A COMMENTARY ON AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S REPORT
By PARAMOUNT CHIEF CHITIMUKULU HENRY KANYANTA SOSALA
AMNESTY International is a sovereign entity and a very powerful Anglo-Saxon racist unity, which means it conducts its policies as it sees fit and of course there is almost nothing that little and vulnerable African countries can do to call it to account. In its recent report, Amnesty International outlined Zambia’s abuses of human rights.
And for the average Zambian to grasp how and why some of these organisations were formed, I’ll begin by bringing to light the purpose for which bodies like Amnesty International, Human Rights Commission etc., were created.
The United States of America is the richest and most powerful nation on earth. It was a British colony and was ruled by the King of England and was therefore under a monarchy until 1776 when the Americans rebelled against British rule and became a republic.
And having played a major role and greatly contributing to the defeat of the Germans during the Second World War, then America became an Empire. America revolved from Monarch to Republic and into an Empire. Many people believe that America has now become the world’s policeman since Americans are found at the centre of almost every conflict in the world.
When Americans realised that they had come on top of the universe, they decided to devise strategies of how to subdue and control the entire world.
And in his very rare and controversial book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin revealed in detail how the Americans tactfully proceeded to achieve their goal.
He introduced John Kenneth Galbralth who was a well-known historian and Professor at Harvard and who verified that he was asked to be a part of the team that put together The Report From Iron Mountain, a think-tank study commissioned by the Defence Department.
The purpose of the study was to explore novel ways of keeping the world’s masses in subservience. When a copy of the Report was leaked to the press, the government claimed that it was a hoax. However, Galbralth confirmed that it was authentic.
The Fabians are a group of socialists and monetary intellectuals based in England who agree with Communists as to the goal of socialism, but disagree over tactics. Whereas Communists advocate revolution by force and violence, the Fabians advocate gradualism and the transformation of society through legislation.
The therapy chosen was simple: it was to perform a monetary transfusion from a healthy patient to the unhealthy one. This was dubbed “converting money into failure.”
How would this therapy work out? Poverty and corruption are currently the world’s big business enterprises as Simon Mann, a mercenary who fought in Angola’s civil war on the side of MPLA wrote in Cry Havoc: “There are many powerful agencies and people who don’t want democracy in Africa……. political and economic stability is simply not in the interests of the world’s major governments.
Democracy and stability would mean trade regulations and transparency. The G8 nations would find themselves dealing with an African version of OPEC.
It is cheaper, more straightforward to deal with corrupt dictators or rebel groups desperate for money.”
The IMF and the World Bank were created at a meeting of global financiers and politicians held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. Graham Hancock has been an astute observer of the international-aid “industry,” and had attended their plush conferences.
And in his book, Lords of Poverty, he speaks of the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Loans: “Corrupt ministers of finance and dictatorial presidents from Asia, Africa and Latin America are tripping over their own expensive footwear in their unseemly haste to ‘get adjusted..’ For such people money has probably never been easier to obtain than it is today; with no complicated projects to administer and no messy accounts to keep, the venal, the cruel and the ugly are laughing literally all the way to the bank. For them structural adjustment is like a dream come true. No, sacrifices are demanded of them personally; all they have to do….. amazing but true…. Is screw the poor and they have already had plenty of practice at that.
“The record of corruption and waste is endless. But the real eye-opener is in the failure of socialist ventures, those magnificent projects which were to bring prosperity to the underdeveloped countries.
Here are a few examples:
Before receiving loans from the World Bank, Tanzania was not wealthy, but it fed its own people and it had economic growth…..But the country is hopelessly in debt with no way to repay.
Argentina had once been regarded as having one of the highest standards of living in Latin America. But then it became the recipient of massive loans from the World Bank……..people were rioting in streets for food and the government was blaming greedy shop owners for raising prices.”
What about here in Zambia? The University of Zambia Development Studies lecturer, Frederick Mutesa wrote: “The cold war African leaders that succeeded the founding fathers surrendered sovereignty in national policy-making to the Bretton Woods Institutions…..whereas the Nyereres, Kaundas and the Machels resisted the encroachment of foreign forces on the nations’ sovereignty, the Chilubas that replaced them chose to kiss neo-liberal policies in the morning, afternoon and at night.” (The Post April 24, 2004).
And what did the nationalists fear and resisted? Daniel Dnezer, writing on “Sovereignty For Sale” said: “Today, many small countries are tricked into auctioning off their sovereignty to the highest bidder; reaping great rewards in the process.
“In some respects, it has never been so profitable to be a nation-state than in this non-nation-state world. Today, the rapid growth of buyers and sellers have increased the size of the global sovereignty market.
“The demand for certain elements of sovereignty has grown steadily as the supply. Powerful nation-states, of course, remain the key buyers, although increasingly influential private actors including corporations and international criminal groups have entered the sovereignty sweepstakes.
“Although sovereignty auctions can bring immediate gains, they hardly constitute a path of enduring economic development. Small nations that come to depend excessively on such proceeds must do well to remember that sovereignty – unlike agricultural production or tourism – is a non-renewable resource. Once sold, it is very hard to buy back.” (Foreign policy magazine September/October 2001) (Emphasis mine).
John Hatch wrote: “…since 1966, the mantle of socio-economic leadership has been assumed by Tanzania and Zambia…..Kaunda has kept steadily to his determination that social justice shall be established. This has led him directly to try and concentrate on rural renaissance to raise the living standards of the mass of his people. The fact that in 1968 Zambia became self-sufficient in protein-giving eggs is one small, but significant evidence of success in this endeavour.” (False Start in Africa by Rene Dumont)
And note here Daniel Dnezer’s words: “Today, many small countries are tricked into auctioning off their sovereignty to the highest bidder.”
And we were equally tricked because in 1991 Zambians saw the emergence of the supposed young MMD intellectuals into the corridors of power and this was viewed with considerable optimism.
The political change that took place was generally considered positive and promising and, of course, the national challenges were felt to be very serious but solvable.
They introduced the liberalisation of the economy and the promise of the privatisation programme which was claimed to be a constant rise in the living standards and an end to the vicious business circles. The liberalisation of the economy was sold to us as a science that would enable our country to achieve the ageless ambition and an ever-ascending abundance and from these triumphs would flow a more caring government and greater individual liberty.
But to the contrary, the veteran politician and one of the founding fathers of this nation, Sikota Wina said: “Unfortunately, various programmes initiated by Dr. Kaunda that amounted to empowerment of the black man have been totally reversed under the MMD regime that pursued the privatisation programme.
And much against expectations of our founding fathers in the 1960s, today everywhere in Africa you look, there is poverty, inadequate education facilities and failing health institutions.
Today no less than half of the countries in Africa can exist even for a month without donor aid. They would collapse. And currently, foreigners have dominated the Zambian economy and Zambians themselves are completely on the periphery.
Apart from a few who might have looted in the course of history, there are very few African entrepreneurs in the country. Zambia is a “nation of employees only.” (The Post May 25, 2005).
The South African Communist Party, Secretary-General, Dr. Blade Nzimande visited this country at the invitation of The Post newspaper and here is what he observed: “The one striking feature of the Zambian society is the extent to which the structural adjustment policies pursued by the MMD have rolled back many of the gains made during the first two decades of Zambian independence after 1964.
“We found, amongst many of those we met a re-emerging nostalgia for the Kaunda presidency and the advances made then in the fields of education, health and provision of other basic services.
“The MMD regime privatised virtually all the state-owned enterprises, leading to massive job losses and the rolling back in the provision of education and health services in particular.” (Sunday Post, April 9, 2006).
Wina wrote: “…over 100, 000 people lost their jobs between 1992 and 1997, while the Gross National Product (GNP) per capita had fallen to below US$300 ranking, making Zambia one of the least developed nations in Africa with poverty levels at 83 percent.
In 1997, Zambia had seen the closure of 105 companies and 224 firms in 1998 leading to 8, 150 and 3, 655 job losses respectfully.” (The Post, November 2, 2004).
I am always reminded of our current economic mess in comparison with what the UNIP regime had embarked on and on what Graham Hancock, the author of Lords of Poverty, had written: “……… but the real eye-opener is in the failure of socialist ventures, those magnificent projects which were to bring prosperity to the underdeveloped countries.”
And I now want you read the extent to which these agencies can go. James Bovard wrote in The World Bank vs The World Poor: “In the 1980s, the world was saddened by photographs of starving children in Ethiopia, but what the West did not realise was that this was a planned famine.
It was modelled after Stalin’s starvation programme in the Ukraine in the 1930s and Mao’s starvation of the peasants in the 1940s. Its purpose was to starve the population into total submission to the government, for it is the government which decides who will eat and who will not eat…”
The question is: How can the World Bank’s managers continue in conscience to fund such genocidal schemes? Part of the answer is that they are not permitted to have a conscience.
David Dunn, head of the Bank’s Ethiopia Desk explained: “Political distinctions are not something our charter allows us to take into account.”
I believe that with this background our readers will clearly understand that Amnesty International, Human Rights Commission etc., were perceived by their founders as instruments for social and political change at any cost! (TO BE CONTINUED)
