POLITICS: African Editors Speak Out on an Impending War in Iraq

By James Hall Reprint | | Print |

James Hall

GRAHAMSTOWN, South Africa, Feb 28 2003 (IPS) - African newspaper editors and correspondents have been exchanging their views on an impending war in Iraq in a lively if one-sided debate over the Internet.

Members of the African Economic Editors Forum, composed of the continent’s top business and news editors, have been 100 percent opposed to the war. Their take on the conflict is from an African perspective, a view that is rarely heard on global issues..

In Africa, only President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, his predecessor Nelson Mandela, and retired South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu have publicly made their views known to the United States about the war. Others have chosen to remain silent.

Now African journalists are speaking out, perhaps, for their leaders who see no benefit in antagonising the U.S. government’s policy on Iraq.

One of the journalists, Kenyan Charles Rukuni summed up the discomfort other journalists were expressing about a single world superpower when he wrote, ”I believe the war is all about business. All (President George W.) Bush wants is to resuscitate the American economy that has lost 4 trillion U.S. dollars. And who is making sure the U.S. does not have the ‘weapons of mass-destruction’?”

The editors’ forum originated at the Rhodes University School of Journalism in Grahamstown, South Africa. Members post their views over a private Internet exchange. Usually, economic developments are at the forefront of discussion, but the seemingly imminent War in Iraq is dominating this week’s talk, in part because of the conflict’s impact on African economies.

From Ghana, editor Rayborn Bulley wrote, ”I must raise the issues of how the U.S. is using African countries to achieve its selfish aim. The fact is that African countries that do not have oil are suffering now because their economies have been thrown out of gear. It’s a fact that Ghana’s economy has been thrown out of shape by the high oil bills that the government has to pay for. This has resulted in the nearly 100 percent increases in the price of fuel.

”I think African leaders should draw a clear distinction between supporting a good cause and clinging to the apron strings of a nation that will support you with the right hand and push you into a deep ditch with the left,” he says.

South African journalist Francis Waithiegeni sent his reply over the Internet to his colleagues, ”I totally agree with Rayborn, and just to add something I heard a caller on South African radio the other day say: If Bush is going to invade Iraq because he needs its oil – as is surely the reason – who is next? South Africa when he decides he needs some of its diamonds or uranium or gold?”

The editors’ correspondence makes for uncomfortable reading for any American who sees the unanimity of negative opinion toward the Bush administration’s war policy. Ironically, it was an article from the Chicago Sun Times that prompted the debate.

On Monday (Feb 24) a story entitled ”U.S. demanding war support” reported how three African nations on the United Nations Security Council were being ”bullied” to support a new American resolution authorising force in Iraq.

”Senior U.S. officials have been quietly dispatched in recent days to the capitals of key UN Security Council countries, where they are warning leaders to vote with the United States on Iraq or risk ‘paying a heavy price’,” the article noted. ”For Angola, Guinea and Cameroon – poor African nations whose concerns drew little attention before they landed seats on the Council – there is the possibility that supporting Washington’s drive for a new United Nations resolution authorising war may reap benefits down the line.”

The newspaper quoted Angola’s U.N. ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins as saying, ”For a long time now, we have been asking for help to rebuild our country after years of war. No one is tying the request to support on Iraq, but it is all happening at the same time.”

The newspaper also quoted an unnamed U.S. diplomat, who said, ”In Africa, the message is simple: Time is running out, and we think they should support us.”

Any support for the U.S. position was lacking in the Africa Economic Editors Forum exchanges this week. Journalist Bestone Ng’onga of Kenya wrote, ”I wish African leaders could wake up from their slumber and realise that America cannot be a friend to trust unless one is mad. The people of America are indeed good people but the government is 100 percent opposite. Anything that stands in the way of America becomes an enemy. How can Bush say anyone not supporting America on Iraq issue is an enemy of America?”

”Who does Bush think he is? If the father (senior George Bush) failed to remove Saddam (in 1991) and now the son wants to do it by settling old scores, it has nothing to do with Africa. But alas, we are all suffering. Look at the prices of fuel, levels of investment in Africa and many other things that have suffered because of America and its war-mongering,” he said. ”As Africans we should stand up and say ‘NO’ to imperialism. What is happening in Iraq today may happen in any other country tomorrow. Remember Vietnam, Angola and now Congo. Who was behind all these wars? Saddam may be a demon, but who are we to think for Iraqis? Is war the only solution? Which country has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country? Is it not America itself? Then who is more dangerous to world peace now?”

From Nigeria, Adewale Adeoye was equally impassioned, ”It is too bad that the U.S. will not listen to public opinion either within or outside the United States or the United nations. It is obvious that the weapons inspectors have not found anything ‘incriminating’ as the U.S. would have wanted. Iraq will be hardened by the U.S. hard-line determination to bring woe unto that country’s armed forces, women, children and the aged. At the end, given the balance of forces, the U.S. might win the war, but definitely not the battle. The U.S. might control Iraq, but will not be able to rule the people. It would have been wise for the U.S. to abide by the decision of the UN, but as it is, the UN might just agree with the U.S. so as to save its face, as a helpless body, in the face of U.S. threat and cheap blackmail.”

And from Kampala, Uganda, editor Fred Ojambo wrote, ”Personally I think there are four overriding factors why Bush is bent on pursuing his war against Iraq against overwhelming public opinion against the war:

”With his background in the oil industry, it is definite he wants to install a puppet regime in Iraq that could enable America exploit the Iraqi oil. What is evident now is that America would never be a key player in the Iraqi oil industry with Saddam still in power.

”There is an election in the U.S. next year, and Bush is aware that the stakes against him are rising. So he believes that if he topples Saddam he could use it to portray himself as a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. Remember the Bush administration is desperately trying to link Saddam to Osama Bin Laden (the Saudi fugitive who Washington alleges was behind the Sep 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington).

”The poor performance of the American economy under Bush must also be a driving force for war, at least to divert the attention of the Americans.

”The fear that when he bows down to public opinion he will be viewed as a weak man could be playing a contributory role. There is this belief that strong leaders do what they think is right for their countries regardless of opposition towards their plans,” wrote Ojambo.

As the United States prepares for an Iraqi incursion, the voices of Africa’s intelligentsia are expressing views that are adamantly and in some cases bitterly opposed, raising the danger, as one editor wrote in their Internet exchange, that the U.S. might win the war but lose the battle of world opinion.