African Union

African Union

After a long time of disappointing many people, the African Union (AU) has given some hope that it can defend and protect African interests without fear from the intimidation of imperialist countries.

It was an unprecedented bold act on the part of the African Union (AU) to elect President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as First Vice-Chairman of its executive during the General Assembly meeting of African Heads in Addis Ababa on 30th January 2014. This appointment paves the way for him to be eligible for the chairmanship of the AU next year (2015).

The European Union (EU) imposed crippling economic sanctions on Zimbabwe in order to effect a “regime change.” One of its members, Britain, proposed the invasion of this African country, like what it did in Iraq. The EU therefore, reacted to the AU election of Mugabe angrily. The EU threatened not to invite President Mugabe to the coming summit of both the AU and the EU in April this year.

Zimbabwe, led by Mugabe, remains targeted under a list of restrictive measures. These measures stop Mugabe and other ZANU-PF officials from travelling in Europe. The AU has rejected the EU disrespect of Africa and her sovereign decision, democratically taken at the highest body of the African Continent.

Speaking on behalf of the AU, Zambia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wylbur Simmusa said, “We must now speak with one voice and make sure we act in the interest of Africa. That is why for the EU-Africa Summit coming up, where Zimbabwe is singled out with restrictions for President Robert Mugabe from attending, the position that the AU has taken is that if Zimbabwe won’t go, then Africa will not go and that has been agreed upon.”

The AU deserves congratulations and full support by all Africans on this important decision. For far too long, the AU has bowed to the ne-colonial machinations and arrogance of the EU regarding the interests of African people.

History shows that when Africans fight for their rights Pan Africanly as a family, they always win. The stubborn fact is that Africans are one. They have a common destiny. In their struggles for Africa’s authentic liberation, they will win together or perish together.

The truth is that when Africans were enslaved or colonised by Western Europe, the perpetrators never cared whether their victims of the vile systems were Mozambicans, Ghanaians, Nigerians, Somalis, South Africans, Azanians, Batswana, Zambians, Zimbabweans or Basotho. They inflicted their atrocities on every African whether in Jamaica or in America.

Africa must not engage with the world as if she is a beggar with nothing to put on the international table. Africa has land and riches in it. African leaders must stop dealing with some of the world’s leaders as if they were demigods. Africa is rich. She would have been far ahead today economically if Western Europe did not under-develop her people through slavery, colonialism and racism at gunpoint.

Africa must control her riches for the uplifting and development of her people. She is rich. For example, some researchers have found that Tanzania has most kinds of biological resources including mahogany and other woods. Zambia has 36 million tons of copper. Namibia has the largest deposits of the best diamonds in the world. Guinea in West Africa has the highest reserves of bauxite in the world. Nigeria has 32 trillion cubic feet of gas. Somalia has 30 million tons of Jepson, a building material including recently discovered oil along with Uganda.

This list of Africa’s riches is very long. The Democratic Republic of Congo for which Patrice Lumumba was killed; if developed, can electrify and feed almost the whole of Africa. This African country is 905,355 square miles. It is as large as twelve European countries such as Britain, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Armenia and Albania. DRC potential wealth is equivalent to the gross domestic product of Europe and North America combined. Any wonder why DRC has been a victim of mercenaries and proxy wars for so long?

It is not surprising that Secretary Godding of exiled Belgian government after Belgium was overrun by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi army; boasted, “During the war [European Second World War), the Congo [then a Belgian colony] was able to finance all the expenditure of the Belgian Government in exile in London, including the diplomatic services as well as the cost of armed forces in Europe and America…the Belgian gold reserve could be left intact.”

The African Union member states must now consider and attend to the following challenges facing the AU:

1. Promote peace and political stability among African states and stand in solidarity with one another when any of these states are threatened by external forces and pressurised to serve the interests of imperialist countries. African people must be sensitised to be vigilant and refuse to be used for the destruction of their Continent and their people.

2. African States must prioritise and maximise the study of modern science, technology, agriculture, geology and international law to avoid signing documents such as the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court, now being used against Africa alone. At present knowledge is in the hands of former colonial powers which neglected the education of the colonised Africans. To neglect the education of the African youth is to gamble with the future of Africa.

3. African States must stop exporting their raw materials for exploitative purchasing prices and importing them back as finished products. Africa must develop high technology to process her raw materials and export them as finished products.

4. Where an urgent need has arisen to process a raw material, African States must exchange that raw material for relevant high technology. Many countries are secretive about technology transfer to Africa in order to keep Africa dependent on them. Important raw materials such as uranium, platinum, chrome etc must be exchanged for high technology not for cash or goods. This is the only way Africa can speedily advance technologically and look after her mineral and oil wealth.

5. AU member states must insist on investment on the infrastructure of Africa, instead of in things like KFC, MacDonald etc which indigenous people can do. Infrastructure is essential for the development of Africa. The modern way of foreign investment must be a partnership that advances Africa, while also making investment worthwhile for the foreign investor. African leaders must stop governing their countries primarily for foreign investors instead of advancing their own people and uplifting their standard of living. It is important to note that after nearly fifty years of independence, not a single African country has developed as a result of foreign investment. Most investors have taken more out of Africa than they gave or left after their departure to their own countries.

6. AU Member States must intensify intra-trade among themselves.

7. The AU supported by all its people at home and abroad must demand the cancellation of all “foreign debts”. The European traders in human cargo and colonialism owe Africa 370 trillion dollars for the slave trade alone. The “foreign debt” is a drop in the ocean compared with the amount owed Africa on slavery alone.

8. AU Members States must avoid “foreign aid” which recolonises the Continent. The pioneers of Africa’s liberation long said that they would accept “aid without strings.” “Foreign aid” has already compromised many African States at the expense of Africa’s economic development and social emancipation of African people.

9. The AU must have stringent code to deal with corrupt leaders. AU must have zero tolerance for corruption in all its forms. Corruption destroys nations. It causes revolutions which often lead to massive loss of human life and destruction of property.

10. Work ethics was the secret of Africa’s success before European slavery and colonialism. Africans must work hard to build their own countries and make them places to be proud of for themselves and their children. Work, work, work and hard work are the mother of success and prosperity for a family and for a nation. An African proverb says it all, “Charity will never fill the granary.”

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is author of several books such as TOWARDS AFRICA’S AUTHENTICLIBERATION, REDISCOVERING AFRICA AND HER SPIRITUALITY AND THE HIDDEN SIDE OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICS. He is a former member of the South African Parliament.

Is the United States of America (US) and its NATO Allies replacing the United Nations? Is this alliance now the supreme world body in international affairs? Is the United Nations going the disastrous end of its predecessor the League of Nations? Should the civilised nations of the world allow the nefarious schemes of these self-appointed police of the world to destroy the world again through disguised colonialism, racism and new imperialism and enslave other nations especially in the developing world through terrorist militarism?

The US and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 after spreading a false propaganda that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and nuclear weapons and murdered Saddam Hussein for this fraudulently fabricated “crime.” This year 2013 marks the 10th year anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by Britain and US. It is reported that 2.7 million Iraqis – women, children and men have been killed over this period. The US alone lost over three thousand soldiers. It is noteworthy that many of the US soldiers sent to die in a war that had nothing to do with their interests were African-Americans.

Before the Iraq invasion, the United Nations sent its scientists to Iraq and found there were no weapons of mass destruction. That notwithstanding, Tony Blair of Britain and George Bush of the US went ahead and illegally aggressed against Iraq. They were never summoned to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to account for the atrocities they perpetrated upon the Iraqi people. The US has not even signed the Statute of the ICC, but it is very vocal about non-US-NATO leaders being brought before this court to answer for alleged crimes against humanity.

In Britain Tony Blair’s Party lost the last elections because the British electorate considered him as having lied to them about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. David Cameron of the Conservative Party won the last British elections. Recently, he tried to involve Britain in the controversial use of chemical weapons in Syria. He failed to convince the British Parliament. France has also had a split in Parliament on the issue of who used “chemical weapons” in Syria. Sixty four percent of the French people are reported to be opposed to the apparent intention of the US to launch a military attack on Syria.

Cameron was keen to see atrocities punished in Syria, but not those Britain committed in her colonies such as Rhodesia, South Africa and Kenya. 5200 Kenyans have recently been awarded reparations by a British High Court for atrocities committed in Kenya by Britain on the freedom fighters of this African country which fought against British colonialism and imperialism in their country. They are the former Kenya Land and Freedom Army that the British colonial regime internationally discredited as “Mau Mau terrorists.” These African Freedom Fighters were led by Kenyan leaders such as Dedan Kimathi whom the British colonial regime sentenced to death for resisting British imperialism in his country.

Some of the evidence heard in the British Court was that: A woman claimant testified that she was subjected to several sexual torture. British soldiers inserted bottles of hot water in her vagina. In addition to these cases, thousands of Kenyans were maimed, lynched and brutally murdered by the British army during the last century. Thousands of women were subjected to rape, forced labour, gross abuse and torture in detention camps. It was part of the British colonial regime to break a civilian population cast as ‘baboons,’ ‘barbarians’ and ‘terrorists.’

“In 1903 the British colonial government sent thousands of settlers from South Africa and from England to Kenya with the aim of creating another ‘white man’s country’ in Kenya. The European settlers were allocated the most fertile land in an area they colonially named ‘White Highlands,’” writes Ms Jemima Pierre editor at the Black Agenda Report in Uganda.

Articles 22 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV states that it is especially prohibited to: (a) employ poison or poisoned weapons; and (b) employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. The US government used such weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and also in Vietnam. Can the US’s intelligence service be trusted to be non-partisan and truly professional to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria where the interests of US and NAT0 Allies are so crucial? To trust such US and NATO investigators to be impartial in their search for chemical weapons and to identify who used them; is like naively believing that jackals can look after sheep without reporting that some of them are “missing” or “dead.”

Iraq is a leading case study to prove beyond reasonable doubt that false information can be fabricated to mislead the world by the US and its Allies to destroy governments they do not like including those in Africa such as Zimbabwe and Libya, as well as those like Iran in the Middle East. Libya is the 10th largest producer of oil reserve in the world. Under Muammar Gaddafi, the oil wealth was controlled by Libyans and not by the US and NATO. The US and its allies, mainly Britain and France moved into Libya under false cover of United Nations Resolution “no fly zone” and “protection” of Libyan civilian population. More civilians have died in Libya under the US-NATO “protection” than under Gaddafi. Most objective observers of events have noted that Libya “has moved on, but into lawlessness and economic ruin.” The civil war in Syria has been fuelled by Western countries. They have openly trained and supplied weapons to the Syrian rebel forces. This is exactly what they did also in Libya.

But in Saudi Arabia, the US and NATO adopted a different attitude when Saudi Arabia used life ammunition against pro-democracy protesters, and banned demonstrations. During the same time NATO and the US accused Gaddafi’s Libya of “killing his own people.” They turned a blind eye even when Saud Arabia sent its own troops to Bahrain which was being overwhelmed by its own people.

Someday it will be proved that the rebels in Syria used the chemical weapons in order to give the US and NATO the fraudulent excuse to attack President Bashar el-Assad’s Syrian government. It is the rebels that the US relies on to facilitate their “regime change” strategy for themselves and for their oil-hungry masters to control oil wealth in Syria.

The US Defence Secretary Chuch Hogel, has been reported as saying that the US forces in the region are now waiting to be given the order to attack Syria. This is regardless of what the United Nations will report about these “chemical weapons.” Clearly like in the case of Iraq and Libya, the US and NATO were determined to undermine the authority of the United Nations. The US is now claiming that they are acting according to international law. Which international is this, which is the sole prerogative of the Americans and their NATO allies? Which international law authorises them to violate the United Nations of which they are members? International law is the law of all nations. It is not the law of Europeans or those of European descent living in Canada, Australia or America after exterminating the indigenous people of these countries by theft of their lands and terrorist militarism.

At the United Nations, the Security Council is the supreme body of this world body. It has rules. Five members have a veto. It seems, however that to the US and NATO, only the veto of Britain, France and United States of America matter, not that of Russia and China. This imperialist attitude by the US and NATO does not contribute to the peace, prosperity and order in the world.

Any military strikes by the US and its NATO Allies in Syria will be illegal. They have no authorisation of the Security Council of the United Nations. The US must stop preaching “legality” and “good governance,” especially to Africans; while walking illegality and dancing illegality and violating all principles of international law with impunity; and arrogance intoxicated with the exuberance of military superiority.

The Russian Federation has come up with a reasonable proposal and Assad has accepted this proposal. Russia has proposed that Syria must bring all its chemical weapons under international control and burn them. Russia’s proposal however, must go beyond this point. All nations of the world with weapons of mass destruction must do as they demand of Syria. They must burn their chemical and nuclear weapons, so that more money can be spent on the economic development of nations and social emancipation of its people from poverty, disease and ignorance, than on weapons of war.

There will never be peace in the world as long as some nations are armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction, but demand other nations to disarm. All the nations of the world must take disarmament seriously. There can be no trust between armed nations and disarmed or unarmed nations in this world of selective morality in international politics, especially over control of national resources that are coveted by countries steeped in imperialism and whose morality is “might is right.”

The undermining of the UN Charter and authority of the United Nations by the US and its NATO Allies is the source of wars in the world. The League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations collapsed with disastrous consequences for mankind. It facilitated the Second World War from Europe which killed 72 million people. Sixty one million of them were on the side of the “Allies” and 11 million on the side of the “Axis.”

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is a historian, political scientist, lawyer, theologian, author of several books among which is TOWARDS AFRICA’S AUTHENTIC LIBERATION and a former Member of the South African Parliament. During the unfinished liberation struggle in South Africa he was a Representative of the victims of apartheid at the United Nations in New York and at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

au 50

The 25 May 2013 marked the 50th Anniversary of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) now renamed African Union (AU). Africa and Africans celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the existence of the founding of the Organisation that brought all African independent states together in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on the 25 May 1963. African leaders who gathered in Addis Ababa at that time were great leaders in stature, intellect and inspiration. They inspired and influenced their own people and those whose countries were still under colonialism, white minority rule and apartheid to stand up and intensify the struggles for their liberation and independence and this gave impetus to the spread of the wind of change. They established relevant organs such as the Co-ordination Committee for the Liberation of Africa, otherwise known as the Liberation Committee to support the struggles of the colonized, oppressed and exploited people still fighting for liberation. The Domino strategy of the OAU was implemented and this finally led to the total liberation of the continent with South Africa the last domino to fall hence the end of white minority rule and apartheid. The OAU played its role of assisting freedom fighters morally, politically, materially and financially to liberate the entire continent.

Why the renaming or change from OAU to the African Union? Where is the Union? How far is the Union or the United States of Africa? The change of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to the African Union (AU) did not seem to take Africa closer to the ultimate goal of Pan Africanism – the United States of Africa or the Union of African States with a central administration, surrendering of sovereignty and the end of fragmentation. The leaders who were behind the idea of the African Union seem to have simply taken a shortcut by copying what Europe did in concept, structure and process, hence the choice of the African Union (AU from European Union (EU), maybe because it sounded nice and easy. There is however no doubt that a lot of efforts were made in bringing together the ideas from the OAU
Charter and the African Economic Community (AEC) document. In content the process was a reflection of what happened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963 when the Organisation of African Unity was founded. At that conference of heads of state and government, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and what was regarded as radicals from the Casablanca Group argued for the immediate establishment of the United States of Africa or the Union of African States with a central administration. Other key proposals Dr. Kwame Nkrumah made were the establishment an African High Command, a single currency, etc.

The other group regarded as moderates from what was called the Monrovia Group was more interested in the concept of a lose association of independent states bound together by a common desire to co-operate. The latter idea won the day and this is reflected in the African Union which has yet to seriously consider the idea of the United States of Africa except when this was raised by Muammar Gadaffi of Libya but simply brushed aside after he was replaced as the chair of the African Union. There is very little hope as to whether this will ever be seriously considered in future AU agendas because the current generation of African leaders have not shown interest and passion for African unity, let alone the pursuit of
the creation of the United States of Africa even within the framework of the sub-regional groupings such as ECOWAS, ECCAS, SADC, EAC, Magreb states, etc. What was the point of changing the OAU to the African Union if we do not transform to the Union by ending the fragments or so-called sovereign nation states and have one state with central administration?

The current generation of African leaders contend that the concept of the United States of Africa is complicated and impracticable and they prefer to talk about integration which we understand as simple cooperation while they are entrenching themselves and the strategies of their foreign masters whose songs they sing and dance to. This generation of leaders is more wedded to the perpetuation of the colonial created so-called sovereig nation states and continued fragmentation of Africa in the face of the new form of imperialism known as globalization or domination by transnational corporations of the developed and industrialized countries of the North and Japan supported by the IMF and the World Bank whose strategy is to ensure the continued exploitation of Africa’s natural and human resources in the name of democracy, good governance and within the framework of the free market economy guided by the neoliberal paradigm.

These leaders are averse to African unity and simply pay lip service to this concept and ideal. They are happy to remain chiefs in these small fiefs or villages which are politically and economically non-viable and depend on the developed economies for their survival and continued existence. These leaders also survive on the handouts from these developed economies. Their countries are client states or appendages of the big economies who dictate to these so-called leaders as seen in their behaviours and attitudes in their interaction with these leaders. They relate with leaders of developed economies with cap in hand and very apologetic and cringing. They are afraid to tell these leaders where to get off when it comes to Africa’s interests and that is why they can vote with these countries against an African country or against their own interests as we saw when the Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted.

At the time when the OUA/AU is celebrating 50 years of existence, Africa is far from achieving the key and fundamental goal of the OAU/AU – African unity. Nowhere is this ideal achieved or about to be achieved even with the establishment of sub-regional groupings such as ECOWAS, ECCAS, SADC, EAC etc. The AU and these sub-regional groupings are talk shop platforms where African leaders are afforded the opportunity to pay lip service to African unity as well as take empty decisions or resolutions not backed by concrete action; hence the helplessness in the face of external interventions such as that in Cote d’Ivoire and in Mali by French troops to solve African problems; not to mention the destruction of Libya by NATO air power sanctioned by the vote of some African countries on the United Nations Security Council and support of the International Criminal Court (ICC) not supported by the self same powers that want to see African leaders arraigned before this court and African leaders accept this double standard or absurdity.

The Democratic Republic of Congo continue to be destabilised with the colaboration of neighbouring African states that benefit from the chaos and anarchy they create so as to continue with the looting of the mineral resources of that vast and rich country which has never known peace and stability since independence from Belgium on the 30 June 1960 under the leadership of Patrice Emery Lumumba who was killed because he was against the plunderers and their agents. Somali remains an intractable challenge and a threat to peace and security and Africa has not been able to tackle and end the anarchy, chaos, destruction and mayhem that have been going on for the last over 20 years and have become the order of the day in this East African country. This is an example of a failed state – the consequence of the continued fragmentation or balkanization of Africa aided and facilitated by the greed, selfishness and parochialism of the leaders of these countries.

Africa is in need of a new type of leadership which can take the objectives of the OAU/AU forward. The current generation of leaders cannot drive this process because bogged down by its lack of political will, narrow selfish interests but also puppets of the developed and industrialised countries of the North and Japan. These leaders are clinging to the outdated colonial created so-called sovereign nation states whose boundaries are bursting at the seams as people cross these artificial borders flocking to countries that offer better opportunities and security. This phenomenon of external migration means nothing to these leaders but its impact is felt by the local people whose reaction is expressed in violence as they compete for scarce resources with these immigrants.

The conflict in Cote d’Ivoire is an example of this movement of people searching for better opportunities and security. The flow of people into South Africa will continue for as long as the uneven development remains on the continent and can only be stopped the day Africa will be united, free movement of people and goods normalised with the obliteration of existing colonial created boundaries and the end of the so-called sovereign nation states – the cause of conflict, civil wars, mayhem, destruction and misery on the African continent.

With Dr. Kwame Nkrumah we say Africa Must Unite because the salvation of Africa and the African people lies in continental unity or the United States of Africa, regionally or sub-regionally. This state could start as a confederation, a federation or even a unitary state or led by two states or more with others joining as benefits of a bigger unit becomes obvious. Integration or co-operation is not enough; Africa must unite or perish. This responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the youth of Africa and the PAC has a leading role to play in this connection as the champion of Africanism and Pan Africanism in this part of the continent. The PAC youth must take the lead now or never.

Izwe Lethu!

Molefe Ike Mafole
The writer is a Member of APLA Military Veterans Association (APLA MVA) and Member of the PAC of Azania in the Tshwane Region. He can be contacted 072 630 2206 or mmafole@gmail.com

Three land-locked countries, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland who are members of the South African Customs Union (SACU) recently signed an economic partnership agreement with the European Union (EU) without taking into their confidence fellow members of SACU, Southern African Development Conference (SADC) and Community of East and Southern African Countries (COMESA). The EU is known to twist the arms of and browbeat some poor countries into signing these Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA’s). However it doesn’t seem that these three SADC countries were intimidated into signing the agreements.

The President of Botswana, Mr. Ian Khama, recently defied the African Union resolution and announced that he would hand in Sudan President Omar al-Bashir to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is certainly personal view of the President of Botswana and not that of the government of Botswana, since the matter was not even tabled in the Botswana Parliament.

It is also not far-fetched that he was responsible for entering into an economic partnership agreement with the EU without a debate in his country’s parliament. Swaziland is also under despotic rule and as such the decision was made by the absolute monarch. Lesotho is politically unstable and its Prime Minister cannot claim he is popular because, very recently, he survived an assassination plot and a coup. Therefore, it can be concluded that the move by these countries to sign an EPA with the whole continent of Europe does not enjoy popular support in those countries.

There was a regional meeting of East and Southern African (ESA) countries in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, in June, to iron out some sticking points in the EPA’s and to come up with a common position in the interest of economic unity and cohesion in these regions. However, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland undermined this progressive African solidarity effort.

Officials of the East and Southern African countries were prepared to sign the EPA’s and already discussing the dates of such a ceremony even though there were outstanding contentious issues in the interim EPA’s. However, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland undermined this progressive African solidarity effort.

Contentious issues involve far reaching commitments on tariffs reductions, the freezing of export taxes that East and Southern African countries have been using, the requirement that ESA countries should not increase duties on products from the EU beyond what they have been applying (standstill clause), substantially liberalizing all trade, bilateral safeguards (for infant industry protection). All these issues are still under negotiations. Where would revenue come from when tariffs are reduced and export taxes frozen when there is such high rate of unemployment? Liberalization is a fancy word for opening one’s markets to the rapacious multinational corporations of EU countries when European countries and the United States themselves practice protectionism and subsidize their farmers and deny African countries access to their markets.

European countries have insisted that the first priority should be the signature of the interim EPA. Their main interest is in market access which they may achieve in interim EPA’s. This limits the scope of focusing on the real issues of interest to ESA countries that requires attention before signing. ESA countries were advised to resist the pressure of rushing to sign the interim EPA when it is clear that they will be mortgaging national and public assets to the European Community.

Africa remains a marginal player in world trade (6% in 1980 and 3% in 2008) since the continent’s trade structure still lacks diversity in terms of production and exports. As such, negotiations to ‘liberalize’ their economies will be a futile and possibly suicidal exercise until certain prerequisites are met and instituted within their economies. The emphasis on trade liberalization alone as a means to stimulating growth and development is misplaced.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development put forward as prerequisites on addressing the structural constraints in ESA countries the following:

  1. Increased public investment in research and development, rural infrastructure including roads, health and education;
  2. Overhauling the basic productive infrastructure to make production more reliable. Power generation, water supply and telecommunications are three key areas that need attention. In addition, building a competitive manufacturing sector will require strengthening of the support infrastructure needs for exporting, including roads, railways and port facilities; and
  3. Encouraging cross-border trade infrastructure.

The manufacturing sector in Africa will not grow to a competitive level if it is limited to small domestic markets. The trio, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland ignored these important advices by the Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute, a reputable institute in Africa and the world at large.

 By Sam Ditshego

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers