Police crack down on Tunisian protesters on July 22 / credit: People’s Dispatch
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by People’s Dispatch.
Tunisian security forces violently repressed a massive protest in the country’s capital on July 22 against the moves by President Kais Saied to further undermine democratic institutions in the country. According to human rights organizations, police repressed protesters who had gathered at the emblematic Habib Bourguiba Street in the center of Tunis by hitting them with batons and launching tear gas at them. Several people injured during the repression were hospitalized, and police arrested nine people.
Among those arrested are feminist rights activist Olfa Baazaoui of the Workers’ Party of Tunisia, human rights and LGBTQ+ rights defender Saif Ayedi of Damj, Aziz Ben Jemaa of the Workers’ Party of Tunisia, and other progressive activists.
Their arrests were widely condemned by diverse civil society organizations. Damj, the Tunisian Association for Justice and Equality, released a joint statement with organizations such as the Tunisian Association of Young Doctors, the Tunisian Organization Against Torture, and others, condemning the repression and demanding the immediate release of the protesters.
Denouncing the repression, they stated that “police repression had replaced democratic mechanisms” and emphasized their support “for all forms of demonstration, protest, assembly and expression, which they consider one of the most important gains of the revolution.” They added that protest is the central mechanism to exert pressure on the ruling system in order to “review development policies, combat corruption, terrorism and all the elements of tyranny, and guarantee respect for rights and freedoms.”
Egalité, the women’s organization to which detained activist Baazaoui also pertains, wrote in a statement that they hold President Saied responsible for the wellbeing of the detained activists. They also called on all female citizens “to boycott the referendum on a constitution that threatens rights and freedoms and dedicates it to the dictatorship of the individual and the return of the police state with force, which has been clearly and tangibly proven today.”
In a statement released by the Workers’ Party of Tunisia shortly following the arrests, they called for the protester’s immediate release and alerted that the detainees had been deprived of visits from their lawyers and some had been denied medical treatment.
The protest action was held three days ahead of the national referendum wherein Tunisians will vote on a draft constitution presented by Saied. A large number of opposition parties have called for a boycott of the referendum in rejection of the undemocratic nature of the new constitution’s writing process, as well as its proposals. The current constitution, which was adopted in 2014, is seen as a significant achievement of the revolution that overthrew dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011. A major objection to the draft presented by Saied is the proposal to do away with the division of executive power between the president and prime minister, concentrating power solely in the hands of the president.
The referendum on the constitution comes after several other moves by Saied which opposition parties have alleged undermine the democratic institutions in the country. These include the dissolution of judicial bodies, dissolution of the parliament, the persecution of leaders from major opposition parties, and the dissolution of other state institutions. These measures which began with the dissolution of parliament on July 25, 2021 have been met with constant protest from diverse civil society organizations and political parties.
A view of the Villarrica volcano from the Huerquehue National Park in the contested Araucanía region of Chile / credit: Josefina Hepp
Chile’s population rejecting a proposed constitution on September 4 will hit hard one group: Indigenous people, who are socially and economically disadvantaged, thanks to generations of land dispossession and invisibility in Chile’s political landscape.
Chileans voted against enacting a new constitution that would have replaced the one installed by U.S.-backed dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1980. The document—drafted by an elected body—was defeated with 62 percent voting against (“rechazo” in Spanish) and 38 percent in favor (“apruebo”).
Since 78 percent of Chileans had voted in favor of a new charter in 2020—shortly after a period of social unrest in 2019—the September 4 rejection shocked many. The defeat has halted the newly elected government’s progressive agenda, which would have granted greater gender parity, ecological and human rights.
“I’m sure all this effort won’t have been in vain because this is how countries advance best: Learning from experience and, when necessary, turning back on their tracks to find a new route forward,” said President Gabriel Boric, shortly after conceding defeat.
However, some have accused Boric of double talk.
Chilean Constitutional Assembly President Elisa Loncón / credit: Instagram/ElisaLoncon
The Death of Plurinationality
The new constitution would have recognized Indigenous people for the first time, which would have designated Chile a plurinational nation. Chile is the only country in Latin America that does not recognize the Indigenous population.
Cheers followed when the government declared Indigenous representatives would be included in drafting the constitutional document. Shortly afterward, Mapuche academic Elisa Loncon was elected to oversee the process.
The constitution would have also guaranteed ecological protections. Indigenous communities depend on natural resources to maintain their livelihoods and cultures. Their ancestral lands have been sites of conflict as multinationals plunder Chile’s natural resources for profit.
The Araucanía region, the site of conflict between autonomist Mapuche groups and forestry companies, had the largest proportion of rechazo votes at 78 percent.
The rejection serves the interests of big business in the region, and the forestry industry in particular. The Matte group (owners of CMPC), one of the wealthiest economic groups in Chile, funded the rechazo campaign along with the Angelini group that own Forestal Arauco (granted 1 million hectares by the Pinochet regime, expropriated from Mapuche and peasant landowners). The move has been profitable as shares in both companies have gone up by 20.88 percent and 5.82 percent, respectively. One of the top 10 donors to the Rechazo campaign was Italo Zunino Besier, owner of forestry company Virutas de Madera S.A. He gave 10 million pesos ($10,690).
Racist Narratives in the Reject Campaign
The othering of the Mapuche was instrumental for the Rechazo campaign, which capitalized on racist populism and encouraged anti-plurinational sentiment. Rechazo slogans such as “Chile es uno solo” (Chile is one) spread the idea that plurinationality would fragment the nation, while “We want peace” were direct references to the Mapuche struggle for autonomy and the troubles in Araucanía.
Chile’s Aracaunía region is highlighted / credit: NordNordWest, Lizenz: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de
The neo-conservative think tank Instituto Res Publica warned, for example, that giving Indigenous communities a say would hurt the economy.
“An argument used by the right was that the constitution would create ‘Indigenous nations,’” Reynaldo Mariqueo, a spokesperson from Mapuche International Link, a non-governmental organization, told Toward Freedom. “According to them, the Mapuche do not constitute a nation and, therefore, should not be recognized as such. However, we maintain that the Mapuche are not just a nation, but a state.”
The Double Discourse of the State
In the run-up to the presidential election, Boric vowed to heal the rift between Mapuche people and the Chilean state.
“Militarization is the wrong path,” he told the Chilean press. “We must seek dialogue within a historical perspective. This conflict won’t be solved within the remit of ‘public order.’ We must restore confidence and talk about the territorial restoration of the Mapuche Nation.”
But, in July, he placed Araucanía under a military state of emergency. Then, on August 24, Chilean Investigations Police arrested radical Mapuche leader Hector Llaitul. He is leader and spokesperson of Coordinadora Arauco Malleco (CAM), which seeks autonomy from the Chilean state and the right to live on ancestral land in the southern territories of the region of Araucanía.
His son and other members of the CAM have also since been arrested. The detentions have outraged Mapuche leaders.
“For us in the Mapuche world and communities in resistance, the detention of Hector represents a maneuver by the Chilean right-wing supported by the government of Boric,” Richard Curinao, a Mapuche activist and Werken journalist told Toward Freedom. “This is evidently a strategy to curb the advance and control that these leaders and organizations, such as the CAM, whom Hector represents, and halt their expansion in Mapuche communities. And the success they have had in recovering territories, territories that have been usurped by the forestries.”
Juana Calfunao, chief of the Juan Pallileo community in the Aracuania region, is a founder of the Chilean non-governmental organization, Comisión Ética Contra la Tortura (Ethical Commission Against Torture). She accused the police of a “set-up.”
“For us, this is very painful,” Calfunao told the press. “We will defend [Llaitul] until the final consequences. We will defend our weichafe (warrior). We will defend anyone detained in this manner. There have been 140 years of the Chilean State and we will continue to defend ourselves and continue to survive and struggle and confront whatever lies ahead.”
A Mapuche protest in Chile / credit: Jubileu Sul
‘Mapuche Convinced Only Way Out Is Emancipation’
Since the outcome of the referendum, Chile has been plagued with political uncertainty.
Gabriel Boric has shuffled his cabinet lurching towards the political center, and there has been talk of another attempt to write the constitution. But this time, Indigenous leaders have not been called to meetings.
Toward Freedom contacted press offices for Chile’s national government and for the Araucanía government, but did not receive a reply.
The majority of Chileans voted to maintain the status quo because they didn’t want to share a state with Indigenous people, Mariqueo said. Similarly, the Mapuche feel neither Chilean nor Argentinian, making plurinationality appear pointless.
“’Reject’ leaves things the way they are,” he added. “Except that, today, most Mapuche are convinced that the only way out (of the conflict) is emancipation from Chilean dominance, which includes—as a tool—the treaties agreed to by the Chilean and Spanish states and international norms, which preclude the creation of the Chilean state.”
Carole Concha Bell is an Anglo-Chilean writer and Ph.D. student at King’s College London.
Ethiopians in Lebanon took to the streets in December to protest U.S. and Western meddling in the Horn of Africa / credit: Twitter / Xinhua News
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in People’s Dispatch.
The Ethiopian diaspora across the Western world is condemning the United States and the European Union for “emboldening” the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which resumed war in the northern part of the country on August 24, ending the truce initiated by the federal government in March.
“Deploring the international community, in particular the UN, United States and the EU Member states, for their continued sympathy” towards the TPLF, the Ethiopian Advocacy Organizations Worldwide (EAOW) passed a resolution on Friday, September 2. The EAOW, a consortium of 18 organizations representing Ethiopian nationals in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, South Africa, and 11 European countries, condemned the TPLF’s alleged systematic large-scale forced conscriptions—including of child soldiers—in the northernmost state of Tigray.
Thousands have been fleeing Tigray, which is under the TPLF’s control, in order to escape forced conscription. However, hundreds have been caught and arrested by the TLPF, which is waging a war against the Ethiopian federal government. Tens of thousands of conscripts were sacrificed in human wave attacks launched by the TPLF, which had advanced south into the neighboring states of Amhara and Afar last year before being beaten back into Tigray.
The resolution alleges that in order to conscript more soldiers for another round of invasion into Tigray’s neighboring states, the TPLF instituted a “one family, one soldier” policy, as the war became increasingly unpopular in Tigray itself. The group is allegedly denying food aid to families unable or unwilling to contribute soldiers. This is when, according to the World Food Programme (WFP), 83 percent of Tigray’s population is food-insecure and over 60 percent of pregnant or lactating women were malnourished as of January.
On resuming the war on August 24, the TPLF looted 12 full fuel trucks from the WFP and tankers with 570,000 liters of fuel meant to facilitate food aid delivery. Hundreds of WFP trucks which entered Tigray to distribute food aid had already been seized by the TPLF and used to mobilize its troops during its offensive last year.
“This has only reaffirmed the view [that] the TPLF should not be playing a central role in the distribution of aid in Tigray,” Bisrat Aklilu, a board member of the American Ethiopian Public Affairs Committee (AEPAC), said in a letter to WFP’s Ethiopia country director Adrian van der Knaap.
He called on the WFP “to undertake an urgent review of its processes and to identify any misuse of aid by the TPLF… Given the sheer number of Ethiopians in need in Tigray, Afar and Amhara regions, it would be an unforgivable scandal if WFP’s humanitarian assistance is ending up in the hands of rebel forces rather than the vulnerable communities who are suffering.”
“Deploring the deafening silence of the International Community in condemning such blatant violation of international law by TPLF,” the resolution urged the international community to force the TPLF to come to the negotiating table.
The federal government led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has kept the door open for negotiations under the African Union (AU). AU’s High-Representative for the Horn of Africa, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, had met with the government’s and TPLF’s leaders several times during the months of truce.
The EAOW resolution has called on the international community to “reiterate the peace process under the undisputed leadership” of the AU.
However, dismissing the AU as incompetent, the TPLF had effectively called for Western intervention only two days before resuming the war. It made particular references to the United States and the EU, whose envoys had met its leaders only weeks before it resumed the war.
“To date, the American Ethiopian community has been disappointed with the United States Government’s approach to the conflict, which has been perceived as more favorable to the TPLF terrorist group than the democratically elected government of Ethiopia,” the American Ethopian Public Affairs Committee (AEPAC) said in a press release.
AEPAC, which is a part of the EAOW and a signatory to its resolution, will be holding demonstrations and rallies on Tuesday, September 6, in Washington D.C., and other cities in the United States.
“The rallies will have a clear objective—to call on the U.S. government to support peace over violence in Ethiopia,” its statement said. “The only way to give peace a chance for the people of Ethiopia and ensure stability in [the] Horn of Africa is to end the TPLF’s violence. AEPAC will continue to engage U.S. legislators and the administration to educate them on the facts on the ground and views of the diaspora.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta in Jerusalem on February 23, 2016. The two leaders signed a joint statement on water that focuses on cooperation on water and agricultural issues and establishes a joint bilateral committee / credit: GPO
The decision by the African Union Commission, on July 22, to grant Israel observer status membership in the AU was the culmination of years of relentless Israeli efforts aimed at co-opting Africa’s largest political institution. Why is Israel so keen on penetrating Africa? What made African countries finally succumb to Israeli pressure and lobbying?
To answer the above questions, one has to appreciate the new Great Game under way in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, which has always been significant to Israel’s geopolitical designs. Starting in the early 1950s to the mid-70s, Israel’s Africa network was in constant expansion. The 1973 war, however, brought that affinity to an abrupt end.
What Changed Africa
Ghana, in West Africa, officially recognized Israel in 1956, just eight years after Israel was established atop the ruins of historic Palestine. What seemed like an odd decision at the time – considering Africa’s history of western colonialism and anti-colonial struggles—ushered in a new era of African-Israeli relations. By the early 1970s, Israel had established a strong position for itself on the continent. On the eve of the 1973 Israeli-Arab war, Israel had full diplomatic ties with 33 African countries.
“The October War”, however, presented many African countries with a stark choice: siding with Israel – a country born out of Western colonial intrigues – or the Arabs, who are connected to Africa through historical, political, economic, cultural and religious bonds. Most African countries opted for the latter choice. One after the other, African countries began severing their ties with Israel. Soon enough, no African state, other than Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland, had official diplomatic relations with Israel.
Then, the continent’s solidarity with Palestine went even further. The Organization of African Unity – the precursor to the African Union – in its 12th ordinary session held in Kampala in 1975, became the first international body to recognize, on a large scale, the inherent racism in Israel’s Zionist ideology by adopting Resolution 77 (XII). This very Resolution was cited in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in November of that same year, which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Resolution 3379 remained in effect until it was revoked by the Assembly under intense U.S. pressure in 1991.
Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?
First, the collapse of the Soviet Union. That seismic event resulted in the subsequent isolation of pro-Soviet African countries which, for years, stood as the vanguard against U.S., Western and, by extension, Israeli expansionism and interests on the continent.
Second, the collapse of the unified Arab front on Palestine. That front has historically served as the moral and political frame of reference for the pro-Palestine, anti-Israel sentiments in Africa. This started with the Egyptian government’s signing of the Camp David Agreement, in 1978-79 and, later, the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, in 1993.
Covert and overt normalization between Arab countries and Israel continued unabated over the last three decades, resulting in the extension of diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab countries, including African-Arab countries, like Sudan and Morocco. Other Muslim-majority African countries also joined the normalization efforts. They include Chad, Mali and others.
Third, the ‘scramble for Africa’ was renewed with a vengeance. The neocolonial return to Africa brought back many of the same usual suspects—Western countries, which are, once more, realizing the untapped potential of Africa in terms of markets, cheap labor and resources. A driving force for Western re-involvement in Africa is the rise of China as a global superpower with keen interests in investing in Africa’s dilapidated infrastructure. Whenever economic competition is found, military hardware is sure to follow. Now several Western militaries are openly operating in Africa under various guises—France in Mali and the Sahel region, the United States’ many operations through U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), and others.
Tellingly, Washington does not only serve as Israel’s benefactor in Palestine and the Middle East, but worldwide as well, and Israel is willing to go to any length to exploit the massive leverage it holds over the U.S. government. This stifling paradigm, which has been at work in the Middle East region for decades, is also at work throughout Africa. For example, last year the U.S. administration agreed to remove Sudan from the state-sponsored terror list in exchange for Khartoum’s normalization with Israel. In truth, Sudan is not the only country that understands – and is willing to engage in—this kind of ‘pragmatic’—read under-handed—political barter. Others also have learned to play the game well. Indeed, by voting to admit Israel to the AU, some African governments expect a return on their political investment, a return that will be exacted from Washington, not from Tel Aviv.
Unfortunately, albeit expectedly, as Africa’s normalization with Israel grew, Palestine became increasingly a marginal issue on the agendas of many African governments, who are far more invested in realpolitik – or simply remaining on Washington’s good side—than honoring the anti-colonial legacies of their nations.
Netanyahu the Conqueror
However, there was another driving force behind Israel’s decision to ‘return’ to Africa than just political opportunism and economic exploitation. Successive events have made it clear that Washington is retreating from the Middle East and that the region was no longer a top priority for the dwindling U.S. empire. For the United States, China’s decisive moves to assert its power and influence in Asia are largely responsible for the U.S. rethink. The 2012 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, its ‘leadership from behind’ in Libya, its non-committal policy in Syria, among others, were all indicators pointing to the inescapable fact that Israel could no longer count on the blind and unconditional U.S. support alone. Thus, the constant search for new allies began.
For the first time in decades, Israel began confronting its prolonged isolation at the UNGA. U.S. vetoes at the UN Security Council may have shielded Israel from accountability to its military occupation and war crimes; but U.S. vetoes were hardly enough to give Israel the legitimacy that it has long coveted. In a recent conversation with former UN human rights envoy, Richard Falk, the Princeton Professor Emeritus explained to me that, despite Israel’s ability to escape punishment, it is rapidly losing what he refers to as the ‘legitimacy war’.
Palestine, according to Falk, continues to win that war, one that can only be achieved through real, grassroots global solidarity. It is precisely this factor that explains Israel’s keen interest in transferring the battlefield to Africa and other parts of the Global South.
On July 5, 2016, then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, kick-started Israel’s own ‘scramble for Africa’ with a visit to Kenya, which was described as historic by the Israeli media. Indeed, it was the first visit by an Israeli prime minister in the last 50 years. After spending some time in Nairobi, where he attended the Israel-Kenya Economic Forum alongside hundreds of Israeli and Kenyan business leaders, he moved on to Uganda, where he met leaders from other African countries including South Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Within the same month, Israel announced the renewal of diplomatic ties between Israel and Guinea.
The new Israeli strategy flowed from there. More high-level visits to Africa and triumphant announcements about new joint economic ventures and investments followed. In June 2017, Netanyahu took part in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. There, he went as far as rewriting history.
“Africa and Israel share a natural affinity,” Netanyahu claimed in his speech. “We have, in many ways, similar histories. Your nations toiled under foreign rule. You experienced horrific wars and slaughters. This is very much our history.” With these words, Netanyahu attempted, not only to hide Israel’s colonial intentions, but also rob Palestinians of their own history.
Moreover, the Israeli leader had hoped to crown his political and economic achievements with the Israel-Africa Summit, an event that was meant to officially welcome Israel, not to a specific African regional alliance, but to the whole of Africa. However, in September 2017, the organizers of the event decided to indefinitely postpone it, after it was confirmed to be taking place in Lome, capital of Togo, on October 23-27 of that same year. What was seen by Israeli leaders as a temporary setback was the result of intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying of several African and Arab countries, including South Africa and Algeria.
Premature ‘Victory’
Ultimately, it was a mere temporary setback. The admission of Israel into the 55-member African bloc in July is considered by Israeli officials and media pundits as a major political victory, especially as Tel Aviv has been laboring to achieve this status since 2002. At the time, many obstacles stood in the way, like the strong objection raised by Libya under the leadership of Muammar Ghaddafi and the insistence of Algeria that Africa must remain committed to its anti-Zionist ideals, and so on. However, one after the other, these obstacles were removed or marginalized.
In a recent statement, Israel’s new Foreign Minister, Yair Lapid, celebrated Israel’s Africa membership as an “important part of strengthening the fabric of Israel’s foreign relations”. According to Lapid, the exclusion of Israel from the AU was an “anomaly that existed for almost two decades”. Of course, not all African countries agree with Lapid’s convenient logic.
According to TRT news, citing Algerian media, 17 African countries, including Zimbabwe, Algeria and Liberia, have objected to Israel’s admission to the Union. In a separate statement, South Africa expressed outrage at the decision, describing the “unjust and unwarranted decision of the AU Commission to grant Israel observer status in the African Union” as “appalling”. For his part, Algerian Foreign Minister, Ramtane Lamamra, said that his country will “not stand idly by in front of this step taken by Israel and the African Union without consulting the member states.”
Despite Israel’s sense of triumphalism, it seems that the fight for Africa is still raging, a battle of politics, ideology and economic interests that is likely to continue unabated for years to come. However, for Palestinians and their supporters to have a chance at winning this battle, they must understand the nature of the Israeli strategy through which Israel depicts itself to various African countries as the savior, bestowing favors and introducing new technologies to combat real, tangible problems. Being more technologically advanced as compared to many African countries, Israel is able to offer its superior ‘security’, IT and irrigation technologies to African states in exchange for diplomatic ties, support at the UNGA and lucrative investments.
Consequently, Palestine’s Africa dichotomy rests partly on the fact that African solidarity with Palestine has historically been placed within the larger political framework of mutual African-Arab solidarity. Yet, with official Arab solidarity with Palestine now weakening, Palestinians are forced to think outside this traditional box, so that they may build direct solidarity with African nations as Palestinians, without necessarily merging their national aspirations with the larger, now fragmented, Arab body politic.
While such a task is daunting, it is also promising, as Palestinians now have the opportunity to build bridges of support and mutual solidarity in Africa through direct contacts, where they serve as their own ambassadors. Obviously, Palestine has much to gain, but also much to offer Africa. Palestinian doctors, engineers, civil defense and frontline workers, educationists, intellectuals and artists are some of the most highly qualified and accomplished in the Middle East. True, they have much to learn from their African peers, but also have much to give.
Unlike persisting stereotypes, many African universities, organizations and cultural centers serve as vibrant intellectual hubs. African thinkers, philosophers, writers, journalists, artists and athletes are some of the most articulate, empowered and accomplished in the world. Any pro-Palestine strategy in Africa should keep these African treasures in mind as a way of engaging, not only with individuals but with whole societies.
Israeli media reported extensively and proudly about Israel’s admission to the AU. The celebrations, however, might also be premature, for Africa is not a group of self-seeking leaders bestowing political favors in exchange for meager returns. Africa is also the heart of the most powerful anti-colonial trends the world has ever known. A continent of this size, complexity, and proud history cannot be written off as if a mere ‘prize’ to be won or lost by Israel and its neocolonial friends.
