The Rise of NATO in Africa

Source: Internationalist 360

May 29 2022

Civilian casualties of US bombing in Somalia

Anxiety about the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) toward the Russian border is one of the causes of the current war in Ukraine. But this is not the only attempt at expansion by NATO, a treaty organization created in 1949 by the United States to project its military and political power over Europe. In 2001, NATO conducted an “out of area” military operation in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years, and in 2011, NATO—at the urging of France—bombed Libya and overthrew its government. NATO military operations in Afghanistan and Libya were the prelude to discussions of a “Global NATO,” a project to use the NATO military alliance beyond its own charter obligations from the South China Sea to the Caribbean Sea.

NATO’s war in Libya was its first major military operation in Africa, but it was not the first European military footprint on the continent. After centuries of European colonial wars in Africa, new states emerged in the aftermath of World War II to assert their sovereignty. Many of these states—from Ghana to Tanzania—refused to allow the European military forces to reenter the continent, which is why these European powers had to resort to assassinations and military coups to anoint pro-Western governments in the region. This allowed for the creation of Western military bases in Africa and gave Western firms freedom to exploit the continent’s natural resources.

Early NATO operations stayed at the edge of Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea being the major frontline. NATO set up the Allied Forces Southern Europe (AFSOUTH) in Naples in 1951, and then the Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) in Malta in 1952. Western governments established these military formations to garrison the Mediterranean Sea against the Soviet navy and to create platforms from where they could militarily intervene in the African continent. After the Six-Day War in 1967, NATO’s Defense Planning Committee, which was dissolved in 2010, created the Naval On-Call Force Mediterranean (NOCFORMED) to put pressure on pro-Soviet states—such as Egypt—and to defend the monarchies of northern Africa (NATO was unable to prevent the anti-imperialist coup of 1969 that overthrew the monarchy in Libya and brought Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to power; Gaddafi’s government ejected U.S. military bases from the country soon thereafter).

Conversations at NATO headquarters about “out of area” operations took place with increasing frequency after NATO joined the U.S. war on Afghanistan. A senior official at NATO told me in 2003 that the United States had “developed an appetite to use NATO” in its attempt to project power against possible adversaries. Two years later, in 2005, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, NATO began to cooperate closely with the African Union (AU). The AU, which was formed in 2002, and was the “successor” to the Organization of African Unity, struggled to build an independent security structure. The lack of a viable military force meant that the AU often turned to the West for assistance, and asked NATO to help with logistics and airlift support for its peacekeeping mission in Sudan.

Alongside NATO, the U.S. operated its military capacity through the United States European Command (EUCOM), which oversaw the country’s operations in Africa from 1952 to 2007. Thereafter, General James Jones, head of EUCOM from 2003 to 2006, formed the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, which was headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, because none of the 54 African nations were willing to give it a home. NATO began to operate on the African continent through AFRICOM.

Libya and NATO’s Framework for Africa

Libya after NATO bombardment

NATO’s war on Libya changed the dynamics of the relationship between the African countries and the West. The African Union was wary of Western military intervention in the region. On 10 March, 2011, the AU’s Peace and Security Council set up the High-Level ad hoc Committee on Libya. The members of this committee included then-AU Chairperson Dr. Jean Ping and the heads of state of five African nations—former President of Mauritania Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, Republic of Congo’s President Denis Sassou Nguesso, Mali’s former President Amadou Toumani Touré, former President of South Africa Jacob Zuma and Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni—who were supposed to fly into Tripoli, Libya, and negotiate between the two sides of the Libyan civil war soon after the committee’s formation. The United Nations Security Council, however, prevented this mission from entering the country.

At a meeting between the High-Level ad hoc Committee on Libya and the United Nations in June 2011, Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations during that time, Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, said, “It is unwise for certain players to be intoxicated with technological superiority and begin to think they alone can alter the course of human history toward freedom for the whole of mankind. Certainly, no constellation of states should think that they can recreate hegemony over Africa.” But this is precisely what the NATO states began to imagine.

Chaos in Libya set in motion a series of catastrophic conflicts in Mali, southern Algeria and parts of Niger. The French military intervention in Mali in 2013 was followed by the creation of the G5 Sahel, a political platform of the five Sahel states—Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger—and a military alliance between them. In May 2014, NATO opened a liaison office at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa. At NATO’s Wales Summit in September 2014, the alliance partners considered the problems in the Sahel that entered the alliance’s Readiness Action Plan, which served as “[the] driver of NATO’s military adaptation to the changed and evolving security environment.” In December 2014, NATO foreign ministers reviewed the plan’s implementation, and focused on the “threats emanating from our southern neighborhood, the Middle East, and North Africa” and established a framework to meet the threats and challenges being faced by the South, according to a report by the former President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Michael R. Turner. Two years later, at NATO’s Warsaw Summit in 2016, NATO leaders decided to increase their cooperation with the African Union. They “[welcomed] the robust military commitment of Allies in the Sahel-Sahara region.” To deepen this commitment, NATO set up an African Standby Force and began the process of training officers in African military forces.

Meanwhile, the recent decision to eject the French military is rooted in a general sensibility growing in the continent against Western military aggression. No wonder then that many of the larger African countries refused to follow Washington’s position on the war on Ukraine, with half the countries either abstaining or voting against the UN resolution to condemn Russia (this includes countries such as Algeria, South Africa, Angola and Ethiopia). It is telling that South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said that his country “is committed to advancing the human rights and fundamental freedoms not only of our own people but for the peoples of Palestine, Western Sahara, Afghanistan, Syria and across Africa and the world.”

The ignominy of Western—and NATO’s—follies, including arms deals with Morocco to deliver Western Sahara to the kingdom and diplomatic backing for Israel as it continues its apartheid treatment of Palestinians, bring into sharp contrast Western outrage at the events taking place in Ukraine. Evidence of this hypocrisy serves as a warning while reading the benevolent language used by the West when it comes to NATO’s expansion into Africa.

---

This article was produced by Globetrotter. Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

Sudan: This is our covenant with the martyrs – resist until we win or they rule an empty country

Source: Internationalist 360

by Sara Abbas

Following the murder of revolutionaries this week, Sudan’s resistance committees called for civil disobedience and a general strike. Sara Abbas writes about the massacre of revolutionaries on 17 January. We also include the joint statement of the Khartoum State Resistance Committees Coordination.

This week has been incredibly painful for Sudan. On Monday seven revolutionaries were killed in the protests, and many other protestors are badly injured and are fighting for their lives. Since the coup on 25 October 2021, 71 revolutionaries have been killed. The photo above is of five of the young revolutionaries killed on 17 January.

The military is ramping up the violence, and it is only going to get worse. Hospitals in Khartoum have been getting attacked for weeks now, medics are regularly beaten, tear gas deployed inside the premises, and injured protestors arrested (as in kidnapped from their beds). A massive hike in electricity prices recently shows the regime has a cash problem. The recent killing of a police officer was blamed on a young revolutionary, who has been arrested. It’s clear to most Sudanese that the killing was carried out by elements of the regime to justify the barbaric use of violence, including the use of anti-aircraft weapons, against human bodies, sound bombs, live ammunition, and the deliberate firing of tear gas canisters at the heads and faces of protestors (on Monday this week all the deaths were by bullets but a lot of deaths in recent weeks have been due to trauma from the impact of gas canisters to the head). Resistance committee members in the last week have faced a more aggressive than usual campaign of arrests.

In response to the bloody day, and the escalating repression, the revolutionary forces on Monday announced two days of mass civil disobedience, which started on Tuesday 18 January in preparation for a general strike. Doctors’ unions also announced full withdrawal for three days (18-19-20 January) from all military and security owned hospitals, and a strike of three days from “cold” non-urgent cases in all hospitals.

Please see the link to the original Arabic text here.

---

Khartoum State Resistance Committees Coordination joint statement (17 January 2022)

We cannot retreat, the price of this journey was and still is our lifetimes, and know, revolutionaries of the world, that we are still steadfast, and we are still victorious, and we are still confident that we will win our battle and the revolution against the rotten bloody regime.

Men and women revolutionaries, Our Rebel People: 

A new massacre has been added to the massacres of the military coup d’état against the Sudanese people. Until now, we have lost seven revolutionaries [today] and we consider them martyrs who live among us. Until this moment, we are still counting our wounded; there are many serious injuries with live bullets and tear gas canisters aimed at the faces of the revolutionaries. Daily, the coup council and its militia allies reveal to the world and to the Sudanese who wrongly imagine some good will come out of this, that the council are just gangs that call themselves a state. They steal our resources to kill us, they arm their soldiers at the expense of bread, health, and education in order to spread bullets in the streets. This is not our army, they are the enemies of the Sudanese, and it is necessary to resist them until we win, or they rule an empty country after they have killed us all. This is our covenant with the martyrs.

We call on all the revolutionaries to completely close Khartoum and erect barricades everywhere. Our barricades terrify them and remind them that we are the strongest and largest army in this country. We call on all professionals, employees and workers everywhere to establish their committees in the workplace, and to coordinate well between those committees and the resistance committees in preparation for the general strike and the implementation of civil disobedience on 18-19 January.

We call on the revolutionaries in all the neighborhoods of the country to prepare for a long battle in which we defeat the militias, based on our good preparation of our organization, on the continuation of the announced [civil disobedience] schedules, and on the arrangement of ad-hoc schedules according to what the women and men revolutionaries see [happening] in their neighborhoods.

We will publish our next steps in response to 17 January massacre. This massacre will not go unnoticed. We are the generation that was destined to write the end of the military coups, and we will not postpone this battle. The action is what you see and not what you hear.

“We must keep hold of the strike weapon:” Sudanese court workers and bank workers demand dignity

Source: MENA Solidarity Network

January 8 2022

Mass meeting of striking court workers – picture via SWAFRTU on Facebook

Huge protests are continuing to shake Sudan through the mass movement demanding civilian rule and democracy led by the Resistance Committees. Despite increasing repression and the regular killing of protesters by the security forces, tens of thousands are still joining demonstrations opposing the military coup. Alongside the protests in the streets, important struggles have developed in some workplaces, and activists are starting to make links between the fight for economic dignity and the battle for democracy and political freedom. 

The court workers’ movement is nationwide – picket line in North Darfur. Picture via SWARFTU on Facebook

Justice workers’ walkouts shut down courts across Sudan

Thousands of court workers took part in strikes between 2-6 January to demand a rise in their bonuses in order to meet the spiralling cost of living. Workers in the Judicial Authority organised national action coordinated by strike committees in every province, which reported up to 100 percent participation in some areas, according to the Sudanese Workers Association for the Restoration of Trade Unions (SWAFRTU). Khartoum, Omdurman, Port Sudan, Gedaref, North Darfur and West Kordofan were among the provinces where the whole workforce walked out. 

“We must keep hold of the strike weapon – it is the strongest to achieve our just demands,” wrote court worker and trade unionist Mohammed Abd-al-Majid on the SWARFTU page. “Workers and employees used every legal and legitimate means to obtain their rights, including negotiations and follow-up meetings, but when all doors were shut in their faces as a result of the dissolution of trade unions by the coup leader, they resorted to strikes.” 

Mass sackings at Bank of Khartoum as workers challenge corrupt bosses 

Over 200 workers at the Bank of Khartoum have been dismissed, and over 500 more face the sack as management clamps down after months of mobilisations demanding improved conditions at work and opposing the military coup. The bank was privatised in 2010, when the government sold most of its shares to the private sector, with the Bank of Abu Dhabi buying 70 percent. Businessmen close to the old regime also made a fortune out of the bank’s privatisation. Fadl Mohamed Khair, who was arrested in a crackdown on corruption in the dying days of the Bashir regime is reported to have pocketed over 1.9 billion Sudanese pounds from the Bank during 2018 alone. 

Since the beginning of the revolution in December 2018, Bank of Khartoum workers have begun to fight back. They are demanding a pay rise to match the spiralling cost of living and campaigning to get rid of managers who are pushing through job cuts to maximise profits for the bank’s foreign and local bosses.  

Some Resistance Committees are mobilising solidarity for the sacked bank workers – picture via SWARFTU on Facebook

Solidarity grows

The battles in the courts and at the Bank of Khartoum have begun to spark solidarity campaigns and efforts to bring together striking workers and activists from the Resistance Committees. Zakaria Yunis Musa, a court worker in West Darfur called for solidarity with the bank workers in an open letter published on the SWAFRTU Facebook page. “The court workers and Bank of Khartoum workers must coordinate and stand in solidarity with each other,” he said, “in order to expose the feudalists and capitalists. Workers and wage earners are most able to feel each other’s pain and through solidarity and unity they will succeed in winning their human, material, economic, social, cultural and political rights.” 

Some Resistance Committees have put out statements in solidarity with the court workers, bank workers and other strikers. The December Revolution Coordination in Ombada, a district on the Western edge of Omdurman, urged activists to mobilise in support in a statement on 5 January. 

“Let us stand in solidarity with the workers at the Bank of Khartoum, the judicial institution, and Centroid Company in order to restore their rights. We must root the principle of mutual solidarity among all the forces of resistance in order to bring about a revolution in the institutions and housing. This will lead to the overthrow of a regime which established economic policies based on sacking workers and denying them their rights. We need to build a national economic system based on nationalising all the public properties and institutions which have been privatised through the same reactionary policies.” 

What you can do

• Rush messages of support to the court workers via https://www.facebook.com/SWAFRTU 
• Pass a resolution in your trade union branch 

Sudanese Masses Pressure Military Regime to Relinquish Power

Source: borkena.com

December 29 2021

Sudan People demonstrate for democratic rule. December 25,2021 ( Photo : AA)

Since the October 25 coup by the military in the oil-rich state of Sudan, the democratic movement has held protests almost on a daily basis.

Interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, a technocrat with extensive ties to international finance capital, was overthrown during the late October putsch only to be reinstalled in a secret agreement with the Transitional Military Council (TMC) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan which excluded the main opposition parties and mass formations which have guided the revolutionary movement since December of 2018.

Over the last three years, former longtime President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was overthrown in an April 2019 coup led by the TMC which was designed to thwart a people’s takeover which would have inevitably involved a vanguard role for the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC). The FFC grew out of an alliance with the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), the Central Committee of Sudan Doctors, along with dozens of other opposition forces from various political spectrums including the Communist Party (SCP). 

However, the massacre of demonstrators during June 2019 prompted a more engaged intervention by the African Union (AU) based in neighboring Ethiopia, where Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed sought to mediate the conflict. In several months the Sovereign Council was created ostensibly designed as a transitional body that within three years would result in a multi-party election creating a parliament and presidency through direct selection by the electorate.

However, the entire process has been derailed largely at the aegis of imperialist forces seeking to dominate the current and future situation inside the country. Under the previous administration of President Donald J. Trump, Prime Minister Hamdok was compelled to acknowledge the so-called “Abraham Accord” which is designed to expand the diplomatic recognition of the state of Israel in Africa and West Asia while undermining international solidarity with the Palestinian people. This measure has not been fully implemented diplomatically although there are reports of at least two exchanges of delegations between Khartoum and Tel Aviv.

These maneuvers by Washington and its allies have not pacified the FFC and other popular forces who have remained in the streets. Even the armed opposition groupings from the Darfur region of Sudan and the border areas of the now partitioned Republic of South Sudan, who signed on to the November 21 post-coup arrangements, are still within a highly precarious situation in their relationship with the military leadership. 

The latest round of demonstrations could only be suppressed by the deployment of the police, paramilitary units and the army. At a December 24 public rally called by the FFC, unnamed individuals set off teargas in the crowd in the effort to disrupt the meeting.

December 25 was marked by renewed mass demonstrations demanding the immediate resignation of Hamdok and the military from the reigns of state power. Actions were held in the three major cities surrounding the capital of Khartoum, Khartoum North and the twin-city of Omdurman. Additional protests extended to the east of the country around Port Sudan where organizations have put forward their own unique set of demands for the military regime.

Sudan Tribune reported on the level of repression carried out by the security forces saying: “The Sudanese government closed main streets leading to the Republican Place in Khartoum, shut down internet services, and deployed troops on the bridges linking the three towns of the capital Khartoum, Khartoum North and Omdurman. Five days after the last protests of December 19, the demonstrators again made their target the presidential palace which is the premises of the military-dominated Sovereign Council. In spite of the massive deployment of joint security forces including the police, the army and the Rapid Support Forces, the protesters marched towards the Palace chanting slogans to denounce the coup d’etat of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.” (https://sudantribune.com/article253411/)

What has been notable in the demonstrations for democratic transformation since 2018 is the high level of participation of women in the revolutionary movement. Many have moved to the front of the actions challenging the discrimination and marginalization prevalent in Sudanese society. These women have been met with harsh repression where sexual assault has been utilized has a means to driving women off the streets. These attempts to suppress women through brutal attacks have not worked and instead has prompted manifestations by women exposing the crimes being committed by the military and the entire security apparatus.

The same above-mentioned report by Sudan Tribune emphasizes: “[W]omen participated in Saturday’s (Dec. 25) protest to show they were not intimated by the sexual violence and rape by the security forces on 19 December. The police used live ammunition and tear gas to disperse the protests in the streets near the Republican Palace. Nonetheless, they failed to stop the demonstrators. The security authorities in Khartoum on Friday (Dec. 24) announced the closure of the bridges and streets leading to the sovereign and strategic sites…. ‘The people are stronger, and it is impossible to go back,’ they also chanted to voice their determination to continue the protests that started immediately after the first hours of the coup on October 25.”

Sudan and Regional Stability in the Horn of Africa

Meanwhile in neighboring Ethiopia, the U.S. is attempting to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. The State Department and corporate media outlets based in the West have sought to create an atmosphere where the administration in Addis Ababa is considered brutal and illegitimate. 

In line with this approach by Washington, the Sudanese military junta has sided with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) rebels fighting the elected government in Addis Ababa and other centers of authority throughout the Horn of Africa state. With the TPLF rebels in retreat, returning to their bases in the Tigray province by clearing out areas within the Afar and Amhara regions of the country, the Sudanese military regime is being placed in an even more unstable position. 

Funding from the U.S., the Gulf Monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates along with Tel Aviv is contingent upon Gen. al-Burhan’s compliance with the imperatives of western imperialism. The mass democratic movement in Sudan, if it is to seize power, will inevitably be forced to shift the overall foreign policy of the country. Absent of fundamental changes in domestic and foreign policies, the nation of Sudan will remain subject to the manipulation by the capitalist centers of the West and their surrogates throughout Africa and West Asia.

During mid-to-late December, numerous news articles have appeared suggesting that the reinstalled interim Prime Minister Hamdok is threatening to resign from his tenuous post as head of the second iteration of the Sovereign Council. If Hamdok leaves, which the U.S., UN and the Gulf Monarchies do not want to happen, the military will be weakened even further politically. The lack of a political underpinning for the TMC is causing the armed forces to utilize heightened levels of repression against the democratic movement.

Sudan and the International Situation

With the ascendancy of the current U.S. President Joe Biden in January 2021, the foreign policy of the State Department and the Pentagon has not shifted in its substance towards the African continent. The Trump administration sought to prop up the military regime in Sudan and the same approach continues under Biden.

As Trump was hostile towards the present government in Ethiopia, so is the Biden administration. The U.S. fears a genuinely revolutionary democratic Africa where the foreign policy of the post-independence states is based upon the interests of the majority of workers, farmers, youth and other popular strata within these developing countries. 

After two decades of direct occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. was forced to leave in humiliating defeat during August 2021. The military adventures in the West Asian and African states of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are facing a similar fate as to the outcome of Afghanistan in Central Asia. Trillions in U.S. currency has been spent on these occupations and proxy wars while the national infrastructure of the urban, suburban and rural areas is in rapid decline.

Of course, the failure of imperialist war is paid for by the workers and oppressed in the U.S. struggling against rising impoverishment, racist bigotry, national oppression, gender discrimination, environmental degradation, among other social ills. Consequently, the antiwar and anti-imperialist struggle is essential in the efforts to overturn capitalist exploitation and national oppression.   

__
Join the conversation. Follow us on twitter @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly. Like borkena on Facebook as well. To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com

Sudan: Prime Minister’s reinstatement is a sham – keep up the fight!

by Joe Attard

November 22 2021

Source: In Defence of Marxism

The Sudanese Revolution has taken a new turn. 28 days after the coup that removed him from power, Abdalla Hamdok was reinstated as Prime Minister by the military junta. The streets, which have fought and shed blood for a month to win civilian rule, have met this news, not with jubilation – but rage.

In a televised address alongside representatives of the military, Hamdok said that a new deal had been struck that he hoped would “end the bloodshed” – which is ironic, given that the generals, whom he will now serve in his new position, continue to claim they have killed nobody since the coup.

Under the newly inked deal, Hamdok will lead a “technocratic” government, with the goal of establishing a constitutional conference and holding elections by June 2023, to complete “the transition to democracy and its related obligations”.

Anticipating how this announcement would be received, Hamdok said: “I have made up my mind and signed this political agreement, although I know that many may disagree, object, or reject it simply because the people’s ambitions and aspirations were much higher.”

Shotgun marriage

The transitional government will be ‘supervised’ by a new Sovereign Council, with the two main leaders of the counter-revolution, General Burhan and General Hemeti, occupying the top spots and selecting its membership. The only real role of the new transitional government will be to rubberstamp the decisions of the generals.

This is a return to military dictatorship in all but name, with Hemeti taking to Twitter to “congratulate the people of Sudan on today’s historic event. An agreement has been signed ensuring that Sudan continues on the path of democracy and the people’s will.” The approval of this mass murderer is all that needs to be said of the new arrangement.

Nobody believes the generals’ assurances that they will allow elections to a civilian government in the future. Indeed, repression was still going on even while this new “compromise” was being announced, claiming another victim in the form of 16-year-old Yousif Abdelhamid, who was shot in the head yesterday.

Other promises have been made, which the masses have no confidence will be honoured. For example, the party of the old Bashir dictatorship (National Congress Party) is expressly banned from taking part in the new transitional government. But Burhan has spent the last few weeks hiring Bashir loyalists to important positions in the state, which makes the pledge dubious.

It was announced that all political prisoners are to be released, although so far only a handful have been set free; and an “independent probe” into violence during the past month has been promised, though this is a laughable notion when the butchers themselves are in charge.

Finally, the anti-corruption committee set up by the last transitional government to investigate embezzlement, shut down by the coup plotters – who have spent decades looting the wealth and resources of Sudan – will be revived and “restructured”, which we can read as: “rendered impotent.”

A cover for the rule of the counter-revolutionary junta

It is clear to anyone with eyes that Hamdok’s reinstatement to the head of a so-called transitional government, under the supervision of the armed forces, is nothing but a cover for the rule of the counter-revolutionary junta.

Yesterday saw a fourth national demonstration, shortly after the bloodiest day of the coup so far last Thursday, in which 15 protestors were killed by the security forces. The total number of confirmed deaths is 41, and hundreds lie injured or dying in Sudan’s overcrowded hospitals, which have repeatedly come under attack from the counter-revolution.

Far from being cowed, the turnout yesterday was even bigger than last time: with at least 19 cities and towns taking part, and at least a million people on the streets (the exact figures are hard to come by). In part, this was because (for unclear reasons) the military finally lifted the nationwide communications blackout on Friday. Aside from making it easier to mobilise the demonstration, it meant people all over the country could finally see the full extent of the military’s brutality pouring out of social media.

The images and videos of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF – the tribal paramilitaries under Hemeti’s command) and police firing live ammunition at crowds of unarmed protestors, and bodies riddled with intentional kill shots to the head and torso, enraged the masses even further.

Revolution refuses to back down

The junta remains isolated, basing itself on the most reactionary elements of the security forces. It lacks any organic base of support in society.

While the junta has not spared the whip of repression, unleashing brutal violence against the revolution, every time the masses have come back with hardened resolve.

The aim of the junta throughout this period has been to wear the masses down through bloodshed. This has been aided by a lack of any clear plans or objectives from the leaders of the revolution, with the aim of bringing the struggle to its logical conclusions.

Heroic masses force military to change its tactics

Despite relentless attacks, the masses have heroically persevered after a month of deadlock. The generals were not expecting the process to last this long. Therefore, they have been forced to change tactics. They hope that ‘restoring’ Hamdok as a civilian front for their rule will throw dust in the masses’ eyes, and cut across the revolution.

They have been assisted in this end by leaders of the so-called international community, particularly the imperialist representatives of the US and UN, who have been endeavouring behind the scenes to stitch up a new arrangement between the army, Hamdok and the remnants of the civilian wing of the old transitional government.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US is “encouraged” by the new deal, while the UN released a statement welcoming Hamdok and Burhan’s “consensus on resolving the constitutional and political crisis that was threatening the stability of the country.”

Stability is the watchword here. The imperialists are keen to avoid the military being overthrown by the revolutionary struggle of the masses, which would likely inspire revolutionary movements in other countries in the region. They hope that the military and transitional government can now ‘work together’ in their new shotgun wedding, and restore stability by pacifying the streets.

But the masses see right through this. It is a positive development that the counter-revolutionary role of the so-called international community has been laid bare: they are not allies but enemies of the Sudanese people.

After the bitter struggle, death and hardship they have gone through for democratic rights and civilian rule, the masses are furious at being returned to a position that is a significant step back from where they started.

When the announcement of the new government came, the streets boiled with fury towards Hamdok in particular. As we previously reported, the liberal prime minister, a former UN economist, was not especially popular with the masses before the coup.

Aside from entering into a disgraceful power share with the same murderous generals who drowned the revolutionary sit-ins of 2019 in blood, Hamdok oversaw a brutal austerity programme at the behest of imperialist bodies like the IMF and World Bank, who provided aid to Sudan with the expectation of “structural adjustments” (i.e. cuts).

In fact, the coup was preceded by a cut to fuel subsidies, which provoked anti-government, pro-military sit-ins in Khartoum. These were relatively small, made up of more backward layers of society, egged along by the military, and met with far-larger pro-democracy demonstrations. Still, the fact remains that Hamdok’s reactionary policies meant he enjoyed limited support from the Sudanese people.

On top of that, he turned a blind eye to continuing abuses by the RSF and police against the people after 2019, particularly targeting prominent members of the resistance committees.

Illusions in Hamdok shattered

However, when Burhan launched his coup, removed Hamdok and dissolved the Sovereign Council, the masses rallied to defend the gains of the 2019 revolution. In the process, certain illusions developed among some layers of the Sudanese (and especially the ex-pat community) in Hamdok, as the country’s ‘legitimate’ civilian political leader.

Those illusions have been shattered by yesterday’s developments, with the streets uniformly rejecting the new deal and naming Hamdok a traitor to the revolution.

All the leading bodies of the revolution, including the Sudanese Professionals Association, the Neighbourhood Resistance Committees, and even the more conservative Forces for Freedom and Change, have rejected the new transitional government as a sham. The former has reiterated the three main slogans of the revolution: no dialogue, no compromise and no partnerships with the military.

During the protests yesterday, the resistance committees made their feelings known, with the crowds in Khartoum declaring:

“To whomever believed in Hamdok, Hamdok is dead; and to whomever believed in the streets, the streets are chanting and will never die.”

A protestor from Omdurman, interviewed in the Guardian on Sunday, said: “I am just so disappointed by this deal. What about those who have been killed?” Another protester added: “I will keep going to the streets because the military doesn’t give any guarantees that they will stick by their deals. They always cheat.”

The revolutionary masses have vowed to remain on the streets, and a fifth national demonstration has been called for Thursday. If the intention of this ‘concession’ was to cut across the revolution, it appears to have had the opposite effect.

The rejection of Hamdok is a step forward. It shows the masses are learning from the harsh school of revolution. One important lesson is that liberals cannot be trusted. Their class interests and loyalty to capitalism means they are incapable of fulfilling the aspirations of the Sudanese people for genuine democracy and a decent existence.

Liberals leaders will always seek compromise, no matter the depths of vicious depravity to which the junta sink, rather than support the masses in the revolutionary conquest of power. Ultimately, both Burhan and Hamdok support the continuation of capitalism, which is the source of the poverty and backwardness which haunts Sudanese society.

How to smash the junta?

The masses fully understand the need to smash the junta, but the burning question as ever is – how? The SPA talks about arresting the generals and transitioning immediately to a fully civilian administration, but the generals have weapons, and are willing to use them in defence of their power and privileges, and the revolution does not!

As we have said many times, the major weakness of the Sudanese Revolution is the unwillingness of its leadership to meet the junta with arms in hand. Instead, it simply reinforces the masses’ anxieties with an insistence on peaceful methods, without explaining how these methods could ever convince the counter-revolution to vacate power.

The SPA warns that there will be a bloody civil war if the masses take up arms, but isn’t that precisely what there is now? A one-sided civil war, with the forces of counter-revolution slaughtering men women and children every day!

And wasn’t life under the rule of the junta in past years precisely a never-ending nightmare of poverty and misery? What this revolution has shown time and time again is that the masses are ready to make the ultimate sacrifices in order to change society. The ones who are afraid and vacillate are the liberal so-called leaders, who ceaselessly hold back the revolution from removing the junta, arresting the generals and placing a new civilian government in power – all of which require armed bodies of men loyal to the revolution!

The only way to avoid bloodshed and chaos is precisely by the most forceful armed intervention of the masses against the counter-revolution and its shock troops on the streets. The more the leaders hesitate, the more they vacillate without showing any way forward, the more it will embolden the counter-revolution and demoralise parts of the masses opening the way for more chaos and more bloodshed.

The leaders of the revolution should therefore explain the need for armed struggle, and organise disciplined self-defence via the resistance committees, combined with making a general appeal to the rank-and-file of the armed forces to mutiny and join their class brothers and sisters against Burhan and Hemeti.

No compromise, talks or partnerships: complete the revolution!

The experience of the Sudanese Revolution is a living demonstration of the need for a clear-sighted revolutionary party. Even a small such party, had it existed from the start, could have connected with the aspirations of the masses, and transformed the situation.

This party could have pointed the way forward with a clear programme of organising armed defence committees throughout the country connected on a local and national level, a general appeal to the rank and file soldiers to join the revolution, as well as an all-out general strike leading towards an insurrection to take power and arrest the leaders of the counter-revolution and disarm its forces.

This would be connected to the need to unify and build up the resistance committees into a national body of workers’ power, and convene a constituent assembly so the masses can elect their own representatives.

In the conditions that have emerged since the October coup, such a programme would resonate with millions of people and open a new stage in the revolution. In the absence of such a force, the revolution is forced to go through many bitter lessons.

This is the only way to guarantee the victory of the Sudanese Revolution, which continues to inspire the world with its incredible resilience.

The people have spoken: down with the coup! No deals or partnerships! The fight for democratic rights and dignified existence in Sudan goes on! In the last analysis, the objectives of the revolution can only be assured and sustained through the building of socialism in Sudan, which will be a beacon to all exploited and oppressed people throughout Africa, the Arab world and beyond!

Eritrea Versus AFRICOM: Defending Sovereignty in the Face of Imperialist Aggression

Eritrea Versus AFRICOM: Defending Sovereignty in the Face of Imperialist Aggression

The rapid expansion of AFRICOM on the African continent should be a cause for concern as African nations are quickly surrendering their sovereignty to the US. As the only country without a relationship to AFRICOM, Eritrea bears the brunt of US vilification. We must salute Eritrea’s ongoing project of national liberation.
 

The U.S. has built military-to-military relations with 53 out of the 54 African countries that include agreements to cede operational command to AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command. The broad network of AFRICOM military bases, as well as those from France and other world powers, are examples of how African states are surrendering their sovereignty through neocolonial relationships with Western countries. African self-determination and national sovereignty are impossible as long as the U.S. and its European allies are allowed to use military power to control African land, labor, and resources.

A major component of AFRICOM’s activities includes the indoctrination of African security forces through military training, including through the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA) (formerly the African Crisis Response Initiative) (ACRI) ),  Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) ,  International Military Training and Education (IMET) Program, and the numerous military exercises carried out by AFRICOM forces, including African Lion , Cutlass Express , Phoenix Express , Obangame Express , and Flintlock , among many other exercises, which have included participation from almost every African country. As Netfa Freeman pointed out in a recent article, “an indoctrination about the inherent goodness of the U.S.-European role in Africa accompanies this military training with blindspots about the true legacy of colonialism.”

The U.S. military uses the myriad security challenges facing the African continent as an important justification for AFRICOM’s existence, and the most prominent of these justifications is the threat that the U.S.-led “war on terror” is seemingly addressing. However, these security challenges and terror threats are actually driven in large part by the presence of foreign militaries on the continent. Before September 11, 2001, Africa seemed to be free of transnational terror threats . Since then, U.S. military efforts on the continent have grown in every conceivable way, from funding and boots on the ground to missions and outposts, while at the same time the number of transnational “terror” groups has increased in linear fashion . Despite this increase, extremist groups are active in less than 10 of the 54 countries in Africa. Justifications for AFRICOM’s presence on the continent, such as the rise of terrorist groups, ignore that the Pentagon and the CIA have recruited and trained extremists to fight as their proxies on many occasions.

It is clear that the African heads of state with working relationships with AFRICOM are surrendering their sovereignty and inviting a destabilizing presence.

Eritrea is the only country on the African continent without US military relations. In 1977, the last Americans at Kagnew Station, the U.S. military station in present-day Asmara, Eritrea, officially left the US’s listening post in the region. Kagnew was initially acquired through a deal with the Ethiopian government in 1943, an important geostrategic location for the US Navy during the Cold War. At the time, the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence against imperial Ethiopia (1961-1991) was ongoing; it was fear of heightened violence and warfare in Eritrea that led to the US’s ultimate and official withdrawal from Asmara and its closure of Kagnew in 1975.

This history is important in understanding the West’s contemporary vilification of Eritrea, as it is the only country on the African continent without a relationship with AFRICOM. We can’t and shouldn’t ignore the significance of this vilification as it relates to any African country’s sovereignty and the refusal to govern based on directives from the United Nations (or its allied entities). Eritrea’s defense forces are not only organized, but soldiers’ military training, skills, and expertise do not come from France, the United States, or any other major Western power. This is a notable difference from other African countries. Even the African Union’s standing army, the African Standby Forces, operates according to the UN’s notion of peacekeeping . 

Today, a focal point of critique when it comes to Eritrea is its national service program, “Sawa,” which high school students complete in their final year (12th grade). In its conception in 1994, national service was supposed to be for a limited time period. However, conditions in Eritrea changed when the former political party of Ethiopia, the TPLF, an organization that initially claimed anti-imperialist aims , became a client to US interests in the Horn of Africa. This led to a border conflict and warfare from 1998 – 2000, which ended the period of peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia after formal Eritrean independence in 1991. Post-war, Eritrea was in a no war-no peace situation, whereby the specter of territorial infringement was a real possibility in a TPLF-led Ethiopia that consistently preached a vision of an Abay Tigray (Tigrinya for “large Tigray”) — a dream to expand into and occupy Eritrea, making it a Tigrinya ethno-state. For many, national service in Eritrea is ongoing.  

National service is not a totally uncommon feature of modern day nation-states; countries from South Korea to Israel have national service, which include a military training component. But these countries are seldom critiqued for requiring military service of their citizens. The origin of Eritrea’s national service program, “Sawa,” in 1994 came from a need to give youth work post-war. Decades of colonialism and war left a nascent Eritrean society with purposefully destroyed infrastructures in an effort to de-skill Eritreans both technically and militarily. We can tie this to the US’s goal of “policy [and] security interests in Eritrea” when it sponsored the UN resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952, setting off Haile Selassie’s imperial expansionist project in the Horn. These historical-political events are germane to understanding what it means for an African country like Eritrea, whose policies largely focus on developing human capital and capacity and protecting national sovereignty, and which chooses  not to have US-European military relations.

It is helpful and interesting, then, to link Max Weber’s theory of states (and sovereignty), in which he posits that one feature of a legitimate state is a standing army, with how Jemima Pierre theorizes the manifestation of white supremacy and racism in Africa. What does it mean for African people to be organized and possess the military capabilities to defend themselves and their nation? We must eradicate the legacies of imperialism enacted through mechanisms like AFRICOM, which often manifest in unfounded accusations about terrorism and the levying of unjust sanctions . And we must salute and support Eritrea’s project of national liberation.

Dina M. Asfaha is completing her doctorate in anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on medical practices and mutual aid pioneered in the Nakfa trenches of Eritrea during Eritrea’s liberation struggle against imperial Ethiopia (1961-1991), and how these social practices continue to inform the contemporary framework of Eritrean sovereignty.

Tunde Osazua is a member of the Africa Team of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) and the coordinator of BAP’s U.S. Out of Africa Network, which is the organizing arm of the U.S. Out of Africa: Shut Down AFRICOM campaign.

China is Not Colonizing Africa

Source: Black Agenda Report

December 1 2021

Narratives are Amplified with Badly Photoshopped Falsehoods

International media cannot be trusted to give accurate information. Skepticism is especially warranted when China is the topic and allegations of colonizing Africa make headlines.

International media are reporting that the Ugandan government has turned over Entebbe airport to a Chinese bank in order to make payment on a loan. “Museveni to surrender Uganda’s only international airport over Chinese loan,” claimed The Guardian . Similar headlines have appeared widely and all repeat as fact an allegation that Uganda will lose its airport to Exim bank.

Uganda has not defaulted on the $200 million loan yet the false bad news continues to be reported. Despite denials from China and Uganda the story continues to circulate and is now accepted as being true.

The bad journalism resonates despite inaccuracies in these accounts because they repeat a now familiar trope, that China offers “debt traps” to African nations and has become the 21st century colonizer of the continent. In reality, Africa is colonized by the same nations which began their exploitation by carving up the continental at the 1884 Berlin Conference.

It is a French billionaire, Vincent Bolloré , who controls 16 West African ports through bribery and influence peddling. France also controls the CFA currency of its former colonies. Canadian companies control gold mining in Burkina Faso, Mali and Democratic Republic of Congo. Decades after the struggle for independence, British soldiers are still stationed in Kenya .

The U.S. and its allies have little to offer except exploitation in the form of extraction and military control through the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). It is China that pursues development projects with new railroads in Nigeria and Angola, and a highway in Kenya. The only narrative that makes the colonizers look good is a smear against China. The U.S./EU/NATO formation still has a hold on African nations and corporate media continue to act as governmental spokespeople and endlessly repeat whatever they are told.

The terms on Chinese loans are better than those of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). China doesn’t demand austerity in return for project funding, interference is not the goal. The difference is well known and clear and explains why news about China and Africa is so negative and why falsehoods are so readily accepted.

This particular fake news broke just days before the Forum on China-African Cooperation (FOCAC) was scheduled to take place in Dakar, Senegal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Senegal just weeks earlier and repeated the usual anti-Chinese screeds. The most basic journalistic standards are not followed with these stories which appear at opportune moments. Allegations of Chinese debt traps should be viewed with great skepticism.

Black/African people are very much interested in the condition of their brothers and sisters all over the world. This dynamic is generally a positive one but it also creates a susceptibility to believe in lies when they are spun well enough. The Chinese as colonizer trope has been repeated too often and information about Africa is too scant for most people to analyze these news stories correctly. We are left with nothing but “China is bad” tales that are accepted because of well meaning but misdirected concerns for Africans.

The story of Uganda is particularly complex. The Ugandan government is a U.S. puppet, a full fledged participant in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), and a terrorist nation which invaded the Democratic Republic of Congo and killed millions of people. While it is important to dispel myths about China it is also important to do so without covering up for Uganda and nations like it.

That is why the Black radical tradition must be nurtured and revived. Without it the world is viewed through the eyes of imperialism’s lackeys and media manipulators. All the truth about African nations and their relations with the rest of the world must be known and clearly understood. Africa is a key part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI certainly benefits China and its involvement in African countries is obviously a benefit to them. What is needed are impartial journalistic standards free of state run falsehoods and political discernment that reveals useful information.

While the airport story was told and retold, China announced a plan to provide African nations with 1 billion doses of Covid vaccines. The project involves donations and joint ventures which will waive the intellectual property rights that have hampered vaccinations in Africa. Neither the United States or its allies have attempted to do anything similar on behalf of the countries we are told live under Chinese subjugation.

The media do indeed have the power to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent. The intricacies of international financing cannot be left to scribes for powerful countries. Events taking place at this juncture in history require far more.

Margaret Kimberley’s is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents  . Her work can also be found at patreon.com/margaretkimberley    and on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com

#NoMore U.S. in Africa: BAP Statement to Nov. 21st Rallies for Ethiopia

Black Alliance for Peace

November 21 2021

We in the Black Alliance for Peace stand in uncompromising opposition to the U.S.-led imperialist aggression against Ethiopia and by extension against her neighboring countries Eritrea, Somalia, and beyond. U.S. policy against Ethiopia cannot be understood without putting it within the broader context of U.S. imperialism’s geostrategic interest in the Horn of Africa in particular, and the whole of Africa in general. 

It is not lost on the Black radicals and revolutionary Pan-Africanists that the U.S. settler colonialist state is an extension of Western Europe and as such it is motivated by a white supremacist, imperialist worldview. 

In spite of its benevolent rhetoric, the U.S.’ unwavering commitment to full spectrum dominance reveals the only true intentions it has for Ethiopia and for our homeland, Africa. Since the 1950s African movements against colonialism and for continental unity, have been sabotaged by U.S. administrations of both parties. Leaders such as Patrice Lumumba of Congo were assassinated by the CIA, and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was overthrown in a CIA orchestrated coup. Ten years  ago, the U.S. led the NATO bombing of Libya  which decimated the country, killing not only the leader Muammar Gaddafi but also an untold number of Libyans. This was the first operation of its U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, that has since been responsible for thoroughly militarizing the continent of Africa, including waging an unmitigated drone war in Somalia.

The relative instability in Ethiopia can only be sustained through U.S. support. The empty rhetoric from officials like U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken represents the propaganda aspect of the hybrid war waged against Ethiopia.

It is important that we see the sanctions, media misinformation, and arrogant ultimatums by U.S. imperialism for what they are; the desperate machinations of a global power in crisis. 

Western imperialism is being confronted by people-centered expressions of resistance in Africa and globally.

This week a French military convoy from Ivory Coast transiting across Burkina Faso towards Niger (a source of uranium for France) was stopped by 10,000 demonstrators demanding that the French forces evacuate from the region. The convoy had already been stopped on November 17th in the Burkina Faso city of Bobo Dioulasso and on the 18th in the capital of Ouagadougou. The imperialist press won’t cover this resistance.

Now expressions of solidarity from around the world are standing up for the Horn of Africa. 

While the Black Alliance for Peace is committed to peace, we understand there can be no peace without justice, and we will stand in solidarity with all peoples (and nations) who strive to liberate themselves from all forms of neocolonial oppression. 

BAP takes a resolute anti-colonial, anti-imperialist position that links the international role of the U.S. empire to the domestic war against poor people and working-class Black people within the United States.

We unequivocally support and uplift mutual cooperation, solidarity, and peace among all parties and people in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the broader Horn of Africa region. We support African-led, localized conflict resolution that is not tied to advancing imperialism, neo-colonialism or any other nefarious Western agendas.

We must all transform our mobilizations into organized protracted struggle that forges a transcontinental cooperation that will save ourselves from the greatest threat to peace and stability on the planet, the U.S. government. 

The U.S.-EU-NATO axis of domination will ultimately find its deathbed in Africa at the hands of the Pan-African masses.

U.S. out of Africa!

Shut down AFRICOM!

No compromise!

No retreat!

Banner photo: Refugees, who arrived recently from Ethiopia, setting up their shelter in Sudan. (UNFPA/Sufian Abdul-Mouty)

36 Likes

University in central Cuba graduates new professionals from Angola and Haiti

Source: Cuban News Agency

Date July 21 2021

CAMAGUEY, Cuba, Jul 21 (ACN) The University of Camagüey (UC) “Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz” graduated 34 new professionals from Angola and Haiti, nations with which Cuba has friendly relations and education cooperation agreements.

The graduates represent a valuable force for those countries in the fields of Veterinary Medicine, Law, Electrical Engineering, Architecture, Civil Engineering and Chemical Engineering, according to UC’s website.

Dayana Figueredo Stewart, head of the International Students Department, said that it has been a different, non-presential process due to COVID-19, but no less rigorous than usual.

“The students submitted their diploma thesis online and two members of a team made up of their tutors, opponents and jury members evaluated them and gave them the relevant grades,” she added.

In the first university established in Cuba after the triumph of the Revolution, the foreign scholarship holders received a general preparation through scientific, cultural and sports activities.

Cuban Medical Mission renews its presence in Ghana

Source: Cubaminrex / Embacuba Ghana

July 12 2021

The change in the leading of the Cuban Medical Mission in Ghana took place at the Embassy of Cuba in Accra with the presence of the Ambassador Pedro Luis Despaigne González and Dr. Hafez Adam Taher, Head of External Health Cooperation, Ghana Ministry of Health.

The document was signed by Dr. Ana Lubín García, outgoing Head of the Cuban Medical Mission in the country and Dr. Mercedes Suárez Orama, incoming Head, with the presence of incoming and outgoing members of the Cuban Medical Brigade (CMB), as well as member of the staff of the Cuban Diplomatic Mission.

The Cuban Ambassador reviewed the main milestones of the meritorious work carried out in Ghana by the CMB that officially concluded its medical work this day, highlighted the rigor in the fulfillment of its functions by the outgoing Head of the Cuban Medical Mission, highlighted the support provided by the Ghanaian health authorities to the Cuban doctors for the fulfillment of their functions and urged the new doctors to keep up the work carried out by their predecessors.

The members of the CMB expressed their commitment to keep the name of Cuba in a place of honor. (Cubaminrex / Embacuba Ghana)