OIL: WILL KENYA BE A VICTIM OF THE 'AFRICAN CURSE'?

Less than one year from now Kenya will be exporting its first barrel of oil.

In June 2017, tanks will be snaking through 900 kilometer

s of road from Lokichar in the northern Turkana County to Mombasa laden with oil products for processing and onward shipment to markets overseas. That will be a landmark event for the 40 million Kenyans.

To get the oil flowing from the extreme remote area of Kenya, the government will be pumping millions of shillings to improve the road network to the nearest major town of Eldoret as plans to build a pipeline continue.

Initially, 2,000 barrels of oil per day will be exported, but as more wells become operational, production will increase to an anticipated one billion barrels a day, making Kenya one of a dozen or so oil producing nations in sub-Saharan Africa.

The successful exploration of oil in that arid area is a bright spot for the impoverished pastoralists in that region; but in a more substantial way, it will boost the economy of a country that has all along been depending on agriculture and tourism as its principal foreign exchanger earners.

President Kenyatta has been pushing the drilling company, Tullow Oil, to speed up production and release the first exports, if for anything, to enhance his chances of winning the general elections next year - a brilliant strategy indeed.

Therefore, the announcement in Nairobi last week that Kenya has joined the league of oil producers was a personal achievement for Kenyatta. The project is a signature initiative that will definitely define his legacy.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the so-called 'black gold' has brought wealth to the elite as well as misery to a large number of people whose interests are undermined largely by gross mismanagement and deep-seated corruption by a few.

In most cases, the citizenry yields no significant economic benefits from oil resources. This phenomenon where oil enriches a few but further impoverishes the majority is called the 'African Curse' or the 'Resource Curse.' And almost all oil producers in sub-Saharan Africa have been afflicted by that curse.

Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are victims. The standard of living for a majority people in those countries remains extremely low despite the oil riches.

Damage to the environment is also colossal. A good example is the environmental devastation along the Niger River Delta in Nigeria - where river passages are polluted, drinking water is contaminated, and neighborhoods are endangered.

One villager was quoted by the BBC as saying oil spillages there kill fish, infect skin, destroy streams and poison drinking water: "I have no livelihood left," he said dejectedly.

Given the level of corruption in Kenya, we have to wait to see whether the Turkana people - whose livelihood is centered on livestock - will reap real benefits to substantially change their rustic lifestyles. At the same time, we will see whether adequate measures have been taken to protect the lives of the people and their herds of animals from environmental hazards. If these two things happen, it will be a unique achievement.

It is good news that the Kenya Petroleum Refineries in Mombasa which has been lying idle for years since 2013 when it exhausted its last stock of raw material will resume operations to process the Turkana oil. The refinery was built 50 years ago to process crude oil sourced mainly from the Gulf region, which is then distributed to neighboring countries.

Until now, the plant has been used only as a storage facility. The move to upgrade it and use it efficiently to refine crude from Turkana is the best move for the country.

Above it all, however, Kenya should strive to avoid the 'African curse' which has hindered sustainable development in many oil producing countries in Africa.

And that is my say.

WARLORDS, PLEASE LEAVE SOUTH SUDAN ALONE!

If reports from Juba are to be analyzed objectively, South Sudan, dubbed Africa's youngest nation may be on the verge of a fresh ethnic conflagration and possible economic collapse.

Though it is wrong at this time to compare what is taking place in the Eastern African nation to the situation in Rwanda in the 1990's, the unrelenting schisms between the two largest tribes, the Dinka and the Nuer, reminds us of the tribal animosity that boiled over in the Central African country between the Tutsis and the Hutus.

The tiny South Sudan, which abuts the Nile River broke away from Sudan to go it alone in 2011, and since 2013 it has never seen peace. President Salva Kiir a Dinka, and Riek Machar a Nuer, have been fighting for three years for the control of the oil rich nation. Their pastoralist communities, on the other hand, have traditionally been enemies and have always squabbled over pasture and water resources, squabbles that have led to many deaths.

Thousands of people have been killed and tens of thousands are in refugee camps in neighboring countries. Some African leaders describe events in South Sudan as 'large scale atrocities. As a result of the violence, oil production is interrupted and supply has dipped by 40 percent.

Attempts at reconciliation by the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) have had limited success. Similarly, the small number of UN peacekeeping troops which has been in the country since 2011 has not been able to stabilize the country. Fresh proposals are on the table to deploy an additional 4,000 troops.

About ten days ago Machar, who had arrived in Juba only weeks earlier following yet another peace agreement, was forced to flee after fresh fighting broke out around Juba. He crossed into the Democratic Republic of Congo where his troops were attacked by militias and Machar was wounded. He had to be evacuated by President Omar al Bashir's forces and is now receiving medical treatment in Khartoum.

For those who have been following the situation in South Sudan know al Bashir has been arming the rebels. Captured arms caches have shown clear made-in-Sudan markings.

The Sudanese leader, who is also wanted by the International Criminal Court at the Hague for crimes against humanity, is once again engaging in hostile activities that could lead to mass killings in the new nation.

He is interfering in a sovereign country by fueling divisions. The fact that Sudan once controlled the area is neither here nor there. The country of 11 million people is now independent and should be left alone to chart its own course.

I should also mention that China too is involved in South Sudan and is assisting the government there with arms. It has invested heavily in infrastructure and feels it has the right to protect its interests. Also in the mix is Yoweri Museveni of Uganda who also is providing military support in the form of air assaults against the rebels.

Like many wars in Africa, the civil war in South Sudan is completely unnecessary and wasteful. For Kiir and Machar to use innocent people to advance their personal and political interests and those of their foreign masters is not only shameful but morally wrong.

Figures show half of the children in South Sudan have not set foot in a classroom. Oil revenues - which form 85 percent of the country's budget - and which should be going to education, health, and other more urgent services, are being diverted to the war.

Most of the country has no electricity or running water and the infrastructure is in shambles. Basic commodities are in short supply and as a result the black market is thriving. And even as the country holds the biggest oil reserves in sub-Saharan Africa ahead of Nigeria and Angola, fuel shortages are common and motorists have to line up for days to fill up their cars.

Apart from flexing its military muscles, el Bashir's Sudan is also a beneficiary of the South Sudan oil. Since Juba for now must channel its oil products through Sudan it has to pay heavily - 9.10 US dollar for every barrel including another fee of 15 US dollars per barrel - for the use of facilities in the Upper Nile region.

Early this week, South Sudan's new Vice President, Taban Geng Gai, travelled to Khartoum at the head of a powerful delegation for talks believed to center on security matters. This undoubtedly proves Khartoum's importance to South Sudan's survival. But it can be surmised that on the agenda of their talks was Machar's future. Already, the AU is asking Gai to quit and leave his position open for Machar to occupy when he returns to Juba. This could fuel further instability.

The fact that the US Secretary of State John Kerry was in Nairobi this week and was briefed about the situation in South Sudan gives hope that the world could be contemplating an alternative action to deal with the politics of that country. We have to wait and see.

In the meantime I can bet, John Garang de Mabior, the pioneer revolutionary who was killed in a mysterious air crash in southern Sudan in 2005, must be rolling in his grave seeing the way things are going in his country - a situation that has extinguished all dreams of a safe, strong, and independent South Sudan.

So, I tell President Omar al Bashir, the fugitive; Yoweri Museveni; and Xi Jinping: Please leave South Sudan alone!

And that is my say.

STATE COMMUNICATORS ARE LETTING UHURU KENYATTA DOWN

For any government to be understood by the governed and for information to flow seamlessly through a bureaucracy, effective communication is of extreme necessity.

That is why governments employ communication officers and give them responsibilities of explaining policies, of interpreting official actions, and of serving as a bridge between the Executive, the media and the public. Communication officers are the ones who must explain and translate what officials say, who must defend the government in critical situations, and who must endeavor to portray it in the best light possible.

Some call them propagandists, others spin doctors, or, as the former press secretary of Uganda's Yoweri Museveni preferred to call himself, "the President's attack dog" but the fact remains: spokespersons, press officers, information officers or communications specialists, are there to explain the positive side of the government and to correct any misinformation that may be floating in the public domain. If properly detailed, a spokesperson could be an effective tool in advancing the merits of a firm, the Government and/or the Executive. If handled badly, the results could be disastrous to an organization's image.

Unfortunately, not many African institutions appreciate the usefulness of spokespeople. It is also true that some spokespeople fall short of understanding their role and responsibilities.

The internal wrangles in the Presidential Strategic Communications Unit (PSCU) in Kenya and the fights happening within ministerial communication units there confirm something is seriously wrong with the management of official communication in Kenya.

This is Uhuru's last year of his five-year term in office, yet his message of achievement remains obscured and ambiguous to the majority of Kenyans. There is still a significant disconnect between what the government has done and what the people know about what has been achieved.

For example, the government's fight against corruption is muted to the point that Kenyans are not convinced the government is doing anything to end sleaze. If there is a plan to combat it, we are not hearing about it.

It is the job of spokespeople to explain why so many corruption cases are bogged down in courts and why officials who have been accused of corruption are still walking the streets.

They should explain why infrastructure development is so important to the country and why the government goes out for huge loans, especially from China, to improve roads and railway lines. They must explain the benefits to the people and how the loans will be repaid.

They must explain in clear terms why there are so many black-outs in Kenya and what the government is doing to improve supply and distribution of electricity.

Also, there is widespread perception out there that the money from the 'Eurobond' scandal is being used to buy off opposition legislators to support the ruling Jubilee party. So far, I have seen nothing from the communication people that debunks that perception. So Kenyans are left to believe that corruption money is at work and that millions of shillings are being laundered under the cover of politics. For its own benefit, the opposition is taking advantage of the vacuum and bashing the government.

Things don't look right especially as Jubilee approaches a critical election next year.

Adolf Hitler's famous propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, once said: Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth. Goebbels knew what he was talking about. He himself told and repeated lies so many times that some people were convinced the 'butcher' had good reasons to murder tens of thousands of people in a period of eleven-year.

It is not surprising to see a large part of the Kenya population opting for rumors, innuendos, and misinformation, in the absence of facts.

In a nutshell, the communications arm of the Kenya government, in totality, has not proved productive in delivering the mandate it was given. It has been a struggling operation from the very beginning and whatever it is doing is not hitting home.

Recently, the President suspended eight directors in the communication unit - save for the head Manoah Esipisu - because of what a source told Nairobi's Daily Nation as 'h

emorrhaging of uncertified information' to the public. The people were later reinstated but the message was clear.

And this past week, ministerial communication officers were in defiance against structural changes they say would frustrate their work. They claim they are being intimidated by their seniors who are allegedly usurping their duties. So, there is certainly a dysfunction in this sector of the civil service.

My advice to Kenyan communication officials is: follow the professional career of Sir Bernard Ingham, perhaps the most brilliant government spokesman Britain has ever known. He was the chief press secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for eleven years and a spokesman to several top British officials.

He was erudite, exuberant and sometimes brash, but his communication skills were unmatched and his trust in the Prime Minister was unquestionable. It was only after his retirement that he offered to give out some of Thatcher's weaknesses in his book Kill the Messenger.

Read it if you want to make a career in government communication.

And that is my say.

AFRICA, BE WARY OF IMPORTED FAST-FOOD HABITS

Africa could be at risk of a deadly onslaught from a new lifestyle enemy: fast food.

During a return visit to Kenya recently, I was surprised, and in a way shocked, at what I saw as the proliferation of foreign-owned fast food restaurants along major streets and within malls in cities and towns.

Mass-produced foods that are quick to prepare and cheap to buy have been the 'in' thing in the Western world for as along as anyone can remember. Most popular have been hot-dogs, hamburgers, chips (French fries), and fried chickens.

In Africa we have always had food kiosks selling cheap eatables or mama-pimas, women who prepare home-cooked foods and sell them outdoors. What is good about these foods is that they are not mass-produced and include traditional vegetables and staples that are nutritionally healthy. On the flip side is the danger these edibles pose because of unhygienic preparation methods. So, the nyama choma (roast meat) you order from your favorite butcher could just as well be harmful to your health.

As far as imported fast foods are concerned, the monopoly of the fast food business, at least in Kenya, has for years been in the hands of South Africans who came with restaurants like Steers, Pizza Inn, and Chicken Inn.

In the last five years, however, there has been an invasion of fast food franchises from America: from KFC "finger lickin' good"; to Pizza Hut "the flavor of now"; to Subway "eating fresh"; to my favorite Coldstone Creamery "the ultimate ice cream experience."

Many of the franchises have found investment opportunities not only in Kenya but in many other countries including Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, South Africa, Botswana, and countries in West Africa.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity of talking to a US-based Nigerian who helped American food conglomerates penetrate the African market. He described the fast food market in the continent as "hot" because of the continent's fast growing middle class population.

With foreign restaurants came jobs, thousands of them, to a continent that has high unemployment rates among the youth.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that fast foods are potentially dangerous to your health. They are responsible for rising obesity among all ages and contribute to lifestyle diseases such as high blood pressure, heart ailments, and diabetes.

Why? Because the majority of these foods contain high levels of saturated fats which increase blood cholesterol and trigger heart diseases and stroke. They also contain too much sodium which raises high blood pressure; and are loaded with high volumes of sugar which bring about obesity.

The deep fried chicken may be scrumptious and the ice cream yummy but they are full of fats and sugar. Only this week, thousands of Americans signed a petition protesting against the use of human antibiotics in chicken, a method used to grow them faster.

In North America, 30 percent of children are obese; in Kenya 23 percent of women aged 15 years and above are either over-weight or obese. An estimated 3.5 million people in Kenya suffer from diabetes and the numbers are growing at a frightening rate, according to the World Health Organization.

Globally, 2.8 million adults die every year from complications related to obesity and excessive weight. These are frightening statistics.

In the 1970s, an American envoy to Kenya talking about his country's imports boasted: "We just don't import Coca Cola." That's right! America imports to Africa much more than Coca Cola and fast foods.

Years, ago major international cigarette companies: Dunhill and Pall Mall, Philip Morris, the British American Tobacco and UK's Imperial Tobacco moved productions to developing countries including Africa to escape strict health legislations, rising taxes, and advertising restrictions. What followed was a decline in cigarette smoking in developed countries. Today, for example, only about 20 percent of Americans smoke cigarettes.

Conversely, smoking is rising in developing countries among both males and females though figures are still low. The reason figures are low is because

the majority of smokers in those countries buy a stick at a time - for economic reasons - instead of a whole pack of cigarettes at a time.

If governments fail to tackle growing cigarette puffing in emerging countries, Africans and Asians stand a bigger risk of dying early.

So, are we the dumping ground for dangerous habits imported from overseas?

I leave that question to you.

And that is my say.

MODEL US PARTY CONVENTIONS AN EYE OPENER TO AFRICANS

Observing in close proximity the US Republican Party Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Democratic Party jamboree in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I could not but admire the way electoral democracy works in the world's most diverse country.

It is not that I, as a foreigner and an African to boot, expected anything different. I have witnessed and reported, as a journalist, a number of past party conventions and elections and every time I observe them my heart beats with expectations and hope that one day, just one day, my country Kenya would be in a position to conduct its election procedures in a similar atmosphere of fairness, civility, and tolerance.

While I found the event nominating Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate to be shallow, fatalistic, and confrontational, the Democratic assembly was certainly refreshing, with plenty of color, substance, and spirit, and lots of hope and optimism for the future.

The former was largely a white affair while the latter was a congregation of people of all colors, blacks, whites, Asians and Latinos. It had speakers from different religious convictions - Muslims and Christians; of different gender orientation - gays and trans-genders; and of diverse professional backgrounds - the military, politicians, and ordinary middle class.

But what impressed me most about both meetings is that, notwithstanding the attacks flying between the two camps, the atmosphere remained one of forbearance. Protesters within and outside the convention halls were allowed to express their anger either by shouting slogans or by displaying banners; and even when Ted Cruz played tricks and refused to endorse Trump inside the Republican Party convention hall, the only response he got was heckling and jeering.

If Cruz had been living in many of the African countries, he would probably either be in hospital healing his wounds or in prison eating worm-infested beans.

Similarly, the police conducted themselves with professionalism, concentrating on separating rivals and controlling traffic. Other than a few skirmishes all went on well.

Unfortunately, more than half a century later, this model of democracy has not yet filtered through the African political fabric.

And please, don't tell me about African culture.

That reminds me of the party elections of Kenya's Orange Democratic Party of Raila Odinga in Nairobi in February 2014. The party had called a National Delegates Conference to choose new leaders for the party. As the process went on, a group of "men in black' descended on the podium, scattered ballots, broke furniture and chased away party leaders.

Dressed in black suits and white shirts, the goons were reportedly hired by those who sensed defeat between two party factions. The idea was to disrupt and abort the proceedings. For a while the meeting was in a state of disarray but calm was restored and the meeting continued without further drama.

It emerged that the group was associated with Raila and the idea was to disrupt the assembly and thwart a take-over bid by youthful politicians. Raila himself confirmed later that the goons were actually ODM's security officials.

There is no direct comparison between the two events but the logic is there. That others can conduct peaceful election events, and we cant.

Unfortunately in Kenya, party nominations and elections are almost always not transparent. They are fraudulent and peremptory. Popular candidates are either replaced with relatives and friends of party leaders, or, losers are declared winners and winners are dislodged in favor of losers.

Thus, the country always appears to be in a campaign mode. Even as I write, Kenyans are still engrossed in discussions about what actually went wrong during the 2013 elections. It is a time-consuming, wasteful effort. As next year's polls approach, many are worried about what will happen.

During the last campaign there was an attempt to hold presidential debates but those debates featured people who had already nominated themselves as presidential candidates.

As parties belong to individuals, candidates select themselves for the highest office and expect people to vote for them. Such shenanigans almost always give the incumbent an advantage. No wonder, no incumbent has lost an election in Kenya since independence and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

It is refreshing that top Kenya opposition leaders including Raila, Musalia Mudavadi of the ANC, and Martha Karua of NARC, - all of whom have already nominated themselves as presidential candidates -and representatives from the ruling Jubilee Coalition, attended the Philadelphia Convention to see for themselves how party political meetings are conducted.

I hope they learnt something. If they didn't, then too bad. I hope also that if they did, they carried those lessons with them and will put them to good use.

If they can apply them in 2017, the party nomination exercise and the elections themselves will be fair, free and democratic. If they can't, it will be business as usual and nominations and elections will continue to be ridiculed and contested in courts of law.

And that is my say.

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.