16 November, 2018 I will be speaking at Q Berlin QUESTIQNS 2018. As part of the opening session, I will discuss how to strengthen a society within current power structures. Learn more about the conference on the Q Berlin website.
16 November, 2018 I will be speaking at Q Berlin QUESTIQNS 2018. As part of the opening session, I will discuss how to strengthen a society within current power structures. Learn more about the conference on the Q Berlin website.
This article was first published in the global magazine Truthout, 9-September 2018
On August 13, Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni was attacked by an angry mob of Ugandan citizens who back the political opposition. Protesters surrounded President Museveni’s motorcade, pelting the vehicles with stones. One of the vehicles had its rear window broken.
Numerous political rallies by Museveni’s party and the opposition had been scheduled that day ahead of a parliamentary election in which the independent candidate Kassiano Wadri, while in detention, would win in Arua, Uganda — the third consecutive parliamentary election loss for Museveni’s party.
Museveni has responded brutally, as he has repeatedly during his 32-year tenure as president. That day, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu — the popular singer known as “Bobi Wine,” who also serves in the parliament — was arrested. After a music career of more than 15 years, Ssentamu has emerged as the most formidable political opposition against Museveni. Numerous disturbances have broken out around the country. Yasin Kawuma, Ssentamu’s driver, was killed.
On August 23, after not being seen or heard from for 10 days, Ssentamu was arraigned on charges of treason in a military court for allegedly possessing fire arms in his hotel room despite the fact that he is a civilian. Many were alarmed at his appearance, bearing physical signs of torture while he has been detained.
However, Ssentamu’s treatment is not an anomaly. Museveni has repressed his opposition on many occasions, all with the financial assistance of the US.
President Museveni has benefited extensively from US military support, most notably $444 million last year. Museveni’s record on human rights is clear in its abusive extent, including documented cases of torture and arbitrary detention of opposition leaders and their supporters. The Museveni government has repeatedly denied due process, imposed severe restrictions on press freedom and has been connected to numerous corruption scandals. But none of these circumstances has affected its relationship with the US.
Museveni is among the US’s most reliable allies in Africa, never hesitating to send Ugandan troops on behalf of US interests to influence the outcomes of regional conflicts in Somalia, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Kenya, where election-related violence broke out in 2007. In Sub-Saharan Africa, Museveni plays a role akin to the head of a brokerage firm for rebels, rebellions and peace missions.
His role has extended to the Middle East, where he sent Ugandans to work as security guards for US forces in Iraq. He also recently announced he will be sending 8,000 troops to fight alongside troops of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in Yemen.
As part of this relationship, many troops in Uganda have been trained by the US military, including using sophisticated communications equipment, night-vision goggles and small surveillance drones — all from US defense contractors. Ugandan troops deployed to Somalia travel in mine-resistant vehicles that once ferried US soldiers around Afghanistan. Ugandan choppers engaged in operations against warlord Joseph Kony are powered by fuel paid for by the US.
As disturbances have multiplied and become more volatile in the aftermath of Ssentamu’s arrest, the US embassy in Uganda recently issued travel warnings to any US citizens planning trips to Uganda, cautioning them to not get caught in the crossfire. Meanwhile, sanctions or cuts in military aid would seem unlikely, given the record of Museveni’s abuses and violations of human rights and how long they have not been acknowledged by the US.
The US consistently ignores the human rights violations and excesses of dictators whose militaries are backed with US funds. In 2014, a Human Rights Watch report documented incidents of sexual abuse by Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia, and this information did not bring any disciplinary action from Washington.
Regrettably, Museveni is not the exception in Africa. Many African despots appear to prefer heeding their Washington providers over their citizens, and whenever Washington has taken any action against their misdeeds, they have responded positively. For example, in 2014, when the US cut a small portion of its annual aid package and canceled military exercises with Uganda after it enacted a homophobic law, Museveni responded swiftly and revoked the legislation.
While the US seldom imposes consequences on the Museveni government for its human rights abuses, Ugandan citizens could campaign for more accountability.
The recent plight of Ssentamu has received commendable support not only from Ugandans at home who continue to protest in the streets and demand his release, but also from Ugandan migrants in the US and Europe. Demonstrations have been organized in Boston, Washington, Toronto, London and other cities where Ugandan immigrants are centered. Recently, scores of music celebrities — including Chris Martin, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Damon Albarn, Peter Gabriel, Adam Clayton, and Femi Kuti — signed an open letter demanding Ssentamu’s immediate release.
At a recent Boston demonstration, Ugandan migrants expressed criticism not just for President Museveni, but also the US in the context of conscience and concerns about hypocrisy. Many demonstrators are quick to point out that they are not “anti-American,” however. But they are still deeply unsettled about why governments in the US and Europe are consistently willing to support dictators in their home countries, especially when human rights abuses and crimes are plainly evident.
In Boston, one demonstrator voiced his support for fellow Ugandans at home to resist and reject Museveni not just on the streets, but also in their homes and places of work. He suggested creative forms of protest, such as hampering and preventing the military aides from emptying the mobile commode the president uses when he travels. He said that they should ship his waste along with the country’s oil to the US and Europe in exchange for more military hardware. US readers might see this as an absurd gesture, but many Ugandans, at home and abroad, are past the point of even the smallest bit of patience after more than 30 years of a heartless dictatorship.
Ugandan migrants are caught in a dilemma they find increasingly difficult to resolve with ease or peace of mind. Many, including those with extensive education and professional training, reluctantly left their homeland to find economic opportunity in a nation they respect and admire. Now, they worry about being rejected by their host country, as US President Donald Trump has said he prefers to end migrants coming from “shithole countries” like Uganda.
In 2018, the US asylum process has become even more difficult for refugees coming from Uganda and other countries deemed “friendly” to US interests. Well before Trump assumed office, most Ugandan migrants have had to wait on average of four to five months just for interviews, and many cases can take two years or longer. It doesn’t take a leap of comprehension to see why Ugandan migrants are frustrated to the point of anger, trying to understand why the US continues military funding for countries that subvert the basic foundations of human rights and dignity.
But Ugandan demonstrations, even in Washington, capture barely any attention from policymakers or the media. The audience for these protests is primarily African. It seems the only way to attract meaningful attention is to secure paid lobbyists. That option is off the table because migrants are working the “3-D” jobs (dirty, demanding and dangerous) at wages that might pay $12 an hour, if they are lucky. Further, many US taxpayers are unaware of just how much money goes to sustain dictators who barely care one whit about justice for their own people, politically or economically.
What could the frustrated people of Africa do to convince taxpayers and voters in the US to halt military funding that has become the lifeline for African dictators?
As they define strategies and tactics, African opposition parties must understand that independent sovereignty, especially in the economy, is extremely difficult to attain. Even if all of their country’s citizens supported their cause, it could never go anywhere without the blessings and goodwill of the US or Europe.
Political opposition movements must understand they must not only confront their country’s dictators, but also the full might of a long-running tradition of US military support and funding. Opposition political leaders would do well to counter the dictator’s representatives in Washington and London with their lobbyists, who can demonstrate that besides standing for human rights and democracy, they, too, are capable of representing US and European interests reasonably and responsibly. This should remove uncertainties about replacing long-serving dictators such as Museveni without upsetting the political and diplomatic balance.
To some, these suggestions may sound outlandish, but in the absence of evidence of improvements, the current realities demand more creative responses for overcoming the policy effects that have done little more than enable self-aggrandized dictators who have done nothing to stabilize the economic or political climates in their countries.
This article on the hypocrisy of countries blocking migrants was first published in the global magazine Truthout, 28-August 2018
Amidst waves of anti-immigrant populism that have crashed into European politics, the focus of what drives migration demands more attention. In Africa, specifically, the unchecked exploitation of the continent’s natural resources by corporations from outside countries has forced desperate choices upon its citizens. Migrants looking for their own modicum of economic justice have come to the West. But, once they arrive, they discover the extraordinary extents to which they must prove their “worthiness” and acceptance in the same European nations that benefited from taking their homelands’ natural resources for profit.
Earlier this year, Mamoudou Gassama, 22, who comes from Mali, scaled four floors of a Paris apartment building to save a boy who was hanging from the balcony. For his efforts, he was granted French citizenship. Meanwhile, on a global scale, the French World Cup team won the championship this summer with a diverse team: nearly 80 percent of its members are migrants, with a third of those identifying as Muslim. François Héran, an analyst of French demographics, estimated that one in eight residents in the country is Muslim, as of 2017. Also, according to Héran, at least one-third of the 200,000 migrants who come into France annually are from Africa.
Recently, the French Parliament adopted legislation that places new restrictions on migrants seeking asylum. It seems that even being seen as twice as “good” as the rest barely qualifies migrants for acceptance into predominantly white societies. At what superhuman level should migrants be expected to operate in order to eliminate the concerns or skepticisms aggravated by nationalistic, nativist sentiments?
This is not so different from my experience in Dubai, when I applied for a reporting job at The National newspaper. I had to prove to my European editors – coincidentally, migrants themselves – that I could cover the four northern emirates of Sharjah, Ajman, Fujairah and Ras al-Khaimah, where Arabic was the only spoken language.
The editor who recruited me once asked how I managed to cover events that were happening at about the same time in Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah, separated by about 56 miles. My response was simple: “Because that is the reason you hired me.” There was a tacitly agreed upon willingness (or desperation) to take on a load larger than what colleagues carried. And it was at a salary much less than that of other comparably qualified staff members.
My fluency in English and Arabic kept me at the job for more than five years. I worked on stories and shared bylines with other reporters, who happened to be white migrant professionals from Europe. Once the emirate government grew uncomfortable with my stories about the difficulties abused and disenfranchised migrants faced working abroad, I was deported with no support from my editors. I now have been in the US for nearly two years, and I am still perplexed about how to prove my own “superhuman” capabilities to legitimize my presence and role in US society.
Intolerance of migrants, especially of African descent, might strike some as a new phenomenon. But historical memories matter. For centuries, Europe sent out millions of its own migrants to settle elsewhere. In the instances of Africa and Asia, guns – not visas – set the movement’s pace.
To understand why the numbers of Africans continue to leave their homelands to work as migrants in the West, one must look to the history of how Africa has been hyperexploited in the global economy.
The continent’s natural and mineral resources are targets of predatory wealth where no costs are incurred for unfettered exploitation. In many African nations, dictatorial puppets, often handpicked and supported by their Western exploiters, continue this relationship. This occurs at the expense of their own citizens who need and would benefit the most from the resources of their homelands.
Meanwhile, the continent’s deprived migrants are seen as “nuisances” by white citizens in Western nations occasionally, but more often are portrayed as “burdens” that “threaten” the nation’s economic livelihood.
Last June, Pope Francis spoke about the topic in advance of a European Union summit on migration. He said:
When a country grants independence to an African country it is from the ground up – but the subsoil is not independent. And then people [outside Africa] complain about hungry Africans coming here. There are injustices there.
The pope’s remarks are consistent with what scholars have written. As Tom Burgis noted in his 2015 book, The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systematic Theft of Africa’s Wealth, Africa is both the world’s richest and poorest continent. A third of the planet’s mineral deposits are in Africa – including 40 percent of the world’s gold and 80 percent of its platinum. The continent holds nearly one-sixth of the crude oil reserves.
Migrants use all means, some perilous, to leave their exploited homelands seeking economic opportunity elsewhere. As gold mines, oil fields and large farms in Africa continue to be owned by Western investors and these vital resources are shipped or airlifted to the West, the stream of African immigrants will flow continuously. African migrants see no hopes in gaining their rightful share of this wealth. Simply, they leave because the risk of staying is the same as abandoning their countries.
Some gasped at Donald Trump’s unfiltered, unedited pronouncements, which historically echo sentiments that previously were uttered in private, never-to-be shared moments. Addressing a gathering of African leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in 2017, Trump said:
Africa has tremendous business potential. I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich. I congratulate you; they’re spending a lot of money. It has tremendous business potential, representing huge amounts of different markets. … It’s really become a place they have to go, that they want to go.
The same president, however, was disturbed by Africans whose “rich friends” have deprived their fellow citizens of economic opportunities and has triggered broad migration. Hence, he wondered aloud why the US should continue accepting immigrants from what he describes as “s**thole countries.”
Meanwhile, France is investigating two of its former presidents for alleged acts of corruption. Nicolas Sarkozy is accused of collecting 50 million euros from former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi for his 2007 presidential campaign. Jacques Chirac is accused of asking Robert Bourgi, lawyer and politician, of collecting and carrying for him cash from various African dictators. The value is estimated to total $20 million.
These two instances constitute just a small fraction of the examples of corruption, compared to what African dictators have doled out in mining concessions to European and US corporations. Businesses from banking to entertainment and sports in Africa are largely European or US-based. African governments have cowed to US pressure to continue taking in their used clothes at the expense of local African garment industries.
According to an analysis by Global Justice Now and the Jubilee Debt Campaign, as reported by the Guardian, more streams of wealth-building revenue leave Africa every year going to former colonialist countries than revenue streams coming into the continent. African countries received $162 billion in 2015, mainly in loans, aid and personal remittances. But, in the same year, $203 billion in revenue that could have sustained local African economies was taken from the continent.
If European countries and the US insist upon blocking African migrants from entering their borders, then perhaps they also should block African resources from entering their countries as well. Then, maybe African migrants will finally be able to reap their own economic benefits from the resources of their homelands — that is, if corrupt African leaders respect such embargoes and allow their citizens to take part in the wealth.
My TED Talk is now online, easily accessible to any viewer in the world, which further signifies the importance of the topic of this humble talk.
If you would like to share this with others, send this link: go.ted.com/yasinkakande
Download for free here my first book “The Ambitious Struggle,” on the plight of migrant workers in the rich Gulf Arab states. My reporting and unwillingness to be censored led to my deportation from Dubai.
Download the book here: The Ambitious Struggle by Yasin Kakande
How did you first find out you were selected?
I learned from an email that I had been selected. It popped up on my phone and from the headline it needed my reaction accepting the offer. I was going to a library but I could not wait to get there and use a computer to send my response, instead I pulled my car on the side of the road and using my phone I accepted the offer. I had been expecting they would take me as throughout the interviews, I had managed to sell my case to the TED team about being a witness of gruesome migrant worker abuses in the Middle East and how my efforts to put these abuses into a book had led to my losing a job and deported from my base in Dubai. Despite all odds being against me, I was determined to continue trying to put the case of poor migrant workers to the Middle East in light and I was considering TED as my next attempt. I thought I had good chances but still the news that I had been chosen was a big surprise and a “dream come true”.
Please read here my TED Talk Questionnaire
Saudi Arabia Is Buying Off and Silencing Its Critics
Deputy Crown Prince, Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Muhammad bin Salman Al Saud of Saudi Arabia disembarks upon his arrival at Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport, on September 3, 2016, in Hangzhou, China. (Photo: Etienne Oliveau / Getty Images)
The existence of Al Jazeera continues to pose a formidable problem for the Persian Gulf state monarchies. This reality was starkly revealed during the recent blockade in which Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates closed off food and medicine shipments to Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorism by funding and hosting Al Jazeera Arabic. The suppression was supposed to be carried out quietly, but Qatar’s protests revealed a disturbing game plan.
With its independent editorial voice, Al Jazeera (a media outlet where I have contributed articles) is the only major media outlet in the Gulf state region committed to watching and reporting on atrocities, and the persistent threats to human rights and democratic freedom of expression. Al Jazeera has stepped in when others — including the US and Europe — have remained silent. In exchange for silence, American and European interests have preserved and extended lucrative relationships in business as well as defense contracts.
If you are following the global mainstream media coverage of the Saudi-led war in Yemen, you will have noticed the looming silence about the war there, as compared to the frequent coverage of the war in Syria. In Yemen, thousands are dying from Saudi bombardments, starvation and the biggest cholera outbreak in the world. In one report, Yemeni prisoners said they had been crammed into shipping containers smeared with feces, blindfolded for weeks, sexually assaulted and beaten by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s main ally. One torture method, known as the “grill,” had victims tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire. Al Jazeera has been the only major media outlet in the region reporting about Yemen, so shutting it down could enable the Saudis and their Emirati friends to upgrade their atrocities to genocide.
There has been an additional cost for American and European interests. The Gulf petrodollar has strengthened, emboldening the acquiescence of US and European politicians, media and think tanks. Most Western universities and policy institutes receive impressively generous funding from the Gulf monarchies and, in exchange, the tone of academic discourse constrains the focus on human rights abuses and attempts to accommodate the Gulf state rulers from a pragmatic point of business relationships and global commerce.
Linked to this is the ever-manifest presence of law firms and lobbying groups in Washington, DC, especially from Saudi Arabia, that have influenced US policy and public opinion. Numerous entities have benefited from Gulf state donations, including the Middle East Policy Council, the Middle East Institute and the Smithsonian Freer Museum of Art, just to name a small handful.
As disturbing as this should be, partnerships between Saudi Arabia and international organizations empowered to protect human rights are even more worrisome.
Last month, Saudi Arabia won a seat on the governing body of the International Labor Organization (ILO) at the annual conference in Geneva. It will now be involved in setting the ILO policies, budget and program activities, and its presence could silence ILO critics who have called out Gulf states for widespread migrant worker abuses.
The Saudi kingdom, which just won a third term on the UN Human Rights Council, has also been elected to the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women — a peculiar step, given the kingdom’s less than egalitarian stance on rights and social privileges for women.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, appears to be trying to appease cash-rich Arab dictators while aggressively proselytizing about a human rights agenda to leaders of poorer nation-states. The message to human rights victims who happen to be in oil-rich states is to patiently endure the abuses until the inevitable time when these countries run out of oil and must reconfigure their economies. For now, the US and Europe side with the rich dictators. The West has ensconced itself in an alliance that is a profound betrayal of conscience, values and historical roots.
Trump has articulated a message that unsettles human rights activists in the region. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump blasted Hillary Clinton for taking money from Saudi Arabia, which, as he regularly noted, has a horrific human rights record and was behind the attack on September 11. However, as president, Trump visited Saudi Arabia, meeting all Gulf rulers during his first formal state visit. Effusively praising his hosts, Trump negotiated a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The deal does not include any contingencies or conditions seeking to take human rights guarantees into consideration. Rather, the deal is essentially a carte blanche gift to a nation with one of the worst records in atrocities that violate the sanctity of human rights.
In the 1960s, President Kennedy mustered the courage to ask the Saudi king to end slavery as a condition for sustaining the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia formally outlawed slavery as a result, though the extreme exploitation of (foreign) workers continued. Current US leaders have shown themselves to be even more inclined to predicate the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia on the accumulation of wealth rather than on questions about human rights and censorship.
So if governments, politicians, academic institutions, media and even non-governmental organizations are unable or unwilling to heed the voices of desperate people seeking to live with dignity and human rights in the Gulf states, then the question becomes, “Who will?” It is a vulnerable time for democracy and human rights in the region: The petrodollar appears to be corrupting everyone into silent accommodation. Preserving the status quo on a slim surface is apparently the only meaningful objective for many, regrettably.
Individual human rights activists, meanwhile, have suffered increasingly dire consequences for speaking up. Many activists in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have endured prolonged detentions with torture while others have been deported abruptly, cut off from their livelihoods and from their families.
The United Arab Emirates recently arrested Ahmed Mansour, reportedly the only human rights activist who was moving freely about the country. Ahmed has described himself as “the last man talking” in the United Arab Emirates and the region about human rights violations, as almost every other activist in the Gulf state countries is in jail, exile or has been silenced by the fear of what the authorities will do not only to him or her, but also to loved ones. Dr. Naser bin Ghaith, a distinguished economist, already has served a lengthy prison term.
For my work as a journalist and author who chronicled the extensive abuses and exploitation of migrant workers, I was terminated and deported from the United Arab Emirates. And after being outspoken against the sheikhs, I have found countless doors closed to me in both media and academic institutions, many of which are supported financially by the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf State interests.
The world should be asking, “What will happen to billions of innocent people who work hard to achieve a modicum of comfort and economic welfare when the last independent person of social conscience stops talking?” There is still time to reverse this ominous trend.