Monday, March 10, 2014

SOUTH AFRICA TO RWANDA: DON'T TOUCH US ON OUR SOVEREIGNTY!




On Monday, March 10, 2014 6:18 AM,

South Africa to Rwanda: Don’t touch us on our sovereignty!

  • Simon Allison
    Simon Allison covers Africa for the Daily Maverick, having cut his teeth reporting from Palestine, Somalia and revolutionary Egypt. He loves news and politics, the more convoluted the better. Despite his natural cynicism and occasionally despairing tone, he is an Afro-optimist, and can’t wait to witness and chronicle the continent’s swift development over the next few decades.
  • 10 Mar 2014 12:23 (South Africa)
Rwanda and South Africa are still on speaking terms, but only barely – and if Dirco gets its way even this tenuous relationship will be terminated in the next few days. South Africa, finally, has had enough of Rwanda doing its dirty business on South African soil and has expelled three diplomats, with the ambassador to follow shortly. It’s a bold move, but have we thought it through? By SIMON ALLISON.
Relations between South Africa and Rwanda are at an all-time low after South Africa expelled three Rwandan diplomats on Thursday. And relations are about to get even worse.
South Africa, understandably, has had enough of Rwanda doing its dirty business on South African soil. First there was the assassination attempt on the life of Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, the former Rwandan general turned vocal critic of President Paul Kagame’s regime, in 2010. Then, earlier this year, there was the murder in a Sandton hotel room of Patrick Karegeya, the one-time head of Rwandan intelligence, who had fled his country looking for political asylum in South Africa.
After this murder, the Daily Maverick observed: “…with that regime’s track record, and South Africa’s undeniable appeal for Rwandan dissidents and exiles, Karegeya’s murder will not be the last such incident to happen within our borders.”
It wasn’t. The final straw came last week, when armed men broke in Nyamwasa’s Johannesburg home in another apparent assassination attempt (Nyamwasa was not home). This time was different, however. Previously, South Africa has not been able to link definitively the Rwandan government to the incidents, which means no public action could be taken against Rwanda – innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
But last week someone must have messed up. According to diplomatic sources, South Africa’s security forces were able to tie the break-in to three Rwandan diplomats working from their embassy in Pretoria (one Burundian diplomat was also involved, apparently).
The department of international relations (Dirco) wasted no time in taking action, revoking the dodgy diplomats’ credentials and sending them packing. Given their diplomatic immunity, this was the most serious punishment available to Dirco. Given that there were only four diplomats in the Rwandan embassy to start with, Ambassador Victor Karega must be feeling a little lonely.
Rwanda was just as quick to respond, with interest. “We have expelled six South African diplomats in reciprocity and concern at South Africa's harbouring of dissidents responsible for terrorist attacks in Rwanda,” said Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo, parroting Rwanda’s official line that South Africa, with its ultra-progressive approach to refugees, provides a safe haven to Rwandan terrorists and genocidaires.
Mushikiwabo may have a point (although not one that justifies extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassination): Neither Nyamwasa or Karega are angels, and are both themselves implicated in the abuses of Kagame’s regime; while there has long been concern that perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide are hiding out among the Rwandan exile community in Johannesburg.
The row will escalate even further. Speaking anonymously, a senior Dirco official told the Daily Maverick that South Africa was planning to sever all diplomatic ties with Rwanda within 72 hours. “SA will not stand by and watch people be killed on our soil by another government, just because we happen to be opposed to a sitting regime,” the official said, adding that the freeze in relations is likely to continue for as long as the “cowboy” Kagame remains in office.
That could be for quite some time. Kagame’s term expires in 2017, and he’s not constitutionally permitted to run again. However, constitutions can be amended, and Kagame has previously floated the idea of a third term.
The rift between Rwanda and South Africa is likely to have implications far beyond their bilateral relationship. As part of the East African Community, Rwanda maintains very close ties with Kenya and Uganda. If sides must be taken – and it certainly looks like that is what South Africa is angling for – both countries would certainly favour their regional neighbour. Kenya wouldn’t need much convincing, anyway, with the current Kenyan administration already unhappy about South Africa’s stubborn commitment to the International Criminal Court (unsurprising, given that it is led by two men on trial at The Hague),
Of more immediate concern is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where South African troops are part of a United Nations force fighting rebels in the eastern provinces on the border with Rwanda. Those rebels are generally assumed to be supported by Rwanda, making the conflict something of a proxy war. At the moment, the rebels are very much on the back foot, having been overwhelmed by the UN force’s superior military power. The next step is to create some kind of lasting peace, addressing the issues which lie at the root of the conflict – an already difficult task, made exponentially more so if two of the protagonists in the conflict are no longer on speaking terms.
In expelling the three Rwandan diplomats, South Africa has taken a firm, principled stand against an outrageous violation of its sovereignty. But our diplomats must be wary: although they are currently enjoying the moral superiority, this situation could reverberate in uncertain and almost certainly unpleasant ways. Making Kagame an outlaw, and Rwanda a pariah state, risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. DM

South Africa, Rwanda expel diplomats in row over Rwandan exiles

Reuter

By Pascal Fletcher and Helen Nyambura-Mwaura March 8, 2014 2:52 AM
By Pascal Fletcher and Helen Nyambura-Mwaura
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa expelled three Rwandan diplomats it linked to a raid on an exiled Rwandan general's Johannesburg home, and Rwanda has retaliated by ordering out six South African envoys, officials said on Friday.
The row strained ties between two African states involved in efforts to bring peace to eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where South Africa has troops in a U.N. brigade that fought last year against rebels whom U.N. experts said received support from Rwanda. Kigali denied backing the Congolese rebels.
Late on Monday, armed men broke into the Johannesburg home of former Rwandan army chief General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, an exiled critic of Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
Nyamwasa, who survived an assassination attempt in Johannesburg in 2010, was not in the house at the time.
A diplomatic source, who asked not to be named, told Reuters that South African security services had tracked the attackers. "It was very clear that they were intelligence personnel attached to the Rwandan embassy," the source added.
Three diplomats from the Rwandan mission in Pretoria were ordered out of the country in 48 hours this week. Kigali's tit-for-tat expulsions followed on Friday.
"We have expelled six S. African diplomats in reciprocity & concern at SA harbouring of dissidents responsible for terrorist attacks in Rwanda," Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo said in a comment on her Twitter account.
South African police have also been investigating the New Year's Eve murder in a posh Johannesburg hotel of another exiled Kagame opponent, former Rwandan spy chief Patrick Karegeya.
Exiled Rwandan opposition members have accused Kagame and his government of being responsible for Karegeya's death and for attacks on Nyamwasa and other overseas-based critics.
They deny Kigali's charges that they are behind "terrorist" attacks in Rwanda.
"LONG OVERDUE"
Kagame and senior Rwandan officials have denied any involvement in the attacks on exiled opponents, but have called them traitors who should not expect forgiveness or pity.
Brian Dube, spokesman for South Africa's State Security Agency, would not comment on the expulsions but confirmed the country's security services had been looking into the attacks against the exiled Rwandans.
The United States in January expressed concern over what it called "politically motivated murders of prominent Rwandan exiles".
David Batenga, a nephew of the slain Rwandan spy chief Karegeya, called for the closure of the Rwandan embassy in South Africa.
"It's not an embassy, it's an operation centre for planning missions to kill innocent civilians," he told Reuters.
Etienne Mutabazi, deputy chairman in South Africa of the opposition Rwanda National Congress, of which Karegeya and Nyamwasa were founding members, said the expulsion of the Rwandan diplomats was "long overdue" and called their activities "criminal".
"Diplomats are here to represent their country, they have immunity, but they should not abuse that immunity," he said.
In January, Kagame, who has won Western praise for rebuilding Rwanda after the 1994 genocide there, defended his nat
ion's right to self-defence against those who "betray" it.
"We didn't do it, but my question is - shouldn't we have done it?" Kagame said at a January 12 prayer breakfast, clearly referring to Karegeya's death but without naming him.
"No one will betray Rwanda and get away with it. Regardless of who you are, there will be consequences," Kagame said.
Karegeya fled to South Africa in 2007 after allegedly plotting a coup against Kagame with Nyamwasa.
  • Politics & Government
  • Unrest, Conflicts & War
  • South Africa
  • Rwanda
  • Paul Kagame
  • Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Fears S.Sudan conflict could infect region




Good People,
We saw this coming as a result of Museveni invasion to South Sudan
and his stubboness to heed to remove his Uganda troops from South
Sudan.
Both Museveni and Kagame will be forced to swallow a humble pie as
history will judged them fircely with consequences they must pay as a
result.
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
 

Fears S.Sudan conflict could infect region

AFP
By Hannah McNeish 19 hours ago
South Sudanese security forces stand next to weapons intercepted from a UN peacekeeping mission in Rumbek on March 8, 2014

Juba (AFP) - As ongoing fighting in South Sudan shatters any pretence of a ceasefire between government troops and rebels, analysts fear the conflict could engulf the region, as former foes fight old wars in a new country.
There are tensions between South Sudan's northern neighbour and old enemy Sudan and its new ally Uganda, while chief mediator Ethiopia is likely alarmed by allegations that its arch-enemy Eritrea is funnelling weapons from ally Khartoum to South Sudan's rebels.
One Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the worst case-scenario currently being discussed is that "you've got Uganda fighting Sudan inside South Sudan, with Eritrea fighting Ethiopia inside South Sudan and a complete law and order vacuum."
"As far as the regionalisation of the conflict goes, the question is not if, but when", said Casie Copeland, South Sudan analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group think tank.
What started as a power struggle between South Sudan's President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar in late December quickly split the army and exacerbated ethnic feelings in a nation born less than three years ago, after five decades of war with Khartoum.
A feud between Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his Sudanese counterpart Omar al-Bashir is rooted in Uganda's rescue of a then southern guerrilla army battling Khartoum forces in the last stages of the civil war that ended with a 2005 peace deal and South Sudan's independence six years later.
Uganda has long accused Khartoum of funding rebel groups such as the Lord's Resistance Army on its territory.
With Ugandan troops now openly backing Kiir and pushing north, and as rebels retake territory near oil fields whose produce flows north for export, Sudan could soon go on the offensive.
"We do worry about the regionalisation of this. The Ugandans and Sudanese hate each other," the diplomat said.
- Proxy armies -
Rebels from Sudan's troubled Darfur region, who have been battling Khartoum for a decade, are also reported to be fighting alongside South Sudan in oil-rich Unity state, and ethnic militia from other parts of the south are also pitching in, further straining north-south relations.
There are real fears that Sudan could revert to old tactics of funding proxies or arming the opposition as calls for Uganda to withdraw go unheeded and oil assets are threatened.
A row in early 2012 over how much South Sudan should pay to export its oil through northern pipelines to port led to an 18-month halt in production that brought both economies to their knees.
Kiir and Bashir eventually signed deals on oil and security that included a promise to stop funding one another's enemies to ensure their co-dependent stability.
The current conflict has called this and also the future of South Sudan's oil revenues into question, with many seeing newly oil-rich Uganda's military support as a bargaining chip for oil.
South Sudan's defence minister recently admitted that Ugandan troops were on the payroll, contradicting his colleagues' claims there were no foreign forces in country.
But speculation is rife over what else South Sudan's government -- still reeling from the shutdown -- has offered to secure its position.
"I heard one of the oil blocks, or so much (oil) per day", said the diplomat.
South Sudan's decision to build an alternative pipeline to Kenya or Djibouti further unnerved Khartoum and raised Uganda's hopes it might link up to an East African pipeline and build its own refinery.
With French oil giant Total owning concessions in Ethiopia, Uganda and South Sudan, "the pieces are there for big play", says Copeland.
- Risk of bankruptcy -
But for now, cash-strapped South Sudan is embroiled in a war that has displaced almost a million people, with many wondering how long the baby nation can last.
"International financial experts are suggesting that the government might be bankrupt in 2-3 months," said one analyst on condition of anonymity.
South Sudan's biggest oil-backer China has played a role in supporting the government financially with development projects and loans, and is now increasingly wading into internal politics.
But its weight is unlikely to cut through strained regional relations as paranoia over history repeating itself with regards to oil, guns and borders grows.
"A nightmare scenario is unfolding in this region", said John Prendergast in a recent report for the anti-genocide Enough project.
He has called for a proper investigation into whether Eritrea is providing arms through Sudan and for an extension of sanctions already incurred by Asmara for supplying weapons to Somali groups.
Until there is no "visible presence" of Ugandan forces in South Sudan, he doubts that peace talks in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa that the host and Sudan have backed will ever start in earnest.
But even without confused regional backers, half-hearted international pressure or China's economic carrot, left alone, South Sudan's war could rumble on for years, funded solely by the spoils of corruption and determination of former guerrilla leaders.
=========================
Home | NewsSunday 9 March 2014

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with ex-VP wife Angelina Teny

March 8, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA) – Angelina Teny, wife of the South Sudan’s former vice president, Riek Machar Teny, who now leads the three-month rebellion against the government of president Salva Kiir, said the ongoing war in the country was imposed on the people by dictatorial and violent behavior of the president.
JPEG - 24.8 kb
Riek Machar sits next to his wife Angelina Teny in front of their tent in rebel-controlled territory inside Jonglei state, on 31 January 2014 (Photo: Reuters/Goran Tomasevic)
In an exclusive interview with the Sudan Tribune correspondent in the Ethiopian capital, Tesfa Alem, she accused president Salva Kiir of being behind the escalation of the situation in Juba insisting they only aspired to achieve democratic reforms in the new nation.
The British educated female politician, said the world was not doing enough to condemn and bring to justice those responsible for the "genocidal" war, which she said has been perpetrated by the government in Juba.
She said the rebellion which is now being led by her husband was born out of resistance against the regime that wanted to silent or kill those who have divergent political opinions.
Teny further explained that the former vice-president, Riek Machar, and his colleagues that share political opinion did not commit any crime and that it was President Salva Kiir who should quit the leadership in order to give peace a chance.
She also denied that Machar travelled to the UK as it was rumoured, adding that it was not a crime if he did travel. "He hasn’t committed a crime; he is only trying to resist because somebody is trying to kill him," she said.
(ST)
Below is the full text of her interview:
…………………….
Question: You have now joined the talks, what is your status at the talks? Will you replace General Taban Deng’s position as head of SPLM/A in Opposition delegation or not?
Answer: I was never named as a leader of the delegation. Actually under the initial delegation, it was comrade Pagan Amum who is assigned as the leader of the delegation. Even now when comrade Taban sits leading the talks, he always mentions that "I am speaking on behalf of our chief negotiator comrade Pagam Amum.” That is still the status.
Question: But considering the fact that the four remaining detainees, including your initial chief negotiator, Pagan Amum, if released, would any way side with the other 7 former detainees; will you probably drop that demand or will you continue insisting on their release?
Answer: Still our position hasn’t changed even if the seven released went back inside [to detention] we will call for their release because as a party, as SPLM, the principles and values of our party is to respect human rights, respect the freedom of people, democracy, peace and justice. The four remaining detainees have been accused falsely that they have plotted a coup. We all know and the whole world knows that there was no coup. Everybody agrees there was no coup. There is no a just cause why they should continue to be in prison and this is what we are fighting for. What we are resisting is precisely that people are free. When the seven were released we never said that they should join us but we share the same political views on what should be done to transform a country and building of a democratic state.
The SPLM party is not a one man show because what Salva was trying to push is that to have a constitution in which all the powers are concentrated in one person and he sees that person as himself. According to his plans, there will be only one position elected that is the position of the chair of the party and the rest of the positions will be appointed by him as he wishes. That really kills the party. The party cannot develop in that manner. That cannot regenerate and would eventually fail to have younger people coming up in the second and third generations of the leadership. So these are the things we are actually fighting to achieve, and that is why we continue to call for the release of the four. If the remaining four are released it doesn’t mean they have to join this [armed] resistance. They have a choice and this is the free will of everybody.
Question: Do you or your husband take any personal responsibility for the conflict escalating in the way it did? Regardless of what triggered the conflict, has the cost of not pursuing peace without preconditions been worth paying considering the thousands of deaths and humanitarian disaster?
Answer: We don’t for one simple reason. We were pushing for reform in the party to be done democratically. That is why there was a press conference on the 6th of December and there was a planned rally for 14th of December aimed to explain to the masses of the SPLM on why leaders of the SPLM decided to openly challenge President Salva Kiir’s leadership in the party. The idea was to work on the reforms of the party so it becomes democratic, and whatever systems, values and principles in the party are reflected in our governance system. We wanted to make the reforms in a democratic and peaceful manner. We heard if the rally takes place there was to be a use of military force and alongside there was an appeal that the two parties engaged in dialogue within the SPLM. There was also a call for the rally, as well as the National Liberation Council that was called by President Salva Kiir, are postponed to give dialogue a chance.
On our part, we postponed the rally but Salva Kiir ignored the call made by religious leaders, the international community and others who were concerned about the way tensions were developing. Salva Kiir went ahead with the National Liberation Council and delivered a speech literary declaring war on anyone who would speak out on his leadership and the way he was managing the party. That is why he said he was going to use everything at his disposal. He also threatened members of the National Liberation Council to pass undemocratic constitution for the party including other documents: manifesto, internal regulations. That is why we were fighting against passing that kind of constitution. In fact, these documents were not even passed in the political bureau [party highest executive organ]. Therefore he decided not to call for meeting of the political bureau.
So I would say in the escalation we have nothing to do with it. We were pushed to the situation. We left Juba really running for our lives and for days we were chased and ambushed. We only picked ourselves and left everything behind. The only thing I actually picked was the key to my room because I was thinking I would be back in the morning. So how can we take the responsibility? We can’t take the responsibility. This responsibility wholly lies on Salva Kiir and his inner circles who were working with him at that time.
Question: Talks have now stalled and considering the thousands of deaths and humanitarian disaster the conflict has caused, don’t you think it is worth to drop all your preconditions to push negotiations forward and reach a peaceful solution?
Answer: These preconditions are actually the values that we are fighting for. It is because of the absence of these preconditions that Salva Kiir finds himself at will undermining the constitutions and acting against the constitutions, dismissing governors and carrying out attacks targeting one ethnic group and further committing genocide like what has happened in Juba.
So we don’t see a solution unless these conditions are met including the SPLM leaders who are detained for no reason. This is the issue of personal liberty, freedom and the rights of individuals to express themselves. That is what we fought for all of these years. We didn’t fight to come again and have another master that also dictates. I don’t see it is right to drop those because the reason why we have crises in South Sudan is precisely because of political problems. One of these political problems is the military dictatorship that has developed in the country. And this military dictatorship is led by Salva Kiir and accuses them falsely, detains them falsely and we stand the principle that what we are fighting for is a democratic system where people are free to express their feeling and their opinions on how they see the country should be run. This is what the comrades who were arrested including the remaining four detainees were doing along. Comrade Salva Kiir calls that indiscipline and he is not ready to hear a second opinion, or the other opinion or the other side and so on. He terms that as indiscipline and he would use everything at his disposal to address that. And we have seen on 15th December and onwards that it resulted in genocide and killing of innocent people and arresting comrades in the party because they stated their opinion.
Question: Human right groups are accusing both sides of committing a serious human right violation. Do you admit Machar forces were part of those crimes?
Answer: I would challenge some of these. I am not going to totally deny that nothing has happened but those groups who have reported the human right abuses never came to the side and areas we were in control to do the investigations. They did the investigation in one side. They were doing it in and around Juba. For example, when we were in Bor nobody came there. So you can call it unfair and one side reporting. In Bor, Ugandan jets dropped cluster bombs but there is no mention of that in the UN report. Other banned chemicals were used. In Bor, where there were exchanges of hands, people were pulled out of UN camps and executed by government forces and we haven’t heard any of that in the UN reports. The UN can testify that if they are honest and truthful.
Question: Are you open for investigation?
Answer: We are open. We say let us have an investigation. We should all be open but all I am asking for is fairness. When human right organizations plan to produce a report it is best that they hear all sides and go personally to check what is happening.
Question: Do you think admitting killings had occurred would be a good start towards achieving reconciliation?
Answer: There was no reason for this war. Salva Kiir imposed it. People would tell us that maybe if we accepted to be in our house and they came and demolished the house and buried us alive, maybe that was the only one we didn’t do but decided to flee for our lives. And he [Salva Kiir] continued to pursue us when even we refused to react to his pursuit for war.
Question: Do you blame the international community for giving little attention in addressing the conflict that has killed over 20,000 people in only few weeks?
Answer: With what has happened in Juba, the killing of civilians and pulling people out from their houses and burning them and all the other atrocities; to me, unequivocally, the world is guilty of not condemning it because that genocide up to now is being played down. It is even more of an insult to the injury. How can you not address a systematic genocidal killing of over 20,000 people in Juba in only few days that killed [civilians] including women and children? In Ukraine 200 people died. It is now a cause for the world to say the president has lost his legitimacy. What is so different about Salva Kiir? Killings have continued, on Wednesday, innocent people were slaughtered in Juba in cold blood murder. These reports are played down by Juba and everything coming out of Juba is gospel truth. Worse of that the world takes it as this is business as usual. This is not business as usual when you commit genocide.
Question: Is it true refugees at UN compounds are being killed?
Answer: The refugees [internally displaced persons] are in a terrible condition. You can call them prisoners. They are not able to travel and their living conditions are very bad. I am saying this is happening under the eyes and the noses of the UN. I am calling on the UN to put that into urgent consideration. Some of them are forced to go out to bring food and drinks for the children and women inside the camp but end up slaughtered by government forces. There are government snipers right outside the camps. That is how the 31 people who were killed last week ended up.
Question: The government says they have arrested 100 soldiers for the violence in Juba, how many members of the SPLM/A In Opposition have been arrested for crimes carried out by the rebels?
Answer: We are open for all international groups to come and investigate. Let them come. We will welcome them. Everything will be investigated but it is very obvious that what has happened in Juba is a premeditated genocide process. Nobody can deny that. Juba can say it has established a committee to investigate it, but am sure if you ask the detainees, some of them would tell you they were implicated maybe because they have spoken out something against government. It was the presidential guards who did all the systematic killings. We ask the question who gave them the order?
Question: Would Machar be willing to permanently retire from politics if Kiir agreed to do the same? Perhaps the solution is for this generation of leaders who fought so valiantly for South Sudan’s independence to step aside so the country can move on from this conflict and historical rivalries?
Answer: Is this a contest between Machar and Kiir? If it is his [Machar] wish and desire to contest for the leadership of the party, it is his right. The constitution of the party says it is a principle value of the SPLM that everybody has a right to be elected or to elect. So it is his right. But Salva Kiir doesn’t tolerate if someone expresses desire to contest. That is how comrade Pagan ended up in prison; that is why Madam Rebecca was arrested in her house. This is what we are fighting for. It is the right of every one. So is it a personal thing between Machar and Kiir? I don’t think so!
Question: How should the issue of justice be dealt with? Should it be just within the South Sudanese, African Union or even ICC?
Answer: I put a question also to the African Union, now that you are trying to set up a commission of inquiry, and when you get the results of that inquiry, what are you going to do with it? Will the AU have the capacity to indict? I am saying this because it is about justice. Our justice system is incapacitated. There is no separation of powers. Lawyers of comrade Pagan [Amum] were chased out from court when they went to submit a petition. That is the kind of justice we have. Whatever you think can happen in Juba, will be just a kangaroo court. We don’t have a credible judicial system. These are the structural reforms I needed in the country in terms of governance.
Question: Would the SPLM/A in Opposition be willing to agree to an ICC investigation if the government also agreed?
Answer: We will welcome anybody who wants to investigate because it is an important principle because you also have to implement the values you are fighting for, the value of human rights.
Question: Would he [Machar] travel to The Hague if at a future date he is indicted for war crimes in the current conflict?
Answer: I will not respond to that.
Question: IGAD has put on table the formation of interim government. But will you accept an interim government that excludes Riek Machar or Salva Kiir?
Answer: I am wondering why do you want to exclude Riek Machar? If what has happened in Juba happened in your country, and you know the person who committed the crimes, will you accept him as your president?
Question: The Ugandan fighter jets are allegedly bombing your positions including last Saturday that has killed some 40 innocent civilians. Some of your members allege that they have used cluster ammunitions.
Answer: They have continued to use cluster bombs and the world is quiet. Salva Kiir has used cluster bombs.
Question: Is it Salva Kiir or Ugandan forces?
Answer: Uganda is there by Kiir’s invitation. We even ask ourselves, are we really an independent state, or is Salva Kiir making South Sudan as a sub-region of Uganda? For example, you hear declarations in Kampala by chief of staff of the Ugandan armed forces of declaring "we have captured Bor."
Question: Those being serious crimes what are you doing about it? Are you asking for the international community to probe on the alleged use of weapons of mass destruction? If you are, who have you asked?
Answer: Anybody who feels that they have the high moral ground.
Question: There were some rumours alleging either you or Dr. Riek Machar travelled to the UK? Is it true?
Answer: Where is he now? Has he left South Sudan at point during the conflict? He hasn’t travelled anywhere. He is travelling inside South Sudan. He hasn’t travelled to UK. But is it a crime if he did travel to UK? He hasn’t committed a crime; he is only trying to resist because somebody is trying to kill him.
(ST)
==============================
 
 
On Monday, March 10, 2014 6:18 AM,

South Africa to Rwanda: Don’t touch us on our sovereignty!

  • Simon Allison
    Simon Allison covers Africa for the Daily Maverick, having cut his teeth reporting from Palestine, Somalia and revolutionary Egypt. He loves news and politics, the more convoluted the better. Despite his natural cynicism and occasionally despairing tone, he is an Afro-optimist, and can’t wait to witness and chronicle the continent’s swift development over the next few decades.
  • 10 Mar 2014 12:23 (South Africa)
Rwanda and South Africa are still on speaking terms, but only barely – and if Dirco gets its way even this tenuous relationship will be terminated in the next few days. South Africa, finally, has had enough of Rwanda doing its dirty business on South African soil and has expelled three diplomats, with the ambassador to follow shortly. It’s a bold move, but have we thought it through? By SIMON ALLISON.
Relations between South Africa and Rwanda are at an all-time low after South Africa expelled three Rwandan diplomats on Thursday. And relations are about to get even worse.
South Africa, understandably, has had enough of Rwanda doing its dirty business on South African soil. First there was the assassination attempt on the life of Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, the former Rwandan general turned vocal critic of President Paul Kagame’s regime, in 2010. Then, earlier this year, there was the murder in a Sandton hotel room of Patrick Karegeya, the one-time head of Rwandan intelligence, who had fled his country looking for political asylum in South Africa.
After this murder, the Daily Maverick observed: “…with that regime’s track record, and South Africa’s undeniable appeal for Rwandan dissidents and exiles, Karegeya’s murder will not be the last such incident to happen within our borders.”
It wasn’t. The final straw came last week, when armed men broke in Nyamwasa’s Johannesburg home in another apparent assassination attempt (Nyamwasa was not home). This time was different, however. Previously, South Africa has not been able to link definitively the Rwandan government to the incidents, which means no public action could be taken against Rwanda – innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
But last week someone must have messed up. According to diplomatic sources, South Africa’s security forces were able to tie the break-in to three Rwandan diplomats working from their embassy in Pretoria (one Burundian diplomat was also involved, apparently).
The department of international relations (Dirco) wasted no time in taking action, revoking the dodgy diplomats’ credentials and sending them packing. Given their diplomatic immunity, this was the most serious punishment available to Dirco. Given that there were only four diplomats in the Rwandan embassy to start with, Ambassador Victor Karega must be feeling a little lonely.
Rwanda was just as quick to respond, with interest. “We have expelled six South African diplomats in reciprocity and concern at South Africa's harbouring of dissidents responsible for terrorist attacks in Rwanda,” said Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo, parroting Rwanda’s official line that South Africa, with its ultra-progressive approach to refugees, provides a safe haven to Rwandan terrorists and genocidaires.
Mushikiwabo may have a point (although not one that justifies extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassination): Neither Nyamwasa or Karega are angels, and are both themselves implicated in the abuses of Kagame’s regime; while there has long been concern that perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide are hiding out among the Rwandan exile community in Johannesburg.
The row will escalate even further. Speaking anonymously, a senior Dirco official told the Daily Maverick that South Africa was planning to sever all diplomatic ties with Rwanda within 72 hours. “SA will not stand by and watch people be killed on our soil by another government, just because we happen to be opposed to a sitting regime,” the official said, adding that the freeze in relations is likely to continue for as long as the “cowboy” Kagame remains in office.
That could be for quite some time. Kagame’s term expires in 2017, and he’s not constitutionally permitted to run again. However, constitutions can be amended, and Kagame has previously floated the idea of a third term.
The rift between Rwanda and South Africa is likely to have implications far beyond their bilateral relationship. As part of the East African Community, Rwanda maintains very close ties with Kenya and Uganda. If sides must be taken – and it certainly looks like that is what South Africa is angling for – both countries would certainly favour their regional neighbour. Kenya wouldn’t need much convincing, anyway, with the current Kenyan administration already unhappy about South Africa’s stubborn commitment to the International Criminal Court (unsurprising, given that it is led by two men on trial at The Hague),
Of more immediate concern is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where South African troops are part of a United Nations force fighting rebels in the eastern provinces on the border with Rwanda. Those rebels are generally assumed to be supported by Rwanda, making the conflict something of a proxy war. At the moment, the rebels are very much on the back foot, having been overwhelmed by the UN force’s superior military power. The next step is to create some kind of lasting peace, addressing the issues which lie at the root of the conflict – an already difficult task, made exponentially more so if two of the protagonists in the conflict are no longer on speaking terms.
In expelling the three Rwandan diplomats, South Africa has taken a firm, principled stand against an outrageous violation of its sovereignty. But our diplomats must be wary: although they are currently enjoying the moral superiority, this situation could reverberate in uncertain and almost certainly unpleasant ways. Making Kagame an outlaw, and Rwanda a pariah state, risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. DM

 

South Africa, Rwanda expel diplomats in row over Rwandan exiles

 

Reuter

 
By Pascal Fletcher and Helen Nyambura-Mwaura March 8, 2014 2:52 AM
 
By Pascal Fletcher and Helen Nyambura-Mwaura
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa expelled three Rwandan diplomats it linked to a raid on an exiled Rwandan general's Johannesburg home, and Rwanda has retaliated by ordering out six South African envoys, officials said on Friday.
The row strained ties between two African states involved in efforts to bring peace to eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where South Africa has troops in a U.N. brigade that fought last year against rebels whom U.N. experts said received support from Rwanda. Kigali denied backing the Congolese rebels.
Late on Monday, armed men broke into the Johannesburg home of former Rwandan army chief General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, an exiled critic of Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
Nyamwasa, who survived an assassination attempt in Johannesburg in 2010, was not in the house at the time.
A diplomatic source, who asked not to be named, told Reuters that South African security services had tracked the attackers. "It was very clear that they were intelligence personnel attached to the Rwandan embassy," the source added.
Three diplomats from the Rwandan mission in Pretoria were ordered out of the country in 48 hours this week. Kigali's tit-for-tat expulsions followed on Friday.
"We have expelled six S. African diplomats in reciprocity & concern at SA harbouring of dissidents responsible for terrorist attacks in Rwanda," Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo said in a comment on her Twitter account.
South African police have also been investigating the New Year's Eve murder in a posh Johannesburg hotel of another exiled Kagame opponent, former Rwandan spy chief Patrick Karegeya.
Exiled Rwandan opposition members have accused Kagame and his government of being responsible for Karegeya's death and for attacks on Nyamwasa and other overseas-based critics.
They deny Kigali's charges that they are behind "terrorist" attacks in Rwanda.
"LONG OVERDUE"
Kagame and senior Rwandan officials have denied any involvement in the attacks on exiled opponents, but have called them traitors who should not expect forgiveness or pity.
Brian Dube, spokesman for South Africa's State Security Agency, would not comment on the expulsions but confirmed the country's security services had been looking into the attacks against the exiled Rwandans.
The United States in January expressed concern over what it called "politically motivated murders of prominent Rwandan exiles".
David Batenga, a nephew of the slain Rwandan spy chief Karegeya, called for the closure of the Rwandan embassy in South Africa.
"It's not an embassy, it's an operation centre for planning missions to kill innocent civilians," he told Reuters.
Etienne Mutabazi, deputy chairman in South Africa of the opposition Rwanda National Congress, of which Karegeya and Nyamwasa were founding members, said the expulsion of the Rwandan diplomats was "long overdue" and called their activities "criminal".
"Diplomats are here to represent their country, they have immunity, but they should not abuse that immunity," he said.
In January, Kagame, who has won Western praise for rebuilding Rwanda after the 1994 genocide there, defended his nat
 
ion's right to self-defence against those who "betray" it.
"We didn't do it, but my question is - shouldn't we have done it?" Kagame said at a January 12 prayer breakfast, clearly referring to Karegeya's death but without naming him.
"No one will betray Rwanda and get away with it. Regardless of who you are, there will be consequences," Kagame said.
Karegeya fled to South Africa in 2007 after allegedly plotting a coup against Kagame with Nyamwasa.
  • Politics & Government
  • Unrest, Conflicts & War
  • South Africa
  • Rwanda
  • Paul Kagame
  • Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa

The great China 'takeover' of Africa is greatly exaggerated



RE: The great China 'takeover' of Africa is greatly exaggerated



Good People,
THE GREAT CHINA TAKE-OVER OF AFRICA IS REAL WITHOUT EXAGGERATION AND AFRICA MUST URGENTLY WAKE-UP TO THE SOUND OF THE DRUM AND WHERE RUSSIA INVASION TO UKRAINE-CRIMEA IS A SHOW-CASE
 
Real facts and proof as on the ground does not lie. China take-over of Africa is real without a pinch of doubt and Africa must wake up before it is too late. To challenge facts, is a distortion of facts. Fooling the intelligence of Africans from real experience to gain the conspiracy of the scramble to Africa is in itself doomed. To deny the fact, is mockery of the highest order....." the pot is calling the kettle black" ......... Wake-up people and smell the coffee.......It is time to face reality, engage in positive competitiveness and challenge to protect Africa's interest and defend rights by standing up to be heard and fighting for dear life...... !!!
 
A logistic fact explains that, a Trading Partner must share business in a fair balance of exchange, where "Give and Take" is favorable to all without corruption or intimidation. With Chinese factor in Africa there is no balance and the situation is characterized with corruption with excessive under-cutting where the Chinese Labour-force is imported to Africa to off-set and displace local labour-manpower to an extend that the local markets and small trading is overtaken by the Chinese factor. At the end of the day, Government Contracts are wholly owned by the Chinese who evade paying taxes altogether. a Case scenario that has drastically reduced Revenue collection that are meant to improve public infrustructures and pay Government workers, teachers salary, medical practitioners, military and police force as well as public service maintenances.
 
Their free business protocol with Africa which are negotiated under unclear corrupt circumstances deals with politicians and maneuvres, are not transparent and does not recognize public mandate neither does it respect the peoples constitutionality rights, they are without discipline or policy boarder; for that, they are extremely dangerous to the local peoples livelihood and survival. The fact that they deal in undercover free hand without proper agreement, which they take advantage to do as they wish without observing the constitutional law and order that governs and offer regulatory policy and compliance, are the very reason for exessive corruption, environmental pollution, joblessness, currency flight, economic failure, the imbalances of GDP and as a result causes disruption of peace that are destroying Africa's livelihood and survival. They engage heavily on pirating and smuggling of ivory from Africa. They thrive more when the African countries are conflicting amongst themselves. They deal in hand-out but profit hugely while Africa people are slowly drifting decaying from extreme poverty, landlessness and homelessness and this is unacceptable.
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com/

Rival Ukraine rallies raise tensions as Crimea crisis deepens

Thousands took to the streets for rival pro- and anti-Kremlin rallies across Ukraine on Sunday as the West and Moscow dug in their heels over a deepening crisis in Crimea. The protests come after a new marathon round of phone calls by US President Barack Obama seeking to defuse the Cold War-style…
=====================

China to 'defend every inch' of territory: foreign minister

AFP
By Kelly Olsen March 8, 2014 3:05 AM
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, pictured in Baghdad on February 23, 2014, says China will defend its
 sovereignty, declaring there is "no room for compromise" with Japan over territory or history
Beijing (AFP) - China's foreign minister on Saturday said his country would vigorously defend its sovereignty, declaring there was "no room for compromise" with Japan over territory or history.
"We will never bully smaller countries yet we will never accept unreasonable demands from smaller countries," Wang Yi told reporters.
"On issues of territory and sovereignty, China's position is firm and clear: We will not take anything that isn't ours, but we will defend every inch of territory that belongs to us."
China is embroiled in disputes with several of its neighbours including the Philippines and Japan, with tensions centred on rival claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea.
Beijing asserts that almost all the South China Sea is its territory but the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have overlapping claims.
The dispute with Tokyo is particularly tense given historical animosities between the two countries over Japan's invasion of China in the 1930s and 40s.
Beijing and Tokyo both claim a small uninhabited archipelago in the East China Sea, administered by Japan as the Senkaku Islands, but which China calls the Diaoyu Islands.
Chinese officials and state media have this year demanded that Japan reflect on its historical aggression and atrocities, in much the same manner as postwar Germany has with its Nazi past.
"On the two issues of principle, history and territory, there is no room for compromise," Wang told reporters on the sidelines of the National People's Congress, China's communist-controlled legislature.
"If some people in Japan insist on overturning the verdict on its past aggression I don't believe the international community and all peace loving people in the world will ever tolerate or condone that."
Tensions between the two have risen markedly since 2012 when Tokyo purchased islands in the chain it did not already own from their private Japanese owners. Beijing has taken an increasingly hard line on the issue ever since.
Ships and aircraft from both countries regularly patrol waters around the contested territory and have on occasion come perilously close to armed clashes.
Some, including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have mentioned the dispute within the context of World War I, when European powers Germany and Britain went to war.
Wang, a career diplomat who has served at China's embassy in Tokyo and speaks Japanese, discounted such a comparison at the press conference.
"I wish to emphasise that 2014 is not 1914, still less 1894," he said. The latter year marks the start of the First Sino-Japanese War, which ended in victory by Japan in 1895, marking that country's rise as a regional power after more than two centuries of isolation.
"Instead of using Germany before the First World War as an object lesson, why not use Germany after the Second World War as a role model?" Wang added.
The United States, China and Japan are the world's three biggest economies, while Tokyo has a security pact with Washington, which is treaty-bound to come to its defence if it is attacked.
Wang became foreign minister in March last year as China completed a once-a-decade leadership transition that saw Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping become state president.
He reiterated Beijing's calls for dialogue to resolve the issue of the nuclear programme of North Korea, which receives most of its trade and aid from China.
"All along, we have a red line, that is we will never allow war or instability on the Korean peninsula," he said, adding that "mutual mistrust", particularly between Pyongyang and Washington, was preventing a resolution.
Wang also stressed the need for discussions in Ukraine, where forces of China's ally Russia are in effective control of Crimea.
"The priority now is to exercise calm and restraint and to prevent further escalation of the situation," he said. "The parties should carry out dialogue and consultation to put the issue on the track of a political settlement."
Despite tensions with the US over issues including mutual suspicions related to defence and cyber security, Wang gave an overall upbeat assessment of ties.
"The Asia-Pacific should be the testing ground of our commitment to build a new model of relations rather than a competitive arena," he said.
azul23 minutes ago
0
10
Mr. chinese foreign sinister, we know you will defend your territory from any invader, but we also know that when you speak of "territory" you include the territories you stole from countries like Tibet, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam, and other legitimate owners. Now, you try to show your cowardly bravado to the Japanese from whom you find it difficult to steal their islands because you are scared of them. Now, you are floating the idea of dialogue and consultation with the Japanese, obviously out of fear for another "Rape of Nanking". What a cowardly gesture, considering that you did not bat an eye when you just grabbed and invaded the territories of those other countries you stole those territories stole from. Mr. sinister, you are pathetically a comedy act, and a cowardly hypocrite.
Bob1 hour ago
0
7
Perhaps it is time for a diplomatic meeting among China, Vietnam, Brunei, the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Japan. My first take is China and Korea win their debate with Japan over the various disputed islands. Then China loses the debate over the islands in the south China sea while Vietnam, the Philipines, etc retain their territory. Better to address and resolve diplomatically sooner, than have a few military accidents. Every side must give a little, especially Japan and China. China cannot continue to expand their territorial claims and Japan must limit their holdings to places closer to home.
==============================

Focus

The great China 'takeover' of Africa is greatly exaggerated

Investors from South Korea to Brazil and from India to South Africa are the new kids on the African block. Nor have old investors like the US, UK, France and Australia pulled out.

By Heather Murdoch, Correspondent / March 2, 2014
An official from MTN (bottom, l.), a cellphone company, registers customers’ SIM cards in Abuja, Nigeria. Cellphones have revolutionized communication in Africa.
Afolabi Sotunde/Reuters/File
Enlarge
Abuja, Nigeria
Thatch covers the wooden roof of The Clubhouse in Abuja and the tables are decorated with animal-print cloths. The casual restaurant in Nigeria's capital looks archetypally African, but it is also distinctly Lebanese, serving dishes such as hummus and shish kebabs.
Early on a Saturday night, a young man in traditional clothes taps on his smart phone while manager Assaad Abi Antoun sips Lebanese coffee at a nearby table. "Lebanese can do hospitality at the top level," says Mr. Antoun, who has been here for four years.
The Lebanese are well known in West Africa for owning posh hotels, restaurants, and grocery stores. But, like other immigrant groups working on the continent, the Lebanese are not nearly as famous worldwide for investment in Africa as the Chinese, who are popularly believed to be "taking over Africa."
The great China takeover, however, may be something of a myth, according to Bright Simons, an honorary fellow at the Ghana-based IMANI Center for Policy & Education. China is Africa's biggest trading partner – it took the top spot from the United States in 2009 – and a large source of capital. Trade between Africa and China, which totaled $10.5 billion in 2000, ran $166 million in
2011.
But Canadians, Americans, Britons, the French, and Australians still represent a heavy footprint in Africa. And a plethora of investors from other emerging economies are becoming more integrated into Africa's social and political life, Mr. Simons says. While not eclipsing China, these new kids on the Africa block are showing a dynamism previously hidden by China's shadow.
African trade with South Korea and Brazil has moved from single-digit billions in 2000 to more than $25 billion each in 2011. (Korean giant Samsung peppered the continent with $150 million in shops, technology, and employment between 2010 and 2012, the company says.) India's footprint is small, but growing at 400 percent a year, according to Páidrag Carmody at Trinity College Dublin in his 2013 study "The Rise of the BRICS in Africa."
Investment by the emerging economic powerhouses of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) has doubled since 2007 in Africa, though numbers are notoriously poor (see accompanying story). A 2013 United Nations study shows African foreign direct investment grew 5 percent, to $50 billion, while shrinking in nearly every other region.

Africa's 'rise of the rest'

Africa auctions off mining and oil exploration to a "broad array of companies from around the world that you did not see before," says Todd Moss, a former senior State Department official dealing with Africa who is now at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C.
The push is being called a "rise of the rest" for Africa, or a new "South-South" partnership. Partly the story is of high rates of growth. New "greenfield investments" – business start-ups – from South Africa and the United Arab Emirates have eclipsed those of China, according to a new Ernst & Young study.
"People have said China is bolstering its 'soft power' through the use of charitable projects, Confucius Institutes, donations of medicines, etc.," Simons says. "But the truth is that most of these projects are lackluster."
To be sure, China's role in Africa will never be insignificant. Large-scale symbolic projects such as the highway across Nigeria or the new African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, built by China at a cost of $200 million and the tallest structure in Ethiopia's capital, are hard to miss. With trillions in cash reserves and few legal restrictions on public-private partnerships, China's presence in Africa grows daily.
But the idea that China and the West are the only competitors in a battle for Africa's resources and markets is outdated, says Ben Payton, an Africa analyst at Maplecroft, a Britain-based global risk analysis company. "In addition to Africa's traditional partners in the West, there is growing interest in Africa's resource wealth from companies in countries such as Brazil, India, Singapore, and South Korea," Mr. Payton says. "By some measures, Malaysia provided more foreign investment in Africa than China last year."
Nations like Malaysia appeal to African states, says Mr. Moss, the former US-Africa trade official, as an "Asian model" that emphasizes strong political control and wealth. "Americans want both political openness and open markets, but Asians stick to a commercial relationship," he says.
With only Asia growing faster as a region than Africa, foreign investment can be successful on the continent despite troubles such as constant power outages and muddled trade laws, according to Thomas Hansen, a senior Africa analyst at Control Risks, a security assessment firm. "It's one of the few places in the world now where you can get a relatively high return on your capital," he says.
South Africa understands
In Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, with more than 160 million people, Indians own many of the supermarkets and computer shops. South Koreans are well known for making affordable electronics available. Brazil and Russia are growing players in Nigeria's gas and its 2.2 million-barrel-a-day oil export industry, the largest in Africa.
South Africa, the largest economy in Africa, stands out as one of the most successful investors, leading the telecommunications industry on the continent and building shopping malls and supermarkets, according to Simons of IMANI. South African investment tends to be visible in terms of social impact, he adds.
"South Africa has the exceptional capacity to understand Africa," he says. "South African investments tend to be savvy."
At a cafe in Abuja on a Sunday afternoon, waitress Becky Utase flips her BlackBerry in her hand. Despite rapid economic growth, the African continent is still the poorest in the world. Ms. Utase says foreign investment only matters to her if it somehow helps Nigerians live better lives. Mobile phone networks, she adds, mean the world to her.
Before cellphones, much of Nigeria and the continent was not connected by land lines. Utase says she remembers when posted letters or physical visits were the only way to keep in touch. "Communication is easier," she adds, sitting on a couch overlooking her dining customers on the patio. "Even work is easier. Back in the day all business needed to travel."
South Africa's MTN leads the telecommunications industry, and other major phone companies in Africa are based in the United Arab Emirates and India. Nigeria's own Globacom Ltd. provides mobile phone service in three other West African countries.
All these non-Chinese telecom companies, however, sell equipment such as handsets, headphones, and chargers made in China. Among the many innovations in mobile technology especially suited for Third World customers are popular prepaid flash modems, almost exclusively produced by China's behemoth Huawei Technologies.

Anti-China platforms

People in Africa often say they like China because the country's investors build roads, the needed predecessor to development and economic growth. But that doesn't necessarily translate into winning hearts and minds, according to Payton, the Africa analyst.
"Chinese companies are generally far less concerned with respecting internationally recognized labor standards than their Western counterparts," he says. "As a result, workforces and local communities in countries such as Zambia have become increasingly hostile to Chinese employers [see sidebar]."
This hostility feeds on itself when African governments use it to distract the public from their shortcomings, according to John Campbell, former US ambassador to Nigeria now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Both Zambia and Malawi have elected presidents who ran on anti-China platforms.
"The tendency," says Mr. Campbell, is "to blame the Chinese for certain domestic shortcomings, particularly about whatever government is in power."
The main difference between Chinese investors and all the rest, according to Mathew Agabi, who works at a popular Indian-owned supermarket in Abuja, is that Chinese companies are known for importing their own workers, and that angers many Nigerians. Locals employed by Chinese companies also are expected to work what Nigerians call "slave hours."
When Chinese companies don't hire locals and teach them technical know-how, Mr. Agabi says, they leave behind a community of workers that can't handle or maintain high-end operations. "South Korean companies don't have those issues," he says.
Chinese investors are not alone in angering Africans. Nigerians complain that most foreign companies may hire a majority of locals, but then give choice positions to expatriate workers. Nigerians particularly loathe Western clothing companies that prefer to open factories in Asia and overlook a massive pool of unemployed laborers in Africa. "They should build factories," Agabi says.
Investment anxiety, however, targets China because it tends to be the least accessible culturally, according to Payton. Few Africans speak Mandarin, and many fear that Chinese investments allow African governments to evade Western demands for compliance with human rights standards.
"In the long term, there is a risk that anger at perceived Chinese exploitation could escalate into a perception that China's political and economic clout enables it to exert a form of neocolonial domination over Africa," he says.
On the other hand, he adds, China has championed poverty-alleviation programs at home and could serve as an example for policymakers in Africa.
"Chinese investment is not only providing Africa with new infrastructure and new sources of capital," he says. "It is also altering the horizons of policymakers and driving a new confidence in the continent's economic outlook."
Back at The Clubhouse in Nigeria, manager Antoun says China may not be literally taking over Africa, but its presence is certainly palpable. A few years ago, Antoun says, he had one-fifth as many Chinese customers. Most of their work is in construction, he adds, and infrastructure draws other investors.
When his place opened about seven years ago, it had been a canteen for a construction company, without air conditioning, reliable electricity, or even a fan.
"There was nothing, from decoration to infrastructure," he says.
Antoun is not concerned that Chinese investors will drive others out because the Chinese tend to keep to themselves and avoid businesses with a high public profile, he says. In Nigeria, he adds, foreign companies struggle more with dealing with the country's chaotic business policies and poor infrastructure than competing with each other.
Hurdling those barriers, he says, is one thing Lebanese excel at. But he is sardonic about his reasons for working in Africa. The Nigerian economy is growing more than four times as fast as the Lebanese economy, according to the CIA World Factbook, and insecurity in the Middle East is making things worse. "We have to do something outside [Lebanon]," he says, lifting a single finger in the air, "because the chances in Lebanon are between zero and one."
=============================

Libya threatens to bomb North Korean tanker if it ships oil from rebel port

By Ulf Laessing and Feras Bosalum TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Libya threatened on Saturday to bomb a North Korean-flagged tanker if it tried to ship oil from a rebel-controlled port, in a major escalation of a standoff over the country's petroleum wealth. The oil dispute is just one facet of the deepening…