Category: Politics

{The Gambia’s President-elect Adama Barrow is to remain in Senegal until his planned inauguration on Thursday, state media in Senegal say.}

The move was requested by West African leaders after a summit in Mali, Senegalese news agency APS said.

President Yahya Jammeh is currently refusing to step down until the supreme court can hear his challenge in May.

Regional bloc Ecowas wants the UN to approve military action if Mr Barrow’s inauguration is blocked.

On Saturday leaders repeated their calls for Mr Jammeh – who initially accepted the result – to go voluntarily at an Africa-France summit in Bamako.

Mali’s president Ibrahim Keita called for “proverbial African wisdom” to prevail to avert a bloodbath and there are growing fears that the uncertainty could cause a refugee exodus.

Thousands of Gambians, mostly women and children, have already crossed the border into neighbouring Senegal and further afield to Guinea-Bissau, where they do not require a visa, officials say.

Mr Barrow, who beat Mr Jammeh in last month’s election, was at the Bamako summit and was referred to as the president.

Last week Nigeria’s president flew to the Gambian capital Banjul to try to broker a deal but Mr Jammeh would not relinquish power.

Mr Jammeh’s attempt to overturn the election result has been delayed because of a shortage of judges but his legal team has asked for an injunction to block Mr Barrow’s inauguration.

The African Union has said it will no longer recognise Mr Jammeh’s rule after his term ends.

The 51-year-old leader seized power in the country in 1994 and has been accused of human rights abuses, although he has held regular elections.

{Presidential convoy stoned by demonstrators, while protests grip cities and towns across Tunisia.}

Several protests over jobs have been staged in several Tunisian towns and the presidential convoy was stoned by demonstrators, on the sixth anniversary of the north African country’s revolution.

Protests erupted in Sidi Bouzid, Meknassi and Gafsa, where Essebsi visited to mark the 2011 uprising that ousted autocrat Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

In Gafsa, angry youths protested against Essebsi’s visit, throwing stones and blocking the road. Local media and residents said the president’s convoy was forced to change its route before he left by air.

In Sidi Bouzid, the cradle of the Tunisian revolution sparked by the death of a street vendor protesting against official corruption and abuses, hundreds demonstrated in front of the local governorate, making the same demands as six years ago.

Six years ago, protests in Tunisia led to the fall of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the country’s ruler for 23 years. Today the country marks the anniversary with little fanfare, after official recognition of failure on the economic and social fronts.

Prime Minister Youssef Chahed acknowledged on national television on Friday night that authorities had so far failed to address the grievances of the Tunisian people that had fuelled the 2011 revolution.

“Today, we are not achieving this [democracy] because unemployment and social inequalities have increased,” Chahed said.

There’s a huge gap between the government and youth in the country, Malek Tazdaghli, a computer scientist, told Al Jazeera.

“The government doesn’t understand the number of unemployed and the widespread depression caused by lack of jobs,” Tazdaghli said.

“For instance, in 2008 there was zero unemployment in the tech sector, now there isn’t a field where people can easily find jobs.”

Six years after that revolt, Tunisia is hailed as a model of democratic transition, but rural central and southern regions remain flashpoints for rioting in marginalised towns where many young Tunisians see little economic opportunity or progress.

“The revolution in itself is a big win, we can’t ever ignore that, but people can’t even afford food,” Imen Dridi, who lives in the capital Tunis, told Al Jazeera.

Taoufik Selmi, a resident of Sidi Bouzid, told Al Jazeera that food was unaffordable, and the recent cold weather had led to several deaths in the city.

“We haven’t seen any change here since the revolution,” Selmi said. “We might be free of oppression now, but we’re hungry and cold.”

READ MORE: Poisoned Jasmine

In Meknassi, close to Sidi Bouzid, a general strike has been declared in protest at a lack of development.

President Essebsi on Saturday announced a package of new projects during a visit to the central province of Gafsa.

According to Nessma, a private television channel, however, security forces fired tear gas to disperse protesters hurling stones at Essebsi’s convoy.

Tunisian authorities have struggled to restore the economy and reduce youth unemployment — particularly among new graduates — over the past six years.

In January 2016, the government imposed a nationwide night time curfew after Tunisia witnessed some of its worst social unrest since the revolution.

Anger erupted after the death of a 28-year-old unemployed man who was electrocuted when he climbed a power pole while protesting in the central town of Kasserine.

That unrest had echoes of the public anger after the death of a young fruit seller who set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid in December 2010 in protest at unemployment and police harassment.

“If it continues down this path, with people not finding the money to buy food, then the country could erupt again,” said Dridi.

Mohammed Dhifallah, a university professor and analyst, described the situation as normal given the transitional period which the country is undergoing.

“One could say the economic fallout is what happens when a new system tries to takeover and eradicate the old corrupt system. The cleanup takes time, but it will hopefully get better and things will pick up.”

{Pointed questions raised by US president-elect Donald Trump’s transition team about America’s relations with Kenya and Africa have raised concern about how Africa will relate with the new administration.}

Mr Trump’s transition panel has questioned why the US has been fighting Al-Shabaab for a decade yet it has not won, for example, raised concerns on how the money that Washington donates to various causes in Africa is spent; wondered whether Big Sam is serious in doing business with Africa among other concerns.

In a questionnaire that the transition team sent to the US state department, whose contents were published on Friday by the New York Times, a number of questions are raised and analysts say they are a pointer to the attitude Mr Trump will have towards Africa when he is sworn in to run the White House.

One question goes: “We’ve been fighting al-Shabaab for a decade, why haven’t we won?”

Then another: “How does US business compete with other nations in Africa? Are we losing out to the Chinese?”

A further query: “With so much corruption in Africa, how much of our funding is stolen? Why should we spend these funds on Africa when we are suffering here in the US?”

They don’t end there. Another worry: “Most of Agoa (African Growth and Opportunity Act) imports are petroleum products, with the benefits going to national oil companies. Why do we support that massive benefit to corrupt regimes?”

There comes another worry relating to the state of affairs in Uganda.

“We’ve been hunting [Lord’s Resistance Army rebel group leader Joseph] Kony for years, is it worth the effort?” the document poses. “The LRA has never attacked US interests, why do we care? Is it worth the huge cash outlays? … Even the Ugandans are looking to stop searching for him, since they no longer view him as a threat, so why do we?”

And if you thought the Ebola disease that ravaged western Africa countries two years ago is dead and gone, Trump’s transitional team wants answers on the matter.

“How… do we prevent the next Ebola outbreak from hitting the US?”

The questions, contained in a four-page document, could be the clearest pointer to the way Mr Trump will be seeking to engage with Africa, a topic he hardly discussed in the campaign leading to his election in November 2016.

“[Outgoing President Barack] Obama was very messianic. And Trump has no desire to be a messiah for anyone. He’s just a businessman trying to make money, at least for the country,” Prof Macharia Munene, a professor of history and international relations at the United States International University, told the Nation on Saturday.

{{American interests }}

The question on whether the US has let China gain more foothold in doing business with Africa, for instance, reveals that Mr Trump is gearing for a “scratch my back I scratch yours” relationship, according to Mr Zaddock Syong’oh, a former policy advisor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
“Mr Trump is giving top priority to American interests and his engagement with external players, whether it is Africa or Kenya as an individual country, saying the relationship must be on the basis that it is serving American interests. That is to say, his policy is based on a quid pro quo approach of ‘you scratch my back, I scratch yours; for every good thing I do to you, what is in it for me?’” said Mr Syong’oh.

It has never been so blatant and so open,” added Mr Syong’oh who has worked at the foreign affairs ministry for six years.

One of the likely consequences if the questions become policy will be a decline in the amount of money that the Trump administration will be channelling to Africa as aid.

During his reign between 2001 and 2009, President George Bush quadrupled the amount of monetary donations to African countries, according to the New York Times.

The newspaper adds that Mr Obama, Mr Bush’s successor, largely maintained the sums even as his administration was making cuts elsewhere.
“Even so, the amount of American aid in 2015 to other critical allies — Afghanistan (5.5 billion US dollars), Israel ($3.1 billion), Iraq ($1.8 billion) and Egypt ($1.4 billion) — far exceeded the approximately $8 billion for all of sub-Saharan Africa,” NYT reported.

If Mr Trump continues with his right-leaning tendencies exhibited during the campaigns, Prof Munene said, it is likely that funds coming in through Usaid may be slashed or halted altogether.

“There may be some thinking along with the white American conservatives who believe that any deal with any other country is a giveaway, without looking at the other side of it,” he said.

{{Doing a lot of business }}

“These are businesspeople and they are going to be doing a lot of business. So, Kenyans should, in talking to the American officials, show them the business opportunities here. We need more investments than the so-called aid,” added Prof Munene.

If the question on the fight against al-Shabaab informs an equally blunt policy decision by the Trump administration, it will deal a major blow in Kenya’s efforts to fight the terror group as the US has previously been involved in, among other efforts, launching drone attacks that killed a number of al-Shabaab leaders.

Besides al-Shabaab, the questionnaire also seeks answers on why the US is concerned about fighting Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria. Its drafters wonder why the girls who were kidnapped by the militants in 2014 have not been rescued.

“If Mr Trump decides against fighting al-Shabaab and Boko Haram and all these terror groups, then it will of course have some effect on even US security itself, because the reason the US has been helping in fighting them is because it’s in its interest.

“And it’s possible that Mr Trump might do it more because he promised to rebuild the military; to make it bigger than it is,” explained Prof Munene.
So, what does the questionnaire from Mr Trump’s transition mean? Mr Syong’oh said it is normal for a new administration to ask questions about the engagements of its preceding regime.

“Basically, they are asking these questions so that they can have a basis for reviewing the current policies and the past policies so that they can develop new policies going forward,” he said.

Mr Syong’oh, currently a consultant, expressed optimism that despite Mr Trump’s habit of making decisions on the run, the questions will not turn into actionable policies given the legal regime in the US.

“What I know for sure is that the American state system is a highly structured system. Decision making processes are very, very structured and they go through a lot of stages,” he said.

{Ivory Coast’s government and rebel troops have reached a final deal at talks in Bouake, government sources said late Friday at the close of a tense day which saw outbreaks of gunfire at barracks across the country.}

Soldiers in Bouake mutinied earlier this month, firing rocket-launchers and terrifying residents of Ivory Coast’s second largest city, while demanding bonuses, better pay and housing.

The protests then spread to other cities, including the economic capital Abidjan, stoking security fears in the world’s top cocoa producer.

The mutiny saw President Alassane Ouattara order major changes in the top security ranks — the armed forces’ chief of staff, the senior commander of the national gendarmerie and the director-general of the police.

“A deal has been reached in Bouake between the chief of staff, the defence minister and the (rebel) troops,” a source close to the presidency told AFP late Friday.

Several rebel soldiers confirmed that a deal had been struck, with one telling AFP: “We are pleased, we’ve reached an agreement”.

“The troops have agreed to return to their barracks, and for this reason gunfire has halted in Bouake,” a local official said. He said the mutineers had managed to obtain a bonus of about 7,500 euros ($8,000).

While an initial deal had been reached almost a week ago, talks on implementing the agreement only began Friday and tensions were high with rebel troops taking up positions on the roads into Bouake and firing into the air.

Regular gunfire was heard throughout the day, including at Akouedo, the biggest barracks in the capital Abidjan and at Odienne in the northwest and Bondoukou in the east.

There were fears before the deal was struck that the defence minister could be taken hostage and a general mutiny unleased. However, he left the talks unharmed.

One source said the soldiers had originally been demanding a raise of 15,000 euros each, a significant amount given that many Ivorians earn about 150 euros a month.

It remains to be seen how the government will finance its promise of the agreed 7,500 euro bonus.

In more problems for the government, Ivorian state employees were also on strike this week protesting against pension cuts and a plan to raise the retirement age.

Bouake, which is home to 1.5 million people, was the cradle of a rebellion which erupted in 2002 in a failed attempt to oust then-president Laurent Gbagbo.

The revolt sliced the former French colony into the rebel-held north and the government-controlled south and triggered years of unrest.

Twelve years later, a similar dispute over pay by rebels-turned-soldiers erupted in Bouake which spread to Abidjan and briefly brought the country to a standstill.

The government then agreed to a deal that provided amnesty for the mutineers and a financial settlement.

The Ivorian army, which consists of about 22,000 soldiers, includes many former rebels who were integrated into the armed forces after years of conflict.

{The US will reduce some sanctions imposed on Sudan, President Barack Obama has announced.}

The White House said the move was intended to acknowledge Sudan’s efforts to reduce internal conflict, improve humanitarian access to people requiring aid and curtail “terrorism”.

The president signed an executive order implementing the measures on Friday.

The move is been seen as an effort by Mr Obama to strengthen ties with Sudan before he leaves office.

Economic sanctions were imposed against the country after the state was labelled a “sponsor of terrorism”.

The penalties being suspended could be re-imposed if Sudan were seen to backtrack on any progress.

The actions recognised by the US include the move by South Sudan to deny safe haven to South Sudanese rebels.

Despite the move by the outgoing Obama administration, Sudan is expected to remain on a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

In 2009, Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir was indicted on war crimes charges, the first to be issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against a sitting president.

The US foreign policy establishment has been split between those who advocate greater engagement with Sudan, and those who believe it is morally wrong to deal with what they consider a genocidal regime.

Easing sanctions shows that the realpolitik wing – which in my experience has deeper knowledge of Sudanese affairs – holds the upper hand.

There are legitimate questions over whether Sudan has really passed the series of tests set by the Americans in areas such as stopping aerial bombardments, opening up the political arena to dissidents and improving humanitarian access to conflict areas.

However, it is clear that the sanctions, which have been in place for so long, have not brought about political change in Sudan and have hurt the people more than the politicians, a point made by Sudanese campaigners in recent months.

For Sudan, which is struggling with an economic crisis, the attraction of the policy change is obvious.

{{Questions remain.}}

Will the Trump administration continue this new policy left to them by Obama’s team? The religious right in the US is implacably opposed to the Islamists who run Sudan, and may try to exert pressure to reverse this decision.

And would the US really be prepared one day to fully normalise relations with Sudan if the ICC-indicted Omar al-Bashir is still president?

That’s for the future. For now, this announcement is an important first step towards a better relationship between the US and Sudan.

Human rights activists in the US have in recent years been strongly critical of President Bashir’s record in the western region of Darfur.

The area has for many years been plagued by tensions between mostly nomadic Arabs and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zaghawa communities who have complained of persecution.

Administration officials first raised the possibility of a reduction in sanctions in the autumn, with some foreign policy experts arguing that the existing measures had only served to make life tougher for Sudan’s poor rather than punish senior members of the government.