News — @

ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISM COMES TO BALANTA PEOPLE IN TINKA VILLAGE, BISSORA SECTOR, OIO REGION, NORTHERN GUINEA BISSAU

January 23, 2024 - Republic of Guinea Bissau

NÔ RAIZ COLLECTIVE OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESS

“Coletivo NÔ RAIZ, is a civil entity, focused on the restoration of African knowledge and ancestral values, non-profit, non-partisan, constituted for a period indeterminate, whose foundation is based on the emancipation and affirmation of Africanity.

The aforementioned Collective became aware through the social network of the Guinea-Bissau National Television (TGB) of a divisive video with precepts of Islamic fundamentalism. It is worth mentioning that (TGB) covered the conversion ceremony to Islam for the people of the Tinka village, Bissorã sector, Oio Region, northern Guinea-Bissau.

The ceremony was carried out by members of the Dhawa Barriga do Povo Foundation, on the occasion, the president of the foundation Mohamed Gomes stated that the objective of his organization is essentially to transform the village of Tinka into a Muslim community and those who oppose the Islamic faith will be expelled from the village, even he stressed that they will build the mosque, water holes, also monitor the food and contribute to ensuring that men and women have sustainability funds in the name of Allah.

In view of the above, Coletivo Nô Raiz expresses its deep displeasure with the messages given by the president of the Dhawa foundation, taking into account that it harms seriously the Constitution of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau with regard to secularism and at the same time the principles of good coexistence postulated in different diverse communities throughout the national territory.

We would like to remind the chairman of the Dhawa foundation that the construction of the Nation State of Guinea-Bissau emerged in the context of diversity, which is why the charter Magna adopted a plurality of religious and spiritual manifestations, in this order of idea it is necessary to encourage respect for different cosmoperceptions, in which there is reciprocal consideration between Bissau-Guineans who practice the most different forms of religious and spiritual practice, therefore, logic does not prevail patent of the colonizer that is based on expulsion, humiliation and division, in this way, No citizen can be expelled from their place of birth for not accepting the Islamic faith or any other religion.

Therefore, the NÔ RAIZ Collective comes through this note to denounce the indecent and hostile behavior of the president of the Dhawa Barriga do Povo foundation and hold him responsible for any incident. We also hold Guinea-Bissau Television (TGB) responsible for broadcasting the matter contrary to the press law that puts national unity at risk.

Therefore, we appeal to the Order of Presidents of Journalists and Journalists Unions and Social Communication Technicians (SINJOTECS) to take action against media bodies that disseminate information that incites violence and that also violates the press law.

Likewise, we appeal to the Government of Guinea-Bissau, Guinean League of Rights Human Rights (LGDH), Association of Young Promoters of Human Rights (AJPDH) and the Imams to intervene in the matter.

NÔ RAIZ repudiates all actions of religious fundamentalism that jeopardize good coexistence among Bissau-Guinean citizens.

Below is the attached video.”

Balanta discussing the declaration of war made by Mohamad Gomes and members of the Dhawa Barriga

On Wednesday, January 24th, Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America President Siphiwe Baleka attended the Coletivo NÔ RAIZ press conference to express solidarity on behalf of the estimated 30,000 Balanta descendants in the United States. Information provided by the Collective indicates that the Islamic Organization instructed the converts to expel from their homes or villages all those who did not agree to convert.

“Because they refused to convert, they are being threatened with expulsion from the tabanca. They are forcing converted brothers to expel their brothers who refused to do so,” Mr. Pereira said.

“We applaud the Collective’s strong stance against the religious supremacy, religious cleansing and terrorism being brought against the Balanta people in the Tinka village. It amounts to terrorism and it is a violation of human rights and international law. The Balanta Society in America stands with you in opposing this evil and we will use our networks to attract international attention,” said Mr. Baleka.

After the press conference, arrangements were being made to visit the village in a few days. Already, several Balanta representatives have traveled to the region to investigate.

NÔ RAIZ COLLECTIVE press conference, January 24, 2024.

Siphiwe Baleka with Carlos Peirera (right), Coordinator of Coletivo NÔ RAIZ”

Siphiwe Baleka with Ncanande Ca

On Wednesday morning, January 25, Carlos Peirera was scheduled to appear on the national television program Bom Dia Guinie. However, minutes before the live interview, TGB suspended the program. It should be noted that earlier this year, the President of the Republic, Umaro Sissoco Embaló, dismissed the Managing Director of TGB, journalist Tengna Na Fafe, and replaced him with the new Director General of TGB, Dr. Amadú Djamanca who took office just two days prior on January 23.

Is the President of the Republic, Umaro Sissoco Embaló CONNECTED TO THE Dhawa Barriga do Povo?

While there is no evidence connecting the President to the Dhawa Barriga do Povo Foundation, the fact that his hand-picked national TV Director canceled the interview with Mr. Pereira, raises suspician. Why is the President protecting terrorists?

First, we need to understand some aspects of his background. Embalo is a member of the Fulani ethnic group who studied social and political science in Spain and Portugal.During his service in the military, he trained in National Defense Studies at the National Defense Center of Spain, and underwent further studies on National Security in Brussels, Tel Aviv, Johannesburg, Japan and Paris. A reserve brigadier general, he retired early in the 1990s and and launched an investment fund set up by the then Libyan government. etween 2016 and 2018, he serves as Prime Minister under President Jose Mario Vaz. At the time of the elections, 47-year-old Embaló favoured wearing a red-and-white Arab keffiyeh headdress. During the election run-off, Embaló formed alliances with the other defeated candidates, including the outgoing President Vaz, to win 53.55 percent of the votes.

It is important to remember how the President came into office. According to the BTI Guinea Bissau Country Report 2022,

“The outcome of the presidential election, which eventually took place in November and December 2019, was highly contested. Former Prime Minister Umaro Sissoco Embaló of the pro-Vaz Movement for Democratic Change (MADEM-G15) emerged victorious from the elections. Meanwhile, the PAIGC argued that the elections were manipulated and took the case to the Supreme Court. Following the confirmation of the results by the electoral commission, Embaló declared himself president in February 2020. That way,

Embaló bypassed both the Supreme Court and the parliament. The army secured the ceremony by deploying a significant number of soldiers.

Gomes and the PAIGC have described this as a putsch. Although the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ultimately recognized Embaló as president, many international actors such as the European Union only “took notice” of the takeover without formally recognizing Embaló. Fourthly, after Embaló’s self-inauguration, troops invaded the Prime Minister’s Office while Embaló sacked Gomes. Gomes fled to the French embassy, then stayed at the U.N. headquarters in Bissau. The same day, Embaló nominated Nuno Gomes Nabiam (Assembly of the People United–Democratic Party of Guinea-Bissau, APU-PDGB) to be the new prime minister. Gomes and the PAIGC questioned the legitimacy of Embaló and Nabiam.

The army also occupied other state institutions, including state-owned radio and TV stations, the Supreme Court, and the parliament, as well as the home of leading PAIGC officials and former government members.

The brief interim presidency of Speaker of the Parliament Cipriano Cassamá (PAIGC) ended when Cassamá resigned following alleged threats by the army. Intimidation and repression have increased.”

Two years ago journalist Eduardo Campos Lima reported that Bishop José Lampra Cá, a priest in Guinea-Bissau, received death threats after he posted critical comments about President Umaro Sissoco Embaló on social media on January 2, 2022. Lima warned,

“That is an unacceptable attempt of intimidating and silencing people with a critical view of the government. They [Embaló and his supporters] want to implant an authoritarian and absolutist regime, so they have difficulties to deal with discordant opinions,” Bubacar Turé, the Bissau-Guinean League of Human Rights Vice President, told Crux.

Turé accused Embaló of human rights violations against journalists, members of civic organizations, and religious leaders.

“He is waging war against everybody. He is totally isolated now, that is why he attempts to manipulate people from his ethnicity, the Fulani, and from his religion, Islam. But only small segments support him,” he said.

About 45 percent of the 2 million Bissau-Guineans are Muslim and 22 percent are Christian. Turé said that the country has a religious atmosphere of tolerance and that Embaló will not succeed in his effort to create inter-faith conflicts.

“He tried to manipulate Islamic organizations after the bishop’s comments, with the intention of making them publish a statement against the Church. But they refused to do so. Only a small group did it,” Turé said.

Tamba said that the Catholic Church has a great moral authority in the country, something that displeases the President.

“By attacking a bishop or threatening a priest, he thought he would be able to silence us. But that is not true,” the priest said.

The priest added that Embaló, who once compared himself to the Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte – notorious for his zero tolerance on crime policies and the object of several accusations of human rights violation – will not be able to consolidate a dictatorial regime in Guinea-Bissau.

“But he will keep trying to do so. His tactics is dividing to conquer,” Tamba said.

As ethnic Fulani, Embaló is the first Muslim to occupy the presidential office. At his inauguration, attended by only two foreign representatives, the ambassadors of Gambia and Senegal, Sissoco Embalo vowed to be president of all "regardless of their ethnicity or religion." The new President stated “I have no role model, I admire no one,” and that his governing style is that of "Embaloism", which he defines as "order, discipline, and development", asserting that "there is neither small state nor small president".. Filipino Rodrigo Duterte , a populist leader who has distinguished himself since his election in 2016 by serious human rights violations in the name of the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of national security. “In three months, he put an end to many institutionalized practices” , says President Embaló. One of the first acts of the President Embaló was ordering the installation of CCTV surveillance cameras across the country.

Indeed, the reign of President Embaló has seen increased attacks on the media, as documented by the Committee to Protect Journalist (CPJ). On March 12, 2021 in the capital, Bissau, five armed men in plain clothes attacked and tried to abduct Adão Ramalho, a reporter for the local broadcaster Radio Capital FM, while he was covering the return of exiled opposition leader Domingos Simões Pereira. The men beat Ramalho with their rifles, punched and kicked him, and tried to shove him into an unmarked vehicle, he said. He resisted, and bystanders intervened and pulled him away from the attackers. Previously, on March 9, a group of four unidentified men abducted, robbed, and beat journalist António Aly Silva in Bissau, as CPJ documented at the time. Silva told CPJ that he suspected the attack may have been linked to a recent article he had written criticizing the administration of President Umaro Sissoco Embaló.

On July 21, 2021, a Guinea-Bissau Coast Guard officer assaulted and detained Emerson Gomes, a presenter and trainee journalist at Djan-Djan Community Radio in Bubaque, a town in the country’s Bijagos archipelago, accusing the outlet of spreading false news.

On February 8, 2022, a group of about four unidentified men fired guns at the headquarters of privately owned Radio Capital FM, a critical outlet that covers politics and social issues in Bissau, the capital, and then broke into the office and ransacked it. The attackers, some in military uniforms and others in civilian clothes, shot and destroyed broadcasting equipment throughout the office. The station often reports critically on the government of President Umaro Sissoco Embaló, and that morning had hosted a call-in show for listeners to comment on the country’s failed February 1 coup attempt.

President Embaló’ dissolved the National Assembly in May 2022 after falling out with lawmakers, describing the legislature as a "space for guerrilla politics and plotting".

On October 10, 2022, armed men in police uniform arrived at privately owned Rádio Galáxia de Pindjiguiti in Bissau to arrest Tiano Badjana, the station’s acting director. The incident followed the station’s broadcast of a news report that day about the disappearance of a large amount of drugs seized in a police operation that implicated the Public Order Secretary of State, Augusto Kabi.

On November 29, 2022, a group of men including the head of security for Guinea-Bissau’s president abducted Marcelino Intupe from his home and assaulted him. Intupe, a lawyer and political commentator for the privately owned broadcaster Radio Bombolom, had criticized a rally attended by Tcherno Bari, the head of the president’s security force.

In a January 9, 2023 letter, the Ministry of Media ordered the privately owned Radio Capital FM to cease broadcasting immediately - the only outlet to have its license revoked under the pretext of not paying licensing fees.

The above, by no means exhaustive, demonstrate President Embaló’s dictatorial intolerance of free speech and political dissent and opposition. On January 8, 2024, President Embaló ordered the use of hot water and tear gas on peaceful protestors. BBHAGSIA President Siphiwe Baleka was detained and had his cell phone seized..

Then, on January 16, Botche Cande, in violation of the Constitution, prohibited all public demonstrations. Two days later, Decade of Return Coordinator Diana Taborda Gomes was captured by armed security forces and detained.

So what does any of this have to do with Mohamed Gomes and the Dhawa Barriga do Povo Foundation? Nothing as of yet. However, last year, President Embaló used security forces against the will of the people to demolition Bissau’s only protected green space, the Lagoon of Mbatonh in order to build a mosque.. This caused outraged from civil society. As one commentator put it, “DESTROY A NATURE PARK LIKE M'BATONHA TO BUILD A MOSQUE AND SCHOOL FUNDED BY TURKEY??? IS THERE ANY MORE ROOM FOR THIS?” The project is implemented by the Bissau City Council, in partnership with Monte – ACE with funding from the EU and the Camões Institute.

Sociologist, journalist and university professor Diamantino Domingos Lopes, also secretary of SINJOTEC, the Guinean media organization, said he could not remain silent in the face of the extermination of the Parque Mbatonha lagoon.

"I can't stay silent. It's hard to believe that this is happening, true environmental destruction. Just comparing the images, it is easy to see that we are facing total ignorance, for all that is sociocultural, traditional and environmental value. . . . They simply decided to murder the animals that live there and compromise all interests and visions focused on ecological protection. Located in the city center, the lagoon is the only surface freshwater reservoir in the region, where more than 100 species of birds come to feed or nest. . . . Some questions for the Bissau City Council, the city's management entity, what is the reason for this extermination of the lagoon, which guarantees life for many living beings? Who is the owner of this project, or rather what they intend to build in this location, which gives rise to this vile environmental crime?”

President Embaló’s respone? “development outweighs environmentalism”. The immediate judgement from God and the answer from nature was to flood the city!

Are we witnessing the Islamization of Guinea Bissau? Are Mohamed Gomes, the Dhawa Barriga do Povo Foundation, and President Embaló all part of some plot? According to Aid to the Church in Need (ACN),

“The long-standing cordial relationship between Christians and Muslims in Guinea-Bissau is under threat with the ongoing religious-based intimidation that targets churches, the Catholic Pontifical and charity foundation, Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), has said.

According to the charity foundation that supports the people of God in countries experiencing extremism, recent activities in Guinea-Bissau, including a church vandalization, bribing Christians to convert to Islam, as well as the springing up of Mosques in every part of the country casts a dark shadow over the future of Christianity in the West African nation.

“First was the attack, never seen before in Guinea-Bissau, on a church. It was in July. Then, in September, the government decided to suspend tax exemptions for the Catholic Church. In the middle of all this and for some time now, the construction of new mosques has been proliferating throughout the country,” ACN says in a Friday, December 9 report.

The Catholic charity spoke to Casimiro Jorge Cajucam, the Director of Sol Mansi, a Diocesan radio station supported by the foundation, who warned of the worrying signs that the Portuguese-speaking African country will become an “Islamic state”.

In the interview with ACN, Casimiro Cajucam warned about

the risk of Guinea-Bissau ‘falling into the clutches of religious extremism.’. . . In the last ten years, hundreds of mosques have been built. There is a proliferation of mosques in Guinea-Bissau that are financed by very rich Arab countries. There are people in the villages, Christians, and non-Christians, who are funded to convert to Islam. We are facing that threat,’ Casimiro Cajucam says. . . . ‘There are politicians who are trying everything to transform Guinea-Bissau, to take it from a secular state to put it as an Islamic state. There is that trend and that is a threat.’

The Director of Sol Mansi radio speaks of a ‘rehearsal’ for a terrorist attack when referring to the incidents at the church in Gabu, adding, ‘What happened in the parish in Gabu, for many, is the first rehearsal for a terrorist attack. It has never happened before.’”

To be sure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation reports on its website:

“The President of the Republic of Guinea Bissau, H.E. Umaro Sissoko EMBALÓ, who is visiting Saudi Arabia, received on 12 April 2023 at Makkah Al-Mukarramah, the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Mr HisseinBrahim Taha.

The meeting discussed cooperation between the OIC and the Republic of Guinea Bissau and the ways and means of strengthening it, particularly on issues of mutual interest, notably peace and development in the world, in general, and Africa, in particular.

The Secretary-General praised Guinea Bissau’s contribution to joint Islamic action as well as the efforts deployed in West Africa by President UmaroSissoko EMBALÓ in his capacity as Chairman-in-Office of ECOWAS.”

Now consider the Bring Islam to Guinea Bissau project that is supporting new Muslims in Guinea Bissau through Zakat eligible donations. (Zakat is the third pillar of Islam; it’s also an obligatory act of worship payable each year to those in need by every able Muslim. In His generosity, Allah (swt) gives the donor the beautiful opportunity to purify their wealth and their souls through Zakat.).

BBHAGSIA President Siphiwe Baleka, who has written a three-volume history of the Balanta people, warns,

“Brassa people existed for tens of thousands of years before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. They knew God and had their own spirituality. they did not need any religious doctrine or rigid religious devotions like praying five times a day in order to live in harmony with nature, God’s creation. It’s ironic that Brassa became known in history as ‘Balant” becuase of their resistances to Islamic domination by the Mali Empire during the 10th to the 14th century. In this sense, Balanta literally refers to ‘those who resist Islamic imperialism’. I am very certain the Balanta communities understand that with forced conversion comes learning Arabic at a time when the Balanta language is at risk of being lost. Forced conversion means no more cumbe (pig). Can you imagine an important event with out cumbe? Amilcar Cabral warned us about foregin domination. It means the loss of one’s culture. Portuguese domination, American domination, Islamic domination. It doesn’t matter. You don’t need more bibles or qurans. You do not need more churches or mosques. What you need is a New Afrikan Education that teaches your children how to harness New Afrikan technologies so that they can continue their sovereign existences as God iintended. Anyone that comes to your village and fails to ask what YOU need or show you how to build upon your own understanding of your envrionment is not for you. They are for themselves! Don’t be tricked by smooth talking Priests or Imams. They can help with development without requiring your conversion!”

Share

A Matter of War: Imari Obadele, Our Enslavement in the 13 Colonies and the United States, the Republic of New Afrika and Reparations

Excerpts from REPARATIONS YES! A Suggestion Toward the Framework of a Reparations Demand and A Set of Legal Underpinnings

by

Imari Abubakari Obadele, Chairperson, The People’s Center Council (National Legislature) of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika, September 1987

The central proposition of this paper and the draft bill for reparations which is annexed hereto is that our enslavement in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States was a matter of war - war conducted against Afrika under authority, initially, of the British government and the legislatures of the Thirteen Colonies and ultimately under authority of Clasue One, Section 9 of the First Article of the United States Constitution.

[Clause One, Secion 9, Article One, states: “The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”]

It was war conducted against Afrikan people - who grew into a nation, an oppressed nation, between 1660 and 1860 - within the United States under British and Colonial authority and, ultimately, the authority of Clasue Three, Section Two of Article Four of the U.S. Constitution.

[Clause Three, Section 2, Article Four, states: “No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”]

The conditions of our degradation, a subordinated and exploited people denied liberty by force, are too well known to be re-documented or chronicled here. Justice Harlan, writing his dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, at 29, said that the provisions of the 1850 ‘Fugitive Slave Act…. placed at the disposal of the master seeking to recover his fugitive slace, substantially the whole power of the nation.’ The U.S. Army under Andrew Jackson destroyed the New Afrikan states in Florida. Militia and White civilians carried war to all our communities in the woods. The U.S. military and White civilians put down the attempts of first, Gabriel Prosser and then Denmark Vesey and John Brown and Osborne Anderson to seize land and build New Afrikan states. For these state-builders the U.S. courts authorized bloody executions, corporal punishment, and transportation beyond U.S. shorees. . . .

It is the position of this paper, embracing propositions enunciated by the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika sixteen years ago, that the United States conducted war against the New Afrikan nation on this land throughout the era of slavery, that the war was authorized by the United States constitution and carried out in aggressive military actions against the efforts of our people to seek freedom individually and to build New Afrikan states collectively, by the United States government itself, by the various State Governments and by civilians mobilized against the New Afrikan People and nation.

It is the proposition of this paper that reparations must be part of a general settlement of the war which the United States has waged against us.

In keeping with settlements consummated at the end of World War I and World War II, and with the precedents in International Law created by these settlements, the settlement for New Afrikan people must include not simply money reparations but exercise of the freed and informed right to self determination by our people, and the release of our militants, soldiers, prisoners of war, now in U.S. jails, who were taken in defense of our nation against the United States.

In summary, the money damages are due, of coure, for labor stolen from our forebears, for cultural assault, and for unjust war, with accumulated interest. But the money portion of our reparations must be a significant contribution toward rehabilitation: repatriation for those who wish and can achieve citizenship in an Afrikan state, rehabilitation of the New Afrikan states and incipient states, and their successors, destroyed on this soil during the war which was slavery and afterwards. There must be reparation payments for rehabilitation of us as a people, our social structure in the United States, and culture, in recognition of the design followed in the United States to make us into a race of ignorant subservients, unable to revolt, and forgetful that We had a duty to do so. . . .

There are reparations due to certain Afrikan states for the war which the United States authorized against them; to us, as well, for our states that were weakened or destroyed in Afrika during the course of America’s war there, which resulted in our enslavement.

(A state, with its army, protects the people. People cannot be harmed by outsiders unless the army is destroyed, rendered ineffective, or co-opted) And it is also tru that discussions must be held with Nigeria and other states on reparations for us. These could involve not simply trade arrangements but substantial political and diplomatic assistance for those of us who want indpendent statehood.

Those discussions ar separate, however, from the claims against the United States - and the subject of this paper.

The precedents for the claims described above are to be found in

1) the agreements which concluded World War I and World War II;

2) the U.S. Supreme Court case, The United States v. The Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 15 Peters 518 (1841);

3) the New International Law Regime, which took rise with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, 14 December 1960; and

4) the principles involved in the work of The Indian Claims Commission, Title 25, U.S.C.A., Sections 70 et seq.

With respect to the lapse of time between the United States initial ceasefire agains us (The Thirteenth Amendment of December 1865) and Queen Mother Moore’s proffer of the Ethiopian Women’s complaint against the United States and petition for reparations to the United Nations in 1965, three comments are particularly appropriate. First, Queen Mother Moore’s efforts were not a beginning; at no substantial period during the era since slavery have our people neglected wholly the campaign for reparations. Second, it has been the power of the United States and its refusal to consider reparations for New Afrikans which has frustrated our efforts heretofore, not any failure on our part to pursue these demands. . . .

WAS IT WAR AND DO WE HAVE SELF-DETERMINATION RIGHTS?

Two essential questions should be addressed. First, was it war? Second, do New Afrikans have self-determination rights? Also implicated is the question as to whether New Afrikans in the United States constitute a ‘nation.’ We turn now to the first question.

In general, ‘war” has been traditionally of two types, conflicts between states, which are governed by international law and practice, and civil wars, in which part of a state contends for sovereignty over territory claimed by the parent- state. Lately, conflicts of liberation movements, including conflicts like that in South Afrika at the present time, where the liberation forces are unable to place armies openly in the field or to hold and govern territory openly, have gained status under the international law. The 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, states in Article One:

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragrah include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and aliean occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The record is replete with instances of armed conflict and armed suppression of suspected miltants by the United States, during and after slavery. Moreover, the general conditions of slavery make clear also that We were subject during the slavery era to ‘colonial domination and alien occupation.’ . . .

Professor von Glahn notes that ‘a British report in 1870 showed that between 1700 and 1870, a total of 107 conflicts had been initiated without the formality of a declaration of war.’ He goes on: ‘The United States, too, has conducted wars without a declaration: an undelcared war with France from 1798 to 1801, the invasion of Florida in 1811 under Generals Jackson and Mathews, the brief Mexican invasion in 1916, the undeclared war with the Soviet Union in 1918-1919, and, of course, the vietnamese conflict from 1947 onward (for the United States, from March 7, 1965, to March 29, 1973).’

The effort of some New Afrikans to form an indpendent state has been an almost continuous effort from the time of our first fights and revolts in this land to the present. . . . If the level of U.S. military attacks against New Afrikans and the New Afrikan nation receded in the period following the Civil War, our colony was nevertheless subject to a racially conscious policing by sheriffs and local police. The army, too, would appear to suprpress us during uprisings such as those in 1919, the 1940s and the 1960s. The reason for the reduction in naked military attacks lay mainly in our resort to parliamentary means of struggle after the Civil War. But there was no abandonment of the drive for independent New Afrikan statehood - nor for the other two objectives toward which some of our people had striven traditionally: (1) full citizenship in the United States, and (2) return to Afrika.

It is relevant to the charge of war agianst the United States that we were still an occupied and oppressed nation in this period between the Civil War and 1968. We were a colony living on territory claimed by the United States, subject until 1968 to a body of legislation and court decisions which defined our subordination to the White nation and facilitated the Whte nation’s economic and cultural exploitation of us, and our social degradation.

Even the Malcomites, who after March 1968 led the struggle for independent statehood and were resolute practitioners of armed self-defense, eventually supported by the Black Liberation Army, pursued a strategy of attempting to organize, peacefully, an independent plebiscite. This parliamentary strategyy was in accordance with the precepts of the New International Law Regime, ushered in by the United Nations’ Declaration On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, supra, in 1960. When the organizing of the armed, self-defensing cadres of the Provisional Government accelerated in Mississippi in 1971, however, the United States turned to its military option. At dawn on Wednesday, August 18, 1971, a force of FBI agents and Jackson city police, accompanied by an armored truck, attacked the official RNA Provisional Government Residence. They shot it up and then charged the seven occupants of the house, along with the four who had spent the night at the office several blocks away, with murder of the police lieutenant who died in the attack and with assault of the FBI agent and the policeman who were wounded. In the fall of 1981 the United States brought massive military force to bear in McComb County, Mississippi, to arrest Sister Fulani Sunni Ali, a longtime RNA officer, who was quietly conductin a summer camp for children in the country. The pretext was the New York Brinks incident, during which Black Liberation Army members were implicated, some arrested and some jailed, and one murdered in cold blood by the police as he lay helpless on the ground.

If it is possible to argue that the form of the war against us cahanged after the Civil War, from military activity to occupation duties, the United States kept the military sanction always ready - and, from time to time, used it.

The question was land. The United States Government, unable to export us en masse after the Civil War, was not especially concerned that U.S. policies had fueled our growth as a separate people - giving us our own perspective and history and common gene pool, raising up, between 1660 and 1860, a vastly numbered New Afrikan nation on this soil. Our status as a nation, despite our numbers, posed little more problem for the United States than the many Indian nations - so long as We did not focus overly on our separateness and nationhood, and so long as We did not seriously act for statehood, for sovereignty over land.

The international law, in our era before 1960, was shaped by Europeans and their conquests. This included the question of sovereignty over land, national title to land. And the law was clear. For instance, the principle of prescription sitll means that a state may acquire title over land originally belonging to another state, by occupation over a long period of time. How long is a ‘long’ time? There seems to be no generally accepted international standard. One U.S. court decision, dealing with awards to Indian states, determined that title to land could be recognized for a group which had occupied it ininterruptedly for 50 years. The United States’ objective with respect to the RNA Provisional Government (PG-RNA) was to prevent undisturbed occupation for any period of time.

There is little doubt that the United States realized that a form of the prescription principle is embedded in the New Afrikan Creed, which today is part of the Republic’s constitution, the Code of Umoja, and which is recired by gathered Provisional Government cadre at meetings and all imporant occasions. ‘I believe,’ runs the paragraph from the Creed, ‘that all the land in America, upon which We have lived for a long time, which We have worked and build upon, and which We have fought to stay on, is land that belongs to us as a people.’ . . . There is little doubt that the United States understoon that the PG was acting upon this principle in Mississippi.

The partiuclar problem for the United States was that the Provisional Government had been created at a founding convention and then regularly elected, by popular vote since 1975. Although the voting has always taken place in several cities, the totals. so far, have always been small - the largest being 5,000 votes cast in 1975. But the fact of the vote and the potential for it becoming a widespread institution among New Afrikan people, despite the perpetual press ‘white-out’ of New Afrikan activities, posed and pose a serious problem for United States policy-makers. To begin with, the United States is a party to the 1933 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, done at Montevideo, Uruguay. This convention’s definition of the ‘state’ is in fact the definition which has entered into the principles of United States law, repeated in numerous contexts. Article one of the convention states:

‘The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territtory; (c) government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.’ [Siphiwe note: here is the rationale for having a strong and effective Ministry of Foreign Affairs within the PG-RNA].

The Provisional Government was (and is) a democratically elected government; it was voted for in Mississippi, which testified to representation of a permanent population, and it carried on various nascent forms of relations with China and Cuba (and, in the days since the Mississippi effort of the 1970s, is continuing to broaden these relations with other states). What was lacking, then, to convert this state-building entity, the Provisional Government, into a state was uninterrupted possession of land. [Siphiwe note: now, after almost 58 years, what formal relations or support does the PG-RNA have with other governments? What presence does it have as an observer to the African Union or United Nations? What diplomatic communications history does it have with other states? This is the missing element today that a strong and visionary Ministry of Foreign Affairs can correct.]

The United States’ attack on the Provisional Government in Mississippi and the subsequent major de-stabilization of the Provisional Government by the jailing of some of its leaders and a continuation of the FBI’s disinformation campaign (the COINTELPRO) were simply consistent with the attacks in former days on Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, John Brown, and Osborne Perry Anderson, the New Afrikan states in Florida, and the state of Tunis Campbell. The rationale was simple and obvious: the United States . . . was not prepared to abide the creation of an independent New Afrikan state in North America. Thus, the attacks, the recurrent hot war.

But there was a difference in the international law regime under which the military actions against the New Afrikan states and state-builders before 1960 were carried out and the international law regime under which U.S. military attacks against the Provisional Government were carried out after 1960. The Decolonization Declaration (U.N. General Assembly Res. 1514) said, simply, that ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination; . . . .’ This language has been carried over into the human rights conventions. It was a victory of the Afro-Asian bloc in the General Assembly, achieving numerical prominence for the first time in 1960, and it marked a revolution in the international law. The Declaration states also:

‘4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence…’

Therefore the international law that counted had been written and accepted by the United States and European powers. It served the ratification of their conquests of the rest of the world and codified practices which they had found to be mutually convenient. The Versailles Treaty of 1920, ending World War I, joins the Berlin Treaty of 1885, as a leading statement of the international law as the White and powerful states of the world saw it and enforced it. This document provided for our degradation: it left the Afrikan and Asian colonies of the world War I victors in place and, instead of freeing those held by the defeated Germany, gave our hapless countries and peoples to the mandated ‘care’ of Britain, France and Belgium - at the same time that this treaty was concretizing self-determination as a right for Czechs and Poles and several other people in Europe.

The Afro-Asians in 1960, with the assistance of Canada and a few other states, re-wrote the international law. From that point, not only Europeans but all peoples had a right to self-determination. A subsequent, relatively rapid development of the new law followed. The Principle of self-determination was incorporated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, The Declaration on Principles of International Law, on 24 October 1970.

The United States abstained from voting on the 1960 Declaration, objecting to the word ‘independence’ in the title, arguing that independence was not the only possible result of an act of self-determination by a people. This was true but irrelevant. Neverheless, the United States Representative, James J. Wadsworth, speaking to a plenary session of the U.N. General Assembly on 6 December 1960 made the following extraordinary remarks - which, of course, under U.S. constitutional principles, are deemed to be the words of the U.S. President and an authoritative statment of international law as the United States sees it:

‘First let me say what we mean by colonialism…. It is the imposition of alien power over a people, usually by force and without the free and formal consent of the governed. It is the perpetuation of that power. It is the deniel of the right of self-determination - whether by suppressing free-expression or by withholding necessary educational, economic, and social development.*** Obviously not all colonial regimes have been the same…. But, however important these differences, the fact remains that colonialism in any form is undesirable. Neither the most benevolent paternalism by a ruling power nor the most grateful acceptance of these benefits by indigenous leaders can meet the test of the charter or satisfy the spirit of this age.

The Declaration on the Principles of International Law in its ‘principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples,’ states, inter-alia:

‘Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination. . . bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.’ . . .

To sum up, I have argued here that the United States has waged war against us, as individuals and as a nation. (I have deferred the question of whether We are a nation under international law.) My central and underlying point is that our reparations, based upon slavery claims, are best presented in the context of the United States’ having denied us the exercise of our right to self-determination.

This is because the most fruitful precedents for our reparations claims are those which have arisen out of the reparations payments and the self-determination arrangements made in settlement of World War I and World War Ii. It is also because the fact is the United States did wage a most heinous war against us.

In appraiding the situation of New Afrikans in the United States it is important to keep in mind that We have, almost from the beginning, followed simultaneously three - not one - strategies of struggle. (This is to say that simultaneously some of us have followed each of the strategies.) Those strategies have been, first, a return to Afrika (Paul Cuffee through Garvey to the Hebrew Israelites); second, to change the United States and join it as full citizens (Richard Allen through Frederick Douglass to Marin Luther King), and, third, to build an independent state on land claimed in North America by the United States (Gabriel Prosser through Tunys Campbell to Malcolm X and the Provisional Government -RNA). Throughout our three hundred years of struggle on this soil We have, from at least 1660, been evolving into and have become a Black Nation, a New Afrikan nation, even with the simultaneous pursuit of three strategies. . . .

For clarity on the difference between ‘nation’ and ‘state’ it is perhaps helpful to call on Professor Robin Alison Remington in her discussion of Yugoslavia. She writes: “A country is the piece of real estate occupied by the state. Neither a country nor a state is a ‘nation.’ Rather, a ‘nation’ is a group of individuals united by common bonds of historical development, language, religion, and their self-perceived collective identity.*** According to the 1971 census, the Yugoslav population is 20.5 million, including five official ‘nations’ and a variety of nationalities. The nations are the Serbs, 8.4 million; Croats, 4.8 million; Slovens, 1.7 million; Macedonians, 1.2 million; and Montenegrins, 608 thousand.’

Elsewhere I have made a contribution toward (I hope) clarity.

‘People live in states. The United States is a state; all the fifty states make one United States, and in international law the entire United States (with its 50 constituent states) is known as a state. A state has people land and government. The government, acting for the state, protects the people and the land from outside attack by means of diplomacy and its army; government controls conflict among its own people by education and indoctrination and by means of law, courts, and the police. The government, representing the state, has final control over the lives of people. Only the state, through its government, can lawfully jail people or kill people - either by executing them or sending people to war.

But people come before states. This is to say that nations exist before states. States are created to protect nations. For, a nation is the people and their beliefs and their perspective (their way of looking at themselves and the world) and their way of life - their social structure and their economic struacture. These have arisn out of a people’s own special history, over time. States can be created suddenly, by declaration, by new constitutions, by military coups and successful revolution and by treaty. But nations can only be created by time: nations are people brought together by common history and common mission and common struggle, cemented by common values and a common way of life, on a given land mass, over time. Nations must evolve. They come into being by growing over decades.

The United States began as a white nation, a new English nation, which grew up between 1607 and 1776 in a land away from England. In England the people were having a different experience and history than the English in America. In America the Whites, led by the English, fought Indians and Afrikans for that in which they, the Whites, believed: they believed in the superiority of Whites over Indians and Afrikans and the righ of Whites to take all the land and oppress and exploint Afrikans and Indians.

These Americans, the Whites, built a state, a Republic, to protect the American nation. They did not build this state to protect Indians or Afrikans; in fact, it was built to help Whites better oppress and exploit Indians and Afrikans. It was built to protect the white nation.

Meanwhile, We, the Afrikans, were forming into a new nation also, a new Afrikan nation. This happened between 1660, when the English in America decided definitely to hold us in slavery, and 1865, when our work and sacrifice in the Civil War brought an ende to slavery. In those two hundred years We who had come from different nations in Afrika, where our states had been weakened or defeated altogether, fused into a new people, a new Afrikan people. Struggle against the oppression of the White nation in North America, the United States, fused us. Over the course of 20 decades.’ . . .

So the proposition of this paper and the annexed draft reparations legislation is that the United States waged long, cruel, and unjust war against us as a nation, and for that there is responsibility. . . .

Today the New Afrikan nation, still pursuing simultaneously its three strategies of struggle, has no victorious armies to compel compliance, only the international law - and the strength and ingenuity of the uses to which We and our allies may put the politics of the American state. . . .

In brief, the terms of the attached draft legislation reflect practices which are not unknown to the United States and other states which particpated in or observed the arrangement which followed the two world wars. The plan would provide reparations to the state-building Provisional Government but reparations would go, as well, to individuals and to organized, serving community groups. . . .

As a teacher of young people, I am also convinced that part of the strategy must be to alter the textbooks and our conventions in teaching the American experience - and to alter kindred conventions in movies and literature - so that Americans and New Afrikans, living now, may come to a deep appreciation of the nature of the war waged against us and Indians in America and of the military occupation We have suffered here, as well as the creative, persistent, courageous, and often brilliant struggle Indians and New Afrikans have waged in response.

In the end, history makes clear that to win reparations We must be prepared to take this righteous struggle into the streets. We must be prepared to stop all the machinery of America, if need be, until the just debt of reparations is paid.

FREE THE LAND!”

Share

WILL 2024 BE THE YEAR OF PAN AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONAL UNITY?: THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS

“Birds which fly without coordination, beat each other’s wings.”  

Baganda, Uganda proverb

***************************************************************

The generation of young African people of today ask:

Does the Pan African Movement have an institution that represents all of us, is SUPPPORTED by all of us and speaks with one recognized voice? Where do all the Pan African Organizations register and coordinate their activities? What is the mechanism through which all Pan African organizations can work together?

***************************************************************

Three separate Pan African Congresses are being organized for 2024: one that was first called by H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori Quao that is scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe, one called for by the Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) to take place in Kampala, Uganda, and one called for by the Republic of Togo . If all three are successful, we will have succeeded in creating three very high-level and well respected entities with the same vision, objectives and agendas with separate, uncoordinated structures competing with each other for both popular support and African Union recognition.

Moreover, other entitites and initiatives outside of the Pan African Congress legacy format are also pursuing the same vision, objectives and agendas, particularly concerning the establishment, governing and administrating for the African Union 6th Region. Not only is this a waste of resources in duplicate and redundant efforts, it will further show that the Pan African movement and the African Diaspora 6th Region does not fully understand itself, the potential of the moments, and is incapable of organizing and managing its own affairs. 

How can the Pan Africanists demand a “One Africa” when it can not set the example of a “One Pan African Secretariat” that is supported by all Pan Africanists that can speak with one voice? How can the African Diaspora demand a “One Africa” when it can not set the example of a “One African Diaspora 6th Region” with a high council that is supported by all Africans in the Diaspora and can speak with one voice?

***************************************************************

Why the Pan African Congress?

The first Pan African Conference, called by Sylvester Williams in 1900, appealed to the leaders of the world not to ignore the sufferings of Black people. W.E.B. DuBois then championed Pan African Congresses in 1919, 1921, 1923 and 1927. By the time of the Fifth Pan African Congress in 1945, the imperative of the African World was an end to colonialism, which led to the formation of the Organization of African Unity in 1963. The challenge for the participants of the Sixth Pan African Congress in 1974 was how to harness Africa’s new independent power, deconstruct neocolonialist regimes, and unite the diaspora under a common Pan-African agenda. To achieve this, the 6th PAC sought to encourage dual citizenship for Africans from the West and establish a Permanent Secretariat


Courtland Cox, Secretary General of the 6th Pan African Congress, stated in his closing remarks to the delegations, “I believe this Congress has clearly advocated new imperatives: an end to neo-colonialism and imperialism, and the revolutionary social transformation of African societies and communities…I think this Congress has ratified the validity of African people meeting to chart a political course for our common problems. We as African people still have an obligation to continue our own most important contribution to human advancement—the building of a strong, just Africa, and the forging of a United African People.

WORKING PAPER ON DESIRABLE RESULTS OF THE 6TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS, TANZANIA 1974

However, according to Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, Secretary General of the International Preparatory Committee of the 7th PAC held in 1994 in Kampala, Uganda, “One major question for the movement was how to define the tasks of the Pan African struggle for the twenty first century. . . .Perhaps the greatest weakness of the 6th Pan African Congress was the inability to transform all the good resolutions into a concrete organizational and institutional framework of action. Subsequently, its impact was not as decisive as it could have been, than if it had had an institutional base after the Congress. It is a mistake which the 7th Pan African Congress sought to rectify by agreeing to set up a permanent secretariat in order to reverse the spasmodic initiatives of the past.” Indeed, Resolution 1 of the 7th PAC is entitled, “Concerning a Permanent Post-Congress Organizational Structure.”

Why the Pan African Secretariat?

The Pan African Secretariat has not realized what it was supposed to do. This is partly attributed to the unforeseen death of Dr. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, General Secretary of the Pan African Movement and principal organizer for decades, which led to a period of reorganization with a continuing lack of funds during which the proper functioning of the Secretariat was affected over the next decade. In addition, another important resolution of the 7th Pan African Congress was to support regional mechanisms that would allow for local input at the broadest level geared towards the next Pan African Congress. Delegates also realized that this could only happen with sufficient funding.

On May 6, 2015, Professor Ikaweba Bunting, Secretary General of the Global Pan African Movement published 8th Pan African Congress: The congress is not the movement Reflections on Phase I of the Congress in Accra, March 2015 noting:

“The third notable feature apparent during this process was the absence of institutional sustenance of Pan Africanist political culture. Despite a broad recognition of the critical need for a Pan Africanist’s method of organization there is an absence of cohesive and persistent effort, clarity of purpose and sustainable institutional support. To realize the objectives of a Union Government and create a movement to rectify the social, economic and political exploitation of African peoples, a Pan Africanist political culture must be inculcated, nurtured and institutionalized throughout the Six Regions of the African world. It is the task for the Global Pan African Movement to ensure that Pan African institutions and organizations at all levels are functional and effective, and imbued with a Pan Africanist political culture. The absence of functional Pan Africanist institutions and Pan African political culture has left a vacuum that has been filled with a potpourri of ideas formulated under the rubric of Pan Africanism. What materializes is an amalgam of values, notions, ideas and dogma that are perplexing or contradictory to Pan Africanist purpose and ideology.”

The Pan African Congress, the African Union and the African Diaspora 6th Region

The struggle against apartheid in South Africa kept the Pan African world united. In May 1994, Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the new President of South Africa and campaigned for the lifting of sanctions against Libya. A few months later the 7th PAC convened in Kampala, Uganda making its first priority the establishment of the Pan African Secretariat and a Pan African Parliament. Five years later, President Gaddafi of Libya called the extraordinary meeting of the OAU at Sirte in 1999 and decided to set in motion the resolution of the 7th Pan African Congress, that there should be an African Union. Within two years the Constitutive Act of the African Union was written, ratified and the AU came into being in 2002. Then, in February of 2003, the AU amended its Constitutive Act with Article 3(q) that “invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union . . .”, and thereby launched the African Union 6th Region. This development provided, at least in theory if not yet in substance, an alternative to the PAC as a framework and institutional path to uniting Africans abroad with those at home. This was acknowledged by the 8th Pan African Congress (PAC8.0) held in Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015 that concluded,

Recognizing the need for permanent and enduring organizational structures and operational principles for sustained activism in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resolutions arising from preceding Congresses to the 8th PAC; . . . COGNIZANT of the concerns expressed by a significant number of delegates regarding the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner. . . . ACKNOWLEDGING the strengths that are gained through collaborative partnerships based on transparency, integrity and political synergies, . . . We acknowledged the need for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 of the AU, and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union and the United Nations Decade for the Peoples of African Descent. Efforts such as these can serve to educate and stimulate individuals within the Global African Family who have not been previously reached to be mobilized in their own interests. . . We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063 . . . Recommend that the identification of appropriate organizations to be a conduit for Africans of the Diaspora to partner with the PAM initiatives at all levels and facilitate the involvement or inclusion of Africans from the Diaspora who have repatriated back home to Mother Africa. Strongly support the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

PAN AFRICAN IMPERATIVE - HARMONIZE EFFORTS 

“We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063” 

- 8th PAC, Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015

*************************************************************** 

Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa. . . . The African Diaspora Pan African Congress will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region.

- H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, Call for the ADDI African Diaspora Pan African Congress (ADPAC now “8PAC1”) - September 2022

***************************************************************

“Sixty-four (64) countries participated in the GADS in which President Muhammadu Buhari called on Africans home and abroad to connect and create a common front through strategic frameworks to address the challenges arising in the new world order.” 

- Global African Diaspora Symposium (GADS), 27-28 April 2023 at the Rotunda Hall, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abuja

***************************************************************

“The Ministers stressed the need to move towards a synergy of action by Pan­ Africanists and welcomed the project to organize the 9th Pan-African Congress in Lome, in 2024, by Togo, in collaboration with the African Union, on the theme ‘Renewal of pan-Africanism and Africa's Role in the Reform of Multilateral Institutions: mobilizing resources and reinventing Itself for action’.” 

- The African Political Alliance (APA), first ministerial conference in Lomé, Togo - May 3, 2023

THE WAY FORWARD - WHAT IS NEEDED: A UNITY DECLARATION AND 100,000 ENDORSEMENTS

By the end of 2024 we can have:

  1. A Permanent Pan African Secretariat with a physical headquarters and operational funding;

  2. An AU 6th Region High Council with a physical headquarters, operational funding, and 10-15 Ambassadors at the AU Permanent Representatives Committee which would give the AU6th Region equal status as the other five regions;

  3. An AU 6th Region Registry that serves as a census that would collect a $1 registration fee from each person in the AU6th region, some amount of which would fund AU6th Region administration and programming as well as Pan African Secretariat support.

In this way, all Africans - both those at home and abroad - can achieve a functional unity, fund itself and speak with one voice. The series of Pan African Congress, IF UNITED AND COORDINATING TOGETHER, can achieve this. How do we manifest this unity?

  1. Evidence of Unity at the Top - this can be achieved by H.E. President Yoweri Museveni, Republic of Uganda; H.E. President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, Republic of Zimbabwe; and H.E. President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe, President of the Togolese Republic signing the DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION.

  2. Evidence of Unity in the Middle - this can be achieved by having each event’s organizing committee sign the DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION and agree to appoint one member to the Pan African Imperative Harmonization Steering Committee whose purpose is to ensure the harmonization of their respective agendas.

  3. Evidence of Unity at the Foundation - this can be achieved by having 100,000 people endorse the Pan African Congresses Harmonization bycompleting the online form at the bottom of this post.

DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION

Whereas the 8th Pan African Congress (PAC8.0) held in Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015 concluded, “Recognizing the need for permanent and enduring organizational structures and operational principles for sustained activism in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resolutions arising from preceding Congresses to the 8th PAC; . . . COGNIZANT of the concerns expressed by a significant number of delegates regarding the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner. . . . ACKNOWLEDGING the strengths that are gained through collaborative partnerships based on transparency, integrity and political synergies, . . . We acknowledged the need for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 of the AU, and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union and the United Nations Decade for the Peoples of African Descent. Efforts such as these can serve to educate and stimulate individuals within the Global African Family who have not been previously reached to be mobilized in their own interests. . . We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063 . . . Recommend that the identification of appropriate organizations to be a conduit for Africans of the Diaspora to partner with the PAM initiatives at all levels and facilitate the involvement or inclusion of Africans from the Diaspora who have repatriated back home to Mother Africa. Strongly support the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

Whereas H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao issued in September 2022 the call for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 (PAC8.1) to be held in late 2023 in Harare, Zimbabwe stating, “Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa. . . . The African Diaspora Pan African Congress (PAC8.1) will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region”;

Whereas Sixty-four (64) countries participated in the Global African Diaspora Symposium (GADS), 27-28 April 2023 at the Rotunda Hall, in Abuja, Nigeria  in which President Muhammadu Buhari called on Africans at home and abroad to connect and create a common front through strategic frameworks to address the challenges arising in the new world order”;

Whereas the Governing Council of Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) under the patronage of Ugandan President H.E. Yoweri Museveni is planning to convene the 8th Pan African Congress Part 2 (PAC8.2) in Kampala in August of 2024 to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the 7th PAC held in Kampala in 1994; 

Whereas The African Political Alliance (APA) first ministerial conference in Lomé, Togo - May 3, 2023 stated “The Ministers stressed the need to move towards a synergy of action by Pan­ Africanists and welcomed the project to organize the 9th Pan-African Congress (PAC9) in Lomé, in 2024, by Togo, in collaboration with the African Union, on the theme ‘Renewal of pan-Africanism and Africa's Role in the Reform of Multilateral Institutions: mobilizing resources and reinventing Itself for action’”; 

Whereas the Global African Diaspora Forum, held July 4-7, 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya has just concluded; and

Whereas The Global RootsSynergy Roundtable (GRSR), led by the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group (AUADS) issued the Accra Declaration in November 2019 and hosted the Addis Ababa Summit in May 2022, of which the Resolution from this Roundtable was submitted to the African Union Commission in cooperation with the CIDO, AU ECOSOCC and ACPHR, is now proposing at its Maputo Summit 10-13 July, 2023 to establish an AUADS High Council (HC) that would provide a coherent governance organizational voice for Diaspora participation in the African Union;  

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED

  1. Agree, in the spirit of UBUNTU, to communicate, provide mutual support, and effectively collaborate when possible;

  2. Agree to harmonize our agendas into a connected effort for mutual benefit;

  3. Agree that the AUADS Maputo Summit, the PAC8.1, the PAC8.2 and the PAC9 should be viewed as independent and complementary efforts in alignment with the PAC8.0 resolution “for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives. . . . and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union in order to overcome the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner;

  4. Agree that the PAC8.1 should be viewed as the next necessary step in accordance with PAC8.0 resolution for “the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

  5. Agree that the PAC8.1 Limited Agenda, and specifically the Agenda Item: Pathway to Dual-Citizenship For Continental Diaspora and Descendants of the Formerly Enslaved is the direct fulfillment of the Working Paper on Desirable Results of the 6th Pan African Congress (PAC6), Tanzania, 1974 that stated, “encourage African and Caribbean states to recognize the principle of dual citizenship for Africans from the West. . . . and that special effort be made to facilitate their acquiring of African citizenship”; 

  6. Agree that the PAC8.1 Harare Declaration should include a resolution that the AUADS High Council Proposal finalized at the Maputo Summit should be included as an agenda item to be reviewed, revised where applicable through the process of consensus and ultimately adopted at PAC8.2 and thereby opening the nominations process for both AU 6th Region Ambassadors to the AU Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) and AUADS High Council executives and administrators to be elected at PAC9 in Lomé, Togo; and

  1. Agree to the Harmonization Calendar

Drafted by:

Siphiwe Baleka, Coordinator PAC8.1

Reverend Kwame Kamau, African Reparations Minister

Principals solicited:

H.E. President Yoweri Museveni, Republic of Uganda

H.E. President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, Republic of Zimbabwe

H.E. President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe, President of the Togolese Republic

H.E. Kahinda Otafiire, Minister of Internal Affairs of Uganda and Chairman, Governing Council of Global Pan African Movement (GPAM)

H.E. Professor Robert Dussey, Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Integration and Togolese Abroad, Republic of Togo

H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori – Quao, MD FAAFP, Founder and President (ADDI) 

Former African Union Permanent Representative to the United States 

Dr. Barryl A. Biekman, PhD., Coordinator of the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group Europe & Co-Facilitator of the Monitoring & Policy Working Group

CALL FOR THE PAC 8.2 BY THE GLOBAL PAN AFRICAN MOVEMENT

Share