BF BANKIE:
Due to its denigration of African culture Arabia, since it’s incursion into Africa, has seen the continent as a civilization vacuum waiting to be filled by Arab culture and Islam.
The painful fact is that it was only with the initiation of the current peace process between Khartoum, in central Sudan and Juba in south Sudan and the international focus on the genocide in Darfur, that it became apparent to the public at large, that from Mauritania on the Atlantic coast, moving eastwards to Sudan on the Red Sea, despite careful concealment, that a system of apartheid was in operation in the Afro-Arab Borderlands, where Africa meets Arabia, in places such as Mali and Niger, which border on southern Algeria and southern Libya.
The potential for fighting arising from such a situation has manifested itself already in parts of Sudan, in Niger and in the on-going conflicts in the Sahel, involving groups such as the Touaregs in Mali and Niger. Concerned persons such as Prof Helmi Sharawy of the
Arab Research Centre for Arab-African Studies and Documentation (ARAASD ) in Cairo, Egypt and Prof Kwesi Prah of the Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS) in Cape Town, as well as Prof Dani Nabudere of the Marcus Garvey Pan-African Institute (MPAI ) in Mbale in Uganda, have been working towards the creation of a security mechanism to prevent conflict, by way of dialogue. Meetings have taken place between progressive Arabs and progressive Africans to find common ground and to implement restorative justice, by way of dispute resolution strategies, in a situation of historical opposition and mistrust. The former Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Prof Alfa Konare convened such a meeting of scholars in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia towards the formulation of ‘A Strategic Geopolitical Vision of Afro-Arab Relations’ from 11-12th May 2004 at the headquarters of the AU, in order to determine the various views and to look at potential solutions, by way of a civilization dialogue. It is all too apparent that some would wish to intensify the divisions and exploit them. Such forces have had the upper hand in the past. Only protracted, laboured, internal solutions, within the area, will help in the long term.
As the deep rooted historical problems of the Borderlands receive better understanding, well meaning people of peace will be obliged to find ways and means to handle an area of Pan-African affairs, where black Africans, due to their geopolitical weaknesses, have been in denial since self government came about in Africa in the mid-1950s. Indeed these skewered relations date back a millennia, from the initial interaction between the two peoples. It was only with the Darfur issue emerging as a genocide, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, that the organization for Pan-African unity, formerly called the Organization for African Unity (OAU), now known as the African Union (AU), concerned itself with developments in the Borderlands. Formerly these were off-limits. During the long years of war in south Sudan starting in 1955, the fighting there was not a matter of concern for the Pan-African body. The south Sudan conflict was said to be an Arab issue, for decision by the Arab League only. Such a view was supported by Libya.
Paradoxically, as it may appear, it was the Republican Administration of George Bush in the USA, which championed the cause of the Darfuri against the genocide and pushed the international community to conclude the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between Khartoum and Juba. History will draw its own conclusions as to why it was Bush and not the previous Clinton Democrat Administration which opted for peace in South Sudan. The Democrats did nothing to stop the war in South Sudan or to decisively intervene in the Sudan issue. They are remembered for bombing a civilian target in Khartoum, which was a pharmaceutical factory. They failed to concern themselves with the lives of the marginalized millions living in the Borderlands and were part of the cover-up. The last Democrat Administration in the USA saw central Africa, the Great Lakes and particularly the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in flames. The Democrats were part of the problem, not part of the solution. This might have been the most murderous period in the self-government era in this area of Africa. The policies in this area of the incoming Obama Administration have yet to receive clarity.
On the 22nd February 2003 the Drammeh Institute in New York and CASAS convened the Conference on Arab-led Slavery of Africans in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was attended by scholars from around the world, especially from Sudan and Mauritania. Conference stated that after centuries of silence and non-expression, it was time to speak out on the inequities visited against Africans in their relations with Arabs. It recognized the need to overcome collective amnesia and the need for research on African interaction with Arabs, the Ottomans and the Turks, all of whom played a key role in making north Africa what it is today. Conference promoted closer relations with the eastern Diaspora in Arabia, the Gulf states and points eastwards. It censored the implementation of genocide in Sudan and charged Arab societies with the ethnocide of African people through forced cultural Arabization processes over a millennia. Finally the conference called for the institution of a civilization dialogue between the Arab and African people.
Such a dialogue needs to take place between those living in the Borderlands, such as in Mauritania and in Sudan, with those in that area who profess to be Arabs. Some might assume that, for example, Afro-Brazilians, could conduct such a dialogue with the Arabs of the area. This would not be helpful. Neither would it assist if, for example, South Africans dialogued with Arabs. Africans in general, as has been said, have been in denial on these issues, and some still are. It is those who have felt the effects of the expansionist hegemony over a millennia, not the African Union, who can best begin a process of possible reconciliation, as seen in southern Africa.
Such a dialogue will, as and when initiated in an organized fashion, be fraught with difficulties and take centuries to have effect. The current Government of National Unity
(GONU) in Khartoum, Sudan, illustrates that the attempt at cohabitation of the National Islamic Front (NIF)/National Congress Party (NCP) of Omar el Bashir in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in Juba, South Sudan, has been anything but harmonious. The relationship has been characterized by deceit, lies and betrayal by Khartoum from day one.
Finally, the civilization dialogue between the African and the Arab must be conducted on a basis of strict equality and mutual respect. Such a dialogue, once its existence is formerly established, will take place in both formal and informal settings, where people meet formally and informally. It will need to be worked towards deliberately and continuously. At the moment Arab superiority to the African is a given, both in the Arab world and internationally. This explains China’s position on the Sudan issue, where due to economic interests, China is the principal defender of the Khartoum government and its main supplier of weapons. Another surprisingly vocal supporter of Bashir and Khartoum has been Tabor Mbeki.
The current international positioning for and against Khartoum, in the issue by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the Writ against President Bashir of Sudan, needs to be carefully scrutinized and followed. These manoeuvres do not just reflect support for a despot, but relate to initial positioning on the broad issue of Afro-Arab future relations and their global implication. What happens in Sudan today has application, for example, in Mauritania and the rest of the Afro-Arab Borderlands tomorrow. The domination of Arabs in this area was in the past a ‘given ‘ in the geo-political discourse. The facts of the area were difficult to locate ( the ratio of Arab to African in Sudan is concealed by the government of Sudan – the same applies in the rest of the Borderlands, right across to Mauritania ) and the area was not subject to analysis in the international media, being ‘off-limits ‘ for discussion in the west and east, in so-called ‘traditional diplomacy’. The well being of the area was determined by the neo-colonial arrangements left by the departing external actors, who monopolized developments in the area according to their own interests. The first generation of post-colonial leaders, such as Sekou Toure and Modibo Keita abided by these rules and did not seek to interfere with the colonial dispensation in the Borderlands.
What broke the mould was the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) of South Sudan, lead by Dr John Garang de Mabior, fighting on behalf of all the marginalized people of Sudan, including the Darfuri, the Beja of the east, the Nubians in the north of the country and others. The SPLA together with the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) forced
Khartoum to sign the CPA. This changed the course of history and the strategic balance in the Borderlands, from the Red Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, creating the opportunity to open the Borderlands to public scrutiny - an area which had been shut off from view. This led to the Darfur ‘rebellion’ and the further ramifications which are underway. The significance of the CPA, which cost three millon+ lives and long years of war, should be compared with the implications of the battle of Cuito Cunavale in Angola for Southern Africa. In the instance of the CPA the military struggles took longer due to international marginalization and indifference to the loss of African lives and was undertaken by Africans. In the international relations of the period 1950s-2005 the events in South Sudan did not feature in the media. The implications of this are that the resolution of issues such as Darfur and the Borderlands in general will have to be done by African actors, not by external players. Until Africans are strong enough the area, including Somalia, will remain war prone. Indeed this lesson should have been long learnt in the Congo basin. All these mean that the Pan-African body, the AU alone, has to be up to the historical responsibilities it faces. Gone are the days of external solutions. There is no other option to peaceful co-existence, combined with a preparedness to met force with force.
B.F.Bankie, former Researcher, Kush Institution, Juba, South Sudan
Showing posts with label au. Show all posts
Showing posts with label au. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The genocide in South Sudan and Darfur and its implications
B.F. BANKIE:
There were two main migrations out of Africa. There was the first exodus of the original man ( Homo sapiens sapiens ), who was black and who settled all over the world. The next migration out of Africa was forced by slavery. Although the western Diaspora in the Americas, the Caribbean and Europe is known, the eastern Diaspora, which preceded the western Diaspora by a millennium, is not generally known. The African eastern Diaspora is found wherever Africans were taken in Caucasia and Turkey, in Arabia, in the Gulf, in India and points further eastwards. The eastern Diaspora is coming into view, largely as a result of an increasing conscientiousness of African identity in places such as South Sudan and Darfur, where Africans who formerly, since time immemorial had identified themselves as Arabs, are coming to realise that they had been denationalised of their African identity, due to enslavement, colonisation, forced Islamization and Arabization.
For instance in Darfur, in western Sudan there are three main black African groups, the Fur, the Masaaleit and the Zaghawa. Interestingly, in the past the Islamic leaders of Sudan, such as Turabi, tended to all originate from Darfur. These three African ethnic groups, which in recent times have been the subject of genocide by central government in Khartoum, were widely used by Khartoum as shock troops in its war against south Sudan, and to good effects. They are remembered in the south for their callous brutality against southerners.
With the war coming to an end in south Sudan, with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005, the southerners attained some measure of self-government. The Darfuri Africans got nothing. It is this, and their long-term marginalization, which caused the Darfuri to go to war with Khartoum, in the realisation that they had been used by Khartoum, which through it’s genocide in Darfur, clearly saw the Darfuri not as fellow Arabs, but as inferior Africans. There is that well recorded statement by some Arab and Sudanese leaders that the Darfuri have yet to achieve full Arab status ( ie that they remained too African and insufficiently Arabised).
One of the central connections of Africa with its Diasporas is culture. However Arabised and westernised the African Diasporas are, they retain elements, sometimes distant, of African culture.
The study of African society, especially from the cultural perspective, teaches us that the unity movement of Africans should have consciously advanced through culture, then the economy, to finally arrive at the political union of Africans within or outside the continent – for the movement towards unity began in Africa, was taken outside Africa and was then carried back to Africa. The Charter of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) taught us that the organisation was dedicated to continental unity only, despite the Pan-African impulses which lead to its creation. Neither the OAU nor the African Union (AU) made any pretence to include the African Diasporas in their deliberations or administration. Yet the key link in the history of the African unity project is the linkage of Africa with its Diaspora.
As the significance of the struggle in the Afro-Arab Borderlands is better understood, so will the contestation around the African identity intensify. The Mauritanian, Garba Diallo says, ‘ a millennium of massive religious/ideological and human influx from the Middle East into the region has not only physically pushed the native population towards the south, but it has also displaced their African identity. The problem has become so profound that many of the Sahelian people cannot tell whether they are African, Arab or a mixture of both. This identity crisis is the root cause of the bloody wars of the Arabized regimes in Africa’. As the realities of this area are better understood, one of the consequence is likely to be fresh thinking about the sequences and consequences of unity.
Despite the happenings in the Borderlands (e.g. slavery, genocide, wars, racial oppression etc), which developed over a millennium, the states of Africa have in general been in denial and have chosen to ‘look the other way’, as regards these events, on the basis of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states. Thus the realities in the Borderlands were ignored as an issue in the OAU/AU and elsewhere by those who would be expected to champion the cause of their kith and kin. There has even been talk that concerned persons should ‘not disturb the peace’ by raising such issues at this time. Some Africans are saying that the issue of reparations for Arab-led slavery should not be addressed in this period of world history, due to ongoing developments in the Middle-East, again deferring the Arab question.
One of the first steps taken by the Khartoum government after self-government, was to join the Arab League. The support by the Arab League states to the government of the Sudan in Khartoum in its fight against south Sudan and African nationalism is long standing and substantial. The support of the Arab world by way of finance and in terms of military supplies, has at times taken the form of volunteers. Ben Laden, the Muslim fanatic, spent time in Sudan and in Juba, fighting on the southern front of the fundamentalist global Jihad. After Sudan he went to Afghanistan. Will he next proceed to Somalia ? This war by the central government in Khartoum has received consistent support from the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Hamas, it’s Islamist wing. Hamas is on record of receiving substantial material support from Khartoum. Africa has no comparative reaction to the quest of Arabia to push southwards its interests and to secure for the National Islamic Front (NIF)/National Congress Party (NCP) control of the headwaters of the Nile, as far south as Uganda, if needs be. The OAU/AU was unable to discuss these matters, given it’s internal financial situation.
The mercenary Lords Resistance Army (LRA), after moving from northern Uganda, was installed in Juba and supported for many years by Khartoum. Now that the LRA has relocated to the Congo, it most likely is still financed by Khartoum, to cause mayhem on the southern boundaries of Sudan. Such mayhem is used to soften up the area, before the jihadists go in to convert. This terror tactic was used in west Africa, in places such as Liberia and Sierra Leone. Africa, in the past remained in a defensive posture in its handling of Arab hegemony, suffering in silence, while sustaining its support for Arabia in its conflict with Israel. This embittered the southern Sudanese, who had begun fighting Arab colonialism on their own with traditional weapons in 1955. But for the protracted fighting of the southerners against Khartoum, Arab hegemony would have overrun the south and moved into Uganda. Turabi was intent on achieving this. As it was the southerners stemmed the tide of the Arab onslaught. In point of fact what has happened is that Arab influence moved round the south and into Somalia. It will not stop there. It must be understood that these are historical processes. After Somalia will come Kenya and after Kenya will come Tanzania. It is this push south, starting over a thousand years ago, which is the older and historically more significant feature of our oppression as a people, as compared with the western enslavement, which began some 500 years ago.
Despite the various international conventions supposedly assuring human rights for all, Africans were only recently considered subjects of international law, whereas before they were treated as its objects, and it was well known that in places such as South Africa, they were denied human rights by the apartheid system, later considered to be a crime against humanity. It was only by 1994 after the racist authorities in South Africa had come under sufficient international pressure, that a planned regime-change took place in that country, prior to which the international community had chosen to ‘look the other way’ as far as the human rights abuse, which went on in the country, despite the work of Smuts in the formation of the League of Nations. The question needs to be asked, why no anti-apartheid movement developed in solidarity with the south Sudanese or the Mauritanians? South Sudan lost some three million persons during the long years of war. Why are Africans apparently indifferent to the genocide currently going on in Darfur?
Sudan and other countries in the Borderlands continue to experience a similar situation as South Africa and Namibia prior to 1994. However, it needs to be stressed, that the situation in the Borderlands is more complex and its problems far more deep rooted than those found in Southern Africa. Sudan today, like South Africa was in 1994, is ruled by a minority, in this instance, a ‘coloured’ mixed race group, centred on Khartoum, implementing a Bantustan – type policy of separate development, with Khartoum accorded the benefits and South Sudan, Darfur, Nubia, Blue Nile, Nuba Mountains, the East etc, being marginalised and denied resources. Under Khartoum’s social conventions, black Africans are permitted status, only if they Islamise, Arabise and denationalise.
Central government in Khartoum is at war with large parts of the rest of the country, including areas, such as Darfur, where the population is largely Muslim. Weapons of mass destruction such as poison gas, aerial bombardment were/are used by the government against defenceless people. Rape is used as a weapon. The pattern of human rights abuse by Khartoum against not just South Sudan, but other areas and the absence of a co-ordinated international response substantiates the claim that Africans remain partial beneficiaries, of international human rights norms. For Arabia, Africa remains a civilisation vacuum, waiting to be filled by Arab culture and Islam. Whatever the truths of history concerning the African origins of world civilisation (Cheikh A.Diop), such tenets are not taught in schools in Arabia. The knowledge that the original civilisation in the Nile Delta was black African is denied the Arab people. African political elites are accorded deference in the Arab world and diplomatic protocols are observed in state to state relations. Sudan teaches that it is at the level of ‘people to people’ or ‘state to people’ relations that the spirit of the OAU/AU supposedly guided by Pan-Africanism, is in need of improved performance by the Arab brothers. Those in the Borderlands tell us that double standards are deliberately implemented and that cohabitation in places such as Sudan and Mauritania is an apartheid nightmare.
B.F.Bankie, former Researcher at the Kush Institution, Office of the President, Juba, Southern Sudan.
There were two main migrations out of Africa. There was the first exodus of the original man ( Homo sapiens sapiens ), who was black and who settled all over the world. The next migration out of Africa was forced by slavery. Although the western Diaspora in the Americas, the Caribbean and Europe is known, the eastern Diaspora, which preceded the western Diaspora by a millennium, is not generally known. The African eastern Diaspora is found wherever Africans were taken in Caucasia and Turkey, in Arabia, in the Gulf, in India and points further eastwards. The eastern Diaspora is coming into view, largely as a result of an increasing conscientiousness of African identity in places such as South Sudan and Darfur, where Africans who formerly, since time immemorial had identified themselves as Arabs, are coming to realise that they had been denationalised of their African identity, due to enslavement, colonisation, forced Islamization and Arabization.
For instance in Darfur, in western Sudan there are three main black African groups, the Fur, the Masaaleit and the Zaghawa. Interestingly, in the past the Islamic leaders of Sudan, such as Turabi, tended to all originate from Darfur. These three African ethnic groups, which in recent times have been the subject of genocide by central government in Khartoum, were widely used by Khartoum as shock troops in its war against south Sudan, and to good effects. They are remembered in the south for their callous brutality against southerners.
With the war coming to an end in south Sudan, with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005, the southerners attained some measure of self-government. The Darfuri Africans got nothing. It is this, and their long-term marginalization, which caused the Darfuri to go to war with Khartoum, in the realisation that they had been used by Khartoum, which through it’s genocide in Darfur, clearly saw the Darfuri not as fellow Arabs, but as inferior Africans. There is that well recorded statement by some Arab and Sudanese leaders that the Darfuri have yet to achieve full Arab status ( ie that they remained too African and insufficiently Arabised).
One of the central connections of Africa with its Diasporas is culture. However Arabised and westernised the African Diasporas are, they retain elements, sometimes distant, of African culture.
The study of African society, especially from the cultural perspective, teaches us that the unity movement of Africans should have consciously advanced through culture, then the economy, to finally arrive at the political union of Africans within or outside the continent – for the movement towards unity began in Africa, was taken outside Africa and was then carried back to Africa. The Charter of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) taught us that the organisation was dedicated to continental unity only, despite the Pan-African impulses which lead to its creation. Neither the OAU nor the African Union (AU) made any pretence to include the African Diasporas in their deliberations or administration. Yet the key link in the history of the African unity project is the linkage of Africa with its Diaspora.
As the significance of the struggle in the Afro-Arab Borderlands is better understood, so will the contestation around the African identity intensify. The Mauritanian, Garba Diallo says, ‘ a millennium of massive religious/ideological and human influx from the Middle East into the region has not only physically pushed the native population towards the south, but it has also displaced their African identity. The problem has become so profound that many of the Sahelian people cannot tell whether they are African, Arab or a mixture of both. This identity crisis is the root cause of the bloody wars of the Arabized regimes in Africa’. As the realities of this area are better understood, one of the consequence is likely to be fresh thinking about the sequences and consequences of unity.
Despite the happenings in the Borderlands (e.g. slavery, genocide, wars, racial oppression etc), which developed over a millennium, the states of Africa have in general been in denial and have chosen to ‘look the other way’, as regards these events, on the basis of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states. Thus the realities in the Borderlands were ignored as an issue in the OAU/AU and elsewhere by those who would be expected to champion the cause of their kith and kin. There has even been talk that concerned persons should ‘not disturb the peace’ by raising such issues at this time. Some Africans are saying that the issue of reparations for Arab-led slavery should not be addressed in this period of world history, due to ongoing developments in the Middle-East, again deferring the Arab question.
One of the first steps taken by the Khartoum government after self-government, was to join the Arab League. The support by the Arab League states to the government of the Sudan in Khartoum in its fight against south Sudan and African nationalism is long standing and substantial. The support of the Arab world by way of finance and in terms of military supplies, has at times taken the form of volunteers. Ben Laden, the Muslim fanatic, spent time in Sudan and in Juba, fighting on the southern front of the fundamentalist global Jihad. After Sudan he went to Afghanistan. Will he next proceed to Somalia ? This war by the central government in Khartoum has received consistent support from the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Hamas, it’s Islamist wing. Hamas is on record of receiving substantial material support from Khartoum. Africa has no comparative reaction to the quest of Arabia to push southwards its interests and to secure for the National Islamic Front (NIF)/National Congress Party (NCP) control of the headwaters of the Nile, as far south as Uganda, if needs be. The OAU/AU was unable to discuss these matters, given it’s internal financial situation.
The mercenary Lords Resistance Army (LRA), after moving from northern Uganda, was installed in Juba and supported for many years by Khartoum. Now that the LRA has relocated to the Congo, it most likely is still financed by Khartoum, to cause mayhem on the southern boundaries of Sudan. Such mayhem is used to soften up the area, before the jihadists go in to convert. This terror tactic was used in west Africa, in places such as Liberia and Sierra Leone. Africa, in the past remained in a defensive posture in its handling of Arab hegemony, suffering in silence, while sustaining its support for Arabia in its conflict with Israel. This embittered the southern Sudanese, who had begun fighting Arab colonialism on their own with traditional weapons in 1955. But for the protracted fighting of the southerners against Khartoum, Arab hegemony would have overrun the south and moved into Uganda. Turabi was intent on achieving this. As it was the southerners stemmed the tide of the Arab onslaught. In point of fact what has happened is that Arab influence moved round the south and into Somalia. It will not stop there. It must be understood that these are historical processes. After Somalia will come Kenya and after Kenya will come Tanzania. It is this push south, starting over a thousand years ago, which is the older and historically more significant feature of our oppression as a people, as compared with the western enslavement, which began some 500 years ago.
Despite the various international conventions supposedly assuring human rights for all, Africans were only recently considered subjects of international law, whereas before they were treated as its objects, and it was well known that in places such as South Africa, they were denied human rights by the apartheid system, later considered to be a crime against humanity. It was only by 1994 after the racist authorities in South Africa had come under sufficient international pressure, that a planned regime-change took place in that country, prior to which the international community had chosen to ‘look the other way’ as far as the human rights abuse, which went on in the country, despite the work of Smuts in the formation of the League of Nations. The question needs to be asked, why no anti-apartheid movement developed in solidarity with the south Sudanese or the Mauritanians? South Sudan lost some three million persons during the long years of war. Why are Africans apparently indifferent to the genocide currently going on in Darfur?
Sudan and other countries in the Borderlands continue to experience a similar situation as South Africa and Namibia prior to 1994. However, it needs to be stressed, that the situation in the Borderlands is more complex and its problems far more deep rooted than those found in Southern Africa. Sudan today, like South Africa was in 1994, is ruled by a minority, in this instance, a ‘coloured’ mixed race group, centred on Khartoum, implementing a Bantustan – type policy of separate development, with Khartoum accorded the benefits and South Sudan, Darfur, Nubia, Blue Nile, Nuba Mountains, the East etc, being marginalised and denied resources. Under Khartoum’s social conventions, black Africans are permitted status, only if they Islamise, Arabise and denationalise.
Central government in Khartoum is at war with large parts of the rest of the country, including areas, such as Darfur, where the population is largely Muslim. Weapons of mass destruction such as poison gas, aerial bombardment were/are used by the government against defenceless people. Rape is used as a weapon. The pattern of human rights abuse by Khartoum against not just South Sudan, but other areas and the absence of a co-ordinated international response substantiates the claim that Africans remain partial beneficiaries, of international human rights norms. For Arabia, Africa remains a civilisation vacuum, waiting to be filled by Arab culture and Islam. Whatever the truths of history concerning the African origins of world civilisation (Cheikh A.Diop), such tenets are not taught in schools in Arabia. The knowledge that the original civilisation in the Nile Delta was black African is denied the Arab people. African political elites are accorded deference in the Arab world and diplomatic protocols are observed in state to state relations. Sudan teaches that it is at the level of ‘people to people’ or ‘state to people’ relations that the spirit of the OAU/AU supposedly guided by Pan-Africanism, is in need of improved performance by the Arab brothers. Those in the Borderlands tell us that double standards are deliberately implemented and that cohabitation in places such as Sudan and Mauritania is an apartheid nightmare.
B.F.Bankie, former Researcher at the Kush Institution, Office of the President, Juba, Southern Sudan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)