THE AFRICAN PASSPORT: ANOTHER FEATHER IN AU'S CAP

It started in East Africa. Now, the idea has gone continental and pundits have their ears and eyes open to find out whether it will succeed or go the way of many other African projects.

I am talking about the recently unveiled Africa-wide passport which was rolled out during the 27th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) at Kigali, Rwanda, two weeks ago.

Since the Organization of African Union (OAU), now the AU, was formed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963, member countries have been struggling to come up with policies and projects to enhance unity and economic integration. The road has been bumpy but notable successes have been achieved.

Unlike the OAU, which stood on the platform of "non-interference" in the affairs of member countries, the AU, launched in 2002, has used provisions in its Charter to move into troubled spots such as Sudan and Somalia to promote peace and to Kenya and Ivory Coast to quell post-election conflicts.

It has helped strengthen regional bodies like the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and its relentless efforts have bore fruit including reducing substantially the number of coup d'etats in the continent.

The Africa-wide Passport is yet another feather in the cap of the AU. It is a long journey since the pre-independence days when privileged Africans had to use colonial passports, and liberation giants like ANC's Nelson Mandela and SWAPO's Sam Nujoma had to resort to foreign passports to travel around the world to galvanize support for the freedom cause. In fact, Mandela had to use an Ethiopian passport with a nomenclature David Motsamayi to evade the apartheid regime intelligence apparatus.

The Africa passport will open borders and ease communication for people and goods; it will encourage transfer of skills, and remove social and economic barriers that have until now hindered integration. This is in line with the AU's game plan of creating "a continent with seamless borders" by 2063.

However, with free movement of people across borders are challenges that not only must be anticipated but also confronted. The world has changed from what it was fifty years ago when Africa came together. There are threats of local and international terrorism and concerns about uncontrolled cross-border immigration.

The question is whether Africans are ready for this type of mass movement at a time when many countries are unstable and unemployment is skyrocketing. We have seen xenophobic attacks in countries like South Africa, South Sudan, Zambia, Ivory Coast, and Ethiopia, where immigrants have been harassed and even killed because of bigotry.

It is imperative for the AU to put in place procedures that will end this menace and promote tolerance as borders are flung open and travel regulations are eased.

But more fundamentally is whether this passport will be accepted world-wide. There are reasons why travel papers from certain African countries are viewed with suspicion by most countries of the world. Holders of documents from Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan, often face closer scrutiny at international airports than those from, let us say, Namibia, South Africa and Seychelles.

The new passport will be African, of course, but holders will still be identified by the nationalities of the countries of their origin.

Then there is the issue of security. Who will ensure that these documents are not counterfeited? And under what jurisdiction will violators be tried? I am not a lawyer but certainly answers are in order.

Another question. What will happen to the EAC e-passport which was launched in East Africa last year? Will the two documents run parallel to each other?

The EAC member countries - Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi and South Sudan - are expected to phase out their national passports effective December 2018 in favor of their new document.

Right now, only the AU Heads of State have been issued with the red and gold African passport. Gradually it will be rolled out by individual countries as the document becomes available.

The AU must be commended for this achievement. It must now move ahead to find solutions to the high levels of youth unemployment and insecurity in African countries; and find ways of expanding its international development cooperation across the world to dampen the growing Chinese economic influence in the continent.

A lot of work remains to be done.

And that is my say.

PLEASE DON'T CALL ME 'THIRD WORLD'

I get furiously disgusted when I hear people using the term "Third World" in reference to poor, less developed countries like mine.

This is a term peddled loosely by toms, dicks, and harrys in the so-called "developed" countries to despise, insult, and degrade young nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, that are struggling to catch up with today's high-tech world.

The term was born during the Cold War to describe countries that were neither aligned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nor to the Communist Bloc. The United States, Western European nations and their allies earned the coveted title of the "First World" largely because of their economic and military might but also because of their democratic principles.

On the other side of the spectrum, were the Communist nations of Soviet Union, China and Cuba, which were labelled the "Second World."

The rest of the world, namely, Africa, the whole of Asiatic countries as well as the emerging powers in Arabia and the small oceanic islands, were all lumped into the basket of "others" until some bureaucrats in the financial world and aid circles began to use the term "Third World" to describe extreme "poverty" and "backwardness" in those countries.

So in reality, the term - which some say was coined by French anthropologist Alfred Sauvy in an article published on 14 August 1952 - ceased to have political connotations after the end of the Cold War in 1991 and assumed a more degrading meaning to describe some regions of the world.

Thus, the world was technically divided into the haves and the have-nots, the powerful and the weak. The Western hemisphere felt "poor" countries did not deserve a place at the high table because they were under-developed, militarily inferior and socially backward, or, to use a more crude definition, primitive.

The term stuck. Now, you can hear people in "developed countries" blaming "Third World" countries for everything bad, the HIV, Ebola and Zika epidemics; for trafficking in illicit drugs; and generally, for engaging in international criminal activity.

They never acknowledge the contributions of those countries in the fields of medicine, engineering and technology; nor do they want to recognize their rich cultural heritage that has added diversity and color in more advanced countries.

Many successful firms in the US, Canada, and Western Europe, owe their successes to the contributions of technocrats from the so-called "Third World." The Immigration Policy Institute says it was the Indians who were instrumental in the development of the US's Information Technology.

Many historians believe too that were it not for African labor (call it slavery), the United States and some European countries such as Britain, would not have prospered as fast as they did. These were "Third World"!

"Third World" oil, and minerals such as uranium, copper and platinum, etc, have kept factories open and furnaces burning in the developed countries for generations, and its gold and diamonds have embellished women the world over. And despite protectionist trade policies that bar African products from accessing developed markets and despite political and economic embargoes and advisories, Africa continues to defy pessimists.

The term "Third World" is to me discriminatory and racist. It reflects a world in which civilizations which have existed for hundreds or thousands of years want to find reasons to compare themselves with emerging nations that are barely a half a century old.

A New York based writer, Zeeshan Aleem, says the "Third World" term is archaic and no longer fashionable due to the growing consensus that the category is neither accurate nor socially appropriate in the 21st Century.

But to avoid being labelled negatively, Africa must also strive to ensure good governance, end corruption, respect human rights and desist from engaging in ethnic conflicts. It must mechanize its agricultural production to avoid those sad pictures of starving children on Western television sets; encourage sciences in schools; and go global in every way. Until all these and more are achieved, I and many of us will continue to blame others for our woes.

To our friends in the developed world I have this to say: God created only one world; not two, not three. So, please stop referring to me as "Third World."

And that is my say.

"WE WANT TO GO HOME," SAY "TRAUMATIZED" AFRICAN-AMERICANS

When I arrived in the United States for the first time in the late 1960s, Richard Nixon was the President, Martin Luther King Jr. was dead, and American cities were embroiled in street riots by blacks angered by high levels of unemployment, poverty, and social discrimination.

"The Chicago Seven," a group of radical Black Panther activists, among them Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, and Huey Newton, was in court facing prosecution for a variety of offences including plots to bomb public buildings; and everywhere in the country students were demonstrating and engaging in sit-ins on the streets and in university campuses.

The black revolutionary and civil rights activist, Angela Davis, was electrifying crowds with her black power message before she went underground to escape arrest. She was captured in 1971 and taken to court on conspiracy, attempted kidnapping and murder charges. A year later she was acquitted.

In some parts of the country whites were attacking buses carrying black children to stop integration of schools, while white supremacist groups like Ku Klux Klan were rekindling support for segregation among racist whites.

In those decades of the 60s and 70s, race relations were at their lowest ebb in the United States. Many cities were under siege and the National Bureau of Economic Research says the disturbances of the time were "unprecedented in their frequency and scope."

Now in the 2000s, we see a resurgence of similar extreme forms of racial animosity. Black/White tension has risen in most parts of the country and street demonstrations are more frequent now than they were a few years ago, with deadly consequences. The proliferation of guns is not helping to calm the situation either. One estimate puts 88 guns in the hands of every 100 Americans - a staggering reality.

Some of the violence is triggered by killings of young black males by police; some are revenge shootings against policemen by angry black civilians. But looking at events today, the situation is not as bad as it was forty or fifty years ago. It is just eerie and morose. The actions of the Black Lives Matter movement, to my opinion, are a far cry from the violent activities of the Black Panthers. Generally, things have improved though relations between blacks and law enforcement agencies remain acrimoniously sour. The Huffington Post reports 136 black people have been killed by police so far this year.

And as officials say, there is a lot of hurt and grieving on both sides of the color divide and healing is urgently required. But racial harmony cannot be achieved on the streets.

I have decided to dwell on this subject this week not necessarily because of what happened recently but because of a post I saw in the social media this week which tells a story of anguish and despair among African Americans. A group under the tag name We Want to Go Home is collecting signatures to support a petition to African countries asking them to open doors to African Americans wishing "to go back" to the continent from where their ancestors came centuries ago.

"We are simply asking that we have the opportunity to return to the birthplace of our ancestors in order to try rebuild and heal our trauma," says the petition in part. Whether this initiative is based on the African American experiences of recent years is hard to tell. But it has all the hallmarks of the Black to Africa movement of Marcus Garvey in the 1880s.

WWTGH, which is featured under the domain name Change.org, is led by Brenda Pearson, an activist and writer; and as I am writing, the group is about to reach its target of 2,500 signatures which are to be sent with a letter to all the African countries. It will be interesting to see what the Africans think about this initiative.

So far, only Ghana has accommodated returning African Americans. There are 3,000 of them who live, own properties, and run businesses in that West African country.

The question is: Will asylum in Africa solve the problems of the "traumatized" African Americans?

Maybe, maybe not. Let's talk.

And that is my say.

THE "SILLY SEASON" OF POLITICS HAS STARTED IN KENYA

Is this the silly season in Kenya's political scene? It looks that way given the circus that is playing out almost a year before the general elections.

For those who know the East African country this is not unusual. Every time an election approaches, temperatures rise to decibel levels; politicians shift alliances, title deeds are hurriedly issued to squatters, women and youth projects are revived, deals are struck, and money - lots of it - begins to change hands. The term "MPs for hire" is already buzzing in the social media.

General elections are not until August 2017 but politicians have already begun to reposition themselves. In recent weeks, the country has witnessed high level defections. Both the secretary general and the vice chairman of Raila's Orange Democratic Party (ODM) have jumped ship and are creating a "third force" to take on the ruling Jubilee and the opposition CORD.

On the other side of the isle, dozens of followers from Ruto's Rift Valley have decamped to the opposition leaving the region - which in 2013 voted for Uhuru Kenyatta almost to a man - up for grabs.

This intense flip-flopping drama is leaving the two big coalitions with no time to prepare for the polls, which could see Uhuru either earn a second time, or, go home tagging the shameful reputation as the first one-term president in Kenya's history.

In 2013, Uhuru and Ruto were quite comfortable using the Jubilee Alliance as their political vehicle against the opposition. This time around they want to ride on something called Jubilee Party. The only difference between the two, as far as I can see, is that the former had four coalition partners while the new arrangement is expected to attract up to 13 parties from across the country.

This past week, Uhuru signed a Bill clearing the way for the merger to take place, but things are not turning out to be that simple. Some of the partners are either reluctant to commit or are unwilling to disband their parties - which is a condition for joining the coalition - fearing a backlash from their grass-root supporters.

This internal revolt which Jubilee would like to keep under wraps, presents a gigantic challenge to Uhuru who wants the matter sorted out quickly so that the coalition can concentrate on party strategies including the process of setting up a central command post and regional teams.

However, as Jubilee struggles to mend its holes, CORD is sitting on a crisis. With three equal partners each desiring to occupy the seat on the hill, the challenge of selecting one presidential candidate has become tricky and could be politically damaging. Raila; Kalonzo Musyoka of Wiper Party; and, Moses Wetangula of Ford Kenya, are yet to sit and agree on who is to take on Uhuru. The sooner they do that the better. For now, the matter remains a hot potato.

But lack of a presidential candidate is not the only problem facing the opposition. Due to internal feuds, the ODM party headquarters is a house divided. The fact that the two departing officials come from western Kenya is enough to worry the former Prime Minister. The region has been a strong opposition stronghold for years and in 2013 western Kenya voted overwhelmingly for Raila. The situation is likely to be different next year.

So as we speak ODM - and to a large extent CORD is disoriented and rudderless. The party is spending a lot of time sorting out its internal problems and not enough time executing the all-important task of voter mobilization.

However, the silliest thing this season in Kenyan politics, has to do with Ruto's presidential ambitions. According to Jubilee, Uhuru is to pass the baton to Ruto in 2022 if, in fact, he wins next year. Unfortunately for the deputy president this proposed arrangement is facing headwinds from some Jubilee leaders especially those from Uhuru's home ground. They are warning that Kikuyus would not vote for Ruto, a Kalenjin, in 2022,even though Kalenjins supported Uhuru in 2013. This is an ominous signal to Ruto and sends only one clear message: that he cannot expect an automatic elevation to the highest office after Uhuru.

Last year in one of my articles I said Ruto will need more than Uhuru's nod to ascend to power. My view has not changed.

Anyone who has watched voting patterns in Kenya over the years will advise Ruto to tread very, very carefully, as he proceeds to the next level in his dramatic political career.


And that is my say.