Diplomatic Masturbation – the case of Rwanda and Uganda.

If there’s such expression as “Political masturbation” and has been used before as to describe “any political process that serves only as a distraction from more important matters.” https://www.iwnsvg.com/2018/02/01/political-masturbation-in-parliament/, then it mustn’t surely come across as surprisingly and perhaps, unacceptably profane, particularly to the moralist brigade and quasi-moralists, if one, ergo, uses a similar expression “Diplomatic Masturbation“, in this case, to mean a “diplomatic process that serves more to distract from or cover up, than solve real diplomatic issues“. Moreover, done publicly with such shameless pomp. It’s political and/or diplomatic hypocrisy graced with State largesse.

Note: if the expression “Diplomatic Masturbation” doesn’t exist, I am happy to be credited for its invention and the contribution to diplomatic lexicon.

Where is this heading? One might ask.

Well, the clue or rather answer, lies right in the expression itself.

On Monday, 16.09.2019, a commission of both Rwandan and Ugandan government officials dubbed, in political and diplomatic speak, “Ad Hoc Commission” with the task to discuss the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that was recently signed in Luanda, Angola, between both President Kagame of Rwanda and President Museveni of Uganda, met in Kigali, Rwanda.

The meeting of the “Ad Hoc Commission” comes after a recent spate of exchange of bitter, unflattering accusations, some as extreme as of sabotage and espionage activities from both sides, in their respective media outlets. The bitter accusations in the media followed the signing of the MoU in Luanda, Angola.

No sooner had the ink dried and both principal signatories had time to reflect on and digest the significance and the historic milestone of the MoU in the attempt to ‘normalise‘ the bilateral relations between the two neighbouring countries that have been dogged with heightened tension since early this year, than a verbal flare up between agitators on both sides started, trading tirades and accusations of all possible manner, sabotage and espionage being the extreme, in their media outlets.

The meeting of the “Ad Hoc Commission” and the subsequent joint press conference between both Rwanda’s and Uganda’s foreign relations representatives was, frankly, no more than an act, a shameless act of public “diplomatic masturbation“.

For it does or did little to address the core issue, but more to demonstrate and prove that, although diplomacy is promoted as an essential instrument of good governance, it is, in fact, an insidious instrument of political diversion.

Diplomacy is pathetically ineffective in resolving/solving serious political and governance matters.

The conflict between Rwanda and Uganda has done more to expose the pathetic ineffectiveness of diplomacy, as to render it irrelevant.

While engaged in a cordial conversation about the meeting and its objective, someone asked, what sounded and I thought was a cogent question: where and when has diplomacy ever resolved serious political conflicts?

I have written before that diplomacy cannot and will not [re]solve the political issues between Rwanda and Uganda, simply because diplomacy has long been seriously compromised, impaired by a series of bitter accusations from both sides.

I have also written that, although the recent MoU between President Kagame and President Museveni was signed in light of bilateral national relations; the issue is much deeper and more historically personal between both men and less, if at all, of a bilateral national issue. This, of course, is not a popular view and will likely be vehemently denied and challenged.

I have further written that, only President Kagame and President Museveni can and have the power to stop the tension, to stop the war of words, to stop the back and forth bitter and serious accusations of sabotage and criminal activities by agreeing to work on mending their personal relations.

On this, I suggested that they consider engaging in a private conversation, without interlocutors, only two of them, look each other straight in the face, and tell and speak truth to each other. This is not to suggest such conversation/meeting has not taken place before. In fact, I was reminded it might have taken place more than once.

However, I maintained that, that is no reason or excuse, because that was then, this is now; a lot has changed, the dynamics have somehow or somewhat evolved.

Consequently, one more such private conversation is due, and it should be given serious consideration by both principal actors.

Hope and salvation for both countries and their relations, lie in that; not in MoUs and joint press conferences at which journalists sound as if they have been pre-selected to ask the “right” questions, upon which people wax lyrical in response, no more than an act of public “diplomatic masturbation“.

The cosmetic [beauty] industry, religion and the motivational industry have the same business model.

The cosmetic industry

The cosmetic industry is, no doubt, a multibillion dollar industry, selling cosmetic or beauty products, so we are told. But what exactly is the cosmetic industry’s core product?

To answer that, we must first ask the question: what exactly is a cosmetic product and what purpose does it serve (what is it used for)?

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) defines a “cosmetic product” as:

Article 2 of the EU Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009) incorporates the following definition of a cosmetic product:

A “cosmetic product” shall mean any substance or mixture intended to be placed in contact with the various external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs) or with the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity with a view exclusively or mainly to cleaning them, perfuming them, changing their appearance and/or correcting body odours and/or protecting them or keeping them in good condition.

http://www.ctpa.org.uk/content.aspx?pageid=304

From the CTPA’s definition of a cosmetic product, we thus establish that the core purpose and use of cosmetic products is to essentially enhance, improve the [human] body appearance, especially facial appearance. Put otherwise, the main purpose of cosmetic products is to enhance and improve, sometimes change – mainly – facial appearance, which, in simplistic but profound social measure, constitutes beauty, at least on the outset. That striking and attractive appearance on someone’s face, usually at first encounter.

So, if the main purpose and use of cosmetic products is to enhance, improve or change – usually for the ‘better’ – facial appearance, that is, beauty, then we can reasonably assume that the core product of the cosmetic industry is beauty.

The cosmetic industry is in the business of selling beauty, thus the nomenclature, “beauty products”, and it’s a multibillion dollar industry.

But how does the cosmetic or beauty industry sell beauty?

Like any other industry with a product to sell, the cosmetic or beauty industry, relies on its marketing and advertisement power. It invests hugely in marketing and advertisement to create the need and market for its core product – beauty.

According to the following article by Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/470467/perfumes-cosmetics-and-other-toilet-preparations-industry-ad-spend-usa/

“It was found that in 2018 the sector spent approximately 18.26 billion U.S. dollars on advertising, and based on this data it was projected that the expenditures would rise to 21.2 billion U.S. dollars in 2020.”

Clearly this trend tells a far bigger story about the “beauty” industry and its marketing and advertisement strategy.

But what cannot be overlooked is the way the way marketing and advertisement campaign language, slogans and the imagery are all carefully crafted, designed to purposely but indirectly induce and create internal insecurities and fears in many a gullible and emotionally weak people’s minds about their bodies, especially their perception on [the concept of] beauty, but particularly their own beauty.

The language, slogans and powerful imagery target the minds of people, to alter their perception and concept of beauty, from the concept of natural beauty to one purposely created and sold by the cosmetic [beauty] industry.

Once such insecurities and fears are crystalised into people’s minds, the cosmetic [beauty] industry then offers a slew of solutions. Put simply, the cosmetic industry is in the business of selling beauty.

To sell beauty, the cosmetic [beauty] industry, first makes people feel “unbeautiful”. In other words, it first sells them “unbeauty” – the direct opposite of its core product. So, it comes offering a solution to their “unbeauty” which is “cosmetic beauty”.  It is as simple as that. The cosmetic industry’s unique selling proposition [USP] is BEAUTY”.

Beauty from a cosmetic industry point of view, is a product. It’s commoditised and  there’s a huge consumer demand for it, much of it created through effective advertisement, directed at attacking and changing people’s perceptions of beauty.

So, people feeling “unbeautiful” have the choice to buy beauty by buying beauty products the cosmetic industry makes and sells. They buy “cosmetic beauty” and the money goes out, being cosmetic, that is, artificially enhanced, it requires and demands a constancy and consistency of attention, that in itself requires constant demand for cosmetic [beauty] products, the unending cycle is created, an expenditure loop is correspondingly created, a habit is created/formed and to the benefit of the cosmetic [beauty] industry.

Religion

Religion is exactly the same. It operates on the same principle and model as the cosmetic [beauty] industry.

Religion sells fear, but religion has essentially two counter unique selling propositions (USP), the Mighty Devil and the Mighty God.

Ingenious religious entrepreneurs know how to drum up the fear of the Devil in people’s minds and when to bring in God as the solution.

So, religious hypocrites will claim to be in the service of God, but too often, they have taken the position of God, they have appropriated the God image and role. Those who are not yet as ingenious, to take the position of God, will say, I am in the service of God, but I serve me [myself] first, hence, the demand for tithing.

Motivational industry

There is the multibillion dollar motivational industry capitalising on the fears created by a combination of many things such as religion, socioeconomic difficulties and failures and what the cosmetic [beauty] industry cannot do, that is, cannot fix due to its own inbuilt failures.

So, you have many people overwhelmed by anxieties, fears and all kinds of emotional dysfunctionalities.

The motivational industry comes in to fill this gap, to offer a solution – sweet words, momentarily and emotionally uplifting but leaves problems unsolved – it is a band aid solution. It provides hope or rather sells hope. Hope is its unique selling proposition (USP).

The motivation terrain offers a platform for all kinds of people motivated by different intentions and outcomes. It tends to work in quite two distinct ways; first, those who are in it for the money, it’s a trade for them and quite a lucrative one too. Second, those who are in it not necessarily for the money, but to motivate themselves by motivating others. These are the chronically emotionally impoverished, they may well be materially well off.

This group, is motivated by motivating others, and that has therapeutic effects on them. It lifts their chronically low spirits and careless whether their motivational speeches – sweet words, quotes or soundbites, often borrowed or copied without caring to give credit to the source – have a genuinely positive impact on others – those they claim to motivate – as long as they feel positive themselves.

The major challenge to public institutional building and institutional sustainability in Africa, is the “personalisation” of african institutions.

It is said that strong and independent institutions are an essential key indicator of a democratic society. Institutions that function independently, without being dependent on the mercy of one individual or a small group of individuals with collective interests and agenda. Where no individual or groups of individuals have the power to meddle in and influence institutional functions and affairs.

That cannot be said of institutions in many parts of Africa, and that has been a major challenge to governance in Africa – the lack or the total absence of independent institutions in many african countries.

African institutions, like many african governments, are primarily built on and function around individuals with power – usually a single individual at the top, and such individuals are the institutions.

One of the major challenges to public institutional building and effectiveness in Africa – in many african countries – is the tendency by individuals to confuse themselves with and therefore failure to distinguish themselves, as individuals, from the institutions they have been charged with, on behalf of the public and public interests.

It is this confusion and failure, on the part of such individuals – usually insecure, that makes them think and behave as if they and the public institutions they have been appointed, but not elected, to head supposedly, in public interests, are one and the same.

Such individuals, largely due to their confidence derived from their close personal relationships with those who appoint them to head public institutions, personalise public institutions. They speak of [about] public institutions they represent [head] in personal rather than in impersonal pronouns or in collective terms.

Instead of saying, “this institution“, or “in this institution, we“, they rather, with such arrogance, say, I, this or that. For instance, I, as the employer, suggesting what is a public institution is their private affair – a private institution, although some run them as such. As if it is they who pay the staff wages and salaries of such institutions direct from their own pockets and spend their own money to run the institution and not the public.

They treat institutional staff as their private servants, determine who is paid how much and reduce [cut] staff remuneration arbitrarily, without any due process.

They are so arrogant and completely detached that they simply don’t think, and the thought does not cross their exalted small minds, that, by virtue and nature of public institution, they are part of the staff, and not some isolated, exalted small “god” to whom all is due and must be given without fail.

They lack the simple humility to reflect on the fact that, by nature’s law, what rises [to the top], has only one way to go and that is, down and that they will eventually come down. How? Becomes a question, sometimes a nagging, scary concern to many such small-minded idiots.

Many do, in fact, come crashing down like helpless pigs exalted far high up, deliberately fed with extra fat laced fattening feeds that when they finally fall from that far, it only exposes the nature of their feed and the greed with which they stuffed on it, like all pigs do.

Some, even have the untrammelled temerity to boast, openly and publicly, about their close relationship with and close proximity to “the powers that be“, that is, those who have the power to raise them high up and who indeed, and to whom they are beholden and whose personal interests they serve.

They, indeed, demonstrate and prove who and what they really are, personal [private] servants in suits with high sounding official titles.

What they forget or don’t bother to consider as something of any significance, is that with such arrogance, they do so well to expose how they got into their exalted positions, which explains their arrogant attitude towards the institutions they head and the ‘small‘ people in them – the staff.

They come from and through a “funnel” patronage system that uses favours as, not only a currency for their uncritical and blind loyalty, but also usually as a one way ticket to mental prison. These people are systematically locked into a patronage mental prison they can’t escape, and they hardly think for themselves because it is not a requirement.

In fact, the prerequisite to their positions, is the ability not to think, not to think for themselves, the ability to suspend their critical faculties and simply take orders from above – their masters who exalt them to such high public positions.

This is the major cause of failure to build sustainable, effective and impersonal institutions; that is, institutions that do not depend on the judgement, and certainly without doubt, whims of one individual.

It is this systemic failure that is behind the lack of institutional continuity that we decry yet so common in Africa. Surprisingly, we are too adamant to condemn the process and the attitude and subsequent behaviour that create the environment for it, but passively accept it.

Until we learn to treat public institutions for what they are, and not as personal agencies we run for personal interests and as we decide and according to our whims, without regard to due process, until we learn and understand that everyone from the top to the bottom, is essentially part of the institutional staff, and depending on how people get into such institutions; until we have the courage to stand up to people whose intention is to run public institutions as their own private agencies, people will always and continue to personalise public institutions at public expense while the inevitable consequence of that, is perpetual institutional failure.

This is the challenge of institutional building in Africa, the challenge and lack of effective and rigorous institutional checks and balances on the powers of those who are entrusted with the responsibility of running public institutions on behalf and in the interests of the public.

Every political dictatorship – brutal regime, has its conscious facilitators.

Every political dictatorship – brutal regime, has its conscious facilitators. There’s a clear element of conspicuous and conscious complicity. The brutality cannot be squarely blamed on the single individual at the top alone. The brutality is a syndicate, the degree of complicity notwithstanding, everyone involved in it is an accomplice.

The individual at the top of a political dictatorship, in some, if not most cases, is just as a victim of the system as those the system wantonly victimises and brutalises systematically.

All brutal regimes are facilitated by people who are heavily vested in their existence and continuity.

Such regimes are facilitated by people who are beneficiaries – who benefit from both the entrenched structural strengths and weaknesses of the system. It’s such people, who benefit economically, financially and otherwise from the brutality of the regime, that facilitate and viciously defend its existence.

The person at the top of a brutal regime – a “dickheadship”- otherwise commonly referred to as a “dictatorship”, a transmogrification [bastardisation] of “dick” – English – and “tête” – French for head and “ship” – reference to stewardship – is a captive of the vested interests of the system.

Such individual like Paul Biya at the top of a brutal regime, a “dickheadship”, hardly knows what is being done, perpetuated in his (it has, so far, historically been men presiding over dictatorships) name through the ranks of the regime.

The brutality is, in most cases, sanctioned and supervised by those around the individual, merely a figure head – a walking zombie like Paul Biya – who rarely has any control or effective authority over such individuals and the general state of affairs carried out in his name.

Brutal regimes like Paul Biya’s in the Cameroon, are controlled and administered by a cabal of vested interests, usually who control all economic activities of the country. People who use national wealth and resources as their personal property and for purely personal aggrandisement.

It’s people who carry and are dominated by a mindset that it’s only fair that they try to get their way in to the “eating” table, get as much of their “pound” of national “flesh” as they possibly can, who will have no trouble tearing the flesh of their own kith and kin part.

“Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome” Charlie Munger

This is the phenomenon of unimaginable human greed that is at the heart of the brutal regime in the Cameroon, but the same phenomenon that is playing out in much of the troubled and conflict saddled Africa.

All brutal regimes in Africa, as is similar anywhere, are facilitated and defended by men and women who – due to their own heavily vested interests, who are cosseted by such regimes, who feed off and benefit from the brutality meted on the people – consciously lost their conscience.

They come in all manners, they come in all garbs, official or otherwise. They often pretend to be “patriotic” more than the people they and the regime they consciously facilitate and defend brutalises, who they call all sorts of dehumanising names to justify and defend their brutality. They, consciously or not, are engaged in the brutal practice of weaponising of dehumanisation.

The people who carryout and execute orders, commands either from the individual at the top or the brutal cabal – the inner circle of brutality – around such individual. They are everywhere, in our midst, some pretend to be respected or respectable individuals with grand official titles.

Paul Biya in the Cameroon is not personally carrying out the atrocities perpetuated in the country. He could be much in the dark of what is happening, the genocidal atrocities perpetrated in the Southern Cameroon, as he possibly could be on who is sanctioning and/or ordering it, presumably in his name and capacity as the head of state.

Because, I like to think Paul Biya is a victim and captive of the brutal cabal around him, whose main preoccupation is to protect their wealth and other vested economic interests. He’s just a figurehead president maintained for the interests of such brutal cabal.

But this is precisely what is everywhere in Africa – the prevailing phenomenon – where entrenched greed of the few in and with power, driven purely by personal [private] interests and nothing in terms of collective national interests, who are in government and control and run government to perpetuate and protect their interests.

Unity and reconciliation should not replace demands for justice and reparations for the victims of social and political injustice.

It is only africans who promote phony ideals of “unity” and “reconciliation” without demanding true justice for the victims of injustice, and above all else, REPARATIONS from the perpetrators of injustice on african victims.

While unity and reconciliation are undoubtedly essential elements for social harmony, peace and all that, and above all, part of conflict resolution mechanisms in conflict-tone sociopolitical environments, they should not come at the expense of and certainly aren’t substitute for justice.

Unity and reconciliation should not replace demands for justice for the victims of social and political injustice, committed by those who, for the most part, are in position to ensure injustice does not happen; that no one is victimised by injustice by the abusive powerful. The perpetual and chronic power abusers who often control the means of violence and are often in government and other positions of power.

When unity and reconciliation becomes an official policy over and above demands for justice – some might emphasise, ‘true‘ justice – whatever that means – then justice too, is victimised by that policy, on top of victims of injustice.

It’s a double whammy on both justice and victims of injustice. The perpetrators are rewarded, perhaps not intentionally, maybe inadvertently but the reward is given nonetheless. This is the political thinking and phenomenon in post-conflict countries in Africa.

It has become apparent, almost as expected course of sociopolitical action, by [from] most post-conflict African countries (societies) and the administrations (governments) that come after conflicts (have [been]settled), to quickly embark on the policy of, and thus strictly demand for “unity” and “reconciliation“.

There’s a fundamental flaw in this policy and mindset.

Firstly, unity and reconciliation cannot be legislated and enforced by laws, whether written, explicit or implied – through social pressure and manipulation. That approach may work for sometime but it has its own limitations.

If unity and reconciliation is enforced, then by principle and logic, legislated enforcement or socially manipulated and exerted unity and reconciliation contradicts the very fundamental essence of unity and reconciliation. It’s not and is no longer voluntary while in essence it should be.

If you unity and reconciliation is enforced, then by principle and logic, legislated enforcement or socially manipulated and exerted unity and reconciliation contradicts the very fundamental essence of unity and reconciliation. It is not and is no longer voluntary while in essence it should be.

Secondly, when unity and reconciliation is demanded over and above justice for the victims, punishment for the injustice perpetrators and reparations for the victims; injustice is not only ignored and normalised but it is also rewarded.

This partly, or possibly majorly, explains why injustice prevails despite socially engineered and therefore [en]forced unity and reconciliation in such societies.

True social unity and reconciliation is voluntary, not forced. If it is voluntary, it is predicated on forgiveness and forgiveness cannot be feigned.

It is impossible to have true, i.e, voluntary unity and reconciliation without true, i.e, voluntary forgiveness and voluntary forgiveness is not and should not be confused for blind forgiveness. True forgiveness demands commitment to justice and reparations for the victims of injustice.

Phony [ideals of] unity and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict african countries (societies) is big money business and are not based and/or influenced by socio-moral values.

In such countries (societies), especially where unity and reconciliation is not strictly [en]forced by law and through other social means, it has either completely failed or is in shambles, and the hypocrisy of it only exposed by the social tensions and continued socioeconomic injustice and inequality.

National debt is a national issue, it should not be left to governments alone.

African countries are heavily saddled with foreign debt, this is a truism. The level of foreign indebtedness by african countries has largely been exacerbated by, in principle, commendable ambitious social and economic development programmes many african countries have adopted and embarked on.

In their determined efforts to implement their ambitious social and economic national development programmes, african governments have sought many ways to raise the necessary funds to implement such programmes. Many have taken different measures such as issuing international bonds and borrowing from international lending institutions and China. This has sharply increased Africa’s overall debt level, but also each African country’s national foreign debt level differently.

https://www.dw.com/en/global-debt-on-the-rise-africa-hit-hardest/a-48190068

While foreign borrowing to fund national social and economic development programmes has its own merits, it is imperative to consider and be conscious of what it costs the borrowing countries/governments and the underlying implications of such borrowing, say, in case of a default on repayment obligations.

National debt is a national issue, it affects national life although not equally.

A handful are more affected with it positively as they massively profit from it, help themselves generously on it, siphon a significant chunk of it for personal use and share the largesse with their cronies.

With privileged access to large sums of money that constitute national debt, they embark on an ego-pumping obscene and primitive expenditure, typical of anyone spending what isn’t theirs, what they haven’t worked for and earned.

Their demeanour suddenly becomes of the proverbial deprived children from a deprived neighbourhood on a day trip to an adjacent wealthy and privileged neighbourhood who, out of the kindness of the privileged to the unprivileged, are allowed access to candy shops and exotic toys.

They are instantly overwhelmed by not only plenty but also choice – very dangerous combination for any deprived mind (person). But that feeling quickly wears off, replaced with, what and how much they can carry away – they become wildly greedy.

They appropriate as much as they have access to and can get away with to build massive mansions they’ve no need for. They erect glittering edifices, shopping malls in the middle of social deprivation

They become overnight millionaires and live in obscene, primitive opulence without care to the effects of their mischief to national plight, national wealth and national sovereignty. A heavily indebted country cannot claim to be sovereign.

The misappropriation of foreign debt in african countries by government officials to enrich themselves and their conspiring cronies, is what is the threat.

https://www.dw.com/en/africas-new-debt-crisis/a-46020639

While a handful benefit from national indebtedness, taking advantage of it to enrich themselves and their cronies to the hilt, the majority of the population are and will be affected in varying ways and degrees, albeit mostly negatively, by national indebtedness.

https://www.dw.com/en/africas-debt-crises-not-the-fault-of-creditors-alone/a-47564756

National debt is a matter of national pride, national sovereignty, national security. It’s a matter of whether or not the country will be able to survive and stand as a sovereign and independent country in the future or as a slave colony to whoever it’s heavily indebted.

African governments should come clean on national debt, on the level and health of national debt. They should be mandated to inform the public – nationals – in clear and comprehensible and honest communication not overloaded with mindless, incomprehensible economic jargon that obscures truth.

National debt is too important a national matter to be left only to some government bureaucrats and technocrats who operate in purposely created opaque economic frameworks and conniving economists from lending institutions, private or public, who are only interested in their share.

African governments should be mandated to run national debt awareness programmes nationally, informing the public on the levels and health of national debt. These programmes should be free from government manipulation and should be conducted in transparent cooperation between governments and the public.

The public should also take it as a national duty, a civic duty, to demand governments for clear communication, information, on a periodic basis – for instance, every six months – on the level of national indebtedness.

 

China’s relationship and intention with [in] Africa, is like that of a farmer on hired farmland

China’s relationship and intention with [in] Africa, as laid out in its “Belt and Road Initiative” is clearly comparable to that of a commercial farmer with/on hired farmland and his animals. Plough the land, plant, harvest and ship out everything. Feed the animals, let them grow, sell them. Repeat the process!

This demonstrates or helps explain China’s interest and great emphasis on building infrastructure in Africa. It is to China’s great benefit, although to some degree, one might argue – and indeed, this is the prevailing narrative pervaded and promoted by african governments in their “Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)” attraction initiatives – that it is to Africa’s interest as well.

However the fundamental motive and the benefits to both are not the same, and this is a critical aspect of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” in Africa that is ignored and lost in the euphoria and admiration for the infrastructure edifices erected by the Chinese but which ought to be closely examined by african governments.

China is building chinese, and [but] not african, infrastructure in Africa primarily for the benefit of chinese interests – that is, to facilitate and further chinese interests – not african interests. African interests are not the priority but secondary, if not an unintended positive consequence of a primarily and purely exploitative strategy and motive by China.

With China’s interest in Africa and its dubious and aggressive “investment” strategy [plan], it is quite likely – if the current trend is left to continue unchecked, unregulated and if african governments and their officials don’t wake up to the fact that, through their “Foreign Direct Investment” attraction Initiatives – they are either wilfully or foolishly signing away and selling their countries to foreign corporations but mainly to China which is systematically, through its BRI, resettling its nationals.

In 30 to 50 years from now – not a very long time – Africans, mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, will be the dominated and subjugated minority population and the chinese, constituting the dominant and subjugating majority population.

The african population will be protesting and demanding for equality, equal rights and all the socioeconomic amenities that any and all subjugated minorities anywhere, tend to be deprived of by the dominant and subjugating majority.

They will be fighting for a small piece of land on which to live, on what was theirs in the first place but sold off to the chinese and other foreign [private] interests by the current generation of african government officials with a ‘buccaneering’ mindset, for their personal greed.

We are truly witnessing history repeat itself in the twenty first century in our wake – under our watch – the kind of history when african chiefs sold off their lands and people for western (European colonial) and Arab fake shiny gold and diamond plated worthless pieces of trinkets.

What we are witnessing is shrouded in the dubious “Foreign Direct Investment” attraction initiatives by many african governments, which they use to deprive their people of their property, confiscate their ancestral land under the dubious claims that land is the property of the State. The reality is that there’s hardly such concept as the ‘State’ in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. The Government is the almighty authority and the State.

But once land is confiscated under the pretext of State interests, it is sold off or freely handed over to foreign private interests who in turn, promise such government officials a slew of worthless intangible deliverables, as long as it satisfies both their greed and allays their fears for, primarily loss of their power grip.