Connect with us

Politics

MYSTERY OF THE MISSING SERVERS: Were The August 8 Elections Predetermined?

Published

on

Download PDFPrint Article

On September 30, 2017, the NASA quartet – Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, Musalia Mudavadi and Moses Wetangula – held a press conference to alert Kenyans on a pressing issue they considered to be a hot-button election matter. The media briefing was about an IT company called OT-Morpho that had become something of a technological ogre to many Kenyans.

Looming large but shrouded in mystery, Kenyans only came to learn about the company after the Supreme Court of Kenya overturned the victory of Uhuru Kenyatta and his Jubilee Party in the August 8, 2017 elections. The thrust of the Supreme Court’s majority judgement rested in part on finding fault with the technological malpractices that clouded or interfered with the transmission of votes by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)’s server. OT-Morpho was the French company that had been outsourced by IEBC to man the server and to ensure the correct transmission of tallied votes.

The statement read by Musalia Mudavadi, NASA’s national campaign chairman, said in part: “We are aware the KSh2.4 billion awarded sum is way above the KSh800 million that IEBC’s technical committee recommended. Kenyans should be excused if they were to conclude that the offensive amounts are being paid as a bribe to OT-Morpho for a shady job of using technology to tilt elections in favour of Jubilee in the same way it did last month.”

The thrust of the Supreme Court’s majority judgement rested on finding fault with the technological malpractices that clouded or interfered with the transmission of votes by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)’s server. OT-Morpho was the French company that had been outsourced by IEBC to man the server and to ensure the correct transmission of tallied votes.

The key words Mudavadi used are bribe and shady job. The statement also claimed that “the two (OT-Morpho and Jubilee) have pulled another expensive fraud on Kenyan taxpayers even before the IEBC and OT-Morpho can address numerous questions regarding irregularities and illegalities in the August 8 elections.” The third key word is fraud. OT-Morpho has recently allegedly been involved in less than honest dealings in other parts of the world.

The NASA statement also accused OT-Morpho of being “firmly part and parcel of a criminal enterprise that has hijacked the Kenya electoral system with the sole aim of profiteering and frustrating the democratic ambitions of the people of Kenya.” Criminal enterprise are not charitable words to describe a global company that prides itself as a leader in the world of technological expertise and products. But has the company been charitable in its provision of its supposedly world class services?

On September 28, IEBC’s Chief Executive Officer Ezra Chiloba re-negotiated another deal with OT-Morpho to oversee the electronic transmission of the presidential results in the fresh election. (This new deal was the core theme of NASA’s press conference two days later). In its judgement, the Supreme Court said that a fresh election should be held within the constitutionally mandated 60 days from the date of the judgement.

Chiloba’s point of departure on once again contracting the French firm was that there was limited time between then and October 26, 2017 (the new date slated for the fresh elections. The initial date was October 17, 2017) to look for another IT firm to replace OT-Morpho. “The Commission held a series of meeting with OT-Morpho on the level of support we required for the fresh presidential election. This culminated into an addendum to the contract that was signed on Thursday (September 28, 2017) evening after negotiations were concluded as per the procurement law”, said Chiloba on September 30, 2017 to the media.

This new contract immediately was criticized by the opposition NASA coalition. The contract amounting to KSh2.4 billion “for an election involving only one position and two candidates is not only outrageous, but an act of fraud and deliberate theft of public funds and bribery,” said the NASA statement.

Two weeks earlier, Raila Odinga had asked the French government to investigate the Paris-based company and its alleged connection with IEBC officials who he claimed “acted in complicity and connived to undermine the will of the people of Kenya.”

Two weeks earlier, on September 8, 2017, in a protest letter to the French Embassy in Nairobi, NASA Presidential candidate Raila Odinga had asked the French government to investigate the Paris-based company and its alleged connection with IEBC officials who he claimed “acted in complicity and connived to undermine the will of the people of Kenya.”

He also requested the government to expose two alleged OT-Morpho employees, Laurent Lambert and Axel Gaucher, who allegedly helped some IEBC officials to gain unauthorised access to the electoral commission’s servers. In the letter, both were referred to with their respective titles: Lambert is said to work as head of Project Kenya, while Gaucher works as head of analytics at the same organisation.

OT-Morpho was tasked with providing two electronic systems that were to identify the Kenyan voter and consequently transmit election results from the 40,000-plus polling stations to a central tallying centre. Evidently, that did not happen. Raila, the NASA presidential candidate and the leading opposition figure in the August 8 general election, was quick to accuse the IT company of, “failing to comply with the prescribed format of results management data.”

Stung by criticism by the leader of the opposition and castigated by the Supreme Court for its electronic transmission system, OT-Morpho’s Chief Operating Officer, Frederic Beylier, in a terse statement on September 15, 2017 said: “We have conducted two in-depth audits of our system with the support of external and reputable companies. We refute any allegations of piracy or fraudulent intrusion into our system.” Beylier added that the internal audit done on their equipment did not find any foul play.

On election day itself, OT-Morpho supplied 45,000 Kenya Integrated Election Monitors (KIEMs) tablets that are used to identify voters biometrically and the Results Transmission System (RTS) software. Hence, while OT-Morpho was tasked with the provision of tablets, the transmission of encrypted data from KIEMs kits to the IEBC server was the work of three local mobile network companies, namely, Safaricom, Telkom Kenya and Airtel.

It is alleged that IEBC sub-contracted the French company to create a parallel system that gained access to the mobile network operators’ data, re-routed the data to Paris, then purportedly re-sent the figures to the IEBC server. According to people in the know, the reason why IEBC defied the Supreme Court’s order of opening its server to the judges’ scrutiny is that the server could be empty or with data that is not palatable to the public, hence lending credence to the allegation that the August 8 general election’s results were predetermined and preset.

So how is it that OT-Morpho was involved in electronic transmission? Bob Collymore, Safaricom’s Chief Executive Officer, in responding to Raila’s September 26, 2017 criticism of the company’s alleged culpability in abetting the electronic transmission malpractices, defended his company by stating: “In accordance with the contract with IEBC, all mobile companies connected their Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and transmitted the data to the IEBC cloud servers. It was the IEBC’s responsibility to transmit results from its servers to the tallying centres (emphasis added).

This apparent “clarification” about IEBC being solely responsible for transmitting results to the tallying centres came about as a result of NASA pointing out that: “KIEMs kits were using two SIM cards. From contract provided by IEBC during scrutiny, the total SIM cards procured from the three mobile network operators combined “totalled 58,000 or thereabouts”. That is how the Safaricom position statement read by Bob Collymore, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) put it on September 27, 2017.

This included the satellite phones. If two SIM cards were fitted in each KIEMs kit, you would have to divide the total by two. So basically only 29,000 KIEMs were fitted with SIM cards in this case. That means that only 29,000 KIEMs transmitted results.” It is noteworthy that Safaricom does not dispute that only 29,000 KIEMs were fitted with the dual SIM cards, which possibly explains why 11,000 Form 34As were not filled by IEBC’s returning officers.

It is at this point that OT-Morpho comes in. It is alleged that IEBC sub-contracted the French company to create a parallel system that gained access to the mobile network operators’ data, re-routed the data to Paris, then purportedly re-sent the figures to the IEBC server. According to people in the know, the reason why IEBC defied the Supreme Court’s order of opening its server to the judges’ scrutiny is that the server could be empty or with data that is not palatable to the public, hence lending credence to the allegation that the August 8 general election’s results were predetermined and preset. (The Elephant is on record on having written to the OT-Morpho public relations consultant Julien Tahmissian, to comment on the allegations levelled against the French company, but our email request went unanswered.)

Acting and talking tough, Beylier responded by saying that his company was going to sue unidentified people in France and Kenya for damaging “our reputation and honour.” Guns blazing, he warned: “We do not intend to become the scapegoat of the political situation in Kenya. We do not accept the reputation of OT-Morpho and its employees is tainted in any way by these allegations. This has to come to an end.”

In an interesting twist of events, Beylier had earlier pointed out on September 19 that the French firm had not signed a new contract with IEBC. Speaking to Alastair Leithead of the BBC’s Focus on Africa, he said: “We don’t have contract with them (IEBC) for the next election yet.” (He was then referring to the new election date of October 17, 2017, before it was moved to October 26, 2017.) “If we had the contract by now – and assuming that the Supreme Court does not recommend any technical change in its ruling – we would need up to the end of October to reconfigure our systems for the repeat election,” he added.

Beylier said the company was willing to open its system for scrutiny by an independent body under the authority of IEBC. But less than a fortnight later, when the chairman of the electoral commission, Wafula Chebukati, asked the company to open the servers before the upcoming fresh presidential election, OT-Morpho’s Vice President for Middle East and Africa, Olivier Charlane, promptly wrote to the commission, vehemently opposing the suggestion.

Posturing and seemingly on the offensive, Beylier said the company was willing to open its system for scrutiny by an independent body under the authority of IEBC. But less than a fortnight later, when the chairman of the electoral commission, Wafula Chebukati, asked the company to open the servers before the upcoming fresh presidential election, OT-Morpho’s Vice President for Middle East and Africa, Olivier Charlane, promptly wrote to the commission, vehemently opposing the suggestion.

“OT-Morpho would respectfully warn IEBC that opening access to servers, databases and logs prior to the election might open security weaknesses. We would rather recommend that access to server and databases be provided after the Election Day. Anyhow, logs will be shared on a daily basis with IEBC. Agents should be allowed to review them at IEBC premises only,” wrote Charlane.

Like Chiloba, OT-Morpho now ducked the issue of opening itself to an external audit, arguing that there was limited time for that kind of exercise. In the letter to Chebukati, Charlane pointed out that considering the short time left to the date of the fresh polls, it was impossible to conduct a dry-run of results transmission. “Even though OT-Morpho was and remains willing to support such a dry-run, IEBC has to realise that conducting such an operation is hogging the RTS (Results Transmission System) system for four days, so as to prepare test, run and clean the system.”

In reply to Chebukati’s terse memo to OT-Morpho on the issue of clearly displaying all the form 34B from the constituencies, Charlane said the firm would find it technologically impossible to do this given the bulky nature of the forms.

“In the current planning and considering the recent delays in receiving the SIM cards to start the KIEMS (Kenya Integrated Elections Management System) kits production as well as the latest IEBC requirement, we fear we have no room any more for such operations,” opined Charlane. In a roundabout way, what Charlane was saying in not so many words is that nothing should be done to compromise or interfere with OT-Morpho’s supposed data security.

Why would a company with such a huge reputation in digital technology and identification systems offer such flippant excuses for not accepting a reasonable request from a client? OT-Morpho’s website describes the company as, “the acknowledged expert in identification systems.” OT-Morpho used to be known as Safran Identities and Security (Morpho) until May 2017, when it sold its digital security unit and morphed into Advent International, owner of Colombes, France-based Oberthur Technologies SA and renamed the company OT-Morpho.

Deepak Kamani, was the one engaged in the passport deal, which NARC’s new corruption boys had expanded to include visa and border controls. Who was the supplier? Francois Charles Oberthur of Paris, France, then the world’s leading supplier of Visa and Mastercards.

Before Safran merged with Oberthur Technologies (OT), it dealt with supplies of systems and equipment in aerospace, defence and security. The company also sold aeroplane engines, helicopters, launch vehicles and missiles, landing and braking systems, nacelles on board electrical systems, optronics, avionics, identity documents, biometric equipment, smart cards explosives detection and trace analysis.

While Oberthur Technologies SA mainly dealt with security services, the company provided payment technology, smartcards, identity protection, authentication mechanisms conditional access management solutions. OT similarly had clients in the finance, telecom, digital and transport sectors globally. With the morphing of the two companies, they naturally combined and expanded their client base.

Dogged with scandals, in September 2012 Safran Morpho was fined the equivalent of KSh52 million (about US$520,000) for bribery by a Paris court. The company had bribed Nigerian public officials to win a contract for the provision of 70 million identity cards between 2000 and 2003. The deal was worth 170 million euros. After being slapped with the fine, Safran said that it was “deeply attached to strict respect of anti-corruption rules.”

Yet, even with this knowledge, an IEBC official was quoted at that time saying: “The deal with Safran is almost complete. It is only a matter of time.” Meaning, it is already too late to pull back. Someone must have smelt big money. Was this why the IEBC was ready to enter into negotiations with a company that had been implicated and fined in a corruption deal?

Not too long ago, IEBC had itself been caught up in a similar scandal, which was cheekily baptised “Chickengate”. The Chickengate scandal was about a UK-based security printing company that had bribed IEBC and Kenya National Examination Council (KNEC) officials to win their respective ballot paper and certificate tenders. Smith and Ouzman, based in Eastborne, Sussex, became the first company to be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1906. Investigations found that Smith and Ouzman had paid bribes amounting to £433,062 to Kenyan officials. The key suspects were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in the UK, yet their counterparts in Kenya have yet to face the law, or even be investigated.

When sentencing Christopher Smith, 72, and his son Nicholas, 42, in December 2014, Judge David Higgins said: “The pair were guilty of a premeditated, preplanned, sophisticated and very serious crime.” The offence, which took four years to unravel and which occurred between 2006 and 2010, was dubbed Chickengate because they had codenamed the bribe “chicken” for IEBC and KNEC officials.

Back to Safran Morpho. Safran was arraigned before a federal court of law in San Jose, California on August 14, 2016, for allegedly supplying software deemed to have originated from Russia. The case was filed in San Jose because Safran’s local subsidiary is located there.

Safran used to supply fingerprint identification systems to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the US Defence Department and drivers’ agencies in most US states. All that time it described its technology as originating from France. However, two former company executives confessed that the technology was actually developed in Russia. The two former Safran employees – Philipe Desbois, the former Chief Executive Officer of Morpho’s Russian affiliate, and Vincent Hascoet, a deputy director of an affiliate company, Powerjet, in Moscow from July 2012 to May 2014 – told the court that the technology was actually used by Russia’s security agency and could easily be sabotaged in the event of a crisis.

Desbois, who had also served as Safran’s financial representative in Russia, and Hascoet were referred to as “whistleblowers” and “very credible” plaintiffs. In fact, Hascoet was sacked after he raised the alarm over corruption tendencies in the company. Both lived in Russia then.

Through their defence attorney, the duo said that it was “conceivable” that the software contained a “back door” that could enable the Russian government to “override” fingerprint identification devices in such strategic organisations such as the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA (National Security Agency) and other security areas to gain unauthorised entry.

At the federal court, Morpho and its parent company Safran Group were accused of making “surreptitious sales” of more than US$1billion in Russian technology to federal, state and local governments in the US between 2009 and 2015. The suit said that Morpho and Safran defrauded the US government and the state of California by falsely claiming that their technology was from France, not Russia. In essence, they violated antitrust laws and presented false claims for payment.

The court was told that there existed a confidential 25-year agreement between the French and Russian companies signed in 2008 that included a declaration by the Russian firm Papillon ZAO that stated that its software did not contain “any undisclosed ‘back door’ or other disabling mechanisms.”

In the law suit filed by Daniel Bartley, he noted that the declaration had not been independently verified by either the French firm or any government agency. The point is, although the verification may not have mattered when checking out fingerprint identification technology, like in the issuance of driver’s licences, it would have mattered when it came to matters such as high level security.

“The national security implications are significant,” said Bartley. In agencies that require only cleared people to gain access to secure areas, “such protection could be bypassed if the technology is hacked.”

At the federal court, Morpho and its parent company Safran Group were accused of making “surreptitious sales” of more than US$1billion in Russian technology to federal, state and local governments in the US between 2009 and 2015. The suit said that Morpho and Safran defrauded the US government and the state of California by falsely claiming that their technology was from France, not Russia. In essence, they violated antitrust laws and presented false claims for payment.

In its defence, Safran Group’s US affiliate counterargued that the government agencies exercised “due diligence” in deciding not to intervene in the case. The suit “contains inflammatory and baseless allegations and lacks merit,” said the group. “As leaders of biometric industry for 42 years, we take defence of our reputation and security matters about products solutions very seriously. We are confident that we will successfully defend our case.”

Bartley, in responding to Safran, argued that their statement was “evasive” because it did not address the central claim that the technology in Safran and Morpho products was from Russia.

According to a leaked NSA report of June 5, 2017, Russian hackers gained access to the US voting system. The document talks of how Russian military intelligence, “executed cyber espionage operations against a named US company in August 2016 evidently to obtain information on election-related software and hardware solutions, according to information that become available in April 2017.”

The company in question is suspected to have been Safran. President Vladimir Putin opined that “patriotically minded” Russian hackers may have been behind the cyberattacks during the 2016 US elections.

On September 30, 2017, OT-Morpho rebranded itself to IDEMIA, possibly in an effort to look and sound different as it polishes its image and re-positions itself as a global leader in digital technologies. (The Supreme Court of Kenya had dealt the company a “credibility blow” when it questioned the electronic transmission of the August 8 results.)

It is suspected that this sudden rebranding by the company is not a mere coincidence; it coincides with its signing of a new contract with IEBC. Together with its alleged past scandals, and with the world closely watching its behaviour and performance in Kenya, the company must have been concerned that its global reputation had been tainted. What better way to remain in a competitive and highly lucrative business than to rebrand?

By Dauti Kahura
Mr Kahura is a freelance journalist based in Nairobi, Kenya

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

By

Mr Kahura is a senior writer for The Elephant.

Politics

The Axis-of-Evil Coalition in the Horn of Africa

The “Tripartite Agreement” signed between Ahmed Abiy of Ethiopia, Mohammed Abdullahi Farmajo of Somalia, and Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea is a “Trojan Horse” deal that could eventually destabilise the entire Horn of Africa region.

Published

on

The Axis-of-Evil Coalition in the Horn of Africa
Download PDFPrint Article

The political dynamics in the Horn of Africa have always been tense and volatile. Being a geographically strategic region, it has historically attracted competition among the big powers, with the region’s diversity in terms of population, norms, politics, and history rendering it susceptible to proxy politics emanating mainly from Western countries.

The countries of the Horn of Africa are Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, South Sudan, and by extension, Kenya, and Uganda. In this article, we focus on Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. More specifically, we shall examine how the incumbent leaders in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea have created a coalition to extend their terms of office under the pretence of “Horn of Africa Integration”.

The Horn of Africa region has been vulnerable to multipolar politics ever since, at the Berlin Conference of 1884-5, 13 European countries laid claim to Africa’s territories: Britain signed the Rodd Treaty with Menelik II of Ethiopia in 1897 that dominated the country’s administration, Djibouti came under French control while Italy took Somalia, Italian Somaliland, and Eritrea. By 1914, with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, all other African countries were under colonial rule.

Russia joined the race during the Cold War and supported the regimes in Somalia and Ethiopia, with President Siad Barre of Somalia and Prime Minister Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia becoming close allies of Russia. But despite their allegiance to the former Soviet Union, the two countries fought a vicious war from 1977 to 1978.

Somalia

From 1960 to 1969, Somalia was a fledgling democracy led by civilian governments established through peaceful transfer power. The military seized power in 1969, led by Siad Barre who ruled with an iron fist until he was ousted in 1991, leaving in his wake a civil war that killed thousands of Somalis, and pushed thousands more into exile. In 2000, Djibouti called a reconciliation conference that brought together civil society groups and culminated in the formation of the first government since the beginning of the civilian war. The new government was short-lived, however, as the warlords who controlled most of the south-central regions resisted and revolted. In 2004, the second government was formed under the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia under the leadership of the late President Abdullahi Yusuf.

However, this government made the same mistakes as its predecessor, calling on the African Union to send troops to support President Yusuf’s government and escort him to the capital, Mogadishu. The new government and the Islamic Courts Union (ICU)—which controlled most of the south-central region—held several meetings in Sudan to try to reach an agreement, but the talks failed. A military confrontation between troops of the Islamic Courts Union the Transitional Federal Government backed by Ethiopian forces ensued and, after a bitter fight and great loss of life, the TFG entered Mogadishu. Following a political fallout between the president and his prime minister, President Abdullahi Yusuf resigned, and the leader of the ICU, Sheekh Sharif, succeed Yusuf after negotiations between the leader of the ICU and the international community.

The first elections since the outbreak of the civil war were held under President Sheekh Sharif and Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, a civilian and veteran academic, was elected. Somalia became a federal state with five federal member states under President Hassan who oversaw the implementation of the provisional constitution which had been adopted in August 2012.

Although there were allegations of corruption, President Hassan’s government was relatively stable. One person one vote elections were scheduled to take place in 2016, but they were postponed for various reasons, including the insecurity caused by the Al-Shabaab and disagreement between the federal government and the leaders of the federal member states and others. Despite the challenges, however, President Hassan Sheikh’s administration pioneered indirect parliamentary elections where 51 delegates from each clan would each elect the members of parliament. Although the process was not considered a fair fight, the transition was smooth. In February 2017, Hassan Sheikh lost his re-election bid, and President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo became his successor. President Farmajo received a warm welcome from the public and many accolades from the international community and the neighbouring countries. Indeed, many Somalis believed that he would be better than his predecessors and would deliver the one person, one vote in 2021.

The situation turned when the government extradited Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) commander Abdikarim Qalbi Dhagah to Ethiopia, leading to a public backlash, protests, and fierce criticism of the government. It was the first time that a Somali person had been extradited to Ethiopia, a country that many Somalis consider the archenemy. Since then, public support for the government has plummeted. Intimidation, attacks, smear campaigns, extrajudicial actions, and incarceration have become the modus operandi of the current government and the Somali people’s hope in Farmajo’s government has declined dramatically. Meanwhile, Farmajo’s government declared the UN Ambassador to Somalia persona non grata and expelled him, leading to international condemnation of his government. The government of Somalia also cut ties with Kenya, a country which has hosted the largest number of Somali refugees since 1991.

It was the first time that a Somali person had been extradited to Ethiopia, a country that many Somalis consider the archenemy.

The mandate of the sitting president ended on 8 February 2021 without elections being held for a successor government. In March 2021, the Somali parliament unilaterally extended the term of the president for another two years, which resulted in a confrontation and a split within the National army. After two weeks of chaos, the parliament reversed its decision.

The long-awaited one person one vote elections became a pipedream and indirect parliamentary elections were maintained albeit with an increase in the number of the delegates from 51 to 101. The May 2022 parliamentary elections were been mired in fraud, favouritism, rigging, and massive irregularities and the country has been plunged into uncertainty.

Ethiopia 

Historically, Ethiopia has never held free and fair elections. On the contrary, the country has lived under a political dynasty and patrimonial leadership interspersed with coups. There has always been a power struggle between Ethiopia’s diverse communities. The Amhara, who collaborated with the colonial powers, enjoyed the support of the British Administration under the Rodd Treaty of 1897 agreement, and dominated the country’s politics. Both Menelik II and Haile Selassie marginalized other communities, especially the Oromo, the Somali, and Tigrayans. In 1974, Mengistu Haile Mariam overthrew Haile Selassie in a coup d’état and moved the country’s allegiance away from the West to the Soviet Union, leading to a proxy war in Ethiopia between the US and Russia. Mengistu was ruthless to his critics, especially the Oromo, Tigray, and Somali; he was known as the “Butcher of Addis Ababa” and the “Red Terror.”

Led by Meles Zenawi, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) ousted Mengistu’s regime in 1991 and Ethiopia adopted federalism under the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition party made up of the TPLF, Amhara, Oromo, and the Southern Nations and Nationalities. The first mistake committed by the Zenawi regime was to disregard other communities, particularly the Somalis, who are the third largest community in terms of population. The second mistake was to nullify the results of the elections in the Somali region where the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) had won by a landslide, resulting in a confrontation between the Zenawi regime and the ONLF. After three years of demonstrations emanating from the Oromo region and spreading to the Amhara region, Prime Minister Haile Mariam Desalegn resigned in 2018. It was the first time in Ethiopia that a public office holder had resigned due to pressure from the citizens. Abiy Ahmed took over as prime minister in April 2018.

Eritrea 

Eritrea was an Italian colony before World War II, but after Italy was defeated in the war in 1952, the United Nations tried to federate Eritrea to Ethiopia to as a compromise for Ethiopia’s claim of sovereignty and Eritrea’s desire for independence. Unfortunately, after nine years, Haile Selassie dissolved the federation annexed and annexed Eritrea.

As a result, the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), which was created in 1961, revolted against Haile Selassie. When Haile Selassie was dethroned by the Derg regime, former Prime Minister Mengistu Haile Mariam, who had led the revolution, tried to reach a settlement with the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) without success and insurgencies against his rule increased. In 1991, when Mengistu was ousted by the rebel movements led by Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), Prime Minister Meles Zenawi tried to keep Eritrea as part of Ethiopia, leading to renewed conflict with the rebel groups. After two years of fierce fighting Eritrea gained its independence in 1993 but the country has never held an election since; Isaias Afwerki, the first president, is still at the helm. After five years of a territorial dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Badme War erupted in 1998, lasting until 2000 and claiming more than 100,000 lives.

Mengistu was ruthless to his critics, especially the Oromo, Tigray, and Somali; he was known as the “Butcher of Addis Ababa” and the “Red Terror.”

Several peace agreements were brokered, including by the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), the Algiers Comprehensive Peace Accord (ACPA), the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), all culminating in deadlock, and Addis Ababa and Asmara remaining at loggerheads.

Horn of Africa Integration Project

With the exception of April 2018, when the former Prime Minister Haile Mariam Desalegn resigned following three years of demonstrations against EPRDF rule, Ethiopia had never experienced a peaceful transition of power. Abiy Ahmed, who was part of the EPRDF rule, succeeded Desalegn.

In the beginning, under Prime Minister Abiy, Ethiopia enjoyed relative press freedom, there was greater inclusion of women in politics, and the 20 years of animosity between Ethiopia and Eritrea came to an end, paving the way for Abiy to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019. Abiy Ahmed visited Mogadishu in June 2018, where he met his counterpart President Farmajo. In a joint statement, the two leaders talked about strengthening diplomatic and trade relations between their two countries, with Ethiopia pledging to invest in Somalia’s port facilities. But apart from that brief statement, nobody knows precisely what the agenda of Abiy’s meeting with Farmajo was. President Farmajo has also visited Addis Ababa several times, but has not informed Somalia’s parliament what has been agreed between the two leaders. In December 2018, Eritrean president Afwerki visited Mogadishu and had talks with president Farmajo; the agenda of the meeting between the two leaders remains unknown. Somalia’s president also paid a visit to Asmara in July 2018.

Eritrea used to supply weapons and ammunition to the ICU during its conflict with the Somali government of the late President Abdullahi Yusuf, leading the Somali government to accuse Eritrea of supporting the extremist Al-Shabaab rebel group and as a result, the United Nations imposed an embargo on Eritrea in 2009. The UN lifted sanctions on Eritrea in November 2018 after the country reconciled with Ethiopia and Somalia. The leaders of the three countries, Abiy, Farmajo, and Afwerki, signed a little-known “Tripartite Agreement”. In hindsight, Abiy’s reconciliation with Afwerki was to enable Ethiopia to ostracize Ethiopia’s Tigrayan community and launch an attack on the Tigray region. Abiy’s secret agenda came out into the open on 4 November 2020 when he attacked the Tigray region backed by Eritrean troops. The coalition forces have committed gross human rights violations in the Tigray region, which has led to international condemnation against the brutality of the coalition troops and calls for Eritrean forces to withdraw from the Tigray region.

In hindsight, Abiy’s reconciliation with Afwerki was to enable Ethiopia to ostracize Ethiopia’s Tigrayan community and launch an attack on the Tigray region.

Meanwhile, although there is no smoking gun, there is a strong possibility that the Somali troops being trained in Eritrea are involved in the Tigray war. The Somali government had denied that Somali soldiers were sent to Eritrea for training but later confirmed this.

Despite the ongoing civil war and the political discontent in Ethiopia resulting from the delayed polls that were supposed to take place in September 2020, Abiy has decided to remain at the helm by hook or by crook.

The regimes in Addis Ababa, Mogadishu, and Asmara that I have called the axis-of-evil coalition have led the region astray through lack of an adequate response to the protracted drought, the unbridled corruption, the instability, and the internecine conflicts. The reasons behind the “Tripartite Agreement” between the three leaders were not and never have been to serve their respective people, enhance the trade relations, or improve security, but to keep a hold on power through their “Trojan horse” deal. This may lead to a revolt by the oppositions in the three countries that could finally destabilize the entire Horn of Africa region.

Continue Reading

Politics

Moving or Changing? Reframing the Migration Debate

The purpose of the mass and civilizational migrations of Western Europe was the same as now: not simply to move from one point to another, but also from one type of social status to another, to change one’s social standing in relation to the country of origin.

Published

on

Moving, or Changing?
Download PDFPrint Article

Do we move to change, or do we move to stay the same?

That seems to depend on who we were, to begin with. In most cases, it seems we move in an attempt to become even more of whatever we think we are.

A good Kenyan friend of mine once (deliberately) caused great offense in a Nairobi nightspot encounter with a group of Ugandans he came across seated at a table. There were six or seven of them, all clearly not just from the same country, but from the same part of the country.

“It always amazes me,” he said looking over their Western Uganda features, “how people will travel separately for thousands of miles only to meet up so as to recreate their villages.

He moved along quickly.

“Most African Migration Remains Intraregional” is a headline on the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies website:

Most African migration remains on the continent, continuing a long-established pattern. Around 21 million documented Africans live in another African country, a figure that is likely an undercount given that many African countries do not track migration. Urban areas in Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt are the main destinations for this inter-African migration, reflecting the relative economic dynamism of these locales.

Among African migrants who have moved off the continent, some 11 million live in Europe, almost 5 million in the Middle East, and more than 3 million in America.

More Africans may be on the move now than at any time since the end of enslavement, or perhaps the two large European wars. Even within the African continent itself. They navigate hostilities in the cause of movement—war, poverty and environmental collapse.

The last 500 years have seen the greatest expression of the idea of migration for the purpose of staying the same (or shall we say, becoming even more of what one is). The world has been transformed by the movement of European peoples, who have left a very visible cultural-linguistic stamp on virtually all corners of the earth. It is rarely properly understood as a form of migration.

It took place in three forms. The first was a search for riches by late feudal Western European states, in a bid to solve their huge public debts, and also enrich the nobility. This was the era of state-sponsored piracy and wars of aggression for plunder against indigenous peoples. The second form was the migration of indentured Europeans to newly conquered colonial spaces. The third was the arrival of refugees fleeing persecution borne of feudal and industrial poverty, which often took religious overtones.

Certainly, new spaces often create new opportunities, but only if the migrants concerned are allowed to explore the fullness of their humanity and creativity. The historical record shows that some humans have done this at the expense of other humans.

A key story of the world today seems to be the story of how those that gained from the mass and civilizational migrations of Western Europe outwards remain determined to keep the world organised in a way that enables them to hold on to those gains at the expense of the places to which they have migrated.

We can understand the invention and development of the modern passport—or at least its modern application—as an earlier expression of that. Originally, passports were akin to visas, issued by authorities at a traveler’s intended destination as permission to move through the territory. However, as described by Giulia Pines in National Geographic, established in 1920 by the League of Nations, “a Western-centric organization trying to get a handle on a post-war world”, the current passport regime “was almost destined to be an object of freedom for the advantaged, and a burden for others”. Today the dominant immigration models (certainly from Europe) seem based around the idea of a fortress designed to keep people out, while allowing those keeping the people out to go into other places at will, and with privilege, to take out what they want.

Certainly, new spaces often create new opportunities, but only if the migrants concerned are allowed to explore the fullness of their humanity and creativity.

For me, the greatest contemporary expression of “migration as continuity” has to be the Five Eyes partnership. This was an information-sharing project based on a series of satellites owned by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Its original name was “Echelon”, and it has grown to function as a space-based listening system, spying on telecommunications on a global scale – basically, space-based phone tapping.

All the countries concerned are the direct products of the global migration and settlement of specifically ethnic English Europeans throughout the so-called New World, plus their country of origin. The method of their settlement are now well known: genocide and all that this implies. The Five Eyes project represents their banding together to protect the gains of their global ethnic settlement project.

In the United States, many families that have become prominent in public life have a history rooted, at least in part, in the stories of immigrants. The Kennedys, who produced first an Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and then through his sons and grandsons, a president, an attorney general, and a few senators, made their fortune as part of a gang of Irish immigrants to America involved in the smuggling of illicit alcohol in the period when the alcohol trade was illegal in the United States.

Recent United States president Donald Trump is descended from a German grandfather who, having arrived in 1880s America as a teenage barber, went on to make money as a land forger, casino operator and brothel keeper. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States was the paternal grandson of a trader named Warren, a descendant of Dutch settlers who made his fortune smuggling opium into China in the 1890s.

While it is true that the entire story of how Europeans came to be settled in all the Americas is technically a story of criminality, whether referred to as such or not, the essential point here is that many of the ancestors of these now prominent Americans would not have passed the very same visa application requirements that they impose on present-day applicants.

The purpose of migrations then was the same as it is now: not simply to move from one point to another, but also from one type of social status to another. It was about finding wealth, and through that, buying a respectability that had not been accessible in the country of origin. So, the point of migration was in a sense, not to migrate, but to change one’s social standing.

And once that new situation has been established, then all that is left is to build a defensive ring around that new status. So, previously criminal American families use the proceeds of their crime to build large mansions, and fill the rooms with antiques and heirlooms, and seek the respectability (not to mention business opportunities) of public office.

Many of the ancestors of these now prominent Americans would not have passed the very same visa application requirements that they put to present-day applicants.

European countries that became rich through the plunder of what they now call the “developing world”, build immigration measures designed to keep brown people out while allowing the money keep coming in. They build large cities, monuments and museums, and also rewrote their histories just as the formerly criminal families have done.

Thus the powers that created a world built on migration cannot be taken seriously when they complain about present-day migration.

Migration is as much about the “here” you started from, as it about the “there” you are headed to. It is not about assimilating difference; it is about trying to keep the “here” unchanged, and then to re-allocate ourselves a new place in that old sameness. This is why we go “there”.

This may explain the “old-new” names so common to the mass European migration experience. They carry the names of their origins, and impose them on the new places. Sometimes, they add the word “New” before the old name, and use migrant-settler phrases like “the old country”, “back east”. They then seek to choose a new place to occupy in the old world they seek to recreate, that they could not occupy in the old world itself. But as long as the native still exists, then the settler remains a migrant. And the settler state remains a migrant project.

To recreate the old world, while creating a new place for themselves in it, , such migrants also strive to make the spaces adapt to this new understanding of their presence that they now seek to make real.

I once witness a most ridiculous fight between three Ugandan immigrants in the UK. It took place on the landing of the social housing apartment of two of them, man and wife, against the third, until that moment, their intended house guest. As his contribution to their household, the guest had offered to bring a small refrigerator he owned. However, when the two men went to collect the fridge in a small hired van, the driver explained that traffic laws did not permit both to ride up front with him – one would have to ride in the back with the fridge. The fridge owner, knowing the route better, was nominated to sit up front, to which his friend took great and immediate exception; he certainly had not migrated to London to be consigned to the back of a van like a piece of cargo. After making his way home via public means, and discussing his humiliation with his good wife, the arrangement was called off – occasioning a bitter confrontation with the bewildered would-be guest.

There must have been so many understandings of the meaning of their migration to Britain, but like the Europeans of the New World, the Ugandans had settled on replicating the worst of what they were running from in an attempt to become what they were never going to be allowed to be back home.

A good case in point is the ethnic Irish communities in Boston and New York, whose new-found whiteness—having escaped desperate poverty, oppression and famine under British colonial rule on what were often referred to as “coffin ships” —saw them create some of the most racist and brutal police forces on the East Coast. They did not just migrate physically; they did so socially and economically as well.

It starts even with naming.

The word “migrant” seems to belong more to certain races than to others, although that also changes. When non-white, normally poor people are on the move, they can get labeled all sorts of things: refugees, economic migrants, immigrants, illegals, encroachments, wetbacks and the like.

With white-skinned people, the language was often different. Top of the linguistic league is the word “expatriate”, to refer to any number of European-origin people moving to, or through, or settling in, especially Africa.

According to news reports, some seven million Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion were absorbed by their neighboring European countries, most of which are members of the European Union. Another 8 million remain displaced within the war-torn country.

This is an outcome of which the Europeans are proud. They have even emphasized how the racial and cultural similarities between themselves and the Ukrainian refugees have made the process easier, if not a little obligatory.

This sparked off a storm of commentary in which comparisons were made with the troubles earlier sets of refugees (especially from the Middle East and Afghanistan) faced as the fled their own wars and tried to enter Western Europe.

And the greatest irony is that the worst treatment they received en-route was often in the countries of Eastern Europe.

Many European media houses were most explicit in expressing their shock that a war was taking place in Europe (they thought they were now beyond such things), and in supporting the position that the “white Christian” refugees from Ukraine should be welcomed with open arms, unlike the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians before them.

Human migration was not always like this.

Pythagoras (570-495 BC), the scholar from Ancient Greece, is far less well remembered as a migrant and yet his development as a thinker is attributable to the 22 or so years he spent as a student and researcher in Ancient Egypt. The same applies to Plato, who spent13 years in Egypt.

There is not that much evidence to suggest that Pythagoras failed to explain where he got all his learning from. If anything, he seems to have been quite open in his own writing about his experiences, first as an apprentice and later a fellow scholar in the Egyptian knowledge systems. The racial make-up of Ancient Egypt, and its implications, was far from becoming the political battleground it is today.

Top of the linguistic league is the word “expatriate” to refer to any number of European-origin people moving to, or through, or settling in, especially Africa.

Classic migration was about fitting in. Colonial migration demands that the new space adapt to accommodate the migrant. The idea of migrants and modern migration needs to be looked at again from its proper wider 500-year perspective. People of European descent, with their record of having scattered and forcibly imposed themselves all over the world, should be the last people to express anxieties about immigrants and migration.

With climate change, pandemic cycles, and the economic collapse of the west in full swing, we should also focus on the future of migration. As was with the case for Europeans some two to three hundred years ago, life in Europe is becoming rapidly unlivable for the ordinary European. The combination of the health crisis, the energy crisis, the overall financial crisis and now a stubborn war, suggests that we may be on the threshold of a new wave of migration of poor Europeans, as they seek cheaper places to live.

The advantages to them are many. Large areas of the south of the planet are dominated physically, financially and culturally, by some level of Western values, certainly at a structural level. Just think how many countries in the world use the Greco-Latin origin word “police” to describe law enforcement. These southern spaces have already been sufficiently Westernized to enable a Westerner to live in them without too much of a cultural adjustment on their part. The Westerners are coming back.

This article is part of a series on migration and displacement in and from Africa, co-produced by the Elephant and the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s African Migration Hub, which is housed at its new Horn of Africa Office in Nairobi.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Iron Grip of the International Monetary System: CFA Franc, Hyper-Imperial Economies and the Democratization of Money

Cameroonian economist Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi died in 1984, either poisoned or by suicide. His ideas about the international monetary system and the CFA franc are worth revisiting.

Published

on

The Iron Grip of the International Monetary System: CFA Franc, Hyper-Imperial Economies and the Democratization of Money
Download PDFPrint Article

Despite being one of Africa’s greatest economists, Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi is little known outside Francophone intellectual circles. Writing in the 1970s, he offered a stinging rebuke of orthodox monetary theory and policy from an African perspective that remains relevant decades later. Especially powerful are his criticisms of the international monetary system and the CFA franc, the regional currency in West and Central Africa that has historically been pegged to the French currency—at first the franc, and now the euro.

Pouemi was born on November 13th, 1937, to a Bamiléké family in Bangoua, a village in western Cameroon. After obtaining his baccalaureate and working as a primary school teacher, Pouemi moved to France in 1960, where he studied law, mathematics, and economics at the University of Clermont-Ferrand. Pouemi then worked as a university professor and policy adviser in Cameroon and Cote d’Ivoire. In 1977, he joined the IMF but quit soon after, vehemently disagreeing with its policies. He returned to Cameroon and published his magnum opus, Money, Servitude, and Freedom, in 1980. The recently elected president of Cameroon, Paul Biya, appointed Pouemi head of the University of Douala in August 1983—then fired him a year later. On December 27th, 1984, Pouemi was found dead of an apparent suicide in a hotel room. Some of his friends and students argue he was poisoned by the Biya regime (which still governs Cameroon), while others believe that harassment by Biya’s cronies drove Pouemi to suicide.

International Monetary System

Writing in the turbulent 1970s after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods regime of fixed exchange rates, Pouemi anticipated the three “fundamental flaws” with the international monetary “non-system”: one, using a national currency, the US dollar, as global currency; two, placing the burden of adjustment exclusively on deficit nations; and, three, the “inequity bias” of the foreign reserve system, which makes it a form of “reverse aid.” All three issues have been highlighted by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Long recognized as a problem, the challenges with using the US dollar as the world’s currency have once again become apparent. Low- and middle-income countries (which include essentially all African countries) have to deal with the vicissitudes of the global financial cycles emanating from the center of the global capitalist system. As the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to combat inflation by engineering a recession—because if borrowing costs rise, people have less money to spend and prices will decrease—they are increasing the debt burden of African governments that have variable-rate loans in US dollars. Already, the World Bank has warned of a looming debt crisis and the potential for another “lost decade” like the 1980s. Moreover, higher interest rates in the US lead to the depreciation of African currencies, making imports more expensive and leading to even higher food and oil prices across the continent.

Pouemi viewed the IMF’s attempt to create a global currency through the 1969 establishment of the special drawing rights (SDR) system as an inadequate response to the problems created by using the US dollar. The issuance of SDRs essentially drops money from the sky into the savings accounts of governments around the world. The IMF has only issued SDRs four times in its history, most recently in August 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With African governments dealing with falling export earnings and the need to import greater amounts of personal protective equipment—and, eventually, vaccines—there was a clear need to bolster their savings, i.e., foreign reserves. The problem is that the current formula for allocating SDRs provides 60% of them to the richest countries—countries that do not need them, since they can and have borrowed in their own currencies. Of the new 456 billion SDR (approximately US$650 billion), the entire African continent received only 5% (about US$33 billion).

Decades ago, Pouemi had slammed SDRs as “arbitrary in three respects: the determination of their volume, their allocation and the calculation of their value.” Instead, Pouemi advocated for a truly global currency, one that could be issued by a global central bank in response to global recessions and that prioritized financing for the poorest countries. Such a reorientation of SDRs could provide a way of repaying African nations for colonialism and climate change.

Secondly, unable to get the financing they need, African governments with balance-of-payments deficits (when more money leaves a country than enters in a given year) have no choice but to shrink their economies. Pouemi strongly criticized the IMF, which he dubbed the “Instant Misery Fund” for applying the same “stereotypical, invariable remedies: reduce public expenditures, limit credit, do not subsidize nationalized enterprises” regardless of the source of a country’s deficits. Devaluing the currency is unlikely to work for small countries that are price takers in world markets and instead improves the trade balance by lowering domestic spending. The IMF has become “a veritable policeman to repress governments that attempt to offer their countries a minimum of welfare.” The current international monetary non-system then creates a global “deflationary bias,” since those countries with balance-of-payments deficits must reduce their spending, while those with large surpluses—like Germany, China, Japan, and the Netherlands—face little pressure to decrease their surpluses by spending more.

The third major issue with the current international monetary non-system is that developing countries have to accumulate foreign exchange reserves denominated in “hard” currencies like US dollars and euros, which means they are forced to transfer real resources to richer countries in return for financial assets—mere IOUs. Pouemi claimed that “if the international monetary system was not ‘rigged,’ reserves would be held as other goods like coffee or cocoa, gold for example. But the system is ‘rigged’; coffee reserves are quantified as dollars, pound sterling or non-convertible francs.” Instead, in the late 1970s, governments like that of Rwanda effectively lent coffee to the United States by using export earnings to purchase US treasury bills, whose real value was being quickly eroded by high inflation in the US. Hence, we live in a world where developing countries like China and Brazil lend money to rich governments like that of the US. As Pouemi explains: “The logic of the international monetary system wants the poor to lend to—what am I saying—give to the rich.”

CFA franc

Pouemi was also a harsh critic of the CFA franc, since maintaining the fixed exchange rate to the euro implies abandoning an autonomous monetary policy and the need to restrict commercial bank credit. Pouemi also argued that the potential benefits and costs of currency unions are different for rich and poor countries, and that therefore it is inappropriate to analyze African monetary unions through a European lens. His thoughts are especially relevant at a moment when the future of the CFA franc and West African monetary integration are up for debate.

In theory, by fixing the exchange rate to the euro, the two regional central banks that issue the CFA franc—the Banque centrale des états de l’Afrique de l’ouest (Central Bank of West African States) and the Banque centrale des états de l’Afrique centrale (Central Bank of Central African States)—have relinquished monetary policy autonomy. They have to mimic the European Central Bank’s policy rates instead of setting interest rates that reflect economic conditions in the CFA zone. The amount of CFA francs in circulation is also limited by the amount of foreign reserves each regional central bank holds in euros. Therefore, “the solidity of the CFA franc is based on restricting M [the money supply], a restriction not desired by the states, but one proceeding from the very architecture of the zone.” As a result, the economies of the CFA franc zone are starved of credit, especially farmers and small businesses, hindering growth and development. In Pouemi’s words, “There is no doubt, the CFA remains fundamentally a currency of the colonial type.”

When discussing the possibilities for a single currency for the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Pouemi stressed that the potential benefits and costs of currency union are different for rich and poor countries. “There is not only a difference of perception of the mechanisms of cooperation” between Europe and Africa, “there’s a difference of the conception of common life. Economic cooperation as it is conceived in the industrialized West is the Kennedy Round, North-South dialogue, the EEC, etc.—in other words, essentially ‘customs disarmament’ or common defense; armament is the rule, disarmament the exception.” In Africa, however, economic cooperation is a positive-sum game. Conventional economic theory argues against monetary integration among African countries, since they trade little with each other. But to Pouemi, the goal of monetary integration is precisely to get these countries to trade more with one another. He also questions the view that monetary integration should come last, following the same sequence as the European Union from free trade zone to customs union to common market and, finally, to currency union. “This view is not only imaginary, it is practically non-verified; we have seen examples. Theoretically, it is indefensible: a 10% decrease in tariffs could be … offset by a devaluation of 10%.”

Pouemi also dismissed arguments that Nigeria would dominate the proposed ECOWAS single currency as another example of the classic colonialist tactic of “divide and conquer.” While he acknowledged that “monetary union between unequal partners poses problems,” these are “only problems, open to solutions.” They do not make monetary integration unviable. Such integration need not limit sovereignty. In a regional or continental African monetary union, no “currency would be the reserve of others. Each country would have its own central bank, free to conduct the policy that best suits the directives judged necessary by the government. The only loss of sovereignty following such a union would be the respect of the collective balance. It would not be appropriated by anyone; it would be at the service of all. It would be, for that matter, less a loss of sovereignty than the collective discipline necessary to all communal life.”

Pouemi advocated for an African monetary union with fixed exchange rates between members, the pooling of foreign reserves, and a common unit of account—like the European Currency Unit that preceded the euro. He thought that the debate over whether the CFA franc is overvalued is misguided, since there is no a priori reason for its members to have the same exchange rate. Fixed but adjustable exchange rates—as in the Bretton Woods system or European Monetary System—would allow each nation greater monetary and exchange rate policy autonomy. Settling payments using a common unit of account instead of foreign exchange reserves would help economize on the latter. Moving toward the free movement of capital, goods and labor—as envisioned by the African Continental Free Trade Area—would help diffuse shocks through the monetary union. Finally, such a union would need to have a common policy on capital controls or at least collective supervision of international capital flows.

As Pouemi so eloquently lamented: “History will hold on to the fact that all of [Africa’s] children that have tried to make her respected have perished, one after the other, by African hands, without having the time to serve her.” We do not know what Pouemi could have accomplished had he had the time to serve Africa for longer. All we can do is heed his call that “in Africa, money needs to stop being the domain of a small number of ‘specialists’ pretending to be magicians.”

This post is from a partnership between Africa Is a Country and The Elephant. We will be publishing a series of posts from their site once a week.

Continue Reading

Trending