Only African Resources, Not Migrants, Are Welcomed Into Western 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.

A History of Exploiting a Continent

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.

The Ted Talk Questionnaire: Yasin Kakande on Using TED to Expose the Abuse of Migrant Workers

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

Monday, July 31, 2017By Yasin KakandeTruthout | Op-Ed

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.


The book that caused my deportation from the UAE

Dubai is the modern epitome of cosmopolitanism. Its 21st-century panoply of economic opportunities reinforces the inviting veneer of its cosmopolitanism, which, at least, appears on the surface to be as enlightened as one would expect in a community that thrives on a monumental scale of innovation and enterprise. Dubai’s promise of lifelong prosperity and economic justice has attracted many citizens from all over the world – especially from underdeveloped countries such as Uganda. Success comes easily for some but also frustratingly slow for others. Sadly, many also must give up their dreams, as they realize that even in a desert oasis of so much economic promise the quest for tolerance, affirmation, and respect is, indeed, a universally challenging task.

The book represents a long journey and, to be honest, the book changed and morphed as the story developed and time continued to march on during the writing process. Initially, I planned to write the book focusing heavily on the deep presence of racism and discrimination that confounds and complicates the struggles of immigrants who come to Dubai looking for economic security and freedom. However, as the book took shape, I also learned more about myself, recalling my roots in my home country of Uganda and their still-evolving impact upon my life as an immigrant who came to Dubai and eventually established an active career as a journalist. Thus, even as I am still a relatively young man, I realized that the whole spectrum of my formative life experiences endowed a unique, genuine sense of cosmopolitanism that prepared me for the successes as well as the disappointments in the process of creating a productive, happy, and healthy life in Dubai. Furthermore, my experiences abroad have reinforced and strengthened the most essential aspects of my identity – family, the Muslim religion, and Ugandan roots, which are extensively chronicled in the book.

The book comprises many stories – all true, all real and all authentic – taken from a span of more than thirty years, covering my earliest memories and including most recent events, such as the death of my mother and the birth of my latest child in 2012. The only changes were in the names of some professional colleagues, friends, and social acquaintances – out of respect for privacy and discretion.

The book also includes many anecdotes about my work as a journalist in Dubai. Many readers might be unfamiliar with how the media operate in one of the world’s most progressive and economically developed nations. There are many similarities to mainstream media in other parts of the world but there also are some unique elements which emphasize just how precarious, fragile, and delicate the media’s professional commitments and ethics are amid the omnipresent shadows of press censorship and the opaque nature of official spokespersons who aggressively protect Dubai’s intricately constructed status quo. These tensions are most frequently observed in the day-to-day coverage of crime, business, public meetings and other routine events that constitute the bread-and-butter of local media throughout the world. Some of the most illuminating insights come from stories about immigrants, signaling themes that easily could apply to similar stories in virtually any other part of the world. In summary, the book explores many topics – how the coverage of crime and police matters, public health concerns (e.g., HIV and AIDS), racism and racial profiling, governmental accountability, corporate responsibility in accidents, and other reporting beats proceeds against a backdrop of tensions that pit an enlightened cosmopolitanism against the strict cultural, social, and religious mores closely associated with the region. Continue reading “The book that caused my deportation from the UAE”