Southern African countries left reeling

In the aftermath of the terrible events unfolding in South Africa over the past few days, in which the BBC says at least 42 have been killed and 15,000 forced to flee their homes, countries neighbouring South Africa should take a long, hard look at themselves.

It is not just a South African problem. Certainly, the riots and looting started in South Africa. But it is a direct result of neighbouring countries policies, which have caused between three and five million Africans to move into South Africa, heightening tensions in a country which already has 30% unemployment. The Daily Telegraph said that 30,000 were fleeing the country, with Mozambique receiving the majority of the returnees. The BBC said that the Mozambique government was laying on buses, to take 9,000 frightened people home.

But this shouldn’t have come as a surprise to those familiar to the region. I remember well in December how I sat in one newsroom talking to the Africa desk about their fears for the future of the countries surrounding South Africa. They feared for the Zimbabwean election; the spectre of Jacob Zuma; they fear for the instability of the region if South Africa stumbles.

Joeseph Warungu, head of BBC Africa, puts it thus: “Power and the ballot, power and energy and powerful tummy pains due to hunger and poverty. We will be watching SA and how it responds.”

The world’s eyes are now beginning to turn towards southern African nations. And they should show that they can deliver honest, accountable governance and hope for the future, rather than violence and instability.

South Africa’s “Ostrich” leader - part two

An interesting response to my last post from Simon Barber, US Country Manager for the International Marketing Council of South Africa.

He is completely right in saying that Mbeki deserves a harder analysis than I provided; I hold my hand up and say I am certainly guilty of not knowing enough about the country and it’s politics. I wish I knew more; I am trying.

And it was interesting that Simon Barber referred to the worrying “herdlike mentality” of journalists writing about Mbeki. It’s something Mark Tran picked up on in his blog in The Guardian, in which he sited an interesting article in South Africa’s Mail and Guardian newspaper, under the headline “Days of Shame“.

Written days after I wrote my piece, it is interesting how the themes I skirted over were expanded upon by this article in one of South Africa’s national newspapers, in light of the recent terrible attacks taking place in the country.

“It is clear the African renaissance remains a pipedream when South Africans kill and rape their African brothers and sisters purely for not being South Africans. It again underlines the fact that Mbeki left his society behind as he traversed the continent signing peace deals. He failed to sell his pan-Africanism to his own people.

His head-in-the-sand attitude towards Zimbabwe’s problems has served only to deflect those problems on to the poor. As, daily, thousands of Zimbabweans sneak through our porous borders, we can’t help but remember Mbeki’s mantra on Zimbabwe: ‘Crisis, what crisis?’”

 

South Africa’s “Ostrich” leader

How can Mbeki be so blind?

One day he is congratulating Mugabe, shaking hands and smiling, denying any problem in Zimbabwe. The next he is dealing with the sharp increase in attacks on Zimbabweans fleeing into South Africa and being set upon by the locals.

Then he turns and says that preparations for the 2010 World Cup are going along exceptionally well.

He is looking increasingly like a King Kanute figure, trying to stop the tide by his rhetorical flourishes as South Africa becomes increasingly mired in the region’s problems. He continues to ignore the challenges facing the country, and keeps his head firmly stuck in the sand.

Until Mbeki - a crucial figure in regional politics, representing the powerhouse of African affairs - stands up for himself and his country, no good can come out of these turbulent times.

Is photojournalism dead?

Surely one of the greatest ironies of modern journalism is that, despite our insatiable appetite for images and visual news, there are mutterings that photojournalism is dead.

Our attention span has been reduced to a 30 second, picture-driven news flash; pictures of celebrities sell for tens of thousands; a publication’s reputation depends on the quality of it’s images; and the budget for advertising photography would pay most photojournalist’s salary several times over. Any yet still we think that photojournalism is dead?

It’s not a new concern. For many years people have been wrestling with the issues. And certainly the improvement in cameras, coupled with the rise of blogging and web technology, has meant that it is not just those who are Magnum-certified who can get out there and publish decent shots.

But I think it is wrong to say that the craft of photojournalism is dead. There will always be a place for quality photography, and for photojournalists who take great pride and care in their art. Indeed, our image-driven media environment should encourage budding photojournalists.

One of the most inspiring photojournalists I’ve come across is Marcus Bleasdale, who has spent 10 years documenting the situation in the Congo. His photos are phenomenally powerful. And although finding outlets for his work can’t be easy, he is so convinced by the value of the cause that he persists. Whoever sees his images cannot fail to be moved. Perhaps, in this time-starved society, where finding 10 minutes to sit down and read an article is a struggle, the power of photojournalism is even more relevant?

Demystifying the Congo

Fantastic talk last night at the Frontline Club all about the Congo.

The panel was great; Michaela Wrong of the Financial Times and New Statesman; Marcus Bleasdale, a photojournalist who has worked in the Congo for 10 years; Dino Mahtani from the Financial Times and Reuters, and Mulegwa Zihindula, spokesman for President Joseph Kabila from 2002-2004.

And the discussion really got firey. One Congolese man stood up, introduced himself as a journalist, and then tried to flog his yet-unpublished book. Another embarked upon a rant about how Rwandan president Paul Kagame was all to blame. Insightful stuff.

But the most dramatic moment was when a British film-maker accused the panel of indulging in “the pornography of disaster”. It was as if she had come prepared to make her speech, for the accusations she levelled at the panel were completely without foundation: she said there was no context to the discussion, when they had spent 90 minutes putting the issues into context. She said that coverage was all about finding a dying child and talking through it’s last minutes (particularly directing her venom at Radio 4’s series of programmes about the DRC). And she slated the rest for showing graphic images that drove away investors and thrilled in it’s depiction of the horrors of war.

But she completely missed the point. The whole idea of “demystifying the Congo” is explaining how, with the war directly killing so few, so many are dying of treatable diseases and hunger. And forums like this are the perfect place to “demystify” the Congo; indeed putting everything into context and debating the causes and solutions. As Marcus Bleasdale so succinctly put it, perhaps we are dwelling on the horrors of it, but while children are dying in their millions, then we should continue to force the issue to people’s attention.

An African Broadcast Charter?

An interesting discussion today ahead of the Arab Broadcast Forum  held later this week in Dubai. And while we were talking about the Arab League’s creation of a media charter, I was asking myself if Africa needs such a thing? Would it be a good idea? Could the African Union draw up the equivalent of the Arab League’s document?

Is anyone listening?

Last night at the Frontline Club there was an interesting discussion about African media, and how the rest of the world portrays Africa.

And they began by asking whether it mattered how Africa was portrayed.

This struck me as a bizarre note on which to start; how could it not matter, when trade, development and essentially all hope lies upon how we see Africa? I am not arguing against those who said that Africans must learn to work for their country’s good themselves, but if they start off by believing that they can exist in a bubble, then they are destined to fail.

The “Iron Lady” of Liberia

I read with surprise that Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is currently visiting the United States.

Not surprise that she was visiting, but surprise that her visit was so low key. I only discovered it by chance through AllAfrica.com - there was no mention on CNN, no mention on ABC, and of course nothing on Fox and the rest of them. But why was her trip so hush-hush? Why weren’t Africans lauding her?

Perhaps she wanted to keep her visit quiet. Perhaps she didn’t want a fuss. But as the first female president of Africa, she should be celebrated and praised; held up as a shining example of progress. In a continent so often associated with war, disease and disaster, it is a shame that the American media ignored this success story right under their noses.

I recalled an interview I conducted several weeks ago with Siatta Scott-Johnson, a Liberian journalist and film-maker. Siatta’s film, Iron Ladies of Liberia told of Ellen’s first year in power and showed that there were indeed positive stories coming out of Africa. I spoke to her later in her hotel for over an hour; she was bursting with ideas and life and vitality.

Of course it would be wrong to overstate the changes Ellen has made within Liberia; everyone admits that there is still a long, long way to go.

But surely we should give praise where it is due? And to rescue Liberia from years of civil war, turn it around and be herding it in the right direction is definitely something which should be praised. The American media should have seized the opportunity to talk to Ellen, to inspire others, and to show that not everything coming from Africa is about famine, destruction and despair.

Africa’s deafening silence

I watch the events unfurling in Zimbabwe with growing sadness and despair. It’s been over four weeks since the elections took place, and still the victor has not been announced. That Mugabe should cling onto power by any means necessary is not surprising; but that African leaders should remain so silent is both surprising and terrible.

Where is Mandela, the ultimate great African leader? Where is Kofi Annan? Why has John Kuffour, the highly-respected Ghanaian president and head of the African Union, remained so quiet?

It is understandable that Africa is loath to invite international interference in their affairs. And yet why don’t the African leaders themselves take up the challenge to defend the interests of the people of Zimbabwe?

South African premiere Thabo Mbeki is looking increasingly foolish, meeting Mugabe two weeks ago to state that there is ”no crisis” in Zimbabwe; pictured smiling and holding hands with “Uncle Bob” as the country imploded around him.

 

Observers have noted that Mbeki looks like he feels it his duty not to “break ranks” with his fellow African leaders.

Tom Wheeler, research fellow at the South African Institute for International Affairs, said: “By not putting pressure on the Zimbabwean government when it started becoming clear the election had gone to the MDC, he did not do anyone any good. Much damage has been done.”

“There doesn’t appear to be much of an international role for him left, except perhaps within that group of African leaders into whose hands he had played - those that are happy to subvert democratic rule.”

And what does this mean for Africa, if the continent’s influential leaders are indeed “happy to subvert democratic rule”?

Britain should be praised for highlighting the issue, as should much of the media internationally. The Washington Post published an editorial claiming that Mugabe had stolen the election, while The Economist called his actions “unconscionable”. The Guardian has followed events comprehensively, writing about the “poor billionaires” who cannot survive the horrific economic conditions.

But the situation needs more than David Miliband ranting, or The Guardian’s critical editorials.

It needs African leaders to stand up and make their voices heard. Because this deafening silence on the end of democracy cannot continue.

It began in Africa

It began in Africa.
Well, not exactly in Africa - but certainly inspired by the continent.

Inspired how? Aged 18, trekking off to Ghana, for my first real job as a journalist, falling in love with the continent and vowing to return. And aged 25, back in London now, looking for inspiration for journalistic projects, and again returning to Africa in my dreams and in my writings.

A documentary as part of the Human Rights Watch film festival was to provide my inspiration. Entitled The Greatest Silence: Rape In The Congo, the story of the Congolese women was sickening, inspiring and stirring. You couldn’t fail to be moved by the film, and to ask the question: Why is Africa so ignored? Why do we sit back and do nothing?

How ironic that Africa is known as the cradle of humanity, and yet is so ignored by the other supposedly civilised nations when tragedies occur. Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone - we turned a blind eye for as long as we could.

But there is more to Africa than that. And I suppose that is why I am so fascinated by the continent; not only is it under-reported; it is also mis-reported, with only negative stories coming out. Where are the business, the fashion, the sports, the success stories?

It began in Africa. My love for travel, for the world around me, began in Africa. But it doesn’t end there.