Re George Ayittey and Somalia: A Polemical Response

by Lil Joe

June, 2010

______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and George Ayittey (US Sate Department, August 1, 2009).


"You have to separate the humanitarian impulse from the record of aid itself. We all want to help. Many people would say that it's the moral impulse of the rich to help the poor, but the record of aid has been terrible." George Ayittey, President of the Free Africa Foundation

In Free Africa Foundation: Buying Freedom For Africa, Michael Barker* wrote:

The Free Africa Foundation campaigns for African development and never passes up the opportunity to denounce World Bank and IMF policies. But contrary to appearences, its discourse is actually directed at promoting economic deregulation. Using this example, Michael Barker revisits the history of Washington's backing of the anti-Apartheid struggle. At the time, it essentially consisted in going along with an unstoppable historical movement while at the same time deflecting it from a critical position vis-à-vis the economic system imposed by the U.S.

Foreign aid is an integral tool by which global capital conquers foreign markets, a sordid history of which the US-based nongovernmental organization Food First has thoroughly documented since their formation in the late 1970s. It is unfortunate then that in a recent article titled "Food Aid in Africa: A Profitable Business," Food First cited with approval the above quote from the president of the Free Africa Foundation, George Ayittey. This is problematic because while Ayittey's rhetoric meshes well with progressive critiques of foreign aid, his criticism stems from his desire to fully open up Africa to the free-market in the name of libertarianism; not quite the same ideas promoted by groups like Food First. So while both conservative and liberal organizations are committed to ending exploitative foreign aid practices, it is critical to differentiate the political trajectories and motivations driving their activities. This article aims to unpack some of these differences by closely examining the background of both the Free Africa Foundation and the more famous African freedom organization, the African National Congress.

Founded in 1993 by [former!] American University associate professor of economics, George Ayittey, the Free Africa Foundation aims to "further the cause of freedom in Africa and propagate ideas on liberty." Ayittey is a well-known international speaker, and in addition to publishing many books, the latest of which is Africa Unchained: The Blueprint for Africa's Future (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), in 2009 he was recognized by Foreign Policymagazine to be one of the world's Top 100 Global Thinkers "for pushing policymakers to let Africa help itself." Despite this Ghanaian economist's work often being held up as torch for freedom in Africa, it would be more useful to describe his activities as serving as a torch for imperialism, contrary to his rhetoric that asserts otherwise. After completing his Ph.D. in 1981, his first connection to the United States conservative policy-making community occurred when he accepted a national fellowship at Stanford University's Hoover Institution [1] in 1988. (He also served as a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Public Choice in 1988.) The following year he then joined the Heritage Foundation [2]as a Bradley resident scholar, and subsequently while working at the Cato Institute [3] he published Africa Betrayed (St. Martins, 1992). At present Ayittey is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and an associate scholar at the neoconservative Foreign Policy Research Institute [4], a research center that boasts that they are "devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests."

In terms of funding arrangements, the Free Africa Foundation's Web site lists 25 conservative financial donors, with well-known funders including David Kennedy (who is the former president of the Earhart Foundation - a "key backer of neoconservatism" in the United States), Ed Crane (who is the president and CEO of the Cato Institute), James Pierson (who was the executive director of the now defunct John M. Olin Foundation), and Richard Gilder (who is the founder of the Gilder Foundation). Other notable funders include the Foreign Policy Research Institute's vice president, the Zionist researcher Alan Luxenberg, and the controversial theorist of non-violence, Peter Ackerman. Here it is important to note that Ackerman, a long-term affiliate of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, published the book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century (Praeger, 1994) with co-author Christopher Kruegler (who at the time was the president of the "democratic" Albert Einstein Institution [5]) while he was based at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Ackerman recently served on the board of directors of the Institute's US branch [ 6] - a body that is currently headed by corporate lobbyist Andrew Parasiliti (of Barbour Griffith & Rogers fame), a person who previously served as the director of programs at the military contractor think tank the Middle East Institute.

A brief examination of Free Africa Foundation's eight-person-strong advisory board paints a similar picture of the foundation's commitment to free markets. For a start this board includes Bruce Bartlett, the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (Doubleday, 2006); another notable writer is the controversial neoconservative John Fund, who is a propagandist for the Wall Street Journal. Bartlett and Fund are joined by a leading theorist of democracy manipulation, Larry Diamond, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and is the founding co-editor of the National Endowment for Democracy's Journal of Democracy. One of the Free Africa Foundation's less conservative advisors is Audna Linter Nicholson who was formerly affiliated with the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs - although even in this hotbed of liberalism one finds conservatives occupying leadership roles, with their longstanding president, Robert Myers (1980-95) being a former CIA agent and subsequent publisher of the right-wing magazine The New Republic (until 1979).

The Free Africa Foundation's advisory board has intriguing links to two people who are connected to what was once the best-known organization committed to freedom in Africa, the African National Congress. These people are Zwelakhe Sisulu, who is the son of Walter Sisulu (the former secretary general of the ANC), and Makaziwe Mandela, who is the daughter of Nelson Mandela. To understand the reason why these two high-profile individuals are now tied to a conservative freedom group it is necessary to first unpack their freedom-fighter-parents' prior engagements with imperial elites.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article164711.html



--- In Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com, George Ayittey wrote:
>
> Lil Joe,
>
> I am breaking off this discussion for two reasons. First, your knowledge of
> African history is shallow and your understanding of the complexities and
> nuances of African politics is pathetic. Your rabidly anti-US/West and
> staunchly pro-Arab/Islam stance insults the sensibilities of many Africans.
> In continuing to oppose your jaundiced viewpoints, I run the risk of being
> seen as anti-Islamic or anti-Arab, which I am not because I have many Muslim
> and Arab friends.
>
> You have been told repeatedly that the Arabs were no different from the
> Europeans. *BOTH* were invaders, enslavers, and conquerors.
> *BOTH*introduced foreign religions into Africa. Neither Christianity
> nor Islam is indigenous to Africa. While the Europeans ran the West African slave trade,
> the Arabs ran the East African counterpart. You *CANNOT* come an African
> forum or Africa and tell us that the European form of oppression, slavery
> and domination was "bad" but the other by Arabs was "good." You will offend
> many Africans.
>
>
> Second, after the collapse of the Barre regime in 1991, the Somalis made
> several attempt to cobble together a national government. Each time they did
> it, some scrofulous group tried to scuttle everything. After the
> failed 13th attempt, the OAU authorized the neighboring states to form
> the Inter-governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) to restore peace and
> stability to Somalia. IGAD countries included Egypt, Ethiopia, Djibouti,
> Kenya and Uganda. IGAD funded the 14th attempt; Somali delegates spent
> nearly a year in Eldoret, Kenya. Finally, they cobbled together the Federal
> Transitional Government (TFG) but it was weak. Then in 2005, the Islamic
> Courts Union (ICU) decided to overthrow the TFG. No way! Who born dog?
>
> Ethiopia *INVADED* to shore up the TFG with full support of IGAD members,
> the UN, the AU and the US. I *SUPPORTED* the invasion on *PRINCIPLE.* Nobody
> is going to sit down and watch years of painstaking effort scuttled by some
> crazy Islamic zealots. The only thing you saw wrong with the invasion was
> that the US backed Ethiopia and, since Ayittey also supported the invasion,
> therefore Ayittey is an "imperialist lackey." Such idiocy.
>
> As it happened, Ethiopia eventually withdrew and the ICU came to power.
> Guess what happened? Another group of crazed Islamic zealots (the
> al-Shabbab) is now trying to overthrow the ICU. And guess what, the ICU is
> asking Ethiopia and the African Union to send in troops to help shore up its
> regime. Poetic justice, huh?
>
> Like I said, your understanding of African politics is pathetic. Your
> scorched-earth rabid anti-Americanism and fierce pro-Arab stance doesn't cut
> it with many Africans.
> I am done with you.
> George Ayittey,
>
> Accra, Ghana



On 6/26/10, Patricia wrote:

George,
I have followed this exchange with interest and some increduality! Somalia is an African country as you say, it is a complex country with it`s own clan system but it is not an Arab country. I haven`t been to Somalia but for three years we lived and worked in Tana River district of Kenya, we were forty miles from the Somali border, in fact one of the reasons the project was being undertaken, was to establish that part of Kenya firmly within Kenya, as Somalia had claimed it was in their territory. We had many Somalis in our midst either working or living in the area so I do know something about the Somalis.

Would you say the fact that for many years there has never been a credible government is due to that complex clan system? As you say, for many months at one stage the Somali government left Mogadishu and lived in Nairobi, administering from there until the Kenyans asked them to leave, I think I recall one reason may have been unpaid hotel bills!

Yes, Europeans were not alone in invading and enslaving, Arabs carried out the same nefarious activities, also, some African chiefs coluded with both of these groups, my good Nigerian friend told me his grandfather was guilty of trading people as slaves.

I think you are probably right to terminate this thread George, Joe seems to be barking up the wrong tree, I doubt you have heard the last though.

Have a good week end.
Pat.


--- In Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com, George Ayittey wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
>
>
> I have always admired the *traditional *Somali society, along with the Igbo
> and my own Ga societies. They all share a common characteristic:
> *statelessness.
> *A stateless or acephalous society is one without centralized authority.
> That is, they have no chiefs or kings. The Igbo have this saying: "*Igbo
> enweghi eze*" It means the Igbo have no kings/chiefs. In the case of the Ga,
> my tribe, we have a king called "*Mantse" *but traditionally, he has no
> political role whatsoever. His only role is military/magical or
> supernatural, which comes into play in times of war. He is supposed to be
> "medicined," imbued with supernatural powers. At war time, he does not take
> part in the fighting; he sits on his stool (throne) by the side and watches
> the action. He is supposed to use his magical powers to help the Ga people
> win the war. If the Ga people are defeated, off goes the *Mantse's *head!
> Talk about accountability. Oh how I wish they would bring back regicide. The
> Mugabes, Musevenis and the Ghaddafys never had it so easy.

> *ALL *traditional African societies are governed by customary laws and this
> is where the clash between the modern and traditional erupts. African
> politicians promulgate *statutory *laws, which the people don't understand
> and, therefore, ignore them. It is worse in countries ruled by a despot. His
> decrees just don't make sense to the people. In fact, much of the
> instability that has plagued Africa in recent years can be traced to the
> conflict between statutory and customary laws. In stateless societies,
> their customary laws approach that of natural law because there is no
> centralized authority. Hence, the reason why the conflict between statutory
> and customary law is most pronounced. People of stateless societies are a
> rebellious lot, who brook no imposition on them. The Somalis are one example
> but the Igbos are another, who fought the Biafran War (1967-70) to break
> away from a political system that they found oppressive.


fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff


Lil Joe's Response:

No one said that Somalia is not on what today is called the African continent. But, what constitutes it a continent? What has being Arab got to do with continental borders? It is a myth that continents are determined by and comprised of race and have a common 'race culture'.
(See Joseph Graves The Myth of Race @ http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html)



There are for instance modern Ghana and Madagascar, Zimbabwe and Egypt, Mazambique and Sudan, Nigeria and Ethiopia, Gabon and Eritrea, Lesotho and Djibouti, and Swaziland and Somalia are all on the African continent, the same way that Indonesia and Russia, Syria and Korea, Iraq and Laos, Turkey and India and Saudi Arabia and China are all on what is presently identified as the Asian Continent, Greece, Britain and Norway in Europe, and Alaska, Georgia and Mexico are part of North America and Peru, Brazil and Chile are part of South America. Continents are modern political geographical concepts, the divisions are ideological rather than geological.


Of the seven most commonly recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are distinctly separated from other continents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

Martin Waldseemuller is thought to have been the first person to use the name America, on a map of 1507. He named it after Amerigo Vespucci, who was probably the first man to realize that the continent was not part of Asia. The names Africa, Asia and Europe go back to classical times and were not coined by individuals. Africa comes from the old language of Carthage: Asia was originally the name of a town in Lydia: Europe is probably derived from the Greek word for wide or broad. http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question51895.html


The current Continental geography of Africa includes e.g. Ghana and Madagascar, Swaziland and Eritrea, Gibon and Djibouti, Angola and Somalia, Congo and Ethiopia, Lesotho and Tunisia, Zimbabwe and Egypt. Of these modern nations historically the tribes had no contact and even within them different tribes and kingdoms had different political systems corresponding to their respective modes of production and appropriations. The continent of Asia includes the modern nations of Syria and Indonesia, Turkey and Korea, Israel and India, Russia and Japan, Palestine and China, Iran and Laos and Iraq. Europe includes the modern nations of Spain and Iceland, Crete and Norway, Greece and Britain, Cicily and Estonia. The Continent of North Americ includes Alaska and Jamaica, Quebec and Oregon, Idaho and Haiti, Massachusetts and Mexico; Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Panama are also categorized as part of North America whereas Columbia, Venuzuela, Brazil, Peru and Chile are South America.

What in today's ideological political geography posits as 'continents' the geography of the continent of Europe as seperate from Asia and Europe and Asia seperate from Africa is given no geological basis and no genetic theory is given. The Cushitic tribes of Somalia have a historical connection with those of Ethiopia and not with the Ga-Adangbe tribe of Ghana. Ayittey has never stepped foot in Somalia.

Humanity evolved as a hominid species in what is today called Africa, and all humans are descendents of a San population that migrated from central Africa into other parts of Africa, and then out of Africa into "Asia" and "Australia", and from central Asia into Europe and east Asia accross the Straits into the Americas.

"MtDNA, inherited down the maternal line, was used in 1987 to discover the age of the famous "Mitochondrial Eve," the most recent common female ancestor of everyone alive today. This work has since been extended to show unequivocally that "Mitochondrial Eve" was an African woman who lived sometime during the past 200,000 years. ( See Article in Science Daily @http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515154635.htm)

The Bradshaw Foundation, in association with Stephen Oppenheimer, presents a virtual global journey of modern man over the last 160,000 years. The map will show for the first time the interaction of migration and climate over this period. We are the descendants of a few small groups of tropical Africans who united in the face of adversity, not only to the point of survival but to the development of a sophisticated social interaction and culture expressed through many forms. Based on a synthesis of the mtDNA and Y chromosome evidence with archaeology, climatology and fossil study, Stephen Oppenheimer has tracked the routes and timing of migration, placing it in context with ancient rock art around the world. http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/


Cultures were not the products of migrating populations genetic adaptations to new environments, but to environmental, techno-economic determined political conditions of social life.


"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men. ...

"The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2


The ancient economies of the Fertile Crescent connected Egypt and Mesopotamia in the inter-connected economies of the Fertile Crescent and environs, not Egypt and Ghana in "Africa", or Mesopotamia and Russia or China in "Asia". Moreover the ancient economy and politics of Crete, Mycenae, and then the Dorians of Greece were part and parcel of the economies and politics of the empires of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, Assyria and Persia, not Britain, Norway or Germany.

Egypt, Nubia/Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia although on what today is called the African continent is historically and culturally part of what is regarded as the Middle East.


"The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will. ...The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms." < href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2">http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2


Race consciousness is ideological. There is no such thing as race and therefore no genetic 'racial' or African culture or Asian culture or European culture. Ayittey being of the Ga tribe in modern Ghana is irrelevant, he is lying when he tries to make a racial-cultural connection between the Ga-Adangbe tribes of the West Coast of Africa bordering the Atlantic Ocean, and the Cushitic tribes that bordered the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean and on the contrary were associated with the history of that region.



Previous States in Somalia:

Ajuuraan Empire - Hydraulic engineering, several hundred fortresses in the Horn of Africa, defeated the Portuguese Empire, repulsed the Oromo conquerors, allowed muslim migrants fleeing instability from Europe to Asia to settle in it's domain

Empire of Adal - Zayla'i scholars that made a significant impact on Islamic teaching, Conquest of Abyssinia, build wonderful cities such as Zeila, Maduna, Amud, Harar and Bulhar with cisterns, mosques and walls

Kingdom of Ifat - fought the Abyssinian empire, predecessor to Adal, produced the great Sultan Jamal Ad Din II

Gerad Dynasty - build the beautiful city of Las Khorey with it's many fortresses

Mogadishan Civilization - It's capital city was known as the City of Islam, build some of the finest mosques in Africa such as Arba Rucun and Fakr ad Din which for centuries were the only mosques in East africa with minarets
Ismaan Sultanate - Build the Castle cities of Qandala, Botiala and Bandar Qassim and traded with Persia, India and China
Hobyo Kingdom - Sultan Kenadiid split away from the Ismaan kingdom and build the beautiful city of Obbia

Gobroon Dynasty - Military empire that defeated the Bardera wahabbis and forced the Omani empire to pay tribute. Imported the 50 thousand slaves from Zanzibar to work on plantations. http://www.topix.com/forum/world/somalia/TVVISLMKG0GBQP86S

The empirical history of Somalia has been a history of kingdoms and empire, not republican democracies. Somali kingdoms were part of the Afro-Asiatic region and Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, and were not "indigenous African institutions', which don't even exist. Different tribes and kingdoms are different throughout the continent.

Pat has never set foot in Somalia. Somalia and Kenya are different as are Somalia and Ethiopia, or Britain, France and Germany or the United States and Mexico, Haiti and Jamaica and Cuba, China, Pakistan and India and Iraq.

I live in LA, near Mexico and in fact LA was once part of Mexico, and I know hundreds of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, personally and politically, but that doesn't make me an expert on Mexico and Mexicans. Pat's vacationing in Kenya certainly doesn't make her an expert on Somalia and Somali history and culture.

The Somalis are Muslims and their national language is Cushitic:

Except for a few communities along the southern Somali coast where Swahili (a Bantu language) and Arabic dialects are spoken, Somali nationals (including persons of non-Somali origin) speak one of several Somali dialects. Somali belongs to a set of languages called lowland Eastern Cushitic spoken by peoples living in Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, and Kenya. Eastern Cushitic is one section of the Cushitic language family, which in turn is part of the great Afro-Asiatic stock. http://countrystudies.us/somalia/51.htm



The ancient Kingdom of Cush. At the time there was no Continental ideational geographical seperation of "Africa" from "Asia", it was one region.







Persian Empire:



Macedonian Empire [Alexander the Great]



Roman Empire:




Arab Empire



The territories of the Afro-Asian Mediterrenean world had been one region governed by successive imperial governments. Ethiopia was also part and parcel of this world, economically and culturally; but, as the maps show, it was never conquered by the great empire. Ethiopia became a Christian kingdom the same as those of the Roman and subsequent Byzintine Empire did. But, whereas the Arab conquests and subsequent Ottomon Empire brought Islam into the Byzintine Empire and into Somalia, Ethiopia remained Christian, Abbysinnia.


So, Patricia Anderson and George Ayittey are LIARS when they claim there was something new about the territories of the Arab and Islamic empires. The territories of the Mediterrennean region and Red Sea were the same as the previous empire and not an "Arab conquest of Africa". It is also therefore invalid for Ayittey, and Anderson, to, on their unhistorical [false] ideological anti-Arab/anti-Islamic premise to then incorrectly compare the actual historical Arab/Islamic Empire's displacement of the Roman and Byzintine Empire, the same as that empire had displaced the Macedonian empire and the Macedonian the Persian empire and so on back in time (see maps above), with the European invasion, occupation and slave trade, beginning in the 15th century, because these earlier [ancient] empires were generally of the same territories.

Whereas:

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England's Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c.

"The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power. "Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who makes a speciality of Christianity, says:

'The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth." [4]

"The history of the colonial administration of Holland - and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century -

'is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness" [5]

"Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the chief agents in this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. An official report says:

'This one town of Macassar, e.g., is full of secret prisons, one more horrible than the other, crammed with unfortunates, victims of greed and tyranny fettered in chains, forcibly torn from their families."

"To secure Malacca, the Dutch corrupted the Portuguese governor. He let them into the town in 1641. They hurried at once to his house and assassinated him, to "abstain" from the payment of £21,875, the price of his treason. Wherever they set foot, devastation and depopulation followed. Banjuwangi, a province of Java, in 1750 numbered over 80,000 inhabitants, in 1811 only 18,000. Sweet commerce!

"The English East India Company, as is well known, obtained, besides the political rule in India, the exclusive monopoly of the tea-trade, as well as of the Chinese trade in general, and of the transport of goods to and from Europe. But the coasting trade of India and between the islands, as well as the internal trade of India, were the monopoly of the higher employes of the company. The monopolies of salt, opium, betel and other commodities, were inexhaustible mines of wealth. The employes themselves fixed the price and plundered at will the unhappy Hindus. The Governor-General took part in this private traffic. His favourites received contracts under conditions whereby they, cleverer than the alchemists, made gold out of nothing. Great fortunes sprang up like mushrooms in a day; primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a shilling. The trial of Warren Hastings swarms with such cases. Here is an instance. A contract for opium was given to a certain Sullivan at the moment of his departure on an official mission to a part of India far removed from the opium district. Sullivan sold his contract to one Binn for £40,000; Binn sold it the same day for £60,000, and the ultimate purchaser who carried out the contract declared that after all he realised an enormous gain. According to one of the lists laid before Parliament, the Company and its employes from 1757-1766 got £6,000,000 from the Indians as gifts. Between 1769 and 1770, the English manufactured a famine by buying up all the rice and refusing to sell it again, except at fabulous prices. [6]

"The treatment of the aborigines was, naturally, most frightful in plantation-colonies destined for export trade only, such as the West Indies, and in rich and well-populated countries, such as Mexico and India, that were given over to plunder. But even in the colonies properly so called, the Christian character of primitive accumulation did not belie itself. Those sober virtuosi of Protestantism, the Puritans of New England, in 1703, by decrees of their assembly set a premium of £40 on every Indian scalp and every captured red-skin: in 1720 a premium of £100 on every scalp; in 1744, after Massachusetts-Bay had proclaimed a certain tribe as rebels, the following prices: for a male scalp of 12 years and upwards £100 (new currency), for a male prisoner £105, for women and children prisoners £50, for scalps of women and children £50. Some decades later, the colonial system took its revenge on the descendants of the pious pilgrim fathers, who had grown seditious in the meantime. At English instigation and for English pay they were tomahawked by red-skins. The British Parliament proclaimed bloodhounds and scalping as "means that God and Nature had given into its hand."

"The colonial system ripened, like a hot-house, trade and navigation. The "societies Monopolia" of Luther were powerful levers for concentration of capital. The colonies secured a market for the budding manufactures, and, through the monopoly of the market, an increased accumulation. The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and murder, floated back to the mother-country and were there turned into capital. Holland, which first fully developed the colonial system, in 1648 stood already in the acme of its commercial greatness. It was

'in almost exclusive possession of the East Indian trade and the commerce between the south-east and north-west of Europe. Its fisheries, marine, manufactures, surpassed those of any other country. The total capital of the Republic was probably more important than that of all the rest of Europe put together." Gulich forgets to add that by 1648, the people of Holland were more over-worked, poorer and more brutally oppressed than those of all the rest of Europe put together.

"Today industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. In the period of manufacture properly so called, it is, on the other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial predominance. Hence the preponderant rôle that the colonial system plays at that time. It was "the strange God" who perched himself on the altar cheek by jowl with the old Gods of Europe, and one fine day with a shove and a kick chucked them all of a heap. It proclaimed surplus-value making as the sole end and aim of humanity.

"The system of public credit, i.e., of national debts, whose origin we discover in Genoa and Venice as early as the Middle Ages, took possession of Europe generally during the manufacturing period. The colonial system with its maritime trade and commercial wars served as a forcing-house for it. Thus it first took root in Holland. National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican – marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. [7] Hence, as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the rise of national debt-making, want of faith in the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may not be forgiven.

"The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers, to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven – the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy.

"At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the State. Hence the accumulation of the national debt has no more infallible measure than the successive rise in the stock of these banks, whose full development dates from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England began with lending its money to the Government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of banknotes. It was allowed to use these notes for discounting bills, making advances on commodities, and for buying the precious metals. It was not long ere this credit-money, made by the bank itself, became. the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the State, and paid, on account of the State, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. Gradually it became inevitably the receptacle of the metallic hoard of the country, and the centre of gravity of all commercial credit. What effect was produced on their contemporaries by the sudden uprising of this brood of bankocrats, financiers, rentiers, brokers, stock-jobbers, &c., is proved by the writings of that time, e.g., by Bolingbroke's. [8]

"With the national debt arose an international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumulation in this or that people. Thus the villainies of the Venetian thieving system formed one of the secret bases of the capital-wealth of Holland to whom Venice in her decadence lent large sums of money. So also was it with Holland and England. By the beginning of the 18th century the Dutch manufactures were far outstripped. Holland had ceased to be the nation preponderant in commerce and industry. One of its main lines of business, therefore, from 1701-1776, is the lending out of enormous amounts of capital, especially to its great rival England. The same thing is going on today between England and the United States. A great deal of capital, which appears today in the United States without any certificate of birth, was yesterday, in England, the capitalised blood of children.

"The system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent labourers, of capitalising the national means of production and subsistence, of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production. The European states tore one another to pieces about the patent of this invention, and, once entered into the service of the surplus-value makers, did not merely lay under contribution in the pursuit of this purpose their own people, indirectly through protective duties, directly through export premiums. They also forcibly rooted out, in their dependent countries, all industry, as, e.g., England did. with the Irish woollen manufacture. On the continent of Europe, after Colbert's example, the process was much simplified. The primitive industrial capital, here, came in part directly out of the state treasury. "Why," cries Mirabeau, "why go so far to seek the cause of the manufacturing glory of Saxony before the war? 180,000,000 of debts contracted by the sovereigns!" [9]

"Colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, commercial wars, &c., these children of the true manufacturing period, increase gigantically during the infancy of Modem Industry. The birth of the latter is heralded by a great slaughter of the innocents. Like the royal navy, the factories were recruited by means of the press-gang. Blase as Sir F. M. Eden is as to the horrors of the expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil, from the last third of the 15th century to his own time; with all the self-satisfaction with which he rejoices in this process, "essential" for establishing capitalistic agriculture and "the due proportion between arable and pasture land" - he does not show, however, the same economic insight in respect to the necessity of child-stealing and child-slavery for the transformation of manufacturing exploitation into factory exploitation, and the establishment of the "true relation" between capital and labour-power. He says:

'It may, perhaps, be worthy the attention of the public to consider, whether any manufacture, which, in order to be carried on successfully, requires that cottages and workhouses should be ransacked for poor children; that they should be employed by turns during the greater part of the night and robbed of that rest which, though indispensable to all, is most required by the young; and that numbers of both sexes, of different ages and dispositions, should be collected together in such a manner that the contagion of example cannot but lead to profligacy and debauchery; will add to the sum of individual or national felicity?" [10]

"With the development of capitalist production during the manufacturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost the last remnant of shame and conscience. The nations bragged cynically of every infamy that served them as a means to capitalistic accumulation. Read, e.g., the naïve Annals of Commerce of the worthy A. Anderson. Here it is trumpeted forth as a triumph of English statecraft that at the Peace of Utrecht, England extorted from the Spaniards by the Asiento Treaty the privilege of being allowed to ply the negro trade, until then only carried on between Africa and the English West Indies, between Africa and Spanish America as well. England thereby acquired the right of supplying Spanish America until 1743 with 4,800 negroes yearly. This threw, at the same time, an official cloak over British smuggling. Liverpool waxed fat on the slave trade. This was its method of primitive accumulation. And, even to the present day, Liverpool "respectability" is the Pindar of the slave trade which - compare the work of Aikin [1795] already quoted - "has coincided with that spirit of bold adventure which has characterised the trade of Liverpool and rapidly carried it to its present state of prosperity; has occasioned vast employment for shipping and sailors, and greatly augmented the demand for the manufactures of the country" (p. 339). Liverpool employed in the slave-trade, in 1730, 15 ships; in 1751, 53; in 1760, 74; in 1770, 96; and in 1792, 132. [12]

"Whilst the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in England, it gave in the United States a stimulus to the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery, into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world. If money, according to Augier, "comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek," capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm


Ayittey is not a Ga embassador to the United States but is an expatriate Washington DC based imperialist lackey who works for neo-conservative advocate of US imperialism called the Free Africa Foundation. He does not represent Africa or speak for the Mwananchi Forum.

It is irrelevant that Ayittey's parents were of the Ga tribe and that he hailed from Ghana. His playing the African race card in demonizing Arabs is as American as apple pie and his pretense that Africa is one culture is a lie. He uses his skin color and tribal origin in Ghana as an ideological cover to dress his advocacy of US foreign policies against African countries as 'good for Africa'. He has offered no data or documentation to support his bare assertion that the people of Somalia have a common cultural heritage with the Ga of Ghana rather than with the history and people of their own region.

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff


The economic history of what encompass the old empires of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, the Macedonians, the Roman and Byzintine, the Arabs and Ottomon, the present Oil Region and the contemporary Arab League, which economically and politically and culturally has historically included Ethiopia, Axum and Somalia in this region.

Organization of Oil Producing States (OPEC)



The issue here is imperialist control verses self-determination of oil producing nations and how these conflicts effect the region and not that Ayittey hailed from an African tribe in Ghana.

Moreover, the Ga tribe and its culture is of importance only to those members of that tribe living in the country side -75% of Ga migrated to and live in cities and belong to urban classes participating in the world economy, and Ghanian civil and political society, not rural medicine man politics. As the maps show the issues of Somalia are not concerned with medicine men of Ga. It is evident what Ayittey is representing is not the Ga tribe of Ghana, and certainly not some fictitious universal 'traditional African polity'.

Ayittey's racist and bigotted demogogy against Arabs and Islam, including demonizing the Somali people as "crazy Islamist zealots", is not about "Africa" nor "Africans". It is all about substituting demagoguery for analysis in advancing US imperialism's policies toward the oil regions of the Middle East - particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Somalia and Yeman, Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, Libya and Sudan.



U.S. Smart Bombs Pave Way For Somali Dictatorship
Peace and prosperity in East African nation become latest victim of "war on terror," but who cares when a new season of American Idol is about to begin? Certainly not the U.S. media

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

International gangsters, tinpot dictators and genocidal megalomaniacs worldwide should take note - if you want to topple a democratically elected government and subjugate, indenture and abuse a population, just give the White House a call. For the right price, they'll be happy to lend a hand and a few smart bombs. Just make the check out in the name of "The War On Terror."

That's right - the "global struggle against the enemies of freedom" has claimed another scalp - freedom in Somalia.
As we reported last week, as a direct consequence of the multiple air strikes inflicted upon the East African country, supposedly in the name of killing Al-Qaeda operatives, the Bush administration has ensured a return to power for the savage warlords that were behind the "Black Hawk down" fiasco in 1993 where U.S. troops were killed and dragged through the streets in celebration.

It is an open secret in Washington," writes Eric Margolis, "That the Somalia operation is to be the Bush/Cheney Administration's new model for war against recalcitrant Muslims. The White House failed to convince India or Pakistan to rent their troops for occupation duty in Iraq, but it has succeeded in using Ethiopia's army in Somalia. Ethiopia's repressive regime was only too happy to invade Somalia and received large infusions of aid from Washington. The Administration is duplicating the British Empire's wide scale use of native troops(`sepoys' in India; `askaris' in East Africa) in colonial wars."

The Islamist coalition government had brought stability to Somalia for the first time in fifteen years. Peace and prosperity abounded and women were able to walk the streets without fear for the first time. Schools, clinics and hospitals began to re-open. This being wholly unacceptable to imperial neo-fascist international crime syndicate, air strikes were immediately ordered and the path was blown clear for Ethiopian troops and a menagerie of brutal thugs to re-occupy the country and declare martial law.

Under the justification of "enforcing security," the U.S. backed brutes have banned any type of protest or demonstration, shut down the media and imposed curfews - say goodbye to your hard earned freedom, you've just been liberated by War on Terror Inc. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/160107smartbombs.htm


When Ayittey started writing his clap trap about Somalia being historically stateless he was lying to provide an ideological justification to endorse the policies of an economic theory. As I pointed out, Somalia was for the libertarian capitalist economic advocacy of Michael van Notten what Hong Kong was for the monetarist economic advocacy of Milton Friedman. (See http://mises.org/daily/2701 and http://libertariannation.org/a/f62d1.html) [Concerning analogy to Milton Friedman and his view of the Hong Kong 'experiment' see http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7696]

This has nothing to do with tribes in Ghana. Thus the point was that the disintegration of a bureaucratic-military central State and national bureaucratic political structure in Somalia was hailed by Michael van Notten as a case for libertarian capitalism, Michael van Notten didn't write anything about indigenous tribal institutions in Ghana.

Thus the point was that the flip flop by Ayittey was as an imperialist lackey endorsing the US sponsored Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to overthrow the established government of the Somali people, to set up a US armed, trained and financed quisling regime in Mogadishu. Ayittey does not write as an African but as an imperialist lackey. He had previously faked as an economist, and supportive of Michael van Notten's liberation capitalist ideological praise of statelessness in Somalia.

We are talking about Somalia, a Middle Eastern country and part of the Arab world: Previous States in Somalia:

Ajuuraan Empire - Hydraulic engineering, several hundred fortresses in the Horn of Africa, defeated the Portuguese Empire, repulsed the Oromo conquerors, allowed muslim migrants fleeing instability from Europe to Asia to settle in it's domain

Empire of Adal - Zayla'i scholars that made a significant impact on Islamic teaching, Conquest of Abyssinia, build wonderful cities such as Zeila, Maduna, Amud, Harar and Bulhar with cisterns, mosques and walls

Kingdom of Ifat - fought the Abyssinian empire, predecessor to Adal, produced the great Sultan Jamal Ad Din II

Gerad Dynasty - build the beautiful city of Las Khorey with it's many fortresses

Mogadishan Civilization - It's capital city was known as the City of Islam, build some of the finest mosques in Africa such as Arba Rucun and Fakr ad Din which for centuries were the only mosques in East africa with minarets

Ismaan Sultanate - Build the Castle cities of Qandala, Botiala and Bandar Qassim and traded with Persia, India and China

Hobyo Kingdom - Sultan Kenadiid split away from the Ismaan kingdom and build the beautiful city of Obbia

Gobroon Dynasty - Military empire that defeated the Bardera wahabbis and forced the Omani empire to pay tribute. Imported the 50 thousand slaves from Zanzibar to work on plantations. http://www.topix.com/forum/world/somalia/TVVISLMKG0GBQP86S


The empirical history of Somalia has been a history of kingdoms and empire, not republican democracies. Somali kingdoms were not were part of the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, and were not "indigenous African institutions', which don't even exist. Different tribes and kingdoms are different throughout the continent.

This actual history shows that Ayittey was lying where he asserted:

"The Somali are fiercely "republican" in the sense that they are ferociously independent and take orders from no one. They are born free. They hate "government." dismissing it as "waxan" or the thing."

Moreover, Ayittey has ran from my anthropological refutation of his ideology of individual Somalians being 'born free'.

No one is 'born free'. The Somalis are not a species separate and apart from the homo sapien. Humans are born into social units, helpless and dependent, the same as other mammals. Sociability is in our genetic make up. The idea that individuals are 'born free' is a Hobbesian myth (the Leviathan) that Rousseau also appropriated, it is bourgeois ideology and not genetic science.

Ayittey bringing up Michael van Notten's skin color is a straw man and a red herring to change the issue from the real one, that Ayittey is such an imperialist lackey that he is a hypocritical flip flop as the policies of imperialism change. Where previously he praised Somali for being Stateless, without a central government and national bureaucratic State, he turned on the dime to endorse the US sponsored invasion by regurgitating the need to 'restore' a central government and State.

US imperialism decided to invade Somalia and prop up a Quisling regime by way of Ethiopian armed invasion and occupation, Ayittey was called upon by imperialism to justify this invasion by saying Somalia needed a central bureaucratic-military State. He turned on the dime and flip flopped from his previous regurgitation of Michael van Notten's libertarian capitalist ideological praise of statelessness of Somalia.

More recently Ayittey wrote in defense of the US sponsored - i.e. US armed, trained, financed - campaign of the Ethiopian lackey army's invasion and occupation of Somalia, that:

> As much as I detest that Ethiopian regime, I defended its invasion of Somalia to support the weak
transitional government. That decision was not taken by Ethiopia alone but in concert with the other member of
the Inter-Governamental Authority on Development (IGAD), of which Ethiopia is a member. Other members
include Egypt, Djibouti, Kenya and Uganda. IGAD was specifically tasked by the African Union to restore peace
and stability to Somalia.
>
> Every time the Somalis struggle to put a government together, some nutty factional group comes to attack it
and scuttle everything. This cycle is unacceptable and must end. Yusuf's TFG was cobbled together after the
14th attempt. You cannot have a situation where another group, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), comes to
overthrow the TFG, which was why I defended Ethiopia's invasion with full support of IGAD and the African
Union. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mwananchi/message/122532


This is the same African Union which Ayittey has previously denounced as coconut heads, thieves, criminals, thugs, and incompetents without any credibility whatsoever, thus calling for its dissolution. But, when those lackeys of imperialism obey the US, British and UN Security Council to endorse the Ethiopian armed establishment of a Quisling regime in Mogadishu, all of a sudden they are dignified, credible spokespersons of Africa, according to this same George Ayittey?

Ayittey had in the 1990s regurgitated Michael van Notten's liberation capitalist ideological praise of statelessness in Somalia, and even lied claiming Somalia never had a central government, that "They hate government", dismissing it as "waxan or the thing". Ayittey hypocritically turns on the dime to endorse the forcing of a quisling regime on the Somali people and saying those who didn't want one were against the natural proclivity to central government and 'nutty'!

Ayittey has never set foot in Somalia or any other Middle Eastern country, has never written anything on any African tribal culture based on participant-observation empirical field work. He lies about Somali history, and therefore as the opportunist that he is merely changes his lies, flip flop when US imperialism require him to change it to the reverse of what he regurgitated previously from Michael van Notten's liberation capitalist ideological praise of statelessness in Somalia. This has nothing to do with Somalian 'culture', which is an Islamic culture, and has nothing to do with van Notten being a white man.


Michael von Notten was in fact an ideologue, he was a libertarian capitalism advocate and saw Somalia's statelessness as the proof of his ideology, the same way Milton Freedman saw Hong Kong as the test of his. The point is that you were in agreement with him, so it was hypocritical when the US decided to invade Somalia to set up the quisling government' by ousting the Somalian ICU government, that it was done in the name of Somalia having no government and needing one and you did an about face and advocated for the set up of this quisling regime by US and Ethiopian invasion.


On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Lil Joe wrote:


Sent: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 3:50 pm
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Mwananchi] Re: [Fikara] Does the rule of law pose a threat to Africa?
> >
> > Comrades,Is this the kind of stupidity that Ayittey teaches his students? In the first place, Ayittey the imperialist lackey that he is only uses reactionary sources, primarily Micheal van Notten, an ideologist, who opposed Somali having a state, endorsed the anarchy there prior to the ICU establishment of a central government. To do this, van Notten made up his classification of "types of laws", which the lackey Ayittey regurgitates without providing any anthropological data from Somalia or elsewhere in Africa. None whatsoever! See:
> >
> > The Law of the Somalis, by Michael Van Notten tribal law enhanced for world market participation Michael van Notten's, The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa, was published by the Red Sea Press, Inc. in 2005 http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/139.html On the basis of this book, not empirical work in the field, Ayittey as an imperialist lackey opposed the ICU, saying Somalia people don't have, or or savages naturally opposed to civil governments and protection of national laws. Then, when the US imperialists, Ayitteys sponsors, who placed their investments in the gangster warlords, once those lords were defeated turned to the defunct "transitional federal government" - you got it, so did George. The imperialists armed, financed and backed Ethiopia for decades, and now used them to invade Somalia and prop-up this TFG quisling regime by armed occupation. Ayittey endorsed this as well, ignoring his own former "arguments" against central government in Somalia. Now, as though we would forget who van Nottin is, and how Ayittey regurgitated his assertions in the past, the final point is that Ayittey uses this anarcho-capitalist ideologists as a source of authority for his demagogic pseudo-juridical rant below. [See Mwananchi
Thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mwananchi/]


>>>>>>>>> Lil Joe, I am breaking off this discussion for two reasons. First, your knowledge of African history is shallow and your understanding of the complexities and nuances of African politics is pathetic. >>>>>>>

This polemic is not about "Africa" or its "complexities and nuances", but about US imperialism's policies toward the oil regions of the Middle East - particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Somalia and Yeman, Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and Sudan. Egypt, Ethiopia and Somalia have historically been part of this region:

Similarly, technologically and economically connected to Egypt and Mesopotamia and to each other historically were Ethiopia, Axum, Mecca, Yamen and Somali:


Aksum Chronology
* Pre-Aksumite ~700-400 BC Sites: Kidane Mehret, Hwalti, Melka, LP56 (but see discussion at Yeha)
* Proto-Aksumite ~400-50 BC
* Early Aksumite ~50 BC-AD 150 Mai Agam, TgLM 143
* Classic Aksumite ~AD 150-400/450 LP 37, TgLM 98, Kidane Mehret
* Middle Aksumite ~AD 400/450-550
* Late Aksumite ~AD 550-700 Kidane Mehret


All the historical and contemporary maps prove that Ayiitey is a LIAR. At best, Ayittey has proven in the course of his writings on Ethiopia, Axum and Somalia that his knowledge of this regions history is shallow, and his understanding of it is dictated by the propaganda of US imperialism and Zionism. Ayittey has endorsed the US armed, financed and trained Ethiopian invasion and the occupation of Sudan ostensibly to fight "Islamism" as part and parcel of the wars in that region, and had nothing to do with the complexities and nuances of tribal relations and religious belief systems in Ghana. It has nothing to do with the tribes of West Africa.


>>>>>>>>Your rabidly anti-US/West and staunchly pro-Arab/Islam stance insults the sensibilities of many Africans. >>>>>>>

No 'African' consensuous has elected Ayittey to represent or speak for them. This playing the 'race' card by him based on his having been born a Ga in Ghana, pretending that gives him the right to speak for every one of the hundreds of millions of people of African descent, is as shamless as Clarence Thomas intimating that 'the black man' was being insulted because he was being drilled by Democratic Senators at the Judicial Committee hearing concerning Anita Hill's charge of sexual harasssment.

The only ones who have felt insulted by my criticism and opposition to US imperialism and the State of Israel's mass murdering campaigns in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Somalia are the Washington DC based Ayittey the imperialist lackey, the Arizona Tea Bagger lickspittle Felix, and the British imperialism advocate Patricia Anderson. They are not Africans. This threesome propagandists have also endorsed, and I have opposed, US policies against Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela... These polemics are therefore not about "Africa", or "Arab/Islam", but about imperialist wars and blockades. The only persons I am insulting are the personifications and lackeys of US imperialism.

>>>>>>> You have been told repeatedly that the Arabs were no different from the Europeans. BOTH were invaders, enslavers, and conquerors. BOTH introduced foreign religions into Africa. Neither Christianity nor Islam is indigenous to Africa. While the Europeans ran the West African slave trade, the Arabs ran the East African counterpart. You CANNOT come an African forum or Africa and tell us that the European form of oppression, slavery and domination was "bad" but the other by Arabs was "good." You will offend many Africans. >>>>

This is another straw man! I don't believe in race or race politics, and have said nothing about Arabs or Europeans! It is Ayittey who has from the beginning brought religion into this, not me. There is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad', only material interests and their pursuits. Ayittey's attacks on 'Arabs' and 'Islam' is nothing but regurgitating George Bush and Joseph Lieberman, Pat Robertson and Glen Beck, John Hagee and Rush Limbaugh. This has nothing to do with the history of ancient Egypt or the slave trade. These are but red herrings.

>>>>>>> Second, after the collapse of the Barre regime in 1991, the Somalis made several attempt to cobble together a national government. Each time they did it, some scrofulous group tried to scuttle everything. After the failed 13th attempt, the OAU authorized the neighboring states to form the Inter-governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) to restore peace and stability to Somalia. IGAD countries included Egypt, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya and Uganda. IGAD funded the 14th attempt; Somali delegates spent nearly a year in Eldoret, Kenya. Finally, they cobbled together the Federal Transitional Government (TFG) but it was weak. Then in 2005, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) decided to overthrow the TFG. No way! Who born dog? >>>>>>>

Ayittey forgets what he previously wrote when regurgitating Michael von Notten's support of the disintegration of a Somalian central government and opposition to its restoration, he wrote:

"When Somalia imploded in 1993, I was one of those who opposed the US and international intervention in that country, insisting on an African solution for the Somali crisis" and "the Somali are fiercely "republican" in the sense that they are ferociously independent and take orders from no one. They are born free. They hate "government." dismissing it as "waxan" or the thing. They will fight anyone who tries to impose anything on them as they are proud of their culture."

Yet, now having turned on the dime, Ayittey flip flops, writing in support of the US armed, financed, trained and militarily backed Ethiopian lackey regimes invasion and occupation of Somalia, to force on its people a quisling regime that the Somalians themselves reject:


>>>> > Ethiopia INVADED to shore up the TFG with full support of IGAD members, the UN, the AU and the US. I SUPPORTED the invasion on PRINCIPLE. Nobody is going to sit down and watch years of painstaking effort scuttled by some crazy Islamic zealots. The only thing you saw wrong with the invasion was that the US backed Ethiopia and, since Ayittey also supported the invasion, therefore Ayittey is an "imperialist lackey." Such idiocy." >>>>>>>>

Ayittey is a LIAR! What Ayittey calls "crazy Islamis zealots" is just regurgitating the US imperialist print and media propaganda of demonizing Muslim and Arab peoples indigenous Resistance to invasion and occupation of their country by foreign Gestapo colonizers. The IFG - so-called Transitional Federal Government - had no presence in Somalia! It was not a government. The capitalist gangster warlords had dominated by thug-terror a lawlessness and statelessness condition of 'liberatarian capitalism without a state', in Somalia in the 1990s (who Michael Van Notten endorsed and whose endorsement Ayittey regurgitated) until the indigeneous Islamic Courts Union of Somali elders and religious leaders formed a government and drove those tribal warlords and gangsters from Mogadishu and Somalia. The Somali people in general and in particular the masses in Mogadishu rallied in support of the Islamic Courts Union established central government and law and order in Mogadishu and Somalia. The TFG had no place in it.

Rather, the TFG was merged with defeated warlords and gangster capitalists and was recobbled together by US imperialists which then got the UN Security Council to recognize it as 'the government of Somalia'. It had no basis in or support from Somalia or its people. The US armed and trained the TFG 'government's' thugs into an 'army', and then paid, armed and trained the Ethiopian army to invade and occupy Mogadishu and set up the so-called TFG as a Quisling regime, similar to the Quisling regimes set up by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

>>>>> > As it happened, Ethiopia eventually withdrew and the ICU came to power. Guess what happened? Another group of crazed Islamic zealots (the al-Shabbab) is now trying to overthrow the ICU. And guess what, the ICU is asking Ethiopia and the African Union to send in troops to help shore up its regime. Poetic justice, huh? >>>>>>>>

This is just another one of Ayittey's lies. The Ethiopian army didn't on their own initiative 'eventually withdraw' from Somalia any more than Ethiopia on its own initiative invaded Somalia. US imperialism sent the Ethiopians into Somalia, but its army was defeated and forced from Somalian soil by the Somali peoples armed Resistance. The AU refused to send replacement occupation forces to battle the armed resistance.

There is also no reconstituted ICU government. The ICU was not a cadre Party when it came to power, but was a coalition government based on a united front of various groups, both religious, political and community organizations representing different interests and ideas. What these groups and individuals had in common was a desire to rid their country of 'liberatarian capitalist statelessnes', the power of the clan warlords and gangster capitalists alliances in anarchy and chaos, insecurity and the rule by violence and terror.

The ICU coalition government accomplished these objectives and brought law and order, peace and security to their country. This lasted until the US and Ethiopian invaders displaced the ICU in Mogadishu by the quisling TFG, the result of which plunged the country back into violence, chaos and anarchy. Meantime, as they had in Iraq, so in Somalia, US imperialism was able to buy off opportunist elements in the united front resistence, and brought them into the TFG quisling regime. Others denounced those sell-outs and continue to fight the quislings and their backers.

Besides stating false representations of what is actually happening in Somalia, Ayittey is contradicting himself once more. As he first endorsed the invasion of Somalia ostensibly because the ICU were 'foreigners' and 'Islamists'. Now he once again turns on the same dime and again flip flops, in opposing the opposition to the government which he now calls "ICU", thus according to his previous flip flop in supporting the TFG against ICU he now flips the flip flop to support the ICU! Why, because US imperialism has recruited elements of the former ICU government that they said wasn't a government, and put them into the TFG Quisling outfit, and whatsoever US imperialism supports, Ayittey endorses, just as whatsoever US imperialism opposes, Ayittey denounces and demonizes.

It is to the reactionary American lobby that Ayittey is addressing. Playing his demogogic patriotic American, racist and religious bigotry cards Ayittey has accused me of being "rabidly anti-US/West and staunchly pro-Arab/Islam". This is an ad hominem attack that is predicated upon a lie and is a straw man, and a red herring the purpose being the manipulation of the gullible by presenting a false division of the world into non-existant racial cultural hemispheres and religion, a so-called 'clash of civilizations'. Such lies, straw men, demogogogic racist, patriotic and religious bigotry used by Ayittey, the neo-conservatives, John Hagee, Glen Beck, Pat Roberson and the like are the last refuges of lying imperialist ideologues, demogogues and fascistic patriotic scoundrels.

The Palestinians are in a simiilar historical situation as were the natives of Morocco, India, South Africa and Rhodesia fighting for emancipation and liberation against settler colonialism and Apartheid, and the Lebanese, Iraqi, Afghan and Somali Resistance are similar to the Chinese war of Resistance to Japanese occupation and the Vietnamese war of national liberation from US occupation of the South, even comparable to the Yugoslav, French and Greek armed resistance to German Gestapo occupation.

The same as the German occupation forces established its Vidkun Quisling 'government' in Norway and Henri-Philippe Petain lackey right-wing government of Vichy France, so US occupation forces has its quisling and lackey 'government' in West Bank, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the "TFG" in Somalia.

I am a Socialist. As Lenin noted:

"Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. ... When speaking of the legitimacy of "defensive" war in relation to the wars of such an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By "defensive" war Socialists always meant a "just" war in this sense. Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars "for the defence of the fatherland", or "defensive" wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be "just", "defensive" wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory "great" powers." http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/ch01.htm#v21fl70h-299

Lil Joe



LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe