canned foods from other countries.
According to an International Food Policy Research Institute report; “Problems such as corruption, collusion and nepotism can significantly inhibit the capacity of governments to promote development efforts.” Ghana’s case falls within this category where more than US$400 million is currently spent annually for the importation of rice alone, when the crop could be cultivated in almost all the regions of the country. Incidentally, those whose responsibility it is to encourage local production have direct or indirect benefit to derive from the importation of the commodity as big-time importers or distributors. In the same way, the local poultry industry has suffered due to excessive importation of poultry products from Brazil and other countries.
Food aid, though they have short-term advantages have negative effects ultimately. First, free or cheap food aid dulls the determination of local farmers to produce their own. It also affects the market situation to the disadvantage of local production and stretches the dependency syndrome. Some of this food sometimes comes at a time recipient countries are enjoying bumper harvests and were actually designed to offload stored produce of farmers in foreign countries.
African countries, under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have removed subsidies on agricultural inputs while unbridled trade liberalisation have opened the valves widely for foreign products to enter these countries to the detriment of local production which cannot compete evenly with these cheaper and yet sometimes of questionable quality imports. The construction of the silos abandoned after the overthrow of the Nkrumah regime had never been resuscitated and thereby giving room for food to go waste.
While food production has lagged behind consumption levels, population control had not been so effective. Sub-Saharan Africa’s population, according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), has grown faster than any other region over the past 30 years. It said between 1975 and 2005, the region’s population more than doubled from 335 million to 751 million.
An attempt is being made to link global food shortages to the production of biogas in commercial quantities. The reason why this cannot offer any tangible for Africa’s food problems is that no African country is yet in any major biogas production. Secondly, the continent has enough fertile land to feed itself if only those in political leadership can put their acts together and tap the vast resources at their disposal to produce enough to feed their population, enough to go into bio-fuel production and even export onto international markets.
This means African countries must invest more in agricultural production. Exhortations to farmers should be beefed up with concrete support in the form of credit facilities, availability of inputs such as tools and agro-chemicals and good road network to facilitate the transport of farm produce to marketing centres.
Food storage and preservation should be taken seriously. There is too much wastage at the moment and the more bumper harvests are stored and preserved, the less the danger of food shortages.
More intra-regional trade should be encouraged. The situation where while one country is experiencing a bumper harvest another is suffering from drought and food shortage should be exploited to the mutual benefit of all parties.
The greatest weapon to fight hunger is good governance. Most African leaders lack the courage to embark on ambitious agricultural programmes. There are too many contradictions in the system which must be addressed. There is no use declaring support for local production when those who control political power are themselves importers or are in alliance with food importers.
There is no need to celebrate independence when a country which has the capacity lacks the ability to feed itself. This is a challenge to African leaders.
ON April 12, 1980, Master-Sergeant Samuel Kanyon Doe, then 39 years, shot himself into the Executive Mansion, Monrovia, the capital of Liberia. The then President William R. Tolbert Jnr. and his entire cabinet were slaughtered to herald what became one of Africa’s bloodiest military coups. Even though there were several underlying factors, what delivered the coup-de-grace was what was referred to as the Rice Riots of 1979. That was the year there were serious food shortages in Liberia and rice, the staple of Liberians, became scarce. You may not believe it, but inadequate rice supply brought a person like Doe to power in Liberia and subsequently created other characters like Charles Taylor and the rest in history
In 1991, Frederick Chiluba, a former bus conductor and trade unionist led a party to sweep Kenneth Kaunda out of office through a landslide victory, thanks to a serious economic downslide including an acute shortage of maize which constitute the basic food of most Zambians.
This year, the writing is clear on the wall – the world is going to suffer serious shortages, if the food-related riots in Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia are anything to go by. Apart from the global situation, the World Food Programme (WFP) has predicted that 27 sub-Saharan countries need help in respect of food shortages.
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has raised the alarm bells already, with the declaration that about 100 million people in poor countries, mostly in Africa, could be pushed deeper into poverty by spiraling prices. The World Bank, in response to this threatening calamity, has announced some emergency measures including the doubling of loans to African farmers.
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, has also ordered the release of US$200 million in emergency aid to alleviate food shortages in Africa and other parts of the world.
Apart from these temporary relieves, what is Africa doing about the food situation, in view of the fact that the continent has lived with food shortages over the years? Africa has battled food shortages and famine for several reasons. These could be either natural or what could be described as self-inflicted... Excessive wars, military strife and military coups have had their toll on food production in many parts of the continent.
Countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Cote d’Ivoire which have experienced civil wars and social conflicts have traditionally experienced food shortages of varied degrees.
Climatic conditions such as drought and floods and pestilences have also affected food production in many countries, especially of those in the Sahelian region and East Africa.
Notwithstanding these natural factors, Africa’s problems which include inadequate food production have been largely the combination of irresponsible political leadership, which has long term effect on food security, under investment in rural economies where agricultural activities take place and unfair international trade barriers which frustrate local farmers.
While many African governments make a lot of noise about increasing agricultural output, the situation on the ground suggests differently. Many food growing areas are not accessible to the marketing centres. This coupled with inadequate storage and preservation facilities means even the little that is produced go waste and never reach the consumers.
In Ghana, the construction of silos which were initiated during the Nkrumah era were never completed because of the political twist given to the enterprise by those in opposition at the time with the assistance of foreign interests that have everything to lose if Ghana were self-sufficient in food production. Factories that had been built to preserve agricultural produce have been neglected and abandoned while millions of dollars are spent importing canned foods from other countries.
According to an International Food Policy Research Institute report; “Problems such as corruption, collusion and nepotism can significantly inhibit the capacity of governments to promote development efforts.” Ghana’s case falls within this category where more than US$400 million is currently spent annually for the importation of rice alone, when the crop could be cultivated in almost all the regions of the country. Incidentally, those whose responsibility it is to encourage local production have direct or indirect benefit to derive from the importation of the commodity as big-time importers or distributors. In the same way, the local poultry industry has suffered due to excessive importation of poultry products from Brazil and other countries.
Food aid, though they have short-term advantages have negative effects ultimately. First, free or cheap food aid dulls the determination of local farmers to produce their own. It also affects the market situation to the disadvantage of local production and stretches the dependency syndrome. Some of this food sometimes comes at a time recipient countries are enjoying bumper harvests and were actually designed to offload stored produce of farmers in foreign countries.
African countries, under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have removed subsidies on agricultural inputs while unbridled trade liberalisation have opened the valves widely for foreign products to enter these countries to the detriment of local production which cannot compete evenly with these cheaper and yet sometimes of questionable quality imports. The construction of the silos abandoned after the overthrow of the Nkrumah regime had never been resuscitated and thereby giving room for food to go waste.
While food production has lagged behind consumption levels, population control had not been so effective. Sub-Saharan Africa’s population, according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), has grown faster than any other region over the past 30 years. It said between 1975 and 2005, the region’s population more than doubled from 335 million to 751 million.
An attempt is being made to link global food shortages to the production of biogas in commercial quantities. The reason why this cannot offer any tangible for Africa’s food problems is that no African country is yet in any major biogas production. Secondly, the continent has enough fertile land to feed itself if only those in political leadership can put their acts together and tap the vast resources at their disposal to produce enough to feed their population, enough to go into bio-fuel production and even export onto international markets.
This means African countries must invest more in agricultural production. Exhortations to farmers should be beefed up with concrete support in the form of credit facilities, availability of inputs such as tools and agro-chemicals and good road network to facilitate the transport of farm produce to marketing centres.
Food storage and preservation should be taken seriously. There is too much wastage at the moment and the more bumper harvests are stored and preserved, the less the danger of food shortages.
More intra-regional trade should be encouraged. The situation where while one country is experiencing a bumper harvest another is suffering from drought and food shortage should be exploited to the mutual benefit of all parties.
The greatest weapon to fight hunger is good governance. Most African leaders lack the courage to embark on ambitious agricultural programmes. There are too many contradictions in the system which must be addressed. There is no use declaring support for local production when those who control political power are themselves importers or are in alliance with food importers.
There is no need to celebrate independence when a country which has the capacity lacks the ability to feed itself. This is a challenge to African leaders.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Diluting the Olympic spirit with politics
By Kofi Akordor
THE Olympic Games, like other similar sports tournaments, are mainly meant to bring together athletes of various nationalities and different cultural backgrounds for the ultimate objective of attaining international peace and solidarity.
According to the Olympic Charter established by Pierre de Coubertin, who can be described as the Father of the Modern Olympics, the games are “to contribute to the building of a peaceful and better world by educating the youth through sports practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play”.
The games also bridged ideological gaps, brought together both the rich and poor, the powerful and the ordinary and strengthened the bonds of friendship among all and consequently reduce unnecessary tension in the world.
That was the case until 1980 when the United States of America (USA) decided to extend the Cold War battleground to the sporting arena. In that year, the USA led a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games, citing, among other things, the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as an excuse. Incidentally, that was the first time a Warsaw Pact country was hosting the summer Olympics.
Time, they say, changes. Today, it is the USA which has invaded Afghanistan in its war efforts against terror.
The USA succeeded in persuading poor and vulnerable Third World countries like Ghana, then under President Hilla Limann, to boycott the Moscow Games in return for aid packages which included consignments of wheat and yellow maize. The official explanation for the boycott was that the country could not afford the cost of going to Moscow. But it was common knowledge that that was not true and that the boycott decision had to do more with our inability to chart an independent path in international politics.
It, therefore, did not come as a surprise when, in 1984, the then USSR led a boycott of the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games in retaliation. The USA, determined to beat the boycott, offered to airlift all participating countries from Africa and other poor regions of the world free of charge to the games. With such a generous offer, Ghana had no excuse, if even it had any intention to join its socialist counterparts in the boycott, and had to be there.
Earlier in 1976, African countries had, in solidarity with South Africa, which was then under apartheid rule, boycotted the Montreal Olympic Games in Canada because of the participation of countries with sporting ties with apartheid South Africa.
The 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles games were the last to be hosted by the superpowers before the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Empire. Since then, the games have been held in Barcelona (1992), Atlanta (1996), Sydney (2000) and Athens (2004) without any political disruptions.
On August 29, 2004, the Olympic flag was lowered in Athens and handed to the China Olympic Committee, which announced that the youth of the world would gather in Beijing in 2008 for the next Olympics. China, the world’s emerging economic power, plunged into serious action in preparation for the games which take place in August this year.
While everything seems to be going on well, there have been minor skirmishes to paint a gloomy picture of the Beijing Games. These include complaints about Beijing’s heavy traffic and atmospheric pollution. But these are issues that have been brushed aside as being too minor to affect the hosting of the games. However, two weeks ago, things took a different turn when demonstrators protesting against Chinese rule in Tibet clashed with the police, leaving an estimated 150 people dead.
Tibet has always been a sore point in China’s international diplomacy and the recent clashes have given ground for some of China’s opponents in the West to clamour for a boycott of the Beijing Summer Olympic Games.
Incidentally, this time the boycott voices are very feeble and among the major powers, only the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has come out to openly declare that boycott is not out of the question.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, whose country has always pushed for a boycott of Zimbabwe for Mugabe’s alleged human rights abuses, said a boycott of the Beijing Olympics was not a sensible thing to do.
“The Olympics are a chance not only to put the spotlight on China but also enhance its engagement with the international community,” he said, admitting that, “In the past, boycotts of the Olympics, in my view, have not been successful, whether Australia is engaged in that, as it did with the Moscow Olympics, or when other nation states have engaged in it.”
This position was shared by other statesmen, including the Singaporean Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan, who said, “The games will provide a golden opportunity for athletes from all over the world to compete on a friendly basis, interact with one another, carry out fruitful dialogue and build lasting relationships.”
“If there are some people who want to boycott the Beijing Olympics, just leave them alone. We can still enjoy our great party,” Majed Al Qatarneh, the Secretary-General of the Jordan Olympic Committee, said.
To those who want to use politics to disrupt social events such as the Olympic Games, Patrick Hickey, the President of the European Olympic Committees (EOC), had this to say to them, “The EOC is a sports organisation which does not interfere in political issues.” Another EOC member, Togay Bayatli, observed, “Political issues should be resolved by the United Nations and other international organisations.”
The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, while visiting China, also raised his opposition to calls for a boycott of the Beijing Games and called for all countries to participate.
“Political issues are unjust issues in the Olympic year. They should be issues we talk about every year,” he said, and raised the hopes of the anti-boycott lobby when he declared, “The Olympics should be a symbol of bringing countries and peoples together in an open, competitive way.”
Even though the Democrats in the US are pushing for a boycott of the games, President George W. Bush who, for once, is not prepared to swim against the tide of global opinion, has kept his distance from the Democrats.
Even the Dalai Lama and his government in exile have declared that they would want the Beijing Games to go on.
So who are those who stand to benefit from a boycott? As the Australian Foreign Minister noted, boycotts in the past had not been successful and there was no guarantee that any boycott this time would be different.
“It is the athletes who lose out in cases of boycotts and other political action,” the EOC’s Bayatli noted. I think that should inform those who are agitating for a boycott.
Africa, whatever the case may be, should not allow itself to be used as a pawn in any superpower ideological game again.
THE Olympic Games, like other similar sports tournaments, are mainly meant to bring together athletes of various nationalities and different cultural backgrounds for the ultimate objective of attaining international peace and solidarity.
According to the Olympic Charter established by Pierre de Coubertin, who can be described as the Father of the Modern Olympics, the games are “to contribute to the building of a peaceful and better world by educating the youth through sports practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play”.
The games also bridged ideological gaps, brought together both the rich and poor, the powerful and the ordinary and strengthened the bonds of friendship among all and consequently reduce unnecessary tension in the world.
That was the case until 1980 when the United States of America (USA) decided to extend the Cold War battleground to the sporting arena. In that year, the USA led a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games, citing, among other things, the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as an excuse. Incidentally, that was the first time a Warsaw Pact country was hosting the summer Olympics.
Time, they say, changes. Today, it is the USA which has invaded Afghanistan in its war efforts against terror.
The USA succeeded in persuading poor and vulnerable Third World countries like Ghana, then under President Hilla Limann, to boycott the Moscow Games in return for aid packages which included consignments of wheat and yellow maize. The official explanation for the boycott was that the country could not afford the cost of going to Moscow. But it was common knowledge that that was not true and that the boycott decision had to do more with our inability to chart an independent path in international politics.
It, therefore, did not come as a surprise when, in 1984, the then USSR led a boycott of the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games in retaliation. The USA, determined to beat the boycott, offered to airlift all participating countries from Africa and other poor regions of the world free of charge to the games. With such a generous offer, Ghana had no excuse, if even it had any intention to join its socialist counterparts in the boycott, and had to be there.
Earlier in 1976, African countries had, in solidarity with South Africa, which was then under apartheid rule, boycotted the Montreal Olympic Games in Canada because of the participation of countries with sporting ties with apartheid South Africa.
The 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles games were the last to be hosted by the superpowers before the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Empire. Since then, the games have been held in Barcelona (1992), Atlanta (1996), Sydney (2000) and Athens (2004) without any political disruptions.
On August 29, 2004, the Olympic flag was lowered in Athens and handed to the China Olympic Committee, which announced that the youth of the world would gather in Beijing in 2008 for the next Olympics. China, the world’s emerging economic power, plunged into serious action in preparation for the games which take place in August this year.
While everything seems to be going on well, there have been minor skirmishes to paint a gloomy picture of the Beijing Games. These include complaints about Beijing’s heavy traffic and atmospheric pollution. But these are issues that have been brushed aside as being too minor to affect the hosting of the games. However, two weeks ago, things took a different turn when demonstrators protesting against Chinese rule in Tibet clashed with the police, leaving an estimated 150 people dead.
Tibet has always been a sore point in China’s international diplomacy and the recent clashes have given ground for some of China’s opponents in the West to clamour for a boycott of the Beijing Summer Olympic Games.
Incidentally, this time the boycott voices are very feeble and among the major powers, only the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has come out to openly declare that boycott is not out of the question.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, whose country has always pushed for a boycott of Zimbabwe for Mugabe’s alleged human rights abuses, said a boycott of the Beijing Olympics was not a sensible thing to do.
“The Olympics are a chance not only to put the spotlight on China but also enhance its engagement with the international community,” he said, admitting that, “In the past, boycotts of the Olympics, in my view, have not been successful, whether Australia is engaged in that, as it did with the Moscow Olympics, or when other nation states have engaged in it.”
This position was shared by other statesmen, including the Singaporean Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan, who said, “The games will provide a golden opportunity for athletes from all over the world to compete on a friendly basis, interact with one another, carry out fruitful dialogue and build lasting relationships.”
“If there are some people who want to boycott the Beijing Olympics, just leave them alone. We can still enjoy our great party,” Majed Al Qatarneh, the Secretary-General of the Jordan Olympic Committee, said.
To those who want to use politics to disrupt social events such as the Olympic Games, Patrick Hickey, the President of the European Olympic Committees (EOC), had this to say to them, “The EOC is a sports organisation which does not interfere in political issues.” Another EOC member, Togay Bayatli, observed, “Political issues should be resolved by the United Nations and other international organisations.”
The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, while visiting China, also raised his opposition to calls for a boycott of the Beijing Games and called for all countries to participate.
“Political issues are unjust issues in the Olympic year. They should be issues we talk about every year,” he said, and raised the hopes of the anti-boycott lobby when he declared, “The Olympics should be a symbol of bringing countries and peoples together in an open, competitive way.”
Even though the Democrats in the US are pushing for a boycott of the games, President George W. Bush who, for once, is not prepared to swim against the tide of global opinion, has kept his distance from the Democrats.
Even the Dalai Lama and his government in exile have declared that they would want the Beijing Games to go on.
So who are those who stand to benefit from a boycott? As the Australian Foreign Minister noted, boycotts in the past had not been successful and there was no guarantee that any boycott this time would be different.
“It is the athletes who lose out in cases of boycotts and other political action,” the EOC’s Bayatli noted. I think that should inform those who are agitating for a boycott.
Africa, whatever the case may be, should not allow itself to be used as a pawn in any superpower ideological game again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)