Despite half a century of independence from colonial rule and global emancipation Africa is still plagued by ailments such as HIV/AIDS, inter/intra state conflicts, governmental unaccountability, election rigging, corruption, and all sorts of malpractices. Though these omens are rife in almost all countries of the world, most countries are employing rigid statutory and institutional mechanisms to deplete them. The vices are on the increase in Africa and she (Africa) continues to give legislative birth to novel vices such as the legalization of prostitution; affording invisible or lukewarm techniques to militate against crime, limitless defining concepts such as freedom in Human Rights; and a determination to sleep on their rights and be poor bargainers in any international trade, diplomatic and political debates with other developed countries.
With recent talks about meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015, it seems imperative to ask whether Africa is undertaking any efforts to meet some of these (MDG) essential needs of its people or even to democratize as a stepping stone to creating a just and equitable society where such needs would eventually ensue. The answer in my opinion seems to be that,—the MDGs are a craving for Africa(ns), but not a single state has engaged transformative measures towards meeting ALL these noble goals. Owing to the tasking or rather thorny and mountainous nature of the changes adumbrated in the MDGs, the few (States) who have ventured into attaining one or two of such goals have been applauded beyond Africa’s Diplomatic corridor by (amongst others), ‘stayist’ leaders who are driven by the lack of vision to drive any changes beneficial to their population.
Considering that African states have set themselves up as street beggars from the West and quite recently friends of the predator East (China), it is yet to be seen whether these financial gurus would fold their arms and watch Africa develop faster than them or meet the MDGs which some of them are struggling with? It is no news that various proxy attempts have been done to disunite Africa, and owing to our inadvertent gullibility, we have succumbed and woefully fallen to the snares of our paddies who embellish friendship and equality in the loin of hardship, brain drain, and divide & rule tactics, and serve it to us in the golden platter of humanitarian aid. Should Africa be an arm-free zone the sale and donation of ammunition to Africans to exacerbate barbarism on other people will greatly degenerate? These destructive sophisticated scientific works of human hands have succeeded in sidetracking some glorious African virtues like UBUNTU, UJAMA, and their adjunct corollaries. In my opinion, conflicts do not arise because we’re different from one another, but because we cannot celebrate our differences. Africans have been manned to be suspicious of one another, and thus the bonds of love and fraternity amongst them have been dislocated, and fractured to create increasing and incessant conflicts. Though contemporarily a plethora of African conflicts are catalyzed by external factors, those that are triggered from within Africa, by especially African leaders are prolonged by the West and sustained by donation from western arm companies. Despondently, most arm companies that trade with Africa and impalpably trigger and fuel African conflicts are owned by the G5 (Permanent members of the UN Security Council).
Thus there is a muddle understanding of how an arm trader could conveniently wish conflicts ended in the guise of supporting peacekeeping operations. One may well from this perspective understand the reason why even concepts such as Humanitarian Intervention ridiculously designed to protect conflict ridden countries from plunging into limbo only comes in when such countries have experienced untold human and material loss. One may well salute Humanitarian intervention for the beautiful clauses and prerequisite requirements for intervention, but one sets to lament when one critically understands that it can only be effected in genocide and other related malice cases. The concept of State Sovereignty and its emphasis on ephemeral borders has been the bedrock of conflicts in Nigeria and Cameroon, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and a host of other places in the world. Persons were displaced, others lost their lives, and others their property, and as the conflict sky-rocketed, no international efforts concerted to extinguish it as foreign powers were using the countries as proxies for their ideological conflicts and shreds for arm markets and to manufacture relations on which they could perch and pest in the aftermath of the conflict. Why doesn’t the UNSC intervene in Bakasi or in Badne when people are being displaced, others being killed, or when women and children are being exposed to all sorts of malaise? Why should they wait when a clan is systematically targeted by the ruling class (genocide)? Has the concept of Sovereignty more value than Human blood?
Even the birth of Humanitarian intervention knows its ills; existing empirical evidence suggests that HIV/AIDS in Africa spreads quickly through peacekeepers and soldiers (referees of war)—humanitarian interventionists. Women and children who are most vulnerable in wartime usually in the search for protection find themselves in army barracks, being used as articles of sexual gratification by their said protectors. Given the age groups of some of these peacekeepers, and their resort to engaging into vigour stimulating activities believed to boost their courage; these (especially) young men usually go by plural partners and engage in unprotected sex—thus assisting in the spread of and high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It is for this reason that Rwandan Genocide ended up with more children orphaned to AIDS and a sick population than there were before the conflict. This therefore suggests that should there be no conflicts in Africa (requiring military intervention) entirely, this may lead to a considerable drop in the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Since from the time when such seditious acts by peacekeepers were labelled crimes against humanity, some countries backed-off from engaging and committing themselves to succumb to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which could tax them for the conduct of their soldiers.
In order to ascertain and quantify the value of lives lost in conflicts in Africa (a really absurd thing to do), Africa should be declared an arm-free zone and the revenue the arm companies will loose will be commensurate to the Number of lives Africa will gain.
“…The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war.” Asian proverb.
As earlier said, conflicts ensue from our inability to celebrate our differences; should we be able to appreciate our differences as a jealous value to protect, and a spice to stay with, Africans will stop boosting the revenue of arm companies, and will conversely invest in projects which lay a platform for the attainment of MDGs and create a conducive environment for the thriving of peace and development. This can however be hardly achieved without Africans understanding that they are masters of their destiny—that they have to invest Diaspora-acquired knowledge in Africa, resort to peaceful means of dispute resolution (Arbitration, Negotiation, Dialogue, Conciliation, mediation, judicial dispute settlement, etc…), denounce nepotism, and celebrate their cultural differences. The systemization of these values will unite Africans in the fight for ailments, which still account for high death tolls like Tuberculosis, Polio, diarrhea, cholera, Ebola fever, malaria, not to talk of the canker worm—HIV/AIDS. And this will be achieved through concertedly sponsoring some African geniuses to consecrate their ingenuity to the search for such medications
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The agony of an African Student in xenophobic South Africa
The memories of xenophobic labeling are still fresh from December 14 2009 when, at the Kempton Park taxi rank on my way to the Johannesburg CBD, I was refused admission into a public taxi because of my inability to answer a question posed to me in Isizulu. Having spent four years of my life conducting research that will enhance South Africa’s knowledge base and studying under despicable, torturous conditions for a degree for which Wits University will receive about half a million in government subsidy when it is completed, I have never felt so unwanted in any clime, talkless of home—in Africa. This personal experience pushed me into a reflection on the conceptual meaning of xenophobia. Having only been verbally brutalized without any shed of physical violence to my person, it became apparent to me that xenophobia has to be encoded beyond just the physical: it can be either verbal, written or physical. The incidents in Alexandra and other townships in Gauteng and the Western Cape where foreign nationals were brutalized, their homes burnt to ashes, and their shops looted are an expression of physical xenophobia. Xenophobia can therefore be ambiguously defined as the normalization of discriminatory measures, policies or practice, whose effects affect people differently based on national lines. In this regard, any university or institutional policy which differentiates on nationalistic lines or treats non-nationals as sub-human beings is guilty of written xenophobia, irrespective of the wit used to justify its policies. It is not uncommon to find that outrageous practices get not only biblical but scholarly justification in South Africa. For several decades, the country was subjected to the apartheid regime which justified its discriminatory policies with carefully chosen bible verses.
For many intellectuals, xenophobia is a practice which is perpetrated by people who do not know the value of foreign skilled immigrants or who have not schooled abroad and received the hospitality that persons of certain climes had to offer. They contemplate that such a practice is prototype of the townships or normal in the taxi ranks where survival of the fittest is at its optimal. To them, the foreign ‘hustler’ is often the prime suspect of any outlawed practice (theft, rape, murder, etc…), ensuing largely from the locals’ intuitive perception that their social and economic condition (no jobs, inadequate accommodation, overcrowding at school, etc) is caused by the presence of foreign nationals.
This widespread (mis)conception amongst intellectuals which is deeply rooted in several academic circles inhibits profound reflection on the contribution of colleges and universities in fighting against the nefarious xenophobic resentment to which foreign nationals in South Africa are subjected. The consequence of this is that the inadequate resource pandemic which has gripped tertiary institutions has created a caveat for academic boards (University Councils and Chancelleries) to condone discriminate policies which justify why foreign students should be charged excessively high tuition and other fees than their local counterparts with whom they share similar lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries and study space.
It has to be stated that most, if not all, South African universities charge foreign nationals more fees than they do local students, under the pretext that its done all over the world. The Wits vice chancellery contemplates that local students’ education is subsidized by government, hence the decision to charge local students less fees to make up the balance from government subsidy. While hypothesizing that xenophobic violence which is brewed in the townships is familiar to many, this article engages a conceptual reflection of non-violent xenophobia which is virally incubated in South African tertiary institutions. The article further reflects on the substantive merit of South African universities’ discriminatory policies which categorise students into ‘ours’ for local students and ‘them’ for foreign students.
In frowning against the xenophobic violence perpetrated by township dwellers, academic institutions took to the streets in May 2008 in what has come to be known as anti-xenophobic protest matches. In my opinion, however, the protest match was hypocritical because it was not preceded by a necessary self-examination in which the protesters reflected deeply on whether they were morally blameless to carry the torchlight or to stand on the pulpit and preach anti-xenophobic sermons. The same institutions which perpetrate discriminatory policies against students, with the most lynching of such policies targeted at foreign students, carried placards which read “NO TO XENOPHOBIA!”, “XENOPHOBIA = RACISM” etc… Perhaps to these ones, their justifications for discriminatory policies can win blessings in certain corridors, but certainly not from persons who still believe in the equality of all humans and the universality of the right to education.
The guilty South African institutions have ceaselessly remained blinded to the fact that government subsidy is derived from taxes. In South Africa, nationals and non-nationals all pay taxes and everyone irrespective of age contributes to VAT when (s)he effects a payment at any registered service shop in the country. The contribution in taxes by everyone, including foreign students who take part-time duties in the country, accounts for part of government revenue which is used to subsidise education in the country. It will therefore be unreasonable to contemplate that the latter (foreign nationals and student taxpayers) should be side-lined from benefitting from that which their tax contribution provides.
More so, it is public knowledge that South African universities derive certain defined amounts from government for any one postgraduate student they graduate. This amount does not differentiate local from international or foreign students. So, why do universities charge foreign students exorbitant amounts or three times what local students will pay for some universities? Reflecting on the country’s labour force which is in dire need of skilled professionals in the fields of engineering, science and technology, it is apt to point out that about two-thirds of postgraduate students at South African tertiary institutions are foreign students. These are the cornerstone of South Africa’s potential to compete adequately with the international community of skilled professionals. De-incentivising access to studies for foreign students often thirsty for knowledge which their own countries cannot provide due to inadequate facilities is a substantive setback to a country (South Africa) which aspires to grow postgraduate numbers as a means of filling the skills shortage in the country, a country once maimed by apartheid which disenfranchised the majority of its population and prevented large numbers of blacks from attaining higher education levels.
It should also be noted that universities have not only been home to written xenophobia as depicted through the discriminatory fee structuring above, but have equally been home to non-negligible verbal xenophobic protests, as evident in 2004 when a lead local student political movement – the Progressive Youth Alliance – chanted hymns of “AWAY WITH NIGERIANS, AWAY” after an inquiry was made by the then Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment on the abuse of funds by a South African university lecturer. The said Dean, being a Nigerian, was booed by an organized mass of students who chanted and danced on campus, requesting the expulsion of Nigerians and their foreign counterparts from the university!
If we acknowledge that xenophobia can be verbal, physical or written, then we can conclude that it is brewed at South African universities, processed in the townships and consummated by certain forces of law and order which watched in silence and with smiles as foreign nationals burnt to ashes after the Diepsloot xenophobic outburst of May 11, 2008. Saddening though and most painful is the fact that xenophobia in South Africa, whether in universities or in the townships, often targets the African. Where have ubuntu and ujama gone?
For many intellectuals, xenophobia is a practice which is perpetrated by people who do not know the value of foreign skilled immigrants or who have not schooled abroad and received the hospitality that persons of certain climes had to offer. They contemplate that such a practice is prototype of the townships or normal in the taxi ranks where survival of the fittest is at its optimal. To them, the foreign ‘hustler’ is often the prime suspect of any outlawed practice (theft, rape, murder, etc…), ensuing largely from the locals’ intuitive perception that their social and economic condition (no jobs, inadequate accommodation, overcrowding at school, etc) is caused by the presence of foreign nationals.
This widespread (mis)conception amongst intellectuals which is deeply rooted in several academic circles inhibits profound reflection on the contribution of colleges and universities in fighting against the nefarious xenophobic resentment to which foreign nationals in South Africa are subjected. The consequence of this is that the inadequate resource pandemic which has gripped tertiary institutions has created a caveat for academic boards (University Councils and Chancelleries) to condone discriminate policies which justify why foreign students should be charged excessively high tuition and other fees than their local counterparts with whom they share similar lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries and study space.
It has to be stated that most, if not all, South African universities charge foreign nationals more fees than they do local students, under the pretext that its done all over the world. The Wits vice chancellery contemplates that local students’ education is subsidized by government, hence the decision to charge local students less fees to make up the balance from government subsidy. While hypothesizing that xenophobic violence which is brewed in the townships is familiar to many, this article engages a conceptual reflection of non-violent xenophobia which is virally incubated in South African tertiary institutions. The article further reflects on the substantive merit of South African universities’ discriminatory policies which categorise students into ‘ours’ for local students and ‘them’ for foreign students.
In frowning against the xenophobic violence perpetrated by township dwellers, academic institutions took to the streets in May 2008 in what has come to be known as anti-xenophobic protest matches. In my opinion, however, the protest match was hypocritical because it was not preceded by a necessary self-examination in which the protesters reflected deeply on whether they were morally blameless to carry the torchlight or to stand on the pulpit and preach anti-xenophobic sermons. The same institutions which perpetrate discriminatory policies against students, with the most lynching of such policies targeted at foreign students, carried placards which read “NO TO XENOPHOBIA!”, “XENOPHOBIA = RACISM” etc… Perhaps to these ones, their justifications for discriminatory policies can win blessings in certain corridors, but certainly not from persons who still believe in the equality of all humans and the universality of the right to education.
The guilty South African institutions have ceaselessly remained blinded to the fact that government subsidy is derived from taxes. In South Africa, nationals and non-nationals all pay taxes and everyone irrespective of age contributes to VAT when (s)he effects a payment at any registered service shop in the country. The contribution in taxes by everyone, including foreign students who take part-time duties in the country, accounts for part of government revenue which is used to subsidise education in the country. It will therefore be unreasonable to contemplate that the latter (foreign nationals and student taxpayers) should be side-lined from benefitting from that which their tax contribution provides.
More so, it is public knowledge that South African universities derive certain defined amounts from government for any one postgraduate student they graduate. This amount does not differentiate local from international or foreign students. So, why do universities charge foreign students exorbitant amounts or three times what local students will pay for some universities? Reflecting on the country’s labour force which is in dire need of skilled professionals in the fields of engineering, science and technology, it is apt to point out that about two-thirds of postgraduate students at South African tertiary institutions are foreign students. These are the cornerstone of South Africa’s potential to compete adequately with the international community of skilled professionals. De-incentivising access to studies for foreign students often thirsty for knowledge which their own countries cannot provide due to inadequate facilities is a substantive setback to a country (South Africa) which aspires to grow postgraduate numbers as a means of filling the skills shortage in the country, a country once maimed by apartheid which disenfranchised the majority of its population and prevented large numbers of blacks from attaining higher education levels.
It should also be noted that universities have not only been home to written xenophobia as depicted through the discriminatory fee structuring above, but have equally been home to non-negligible verbal xenophobic protests, as evident in 2004 when a lead local student political movement – the Progressive Youth Alliance – chanted hymns of “AWAY WITH NIGERIANS, AWAY” after an inquiry was made by the then Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment on the abuse of funds by a South African university lecturer. The said Dean, being a Nigerian, was booed by an organized mass of students who chanted and danced on campus, requesting the expulsion of Nigerians and their foreign counterparts from the university!
If we acknowledge that xenophobia can be verbal, physical or written, then we can conclude that it is brewed at South African universities, processed in the townships and consummated by certain forces of law and order which watched in silence and with smiles as foreign nationals burnt to ashes after the Diepsloot xenophobic outburst of May 11, 2008. Saddening though and most painful is the fact that xenophobia in South Africa, whether in universities or in the townships, often targets the African. Where have ubuntu and ujama gone?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
