BBHAGSIA President Siphiwe Baleka Presents "Ethnocide: Genocide's Twin Sister" at the 9th Annual Genocide and Human Rights Research Conference

On February 24, 2023, BBHAGSIA President Siphiwe Baleka joined lawyers, scholars and activists from around the world at the 9TH ANNUAL GENOCIDE AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESEARCH CONFERENCE held at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, IL. According to Mr. Baleka,

“While genocide has and is being committed against Afro Descendants in the United States, as a legal strategy to secure reparatory justice, genocide campaigns have not succeeded. No case has yet been brought before the International Court of Justince (ICJ) on our behalf. However, due to new dna testing technology and genealogy research, it is now much easier to prove that ethnocide has been committed at both the individual and group level and this is generally accepted by the international community. Therefore, we should switch from genocide campaigns to ethnocide campaigns in international forums and especially at the ICJ. It’s a much better strategy.”

Mr. Baleka’s presentation

“Ethnocide: Genocide’s Twin Sister”

Taking the Afro Descendants Case to the International Court of Justice: A Peoples' Mandate Issued to the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent

UPDATE:

The Mandate was delivered to and received by PFPAD on April 5, 2023

*************************************************************************************************

LETTER TO PFPAD FROM

H.E. AMBASSADOR ARIKANA CHIHOMBORI-QUAO

*************************************************************************************************

Please endorse the Mandate by completing the form below and circulating widely

A MANDATE FROM THE AFRO DESCENDANT PEOPLE ISSUED TO THE PERMANENT FORUM ON PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT TO REQUEST AN ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ON THEIR STATUS AS PRISONERS OF WAR UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION

After taking the floor at the First Session of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent (PFPAD) on December 6, 2022, Siphiwe Baleka, President of the Balanta B’urassa History & Genealogy Society in America (BBHAGSIA) said

“we call on this Forum to vigorously request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on our status as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention as well as our right to conduct plebiscites for self determination including the right to secede from the jurisdictions of colonial successor states in the Western hemisphere and form our own independent governments.” 

At that moment, on behalf of people of African Descent, Mr. Baleka invoked the mandate of the PFPAD “To request the preparation and dissemination of information by the United Nations system on issues relating to people of African descent . . . .”

In his closing remarks to the First Session entitled “Reparatory Justice and Sustainable Development: A Way Forward?”,  PFPAD member Michael McEachrane stated, 

“We, the Members of the Forum,. . .  propose that the legal and institutional grounds for pursuing reparatory justice at the UN be examined to both clarify the possibilities of pursuing reparatory justice at the UN and the International Court of Justice . . . .”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) states on its website

“Since States alone are entitled to appear before the Court, public (governmental) international organizations cannot be parties to a case before it. However, a special procedure, the advisory procedure, is available to such organizations and to them alone. This procedure is available to five United Nations organs, fifteen specialized agencies and one related organization. . . . Advisory proceedings begin with the filing of a written request for an advisory opinion addressed to the Registrar by the United Nations Secretary-General or the director or secretary-general of the entity requesting the opinion.”

UN Charter Article 96 states: 

1. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question

2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

Further, Resolution 75/314. Establishment of the Permanent Forum of People of African Descent emphasizes the opportunity for “the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” and the CHAIRPERSON’S PREPARATORY DOCUMENT FOR THE DRAFT UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE PROMOTION  AND FULL RESPECT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PEOPLE OF AFRICAN  DESCENT states, 

“Reaffirming that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted in 2001, and the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, adopted in 2009, as well as the political declarations on the occasion of the tenth and twentieth anniversaries of the adoption of the  Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, provide a comprehensive United Nations framework and solid foundation for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and  related intolerance, and reaffirm our commitment to their full and effective implementation;”

Accordingly, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) states, 

“104. We also strongly reaffirm as a pressing requirement of justice that victims of human rights violations resulting from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, especially in the light of their vulnerable situation socially, culturally and economically, should be assured of having access to justice, including legal assistance where appropriate, and effective and appropriate protection and remedies, including the right to seek just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination, as enshrined in numerous international and regional human rights instruments, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;”

Finally, The US Government has stated in the Brief in Support of Motion to Quash Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Article III, U.S. Constitution Brought by the Defendant (Imari Obadele and Gaidi Obadele) that

"the issue of whether black folks now within the United States have ever been converted, in accordance with settled principles of universally established law, into United States citizens, and divested altogether of their original foreign African nationality". . . . "is a matter of law."

The recognition that the question must be settled in accordance with principles of universally established law thereby requires that it can not be answered in any domestic court and must be settled at the ICJ.

Thus, our mandate to the PFPAD to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ rests on a solid institutional basis. As a rule of the ICJ, organizations and States authorized to participate in Advisory proceedings may submit written statements. Therefore, included in this mandate are the following written statements that can serve as an initial basis for assembling all the necessary information about the Afro Descendants’ status under the Geneva Convention:

  1. NEW AFRIKAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Statement to the 20th session of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration

  2. Siphiwe Baleka Statement to the 1st Session of the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent

  3. THE PERMANENT FORUM ON PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT, THE DURBAN DECLARATION, REPATRIATION AND PLEBISCITE FOR SELF DETERMINATION

  4. The African American Case for Independence at the International Court of Justice

The specific claims which require an ICJ advisory opinion are summarized as:

Summary

1. 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐝𝐧𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐬, known as Afro Descendants in international forums, are prisoners of the declared Dum Diversas War.

2. Afro Descendants owe no allegiance to any Nation’s laws.

3. At the end of the US Civil War, the United States legislated voluntary, compensated repatriation and ceded territory for New Afrikan self-governing territories in pursuit of independence.

4. The assassination of President Lincoln led to a campaign of fraud and terror to deny New Afrikan’s right to return to their homeland, reduce the status of the recently established self-governing territories, and deny the full recognition of the New Afrikan’s political rights.

5. Cyril Briggs, W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey advocated for New Afrikan self-government and independence, the latter two petitioning the League of Nations for justice and for self determination. The United States, however, refused to sign a special treaty agreeing to the international protection of its internal minorities. 

6. The United States failed its sacred trust obligation under the UN Charter Chapter XI Article 73 to promote New Afrikan well-being and to “develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.” It further failed to declare New Afrikan territories as trust territories, under UN Charter, Chapter XII Article 77.1.c trusteeship system.

7. The United States continues to violate the human rights, and in particular, the political rights, of New Afrikan/AfroDescendant peoples by continuing the campaign of fraud and terror limiting their political rights only to citizenship in the United States when it should be honoring its commitments to voluntary repatriation with compensation and recognition of New Afrikan self-governing territories made at the conclusion of the Civil War.

8. The Permanent Forum of People of African Descent (PFPAD) can request a special advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the New Afrikan status as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention and the necessity of holding a plebiscite to determine their collective political destiny.

9. CONCLUSION: The United States territory is an acquisition of legal title by conquest that has been rejected as anachronistic and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. Afro Descendant/New Afrikan presence on said territory is the result of a declaration of total war and the subsequent “Trans Atlantic Slave Trade” that has been acknowleged as a crime against humanity both now and then. Territorial acquisitions or other advantages gained through the threat or wrongful use of force cannot have legal effect, because international law cannot confer legality upon the consequences of wrongful acts incompatible with the Charter. In such cases, there should be full restitution. To claim that our status is “American citizen” is to confer legality on an acquisition of territorial legal title by conquest, a crime against humanity, and a campaign of fraud and terror by the government of the United States of America (after the assassination of President Lincoln and the 14th Amendment).

10. An ICJ opinion that descendants of the people kidnapped, terrorized, tortured and  trafficked from their homelands on the African continent and enslaved in the Americas are in fact “prisoners of war” until their “final release and repatriation” under the Geneva Convention will provide legal clarity for reparatory justice for all Afro Descendant people.

Endorsed by:

Kenniss Henry, National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA)

Maynard Henry, National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA)

Efia Nwangaza, Malcolm X Center for Self Determination

Nkechi Taifa, Reparation Education Project

Senghor Baye, UNIA-ACL RC2020

Esther Stanford-Xosei, Global Afrikan Peoples Parliament.

Jalil Muntaqim, Spirit of Mandela Committee, National Jericho Movement, the Peoples’ Senate

HE Amb. Rev. KWAME KAMAU, International Civil Society Working Group - UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent

Marlon Miller, Bahamas National Reparation Committee

Fabien Anthony, Pan-African Council

Kamm Howard, Reparations United

Ade Olaiya, UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab

Niambi Hall-Campbell Dean, Bahamas National Reparations Committee

Steve Reid, Caribbean Rastafari Organisation Inc.

KWAME-OSAGYEFO KALIMARA, New Afrikan People's Organization/Malcolm X Grassroots Movement

Saikou Ak Jallow, Movement for Social Justice MS-J4 Gambia

June Lewis, IDPAD Coalition UK

Dr. Wade Nobles, Professor Emeritus of Black Psychology and Africana Studies

Kali Akuno, Cooperation Jackson

Miguel Angel Avila Nazareno., Movimiento Federalista Panafricano de América Latina y el Caribe Hispano -MFPA/ALCH-Ecuador.

Morgan Moss JR, Ubuntu National & International Trade & Education (UNITE)

Nina Womack, Transmedia 360

Camara Jules P Harrell, Howard University Department of Psychology

Augustin F C Holl, Xiamen University, China

Patricia Silva, Stichting Black Matters, the Netherlands

Renate Brison, Pro Soualiga Foundation, St. Martin

Jami Luqman, New Afrikan Network 519 Association

Tafari Thompson, The Ethiopia Africa Black International Congress, Bahamas

Mickey Bowe, House Of Rastafari Bahamas. Ethiopia Africa black international Congress

Darren Crenshaw, Street Salvation Ministries NGO

NZABI MISAMU, DYNAMIC MATONGE, Belgium

Dana Dennard, Aakhet Center For Human Development

Omowale Afrika, Afrikan War College

Mwalimu Kabaila, Presiding Elder, National Black Council of Elders

Cheryl Grills, Loyola Marymount University

NNAMDI Ture, All African People Revolutionary Party

Ashraf Cassiem, Anti Eviction Campaign

Laurel Klafehn, Immigrant Freedom Fund of Colorado

Daïana GOMES, RepatBissau

Eric Phillips, Guyana Reparations Committee

Dawn Demeritte, The Bahamas National Reparation Committee

Woody Carter, Bay Area Black United Fund

Kevin Washington, Grambling State Univeversity/Roots Afrika

Kandace Walker, Sojourner Enterprise

Confidence Okeke, UNIAACL-EACL

John Ratcliff, Attorney at Law (retired)

Melvin Robinson, Original Flavor ~ Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. (Eta Nu Nu & Iota Psi Chapters) ~ Artists4AfricA ~ New Harvest Urban Arts Center ~ All Revolutionary Qulture Liberation Lab

Ikemba Agulu, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement

Kwasi Akwamu, Obadele Society

Donald Mitchell, Osa Meji Temple

Elsie Gayle, Mothers and Midwives Together across the Diaspora

MARIE-LYNE CHAMPIGNEUL, Kartyé Lib Mémoire & Patrimoine Océan Indien

Joe Washington, The Nia Foundation

MaryJo Copeland, Racial Reconciliation Group

King Robinson TANYI TAMBE AYUK, AIGC- African Indigenous Governance Council

Davidson Madira, Digital Green Investment Agency (DIGIA)

Olusola Oni, Omo Yoruba Tooto

Sunny Lambe, Building Blocks Initiative

Enpress Judah, Black Community Health Group, UK

Ann-Marie Cousins, Greenwich African Caribbean Organisation (GACO)

Niamo Muid, The HealMobile

Alex Richards, Collectivité d'Outre Mer de Saint-Martin

Dorbrene O'Marde, Antigua and Barbuda Reparations Support Commission

Kevin Edwards, African Diaspora Development Institute (ADDI), Antigua

Edison Marqués Cortez, Asociación de la Unidad Afroamericana (AUAA), Ecuador

Marion Thandabantu Iverson, Independent Labor & Human Rights Educator

Tongo Eisen-Martin, Black Alliance for Peace

Teniqua Pope, Black Alliance for Peace

Michelle McCormick, Cooperation Vermont

GARNET KING, BLACK RIDERS LIBERATION PARTY

CF WHITE, Educational Training Consultants

Melanie Bush, May First Movement Technology +++

Evelyn Johnson, United Black American Progress Association

Betty Davis, New Abolitionist Movement

Krishna Daly, Black alliance for peace

Aleta Toure, Parable of the Sower Intentional Community Cooperative

Ashaki Binta, NBLM National Unity Initiative

Netfa Freeman, Pan-African Community Action (PACA)

Angaza Sababu Laughinghouse, NC Public Service Workers Union-UE LOCAL 150 and Black Workers For Justice

Kimberly Monroe, Pan-African Community Action

Pamela Dominguez, Reborn From Authentic Roots

Tyari Heard, BAP

Zizwe Tchiguka, All African People's Revolutionary Party

Matt Meyer, International Peace Research Association

Gabriel Dzodom, Black Alliance for Peace

Gus Griffin, Ujima People's Progress Party

Claire M. Cohen, Pittsburgh Black Workers Center

Cleo Silvers, Radical Elders

Jermaine St. Rose, Ethiopia Africa Black International Congress Church of Salvation - Barbados/Ethiopia

Larsene Taylor, BWFJ

Aisha Mohammad, Oakland Jericho

Joya Brandon, Osha N’ile

Maryse Isimat-Mirin, Ass. Bien-être et Éducation

G. Eveta Morrison, The Ethiopian World Federation, Incorporated

Victoria Jenkins, NABWS

Vanessa Sparks, United African Coalition for Human Rights

Anjel Clark, IDIA

Allendy Decopin, The Black Alliance for Peace

Christopher Buchanan El, Parliament Organics - non-profit

Rasheed Van Putten, Pan-African Community Action

Harold Welton, Coalition To Free Ruchell Magee.org

Ellen Rollins, NAJLCA.org

Charles Hill, Soarase Inc.

RALPH POYNTER, LYNNE STEWART ORG. & NEW ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT

Kade Griffiths, Spectre Journal

Tejvir Grewall, KPFK 90.7FM

Curtis Murphy, Fihankra Ghana

Judah Bouguila, The Observatory to defend the right to difference Tunisia

Sanyika Bryant, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement

Gwendolyn Hallsmith, Global Community Initiatives

Evan Wright, Black Alliance for Peace

Kazembe Balagun, Independent Scholar Activist

Sean Fabien, Cooperation Jackson

Elaf Alnayer, Pan African Forum-Sudan Sudan

Avani Pisapati, Lehigh University

Molefi Askari, Ubuntu Institute for Community Development

Priscilla Ferreira, Collective Diaspora-Brazil

Eleanor Finley, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Michael Guynn, THE GUYNN FAMILY FOUNDATION

Kevin Collins, Roots in Guinea Bissau

Afia Khalia Kodua, Black August of L.A.

Egbert Higinio, The Garifuna Nation

Jeanne Ayivorh, RRG

Egbert R Higinio, President The Garifuna Nation

Robin Benton, ICSWG PFPAD

Liz Millman, Learning Links International UK

Garrick Prayogg, Cultural Diversity Network UK

Khalifa Losene Dunor, United African Organization For Literacy Development UAOLD Liberia

Asundep Ntui, AFRICAN DIASPORA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

and many more!

Add your name and organisation to the list that will be regularly updated until March 31!

Letter to Pan Africanists Concerning the Upcoming Pan African Congress in Harare, Zimbabwe Later This Year

Siphiwe Baleka with H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao and Damian Cook, ADDI Vice President, February 12, 2023

Later this year, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1”. More than 800 delegates from the African Diaspora and Africa will convene for the sole purpose of further establishing the AU 6th Region and creating a comprehensive African Diaspora Citizenship Policy for the African Union. The initiative comes from Uganda President Yoweri Museveni and Her Excellency, Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, the former AU Ambassador to the United States who has become a voice and champion of the African Diaspora and the African Union 6th Region. Many grassroots Pan African activists are asking questions about the event which I have addressed in the article From the 8th Pan African Congress in 2014 to the 8th Pan African Congress in 2023.

As the Chairperson of the Congress Agenda Steering Committee, I would like to say a few things in hopes of rallying the entire African Diaspora to a most historic moment. 

Twenty years ago, on February 4th, 2003, I was the sole representative of the African Diaspora in attendance at the First Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Assembly of the African Union meeting in Addis  Ababa, Ethiopia. That summit adopted the historic Article 3(q) that officially, “invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union in its capacity as an important part of our Continent.” From this decision, the African Diaspora would eventually become designated as the 6th Region of the African Union.

The AU 6th Region Education Campaign was launched in 2006 which attempted to organize the African Diaspora to begin working within the African Union as its 6th Region to create the “Africa We Want.”  Our original task was to organize ourselves and elect twenty representatives to the AU Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) that was designated for African civil society participation within the African Union. Until now, those elections have not been concluded and those positions have never been filled. It should be recalled that inclusion in ECOSOCC was only meant to be the first step in becoming full partners in the African Union and the development of our motherland.

As many people remember, H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao was removed from her position as the AU Ambassador to the United States at a time when she was fiercely exposing the neo-colonialist exploitation against African people. Her three-year tenure, however, gave her the experience and insight into what needed to be done in order to unite the African Diaspora to take its place at the table inside the African Union.

Now is the moment to implement what I am calling Ambassador Chihombori-Quao’s “Get the Keys Strategy”. Instead of shouting from outside the African Union about a broad host of issues, now is the moment when the African Diaspora can accomplish two objectives: first, establish a continental diaspora citizenship policy that will create four pathways based on investment, work, residency and/or dna under the principle of the “Right to Return”. The four pathways, taken together, allows for every African Diaspora to obtain citizenship to the country of their choice or ancestry regardless of one’s circumstances. The second objective is to establish the equality of the AU 6th Region with the other five regions within the African Union by establishing Ambassadors at the AU Permanent Representatives Council (PRC) and throughout all the other AU organs and establishing an AU 6th Region Headquarters outside of Africa. This is the LIMITED OBJECTIVE of the upcoming Pan African Congress in Harare, Zimbabwe and will open the door for the African Diaspora to physically enter the continent and to administratively begin to assist in governing the continent.

After spending five days in intense strategy sessions with Ambassador Chihombori-Quao, it is my firm belief that her “Get the Keys Strategy” is the historical imperative of the moment. The entire African Diaspora must rally behind this. 

As my article highlights, there are contradictions and differences within the African Diaspora. However, this is the moment we must exercise our understanding that unity does not require homogeneity, but it does require solidarity of purpose. 

The previous Pan African Congresses had a much broader agenda with differences of opinion. The upcoming Congress has a limited agenda, thus breaking with tradition in order to achieve a result that the entire African Diaspora desires: citizenship in our ancestral homeland. Again, this can be achieved now, but only if we come together and perform well.

There will be some conflict over the Congress’s connection to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. There may be arguments over whether or not the Congress should be called the 8th PAC, the 9th PAC or even be called a PAC at all. Some veterans of the Pan African movement may feel slighted that, until now, they were not consulted from the start. And perhaps there may be many more objections. 

What is important, however, is that we now have a Champion who knows what to do and how to do it. Ambassador Chihombori-Quao has support from current and past African Presidents who are ready to move the needle IF we come together and unite under a congress that is truly representative of the entire African Diaspora. The Congress’s Harare Declaration that includes the African Diaspora Citizenship Policy recommendations will then be submitted by the President of Zimbabwe to the African Union General Assembly in July for adoption. The stronger the unified support of the Congress, the more likely the African Diaspora Citizenship Policy will be accepted by the African Union. Therefore, we must put aside all other concerns to achieve this objective.  All Pan Africanists, heed the call. 

During the next seven weeks leading up to the Congress, there will be open Preparatory Meetings each Saturday to debate and contribute input on each of the specific Agenda items. All Pan Africansits and African Diasporans are invited to make this the most inclusive Pan African Congress in history. If you agree, please register your name and organization below.

Siphiwe Baleka, Coordinator, Chairperson of the Congress Agenda Steering Committee

8th PAC Part 1 Agenda

Pathway to Dual-Citizenship for Continental Diaspora and Descendants of the formerly enslaved

Pathway 1: Investment 

Citizenship granted anywhere in Africa to African Diasporans who have bought a home, started a business, or invested $100,000 to $200,000 in one way or another in the country of their choice.

Pathway 2: Work

Citizenship granted anywhere in Africa to African Diasporans who have worked for three years in the country of their choice.

Pathway 3: Residency

Citizenship granted anywhere in Africa to African Diasporans that have lived in the country of their choice for three years.  For example, students, researchers, NGO workers, etc.

Pathway 4: DNA/ Right to Return 

Citizenship granted to a specific country to African Diasporans that have taken an African Ancestry DNA test and have either a maternal or paternal African lineage.

Pathway 5: Retirement

Citizenship granted anywhere in Africa to retirees upon submission of qualifying information

Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund, Diaspora Pan African Bank and Diaspora Preferential Investment Pathway for International Contracts 

Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund 

$100 a month from 1 million African Diasporans (0.4% of the African Diaspora population) is $100 million a month. That’s $1.2 billion a year and $6 billion in five years. Investment through the fund qualifies for citizenship through Pathway 1. At maturity, money is deposited in a bank in the country of choice.

Diaspora Pan African Bank 

We need a bank that can monetize gold. Currently only 2 foreign owned banks in Africa can do this. Remittances to go through this bank.

Diaspora Preferential Investment Pathway for International Contracts

Diaspora to receive 3 to 6 month exclusive right to bid on all International Contracts. Waived or reduced fees for registering a company or for acquiring permanent residency.

Introduction to the African Union 6th Region

Explanation of the African Union Five Regions

The Five Regions participation in the AU organs. 

Definition of the Diaspora 

The African Union defines the African Diaspora as "Consisting of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union."

AU 6th Region Ambassadors to the PRC 

The need to make the AU 6th Region equal in function to the other 5 regions through inclusion in all AU organs starting with the Permanent Representatives Council. 

Establishment of AU 6th Region and 9th REC Headquarters 

Just as the 5 regions of the AU each have a headquarters within their region, so, too, must the AU 6th Region have a headquarters somewhere within its region such as the Caribbean. Headquarters to be financed by the Diaspora Pan African Fund with construction contributions from EU, OAS, CARICOM, AU and the host country.

Establishment of a Pan African TV and Radio Station/Network 

Nearly all organized efforts have a system of propaganda to convert people to their principles and get them to support them. Western Media, especially CNN, BBC, etc. has been and continues to be the highest form of systemic propaganda. That is why it is able in a major sense, to control the mind of the people of the world.Therefore, we must organize our propaganda to undo the propaganda of other people through a Pan African TV and Radio network that can rival CNN, BBC, etc.

Call to Action: 8PAC1

Letter to Pan Africanists Concerning the Upcoming Pan African Congress in Harare, Zimbabwe April 2023

TOWARDS THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1: LESSONS FROM THE 6TH PAC AND 7TH PAC

From the 8th Pan African Congress in 2014 to the 8th Pan African Congress in 2023

Outcome of the FIRST PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1 IN HARARE, ZIMBABWE

OUTCOME OF SECOND PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1 IN HARARE, ZIMBABWE

OUTCOME OF THE 3RD PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1: DIASPORA PAN AFRICAN CAPITAL FUND

OUTCOME OF THE 4TH PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1: PAN AFRICAN TV AND RADIO

5TH PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1: DEFINITION OF THE DIASPORA

COUNCIL OF PAN AFRICAN DIASPORA ELDERS FORMS TO SUPPORT THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1 TO BE HELD IN HARARE, ZIMBABWE

Council of Pan African Diaspora Elders Letter of Support to President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa of The Republic of Zimbabwe for the 8PAC1

DEFINING THE AFRO DESCENDANTS' RIGHT TO RETURN (RTR) TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOMELANDS ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT FOR THE 8PAC PART 1

The African Union and the African Diaspora - Tracking the AU 6th Region Initiative and the Right to Return Citizenship: A Resource for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 in Harare, Zimbabwe

To join the 8PAC1 Committees, email the Agenda Coordinator, email PAC8.1coord@ouraddi.org

PLEASE REGISTER YOUR SUPPORT OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS IN HARARE, ZIMBABAWE APRIL 2023

From the 8th Pan African Congress in 2014 to the 8th Pan African Congress in 2023

No, that’s not a typo. An 8th Pan African Congress was held in Johannesburg from January 14-16, 2014 under the theme “Mobilizing Global Africans, for Renaissance and Unity”. The 8th PAC was convened by a Preparatory Committee chaired by Professor Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Director of the Cenre for the Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). and brought together one hundred and twenty participants representing institutions and organizations of Africans from around the world. Participants came from Latin America, the Caribbean, USA, Europe, Asia, the Arab World and the African continent. The 8th PAC ended with a final recommendation for the establishment of a Council for African National Affairs (CANA).

However, according to the official website of the North American Delegation to the Pan African Congress International Preparatory Committee

“At the 2012 meeting of Pan Africanists to remember Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, there was a committee established to work to build the 8th Pan African Congress in Accra, Ghana and to link the movement back to the Nkrumah goals of full unification and emancipation. This goal was reaffirmed in 2013 when the AU celebrated its 50 years of unity and explicitly determined to bring back the Pan African Movement and Pan African agenda into the AU. These meetings in Addis Ababa brought out the reaffirmation of the vision of the African Union as that of: “An integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena.”

A series of meetings were held with the surviving members of the International Governing Council and it was agreed to request the government of Ghana to host the 8th Pan African Congress and for a relocation of the Secretariat from Uganda to Accra, Ghana. By June 2014, there was an agreement on the Call for the 8th Pan African Congress emanating from the IGC.”

Stressing the mantra of the 7th Pan African Congress that there should be mass based organization, the call went out to all organizations and individuals to participate at the congress scheduled to be held in Accra, Ghana, 4-9 November 2014. The Call noted that “in keeping with the broad character of all previous congresses, 1900-1994, will be open to all shades of opinion, groups and individuals in the whole Pan African world. In addition, African governments on the continent and in the Diaspora will participate on an equal footing with other delegates. The African Union and its organs and institutions as well as regional economic blocs and platforms will also participate.”

Further, the Report of the First Preparatory Meeting of the North American Delegation to the 8th Pan African Congress in Accra-Ghana, Held at Howard University Blackburn Center, Washington DC, August 2, 2014 states,

(Please note that the 8th PAC that was scheduled to take place in Ghana has been postponed. See details of our position on the PAC )

The first preparatory meeting of the North American Delegation to the 8th Pan African Congress in Accra, Ghana, was held at Howard University in Washington DC on August 2, 2014. Organized by the Pre-congress Preparatory Committee of the North American Delegation, the meeting was attended by over 80 persons. In attendance were representatives of national and international organizations such as the African Union, Baltimore Pan African Liberation Movement, Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), National Black United Front (NBUF-DC), Universal African People’s Organization (UAPO), the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (AAPRP), United Nations Working Group for People of African Descent, the Maryland Coordinator from the 6th region, the December 12th Movement, the International Association Against Torture and the World African Diaspora Union (WADU).

The goal of the meeting was to mobilize Pan African organizations and activists in North America to organize and engage in the process and develop recommendations and strategies for incorporation into the deliberations at the 8th Pan African Congress scheduled to take place in Accra Ghana.

Remarks
In his introductory remarks, Professor Horace Campbell, member of 8th PAC International Preparatory Committee and Governing Council, highlighted the historical importance of the Pan African Congress and the need for a robust participation of the Global African Family in the upcoming PAC in Ghana. Another member of the International Preparatory Committee, Professor Ikaweba Bunting, further emphasized the centrality of engaging different Pan African views, opinions, and constituencies in the process of the PAC – particularly with regard to what he called ‘the paradox of working with Africa’s political leaders and the nation states while also working to get rid of the same nation states. . . .’

The African Union was represented by its deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Adonia Ayebare. The ambassador stressed the importance of engaging with the AU in the PAC preparatory process, while emphasizing that the pre-congress meeting was very important to the African Union. He also stated that the outcomes of the meeting would be an integral part of the PAC preparatory process.

Other international dignitaries at the meeting include Pan African activist from the Netherlands Beryl Biekman and Mireille Fanon Mendes-France, Chair of the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (WGPAD) and Chair of the Frantz Fanon Foundation. Ms. Biekman noted the importance of North American Pan Africanists for other regions, especially in the struggle against xenophobia and racism in Europe. She also emphasized the need to build a stronger relationship among the Global African Family to solidify the AU’s 6th Region in order to maintain a better engagement with the AU and Africa.”

OUR POSITION ON THE 8TH PAC: A CONGRESS OR A REGIONAL MEETING?

“A Congress or A Regional Meeting? The Position of the North American Delegation Regarding the March 2015 Pan African Meeting in Ghana

The North American Delegation strongly advocates for an 8th Pan African Congress that is consistent with the traditions of the Pan African liberation struggle and truly representative of the broader vision of Pan Africanism.

In April 1994, the 7th Pan African Congress concluded in Kampala, Uganda, with the adoption of 29 resolutions. This Congress and its resolutions were consistent with the process followed in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, for the 6th Pan African Congress, as well as the others that preceded it. All 29 resolutions of the 7th Pan African Congress were mechanisms that both addressed issues specific to some constituencies as well as the barriers to a more inclusive Global African community overall.

One of the key resolutions of the 7th Congress was the establishment of a Pan African Secretariat that would call, manage, and fund subsequent Pan African Congresses.

This Secretariat could also serve as a home for a permanent Pan-African body for facilitation and dialogue or simply be the genesis for one. Due to the unforeseen death of Dr. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, General Secretary of the Pan African Movement and principal organizer for decades, there was a period of reorganization with a continuing lack of funds during which the proper functioning of the Secretariat was affected over the next decade.

Another important resolution of the 7th Pan African Congress was to support regional mechanisms that would allow for local input at the broadest level geared towards the next Pan African Congress. Delegates also realized that this could only happen with sufficient funding, and therefore called for mechanisms by which both the regional and international convocations would be funded.

On the ideological and procedural fronts, there was strong debate over the nature of subsequent bodies and specifically whether the Congresses should be guided by “principled political action or by protocol.” This was because many African governments at the time were succumbing to Western protocols/pressure and forgetting their genesis in the African liberation struggle. A clear resolution to the matter was that the Pan African Congress should promote the interests of the African people against a global current that continues to use them as fodder for an international financial system that strongly benefited others. . . .

One mechanism by which this was to be achieved was through the incorporation of the entire Global African community, in tandem with all previous Congresses. This meant that African and Caribbean governments, as states representing African people, would have the same status in terms of participation as delegates from civil society from other states. In addition, representation from regional blocs and key institutions, such as labor movements, political organizations and social platforms would be important to ensure that the diversity of Pan African views would be well represented.

The planning process for the proposed 8th Pan African Congress meeting that was called in 2014 does not seem to have taken into consideration the key resolutions of the 7th Pan African Congress.

Major issues about the Pan African outlook that were raised regarding the proposed meeting have not been addressed. Hence the question: is the March 2015 meeting in Ghana a Pan African Congress or a Regional Meeting?

In July 2014, Major-General Kahinda Otafire, Chairman of the Pan African Movement and head of the Secretariat released the International Preparatory Committee’s Call for the 8th Pan African Congress to be held in Ghana in November 2014. However, there were concerns that the Ebola scare, which had affected the West African nations of Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, would inhibit travel from those nations as well as regional travel in general. This was intertwined with the need to ensure that Congress is truly Pan African – through the broad participation of the entire Global Pan African family. Additionally, there were funding uncertainties and a call from some regions for further mobilization. Reconsideration was given to the meeting date and a postponement was called for, until a date could be determined in 2015.

A postponement was initiated, but more concerns were raised over the new date, March 2015. The new date was too close to the initial November 2014, and there were no guarantees that the issues that led to the postponement would have been resolved. The larger Pan African community continues to wonder why the Local Organizing Committee in Ghana insisted on the March date.

In November 2014 a pre-congress meeting was to be held in Kampala to address the progress on the resolution regarding gender concerns. Due to the same reasons for rescheduling the full body, the gender body was also postponed. Although funds were available at that time, it was never rescheduled.

Another major area of concern was the participation of the Global African community, especially the Caribbean region within the Pan-African Congress structure. Given the historic role of delegates from the Caribbean since the very first Pan-African Congress in 1900, it was only fitting delegates from this region be more formally acknowledged. Resolutions were adopted with respect to specific countries (Haiti and Brazil) as well as a broader one that called for more systemic inclusion of the Caribbean region at the ideological, political and economic levels.

The International Preparatory Committee’s Call identified as the broad theme for the 8th Pan African Congress “The Pan-African World We Want: Building a people’s movement for just accountable and inclusive structural transformation.” This Call provided a list of subthemes that were consistent in character with the resolutions adopted by delegates at the 7th Pan African Congress.

While many Pan Africanists had reservations about the March 2015 date for the 8th Pan-African Congress, there was no question about the content of the Call from the Secretariat. However, the content of the proposed Congress agenda does not appear to be consistent with the Call from the Secretariat and broader Pan African vision of the preceding Congresses. It appears to be deliberately structured to avoid any serious deliberations.

Certainly, no serious Pan-Africanist would deny Ghana’s leading role in advancing the vision of Pan Africanism. And many would welcome the opportunity to acknowledge this history during Ghana’s independence celebrations taking place concurrently with a Pan African meeting in Accra in the month of March. However, it will be a monumental disservice to the Pan African cause and to Ghana’s immense contribution towards the advancement of Pan Africanism if the country were to host a Congress that is exclusionary and falls short of deliberating on issues that will advance the interest of the oppressed African workers, women, and our brothers and sisters in the Global African family.

As a result of the foregoing, the North American Delegation states its position regarding the March 2015 meeting as follows:

  • The proposed March 2015 meeting in Ghana does not represent the total Pan African Movement, and hence is not representative of a Pan African Congress.

  • The North American Delegation only recognizes the meeting as a regional preparatory meeting for a broad-based and truly representative 8th Pan African Congress to be held at a later date.

  • Serious conceptual, consultative, and logistical groundwork needs to be done towards a broad-based Pan African Congress; but the organizing infrastructure (or lack thereof) in Ghana and Kampala doesn’t have the capacity for the required groundwork.

  • The agenda of the proposed meeting does not reflect critical issues of urgent importance that are affecting our brothers and sisters in the Global African Family – from the clamor that “Black Lives Matter” in the USA to the challenges facing about 100 million African descendants in Brazil and the effect of coup plotting on Africans in Venezuela as well as xenophobia in Europe and the question of reparations for Africans in Latin America, Caribbean, North America and elsewhere. Also missing from the agenda are the serious questions of regarding grassroots Pan African women, reconstruction and transformation in Africa – beyond election cycles and the looting of working people’s resources.

The North American Delegation therefore recommends that serious work and consultation be set in motion for the planning of an 8th Pan African Congress that is truly representative of the Pan African Movement and genuinely reflective of the critical issues affecting Africans on the continent and the Global African Family.”

On May 6, 2015, Professor Ikaweba Bunting published 8th Pan African Congress: The congress is not the movement Reflections on Phase I of the Congress in Accra, March 2015:

“The pan-Africanist spirit is alive and strong, but building a solid Pan African Movement remains a big challenge – as witnessed in the Pan African Congress in Accra, Ghana, in March. A Pan Africanist political culture must be inculcated, nurtured and institutionalized throughout the six regions of the African world.

In early 2012, a collective of Pan Africanists in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, Europe and North America began to circulate a call for the 8th PAC congress. Proposals and discussions were exchanged via social media, radio programs, local Pan African and community mobilization forums, workshops and town hall meetings. The discussions, comments and reactions generated by the call for a Pan African Congress reflected a mosaic of ideas, sentiments, analyses, criticisms, denouncements, claims and affirmations.

Among the various comments and responses, three characteristics of particular significance emerged. The first being the many different perspectives, ideas, dogma and positions related to defining Pan Africanism, who qualifies as a Pan Africanist, how to organize the congress, and who should or should not participate. In regards to participation, there were divisions as to whether or not the African Union and other state actors should participate. Would their very presence be the antithesis of Pan Africanist objectives or are African governments and the AU essential partners in achieving Pan Africanist objectives?

A second characteristic was that despite the many differences, there was consistent concurrence that in order to redress the economic, cultural and political disempowerment and racial based oppression of African peoples, mobilization and organization globally under the structure of Pan Africanism is essential. The consistency of this perspective is of strategic significance. It reveals a common basis for building a Pan African Movement. Simultaneously the array of ideological differences and dogmatic exclusiveness reveal the amount of work remaining and the characteristics of the challenges to overcome in order to build the Pan African Movement.

The third notable feature apparent during this process was the absence of institutional sustenance of Pan Africanist political culture. Despite a broad recognition of the critical need for a Pan Africanist’s method of organization there is an absence of cohesive and persistent effort, clarity of purpose and sustainable institutional support. To realize the objectives of a Union Government and create a movement to rectify the social, economic and political exploitation of African peoples, a Pan Africanist political culture must be inculcated, nurtured and institutionalized throughout the Six Regions of the African world. It is the task for the Global Pan African Movement to ensure that Pan African institutions and organizations at all levels are functional and effective, and imbued with a Pan Africanist political culture.

The absence of functional Pan Africanist institutions and Pan African political culture has left a vacuum that has been filled with a potpourri of ideas formulated under the rubric of Pan Africanism. What materializes is an amalgam of values, notions, ideas and dogma that are perplexing or contradictory to Pan Africanist purpose and ideology.

As the efforts for the convening of the 8th Pan African Congress began to gain momentum a meeting was held in South Africa. Although convened as a Pan African Congress it suffered from lack of consultation and inclusion. A non-inclusive method of organizing that circumscribes broad based participation is contrary to the purpose of convening a Congress as well as the principles of Pan Africanism. In February 2014, the South African meeting convened with an ideological perspective of Pan Africanism that explicitly excluded North Africa and Arab-speaking North Africans. The 8th PAC North American Organizing Committee together with the Caribbean Pan African Network, the PAM Governing Council and many Pan Africanist activists and organizations decided not to associate with this meeting. Though held under the umbrella of Pan Africanism, it fostered an ideological position that apparently coincided with the imperialists’ fabricated narrative that severs the land and peoples of North Africa from the continent.

This offers one example of the many ideological contradictions and breaches that exist within the movement. Coupled with the array of logistical, organizational and financial challenges the situation epitomizes challenges confronting our efforts to convene a credible and representative Congress and building the Global Pan African Movement.

In the lead up to the meeting in Ghana, various Pan African organizations, members of the Governing Council of PAM and regional organizing committees in the Caribbean and North America protested that November 2014, a date proposed by the Ghana Local Organizing Committee, was too soon. The primary concern was that it did not allow sufficient time to mobilize for broad based representation from the different regions of the continent and the diaspora.

Concerns were also expressed regarding the Ebola outbreak and the subsequent travel restrictions that prevented Pan Africanists from several West African nations from attending. The Government of Ghana and the LOC moved the date from November to March 4-7, 2015. It had been recommended by the majority of stakeholders that, at the earliest, May 25, 2015 (African Liberation Day) could be an acceptable date. However, even with the May 25 proposal, several participants in the preparatory dialogue were skeptical in regards to sufficient time and resources being available to mobilize a truly representative, broad-based Pan Africanist participation. The Ghana Government and LOC insisted on March. Consequently, there was a tentative and conditional agreement to participate provided Ebola had been contained and the broad based consultation with Pan Africanist organizations throughout all of the regions of the world had taken place, ensuring their input and participation in the Congress.

There was also concern that four days for a congress were insufficient. Particularly so because the dates proposed coincided with the Government of Ghana’s Independence Day Celebrations. Two of the four days were predominantly concerned with ceremony. Approximately 11 hours only over the course of four days were available for deliberations. As a consequence critical questions arose as to the purpose of the meeting in Ghana. Was it for revitalizing the Pan African Movement or was it for Ghana’s Independence celebration and internal Ghanaian politics? Communications became disjointed as it appeared these concerns were not being responded to. The prevailing sentiment across the scope of a four-continent-wide discussion and commentary was that the meeting in Ghana, if convened as planned, could only be a regional preparatory meeting and not a Congress and due to its not representative process a decision not to participate had been taken. However, compromise and shared purpose prevailed to make the best of a difficult situation and facilitated the convening of the meeting in Ghana despite all of the shortcomings.

An emergency meeting of the Governing Council and the International Preparatory Committee was held in Accra on 28 February 2015. The meeting recognized the grave concerns that had been expressed by the various local organizing committees and Pan African organizations worldwide. The meeting assessed the situation and addressed the following issues:

(1) the government of Ghana in agreeing to host 8th PAC had incurred certain obligations, made commitments and invited high level international guests;
(2) the desire to ensure that 8th PAC was truly global in character and was more representative in terms of delegates, content and purpose;
(3) the general need to ensure a unifying and broadly inclusive 8th PAC process and outcome truly owned by all constituent elements of the Pan African Movement.

During the meeting it was noted that several organizational and operational challenges existed, partly emanating from the 20-year lull after 7th PAC. The criticisms also noted that in regards to the preparation of 8th PAC there was inadequate coordination and communication as well as financial and administrative constraints and inadequate representation of PAM structures in the planned 8th PAC (Ghana). The International Preparatory Committee considered the historical precedent set by various PACs and in particular the 2nd PAC that was held in phases. Subsequently the meeting unanimously agreed to follow the historical precedent of the 2nd PAC of 1921 that took place in phases in different cities including London, Brussels and Paris. This compromise reflected the overall desire to have a congress and to build upon the momentum of organizing and overcoming the challenges we face in building the Pan African Movement.

In Ghana the meeting itself was raucous, often times descending into shouting matches and vociferous protests referencing, what seemed to be, randomly selected rules from Robert’s Rules of Order. The glaring need for improved communications, organizational functionality and leadership within the movement and Governing Council was perhaps the most pronounced weakness revealed in the lead up to and the convening of Phase 1 of the 8th Pan African Congress/Ghana.

There were issues regarding the criteria and method of accrediting delegates that were never clear or coordinated sufficiently. In attendance at the Ghana meeting were participants that did not have historical knowledge or working understanding of Pan Africanism. Quite a number of participants were more familiar with the NGO agendas and NGO discourse than they were of Pan Africanism. This is reflected in some of the resolutions and the nature of discussions. There were elements in each committee whose singular focus was on holding elections, changing the leadership of the GC and the location of the secretariat rather than the issue the committee was constituted to deliberate. The obviously prearranged caucusing and tactic threatened to undermine the process as well as purpose of the Congress and spirit of the compromise agreement.

Many of the contradictions that emerged during the Ghana meeting were reflections of issues of concern expressed before the meeting. However as we criticize the mistakes and contradictions it is also correct to acknowledge that there were actions taken that resulted in positive outcomes. This reflected strength of commitment, political maturity, compromise and common purpose thus preventing a rupture and allowing for broader participation and inclusion. Individuals took initiative to work through the problems.

8th PAC Phase One (Ghana) concluded with several resolutions being passed. The resolutions together with other documents of the North American Organizing Committee are on this website. The contribution of the resolution drafting committee was a particularly valiant effort working well into the early morning to fabricate a coherent set of resolutions that reflected the content and intent of committee reports together with the comments and recommendations from the plenary sessions.

However in effect the conclusion and outcome of the meeting in Ghana is the agreement to organize the 8th Pan African Congress as a two -process. 8th PAC Phase One was the meeting convened in Ghana March 4th -7th 2015. The agreement states that 8th PAC Phase Two will convene no later than May 31st 2015. The interim period would be used to organize regional meetings and consultations to ensure broad base participation.

The responsibility is with the Governing Council and the IPC to immediately rectify the operational and structural impediments that have undermined the efficiency of the Secretariat. The secretariat is the operational extension of the GC tasked with coordinating regional consultations, laying the groundwork for elections of new office-bearers and managing the overall planning and preparation for the final phase of 8th PAC.

It is important to recognize when reviewing our efforts the weaknesses and mistakes we reveal is a positive outcome when we use it to our organizational advantage!

* Dr Ikaweba Bunting lived and worked in eastern and southern Africa for almost three decades before returning to the US in 2002. He was a member of the organizing committee of the 7th Pan African Congress in Kampala in 1994.”

Recalling the “Dueling 8 PACs”, Cliff Kuumba, writes,

“ I don't have any articles that specifically look at the two visions for a Pan African Congress from back then, and I don't recall writing anything on it at the time for my Web site https://kuumbareport.com (I will look there to see if I had written anything on it that I had later forgotten), but I was in Los Angeles for the 2013 SRDC Summit when Dr. Ikaweba Bunting and General Ishola Williams engaged in their debate about the nature of the 8th Pan African Congress.  Much of their discussion, which as I recall was slightly contentious but generally cordial, took place during a dinner that was held at a Los Angeles restaurant after the day's SRDC-related activities.  This is my take on the nature of their debate.  Professor Horne may have a different take, and I've linked an article he wrote from Our Weekly in 2014 that may explain his understanding of the debate better.

General Williams, who I believe is considered one of the relatively few former members of the Nigerian military to have conducted himself with honor in the face of that country's issues with military-controlled regimes (Ishola Williams, Nigeria's poorest and most honest General, 9 News Nigeria, argued that Sub-Saharan Black Afrikan nations needed to meet to stem the tide of increasing Islamization and Arab dominance over North Africa that threatened the entire Continent over time.  Dr. Bunting was of the "Not One Inch" perspective, that we would not give up one inch of the Afrikan Continent and that General Williams's PAC would ignore the entirety of North Africa, thus going against the very essence of Pan-Afrikanism and building a United Continent.

see:

8th Pan-African Congress Calls for Council on African National Affairs, ITUC-Africa,

A Pan African Step Forward, by Dr. David L. Horne, Ph.D, Our Weekly, Los Angeles,

Arabs and the West must pay for slavery, says Pan African Congress, Mail & Guardian,

Ishola Williams, Nigeria's poorest and most honest General, 9 News Nigeria,

8PAC Accra, Ghana, March 2015

8th Pan African Congress Resolutions,

The 8th Pan African Congress Faces New Age of Struggles and Triumphs, Huffington Post,

Dr. Ikaweba Bunting's Facebook, ”

One can imagine the confusion, then, when in July of 2022, the African Diaspora Development Institute (ADDI) under H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, former AU Ambassador to the United States, solicited for delegates to attend what was originally announced as the 9th Pan African Congress to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 14-19, 2022 hosted by the Government of Zimbabwe. In that call it was stated,

“For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the Pan African Congress, this is a conversation which was started by W.E.B Du Bois in the 1900’s when the descendants of the formally enslaved wanted to have a pathway back home to Africa. To date, there has been a total of eight (8) Pan African Congresses which were held between the year 1919 & 2014. Unfortunately, the eighth was nullified as it was not properly constituted. The first five Pan African Congresses were held outside of the continent of Africa 

1919 in Paris - 1st Pan-African Congress 

1921 in London, Brussels, and Paris 2nd Pan-African Congress 

1923 in London - 3rd Pan-African Congress 

1927 in New York City - 4th Pan-African Congress 

1945 in Manchester -5th Pan-African Congress

1974 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - 6th Pan-African Congress 

1994 in Kampala, Uganda - 7th Pan-African Congress 

2014 in Johannesburg -8th - Nullified”

The question, therefore, was - why was the 8th PAC in Johannesburg “Nullified” and by who? We have the explanation that the 8th PAC held in Accra, Ghana in March of 2015 was somewhat nullified (reduced to a regional meeting) by the North American Delegation. But what about the 8th PAC in South Africa????

In response to the call for the 9th PAC, Dr. David Horne stated in a letter to H.E. Ambassaodor Chihombori-Quao,

“A few weeks ago, your ADDI organization started sending out letters to various Pan African individuals and organizations informing them that ADDI and the Zimbabwean government were planning on hosting a Pan African Congress in Zimbabwe later this year. This is a Pan African-friendly response to that information/invitation letter.

Your letter emphasized that you intended to be a part of and to continue in the tradition of the previous 8 PACs. Your letter, however, demonstrated a bit of disrespect for and certainly a lack of historical clarity regarding that tradition.

You mentioned, for example, your conclusion that “None” of the previous “eight congresses held (had) yielded implementable decisions. I refer you to Pan Africanism, edited by Tajudeen Abdul Raheem and Horace Campbell (1996). This is still the single best short volume history of the first 7 PACs. . . .

You also make a claim that the 8 th PAC in 2014 in South Africa was a negligible and nullified affair. That, too, is inaccurate. There was an on-going dispute between those who represented the Pan African Secretariat out of Uganda (7 th PAC), and the organizers of the 8 th PAC. Essentially, the primary 8 th PAC organizers advocated the exclusion of Arab-based states (Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc.) in any PACs mainly (but not exclusively) because those states had refused to apologize for or institute any actions in restitution for their participation in the Arab slave trade. Only Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya had written such an apology. Additionally, the 8 th PAC organizers were a small, non-grass roots committee led by Prof. Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Director of the Center for Critical African Studies, who had publicly criticized the Uganda-based Pan African Secretariat (which had slowly become dysfunctional after the death of Raheem in 2009). Some of the primary and most memorable decisions made at the 8 th PAC were to create a Council of African National Affairs (CANA), to create PAC chapters wherever the African Diaspora lived and in all African countries and especially to include more youth in decision-making , and to include African diasporans from Ecuador, India and other formally ignored areas. Of the 10 major decisions made at the 8 th PAC, at least 7 of them have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Certain activists from the 1994 PAC continue to criticize the organization of the 8 th PAC, but to declare that gathering “nullified” is simply inaccurate.

Finally, to cut to the chase, the one constant in all of the PACs was an effective Pan African Preparatory Committee, usually spear-headed by on-the-ground activists in different parts of the world. That committee has virtually always been both grass roots and government-based. Your ADDI seems to have assumed that role in connection with the Zimbabwean government. In order to achieve the primary goals you identified for the gathering in Zimbabwe, that arrangement may prove problematic. For one thing, there is a severe lack of time for preparation, and there does not seem to have been much grass-roots organizing thus far. To get to a gathering of forces and a centralizing leadership decision for the African Diaspora, as you state you are aiming for, there must be adequate organizing time. . . .

I, and many other working Pan Africanists, strongly support your stated goals for the Zimbabwe gathering. Certainly, we need more “unity without uniformity” and a bigger, more organized representation for the African Diaspora in the race to achieve the goals of AGENDA 2063. But we must have more much more discussion right now (not obfuscation) about how to pull off this next step.”

Siphiwe Baleka with H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao and Damian Cook, ADDI Vice President, February 12, 2023

After arriving in Harare, Zimbabwe on February 7th to join H.E. Ambassador Chihombori-Quao’s planning committee, I asked her why the conference was now being called the “8th PAC Part 1"” when it was originally annouced as the “9th PAC”. Her response was that it was on the insistence of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who intends to host the “8th PAC Part 2” next year in Uganda to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the 7th PAC that was held in Kampala, Uganda.

This, even though, as part of the implementation of its Agenda of the Decade of African Roots and Diasporas, Togo intends to organize a pan-African congress in 2024 with the theme “Renewal of Pan-Africanism and Africa's Place in Global Governance: Mobilizing Resources and Reinventing for Action”. To be sure, the DRAFT DECISION ON THE PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2021-2031 AGENDA, "DECADE OF AFRICAN ROOTS AND DIASPORAS" (item proposed by the Republic of Togo) EX.CL/1420(XLII) -  22 November 2022 states,

“7. ALSO TAKES NOTE of the proposal of the Togolese Republic, as stated in the progress report on the Decade of African Roots and Diasporas, to organize, as part of the implementation of the Decade, an event in 2024 entitled “Renewal of Pan-Africanism and Africa's place in global governance: mobilizing, resourcing and reinventing for action”

8. REQUESTS the Commission and the Togolese Republic to continue their collaboration to ensure the smooth preparation, organization and success of this event; 

9. DECIDES that the event “Renewal of Pan-Africanism and Africa's place in global governance: mobilizing, resourcing and reinventing for action” will be organized in the Togolese Republic in 2024

10. CALLS UPON Member States, African Union partners and Diaspora and Afro-descendant communities around the world to support the organization and smooth conduct of this event;”

The concept note for the 8th PAC Part I in Harare states,

“The African Diaspora Pan African Congress will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region. The issues to be discussed will include but not limited to: 

  • Establishment of a continental pathway to citizenship for the descendants of the formerly enslaved as well as children of continental Africans who were born and live outside Africa. They deserve the liberty to choose what country in Africa they wish to become a citizen of. 

  • Preferential investment pathway designed to promote and pave the way for all people of African descent living outside Africa to not only participate in the development of Africa, but also to reclaim their inheritance by investing in the endless opportunities in Africa that many non-Africans have enjoyed for centuries. 

  • The establishment of a 6 th Region Head Quarters outside of Africa within a host country similar to the other five continental regions (such as ECOWAS) in or outside Africa.

  • The appointment of African Diaspora Ambassadors to the African Union . . . .”

When I joined the Ambassador’s planning committee and saw the list of invited delegates and dignitaries as well as the congress schedule and agenda, I was, quite honestly, horrified! When she asked me what did I think, I replied, “It isn’t the Congress I would have planned. . . . “ I didn’t see any of the grassroots veteran Pan Africanists that I knew of throughout the Western Hemisphere. Moreover, I saw celebrities and politicians that had nothing to do with Pan Africanism. Quite frankly, this was disturbing to me. On the one hand, H.E. Ambassador Chihombori-Quao has become our fiery Queen Mother Spokeswoman of the African Diaspora, unafraid to spit fire on our former colonial masters. Her dismissal as the AU Ambassador to the United States only solidified her as a champion of the people! But how on earth could you call a “Pan African Congress” without those who have been in the trenches and connected to the previous Congress and its subsequent mobilization? Why have more than 800 delegates attend only to have the very African Leaders who haven’t made good on the AU Article 3q invitation to address them? I didn’t understand the logic behind this. But now I do and I’m calling it Ambassador Chihombori-Quao’s “Get the Keys Strategy”. To understand the Get the Keys Strategy, please read:

Letter to Pan Africanists Concerning the Upcoming  Pan African Congress in Harare, Zimbabwe

UPCOMING PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS IN HARARE, ZIMBABWE WILL PROPOSE A COMPREHENSIVE AFRICAN UNION CITIZENSHIP POLICY FOR THE AFRICAN DIASPORA

AFRICAN DIASPORA AMBASSADORS FOR THE AFRICAN UNION 6TH REGION: UPCOMING PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS TO MAKE PROPOSAL

WILL THERE BE AN AFRICAN DIASPORA REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS FOR THE AFRICAN UNION 6TH REGION? UPCOMING PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS TO MAKE A PROPOSAL

Will there be an African Diaspora regional headquarters for the African Union 6th Region? Upcoming Pan African Congress to make a proposal

Towards an AU 6th Region Headquarters

From April 14 to the 17th 2023, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1”. One of the main Agenda items is establishing the AU 6th Region Headquarters. Naturally, this headquarters would be established outside the continent of Africa somewhere in the AU 6th Region. The Planning Committee would like your suggestions on where the headquarters should be located (note: the headquarters must be located somewhere within the 6th Region - that means OUTSIDE the African Continent following the model of the other five regions which have their headquarters within their respective regions). Please take a moment to answer the following questionaire.

African Diaspora Ambassadors for the African Union 6th Region: Upcoming Pan African Congress to Make Proposal

AU Permanent Representatives Committee Retreat, June 8-11, 2023. Where are the 6th Region Ambassadors????

TOWARDS AU 6th Region REPRESENTATION

Later this year, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1”. One of the main Agenda items is establishing the AU 6th Region on par with the other five regions of Africa.

The member states of the African Union (AU) are divided into five geographic regions of the African Union.

*South Sudan is also in the East Region

On February 4, 2003, the AU General Assembly amended the Constitutive Act of the AU with Article 3(q) to “invite and encourage the full participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union.” In January 2008, the Executive Council suggested that the African diaspora be treated as Africa’s sixth region and its participation in the AU’s organs and activities be strengthened (EX.CL/Dec.406(XII)). The Assembly has recognised the diaspora as a substantive entity contributing to the economic and social development of the continent and has invited its representatives as observers to Assembly sessions (see Assembly/AU/Res.1(XVIII) of January 2012).

The African diaspora, which includes people of African descent living outside of the African continent, such as the Americas, Australia, Asia, and Europe, has been officially recognized by the AU as its sixth region. The agenda for Zimbabwe includes formally establishing the AU 6th Region and brining it to the level of participation in AU organs as the other five regions have done. A next step is proposing that the AU provide formal representation in all AU organs starting with alloting 10 to 15 Ambassador positions in the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC).

WHAT IS THE PRC?

The Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) is one of the three main bodies in the African Union, similar to how the United States has the Exexutive, Judicial and Legislative branches consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The PRC is like the House of Representatives and is charged with preparing the work of the Executive Council. The PRC is composed of Permanent Representatives and other plenipotentiaries of Member States. Since the AU 6th Region, unlike the other five regions, does not consist of AU Member States, it cannot have “Permanent Representatives”. That is why the agenda for the 8th PAC Part 1 is proposing that the AU6th Region be represented by “Ambassadors”.

According to the African Union Handbook (2022),

“The Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) conducts the day-to-day business of the African Union (AU) on behalf of the Assembly and Executive Council. It reports to the Executive Council, prepares the Executive Council’s work and acts on its instructions(under article 21 of the Constitutive Act). All AU Member States are members of the PRC.

Rule 4 of the PRC Rules of Procedure specifies that its powers and functions include to:

• Act as an advisory body to the AU Executive Council

• Prepare its Rules of Procedure and submit them to the Executive Council

• Prepare Executive Council meetings, including the agenda and draft decisions

• Make recommendations on areas of common interest to Member States, particularly on issues on the Executive Council agenda

• Facilitate communication between the African Union Commission (AUC) and Member States’ capitals

• Consider the AU’s programme and budget as well as the Commission’s administrative, budgetary and financial matters, and make recommendations to the Executive Council

• Consider the Commission’s financial report and make recommendations to the Executive Council

• Consider the Board of External Auditors’ report and submit written comments to the Executive Council

• Consider reports on the implementation of the budget of the Union

• Propose the composition of AU organ bureaus, ad hoc committees and sub-committees

• Consider matters relating to the AU’s programmes and projects, particularly issues relating to the socio-economic development and integration of the continent, and make recommendations to the Executive Council

• Consider reports on the implementation of the policies, decisions and agreements adopted by the Executive Council

• Participate in the preparation of the AU programme of activities and calendar of meetings; consider any matter assigned to it by the Executive Council; and carry out any other functions that may be assigned to it by the Executive Council.

Rule 4 also provides that the PRC may set up ad hoc committees and temporary working groups as it deems necessary, including sub-committees.

In October 2020, the Executive Council adopted amendments to the PRC Rules of Procedure, to align them with institutional reform (see EX.CL/Dec.1099(XXXVII) of October 2020 and Ext/Assembly/AU/Dec.1(XI) of November 2018).

Structure

All Member States are represented on the PRC at the level of Permanent Representative. Similar to the Assembly and Executive Council, the PRC Bureau consists of a chairperson, three vice chairpersons and a rapporteur. The Bureau positions are held by the same states that form the Assembly and Executive Council bureaus. Office holders serve for one year (usually January to January). In addition to the official Bureau, a larger informal bureau of 15 Member States traditionally convenes to support arrangements for the Assembly Summit sessions.

At the PRC level, the five regional groups are informal discussion structures, chaired by the longest-serving representative, who acts as the Dean.

Permanent Representatives Committee Meetings

The PRC usually meets at AU Headquarters at least once a week and holds an ordinary session two times a year. It may also hold extraordinary sessions. The quorum is two-thirds of the total membership of the Union (Rules of Procedure, rule 6). The agenda for each session is drawn up by the Chairperson in consultation with the PRC Bureau and the AUC. Sessions are closed, except when the PRC decides otherwise (by simple majority).

The AU Executive Council decided in June 2018 that from 2019, the PRC would hold its sessions in time for it to adopt its reports at least two weeks prior to the start of the ordinary sessions of the Executive Council (EX.CL/Dec.1030(XXXIII)).

The PRC takes all its decisions by consensus or, failing that, by a two-thirds majority of Member States eligible to vote (Rules of Procedure, rule 13). Questions of procedure, and whether a question is one of procedure or not, require a simple majority of Member States eligible to vote. PRC meetings are governed by rules 5–9 of the Rules of Procedure and decision-taking by rule 13.”

Who will be the AU6th Region Ambassadors to the PRC? How will they be selected, elected or appointed?

While the first step is to simply propose the motion for adoption by the AU General Assembly, such an action behooves us to ask the question, who will be the AU 6th Region Ambassadors to the PRC and how will they be selected, elected or appointed? Is this going to be a people centered and democratic bottom-up process or is it going to be a top down, authoritatice state-led process? Additionally, this proposal then raises the question: how or why is this any different than the original instruction from the AU back in 2003 that the African Diaspora should organize itself and elect twenty (20) representatives to the AU Economic, Social, and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), an effort that has been frought with rejections by the African to accept the AU 6th Region election process? What’s different now? Why not insist on the original 20 ECOSOCC Representatives AND the 10 to 15 PRC Ambassadors now being proposed?

According to H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, ECOSOCC is just an advisory organ that allows civil society imput into the AU. Including the diaspora was a token gesture in the early stages of the AU to give substance, however small, to the Article 3(q) amendment inviting and encouraging “the full participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union.” The PRC is much more than an advisory organ and has real power to influence AU activity.

The congress agenda committee would like your input on this. Please take a few minutes to complete this questionaire.

Upcoming Pan African Congress in Harare, Zimbabwe Will Propose a Comprehensive African Union Citizenship Policy for the African Diaspora

Towards a Comprehensive African Diaspora Citizenship Policy

From April 14 to the 17th 2023, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1”. One of the main Agenda items is the establishment of a continental pathway to citizenship for the descendants of the formerly enslaved. Below are the different pathways being proposed. Please take a moment to make comments on each.

Also, take a moment to read Defining the Afro Descendants' Right to Return (RTR) to their Ancestral Homelands on the African Continent.

If you have repatriated to the motherland, please share your testimony. Describe the process for obtaining visa/residence permit/work permit/citizenship/establishing your business. Was the process smooth or a nightmare? How were you treated? What specific recommendations do you have for the African Union member states?

Call for Inputs for United Nations Visit to the United States of America 24 April – 5 May 2023

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

(please distribute widely)

Purpose To Collect information in preparation for the Expert Mechanism's visit to the United States of America scheduled to take place 24 April – 5 May 2023

Background

The mandate of the Expert Mechanism is detailed in resolution 47/21. The Expert Mechanism is mandated under paragraph 11 of the resolution to advance racial justice and equality in the context of law enforcement in all parts of the world by, inter alia conducting country visits, inclusive outreach, and consultations with States, directly affected individuals and communities, and other stakeholders, and taking into account an intersectional approach. The Expert Mechanism is comprised of three members- Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, Dr. Tracie Keesee, and Professor Juan Méndez.

Learn more about the Expert Mechanism here

During the mission, the Expert Mechanism will meet national stakeholders, including government officials including law enforcement authorities, civil society organisations, United Nations representatives, academics, lawyers, and victims. The Expert Mechanism will also conduct site visits and spend time outside the capital city to better understand the issues faced by Africans and people of African Descent in the country.

The Expert Mechanism will offer recommendations to support the Government's efforts in combatting structural and institutional racism, the excessive use of force, and other human rights violations by law enforcement and the criminal justice system against Africans and people of African descent. The Expert Mechanism will present a mission report with its findings and recommendations.

Objectives

The Expert Mechanism seeks to understand the USA’s efforts in combatting structural and institutional racism, the excessive use of force, and other human rights violations by law enforcement against Africans and people of African descent, in the spirit of cooperation and dialogue.

During the visit, the Expert Mechanism will study:

  • Systemic racism as a root cause of excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement against Africans and people of African descent.

  • Access to justice, accountability, and redress for excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officials against Africans and people of African descent.

  • Alignment of domestic laws, policies, and practices on the use of force by law enforcement officials with international human rights norms and standards.

  • Alignment of domestic laws, policies, and practices in the criminal justice system with international human rights norms and standards

  • Good practices and lessons learned related to laws, policies and practices on racial justice and equality in the context of law enforcement and the justice system.

Key questions and types of input/comments sought

The Expert Mechanism would like to invite all interested individuals and organizations, including Africans and people of African descent, representatives of civil society organisations, experts, lawyers, and academics to send inputs ahead of their visit, such as:

  • Recent analytical reports or surveys on Africans and People of African descent examining structural and institutional racism, excessive use of force, and other human rights violations by law enforcement and the criminal justice system against them in the USA.

  • Information on the policies, programmes, practices, and legal framework concerning law enforcement, the criminal justice system and Africans and People of African descent in the USA.

  • Information on emblematic cases concerning Africans and people of African descent and their interaction with law enforcement or the criminal justice system including any judicial action, accountability and reparation measures taken in the USA.

  • Priority issues concerns and situations that warrant the Expert Mechanism's attention in the USA.

  • Suggestions on issues to examine and related places to visit in the USA.

  • Suggestions on government officials and civil society actors to meet in different regions in the USA

How inputs will be used

Submission will remain confidential. They will be considered during the country visit and will be considered for the Expert Mechanism’s report on the country visit.

Online Input Form

(For downloadable Microsoft Word version click here)

Online submissions will be forwarded to

ohchr-emler@un.org

Balanta Society in America President Siphiwe Baleka Discusses the Durban Declaration at Forum on the 7th National Day of Racial Healing

Janaury 17, 2023 - Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America President Siphiwe Baleka joined Reconciliation Minister and NCOBRA Health Commission member, Prophet Anyanwu Cox, Executive Director for the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Central States in North Newton, KS and reparatory justice advocate and World Conference Against Racism delegate Michele Armster, and African Reparations Minister and Ambassador from Trinidada & Tobago, Reverend Kwame Kamau for a spectacular discussion on human rights and the Durban Declaration in the context of racial healing. The event was organized by Queenmother Nina Womack, Founder of Let’s Be Whole. The National Day of Racial Healing was created by the W.K. Kellog Foundation on January 17, 2017.

WATCH THE FORUM DISCUSSION HERE

Peanuts, Cashews, Mono-Mercantilism, and Soil Erosion in Guinea Bissau: Amilcar Cabral and George Washington Carver

Guinea: Phases of Portuguese Activity by Amilcar Cabral

From a declaration made by the Secretary-General of the PAIGC to the UN's Special Committee On Territories Under Portuguese Administration, June 1962. Translated from French.

“It is necessary to emphasize that the economic activity of the Portuguese in Guinea has been for over 500 years, and still is today, almost exclusively commercial. In its development one may distinguish the following phases:

(1) Portuguese monopoly of commerce (especially that of slaves), at first only sent to European donatorios (plantation owners) on the Cape Verde Islands (up to 1530).

(2) Competition from other foreign countries. Settlement by Portuguese tradesmen. Rise of large Atlantic slaving companies which monopolize commerce (1530-1840).

(3) Gradual abolition of the slave trade. Development of research in local products (peanuts). End of the Portuguese monopoly in favor of German and French enterprises (mainly 1840/80-1932).

(4) Portuguese monopoly of commerce, especially of the export trade and shipping. Decrease of non-Portuguese enterprises, concentration of Portuguese monopoly in a handful of enterprises (since 1932).

There is a constant feature characteristic of all these phases: a redemptive mode of economy, strongly, mono-mercantile. At the beginning, slaves.

Today, peanuts.

Herein we relate certain facts which concern the post-slave trade period, up to the establishment of the present political regime. The gradual, eventually definitive abolition of the slave trade upset and disorganized both the economy of 'Portuguese' Guinea and that of the metropole itself. This fact had important consequences for the political evolution of Portugal.

To resolve these problems, the Portuguese tried other forms of commerce and exploitation by developing above all the redemption of local products or those of neighboring areas, which were exported through the port of Bissau. For this reason, they began the penetration of the interior of the country, where they established trading-posts (factories).

The research on peanuts, begun in Senegal in 1840, helped the economic development of the colony. Small farmers (ponteiros} and non-indigenous merchants stimulated or forced the cultivation of peanuts by the indigenous population. In Bolama and on the shores of the Great River of Buba the peanut cycle had its beginnings and numerous trading-posts were established in these areas. Portuguese capitalism, scarcely existent, could not, however, compete with non-Portuguese capital which attempted (successfully) to penetrate Africa by every possible means. After the Berlin Conference which brought about the first great partition of the Continent, non-Portuguese enterprises, which had already succeeded in establishing themselves in 'Portuguese' Guinea, monopolized both the internal and external commerce of the country. This was part of the tribute that Portuguese colonialism had to pay to foreign capital in order to maintain its 'presence' in Africa.

Thus, in 1927 again more than 70% of the exports from 'Portuguese' Guinea were directed to non-Portuguese ports (particularly those of France and Germany), from which an equal proportion of imported merchandise came. We may say that since the end of the last century until the 1930s, 'Portuguese' Guinea was a non-Portuguese colony, administered and defended by the Portuguese.

The development of the peanut crop, which occurred mainly at the beginning of this century, opened up the way to soil erosion in 'Portuguese' Guinea, deeply disturbed the lives of the African peoples, to whom it brought the economic, political and social consequences which characterize the present Portuguese rule. Voluntary in the beginning, the result of prodding, it became the chief preoccupation of the administration and thus came in effect to be a mandatory form of cultivation for the rural Africans.

Defeated by the force of arms, the active resistance of the populations to Portuguese penetration and occupation, the development of a peanut monoculture, along with various subsidiary products (such as palm oil, rubber, leather, etc.) - in a redemptive mode - became the basis of 'Portuguese' Guinea's economy and the determining factor in the political situation of its people within the structure of the Portuguese colonial empire. 

It is fitting to emphasize that even the transfer of the capital from Bolama to Bissau had for its principal cause the erosion of the soil on Bolama Island and Buba Region, with the consequent displacement of the peanut cycle on to Bissau Island and the central areas of the country. 

The colonialist-nationalism which, in Portugal, brought the present regime to power, did not undo this situation. Quite the contrary, it did every possible thing to reinforce it, for the exclusive advantage of Portuguese interests.

By establishing discriminatory tariffs to protect commerce between the colonies and Portugal, and by guaranteeing to Portuguese ships, among other things, a monopoly of maritime transport between Portugal and the colonies, the present regime laid the basis for the return of the Portuguese monopoly of commerce in Guinea (Art. 228 - 230 in the Organic Charter of the Portuguese Colonial Empire).

One began to export raw materials exclusively from 'Portuguese' Guinea to Portugal. Unable to make profit, the non-Portuguese commercial enterprises began to leave the country. Peanuts, just as other products of 'Portuguese' Guinea, upon export to Portugal were re-exported to other countries to the profit of Portuguese merchants and to the detriment of the Guinean producer, since the price on the Portuguese market was inferior to that of the world market.

With the eventual development of the peanut-oil industry in Portugal nothing changed in this situation. On the contrary, the increased demands from Portuguese capital (financial, industrial and commercial) imposed new sacrifices on to the Guinean producer now forced to cultivate peanuts and to sell it at prices fixed by the colonial administration.”

So here we see that since the coming of Europeans to Guinea Bissau, the economy was first dominated by kidnapping and selling people into slavery and then shifted to mono-mercantilism of peanuts for the benefit of Europeans. It was an extractive economy - taking the natural wealth of the land of Guine out to Europe through the coerced and forced low paid labour of the people of Guine. This resulted in soil erosion and the political and economic dominance of the Europeans. What was needed then, and is still needed today, is the transformation of the mono-cropping extractive agro-mercantile system of peanuts (back then and of cashews today) into sustainable agro-ecological agro-mercantile system that is non-extractive and benefits the people of Guinea Bissau. This was similar to the same problem that faced the American South in the early part of the twentieth century.

Consider that in my presentation to the New Afrikan Though Conference in Yaounde, Cameroon in November 2022, I made the startling statement, 

“In 1864, George Washington Carver was born into slavery in the United States. He had the ability to talk to plants. This ability allowed Mr. Carver to pioneer agricultural science and revolutionize the economy in the American South. When asked about how he was able to create more than 300 different products from the peanut, Dr. Carver said, “I talk to the little peanut and it reveals its secrets to me.” Few people today remember the fame and impact Dr. Carver had on American society. But here we have solid ground that mysticism can be the basis of agricultural science and economic transformation. Imagine a cadre of young people who can solve Africa’s agricultural and forestry and fishery and housing problems by talking to the environment and getting answers directly from it without the use of books and professors . . .“

One man taught the former slaves in the American South how to make 300 different products from the peanut! Imagine if one man with Dr. Carver’s abilities was in Guinea Bissau!

In my presentation, I further noted,

“He pursued an education in agriculture at Iowa Agricultural College, where he encountered a stellar faculty of ‘scientific agriculture’ professors, including two future U.S. secretaries of agriculture, James Wilson and Henry C. Wallace. This was a practical decision: southern blacks could not paint their way out of poverty.

“Carver made quite an impression on the Iowa Agricultural College faculty. His long-nurtured interest in plants had helped him to develop an ability to raise, cross-fertilize, and graft them with uncanny success. His professors were convinced that he had a promising future as a botanist and persuaded him to stay on as a graduate student after he finished his senior year. He was assigned to work as an assistant to Professor Louis H. Pammel, a noted mycologist, later described by Carver as ‘the one who helped and inspired me to do original work more than anyone else.’ Under Pammel’s tutelage, Carver refined his skills of identifying and treating plant diseases. . . . 

Carver was in the last year of his stay at Iowa Agricultural College when Booker T. Washington gave his famous Atlanta Exposition speech (1895). That speech was Washington’s clearest expression of a long-held philosophy: that southern blacks needed to accommodate themselves to the reality of white control and win first their economic independence through vocational training and the ancient virtues of hard work and thrift. As a means to that end, Washington accepted a position as the first president of Tuskegee Institute in Alabama in 1881. By 1896, he had persuaded the board of trustees to establish an agricultural school. Carver, the only black man in the country who had graduate training in ‘scientific agriculture,’ was the logical choice for the Tuskegee leader, who wanted to keep his faculty all black.

So it was that late in 1896, Georege Washington Carver traveled to the struggling Tuskegee Institute, where he promised Booker T. Washington he would make grass grow green in the Alabama clay. . . . He would combine the creativity of the artist with the rationality of the scientist to do what had never been done. . . .”

According to Glenn Clark, author of The Man Who Talks With The Flowers,

“I found myself in an auto driving toward the Mecca of my dreams, Tuskegee, where the old black man wove his fairy land of magic. ‘You see,’ said Jim, pointing across the flat plains we were riding through,

‘that all this land was once planted in cotton. Dr. Carver saw quickly after he came down to Tuskegee that single crop cotton was wearing out the rich Alabama soils, and impoverishing the debt-burdened sharecropper. He wrote farming bulletins and made speeches urging farmers to grow crops in rotation. He discovered that the sweet potato and the peanut were crops which this soil brought forth in greatest abundance. He preached the gospel of rotating cotton crops with peanut and sweet potato crops. But when the farmers followed his advice in large numbers they discovered they were producing more peanuts and sweet potatoes than the market could absorb. So in solving one problem he had created another. Here was a real problem to face. He didn’t tackle it by asking the government to give federal aid nor did he demand that it restrict planting. He tackled it in the chemical laboratory and licked it there. He discovered 300 new uses for the peanut and 150 new uses for the sweet potato and before he was through he had rebuilt the agriculture of the South. Edison offered him an immense salary for him to come and help him, but he declined. A few years later he declined another offer from a firm for $100,000 so as to give himself wholeheartedly to the saving of the farmers of the South. Today he accepts no salary, and wears an old black suit he bought for about $2.00; but you will find that he always wears a flower in his buttonhole.

Perhaps the most dramatic episode of Dr. Carver’s life was when he went to Washington. When the Ways and Means Committee of the United States Senate were holding hearings on the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Bill, the southerners were very anxious that they should be included. Among those asked to speak was Dr. Carver. When he got off the train, he stopped one of the porters and asked him directions to the Senate.

‘Sorry, Pop,’ he replied, ‘I ain't got time to tell you now. We’re looking for a great scientist up here from Alabama.’

Dr. Carver was put off till the last of the dozen men to speak. Each had been allotted ten minutes. When he came up in his old coat and home-made necktie the committee broke out laughing. One called out, ‘What do you know about the tariff, old fellow?’ ‘I don’t know much, but I know it’s the thing that shuts the other fellow out.’ They caught the point.

But they certainly didn’t put a ‘tariff’ on Dr. Carver’s talking. For after he had talked the ten minutes allotted to the others they all insisted, yes, begged and pleaded that he go on. For an hour and forty-five minutes he showed them face powder, axle grease, printer’s ink, milk, cream, butter, shampoos, creosote, vinegar, coffee, soaps, salads, wood stains, oil dyes, and so on and on. Needless to say the peanut was included in the tariff.

This wasn’t the only time he was called to Washington. During the World War when soldiers needed most of our wheat supply and we had our meatless, wheatless and sweet-less days, the government tried to find a substitute for wheat. Meanwhile at Tuskegee Institute they were saving 200 pounds of wheat flour a day by using sweet potato flour with wheat flour and even, by Dr. Carver’s own admission, ‘making a better load than before.’ Again the U.S. government sent for Dr. Carver to come to Washington, this time not with peanuts, but with a sweet potato exhibit. He simply amazed the experts who had gathered to confer with him. It was after the conference that Dr. David Fairchild, agricultural explorer in charge of the United States Department of Agriculture and world famous scientist, spoke of Dr. Carver as ‘one of the most remarkable and extraordinary minds I ever met.’”

Upon reaching Tuskegee and Dr. Carver, Clark writes,

“Here is what I call God’s Little Workshop,” said Dr. Carver, and the next moment we had entered the sacred precinct of his place of miracles. ‘No books are ever brought in here,’ he went on, ‘and what is the need of books? Here I talk to the little peanut and it reveals its secrets to me. . . . Here I talk to the peanut and the sweet potato and the clays of the hills, and they talk back to me. Here great wonders are brought forth.And he pointed to an array of bottles containing specimens of the three hundred uses for the peanut - no, three hundred and one, for this morning he had discovered a new one. . . . And up there along the walls are the clays,’ he added. ‘Again there is no need for books.’”

Dr. Carver testified to having the power of remote visioning as well as the power to communicate with the supreme intelligence in the external environment through extra sensory perception. As a result of these powers, he becme the Negro Master of Agricultural Science, rebulit the agriculture and economy of the American South, became a saviour to the United States government, and was recognized by all for having a “most remarkable and extraordinary mind.” 

Dr. Carver accomplished all this in the most racist country on earth during an era of Jim Crowism and lynchings. We can imagine, then, the impact that just one man or woman with the same powers of remote viewing and extra sensory perception, the ability to communicate with ancestors and the supreme intelligence both within and without the body, could have on transforming Guinea Bissau’s agriculture, economy and all other aspects as well.

Where will such a gifted person come from? How will Guinea Bissau produce its own “Dr. George Washington Carver”?

GUINE BISSAU’S CASHEW MONO-MERCANTILE SYSTEM

The leaders of Guinea Bissau today have not listened to Amilcar Cabral and have failed to learn the lesson. One need only look at today’s cashew mono-mercantile system in Guinea Bissau.

The cashew tree, A. occidentale, of the Anacardiaceae family, is an evergreen tree growing to a height of 8-20 m depending on soil characteristics and climate. It normally starts flowering by the third year, attaining full production by the eighth year. The period of full production can last up to 20-30 years and the lifespan of the tree is variable. The nut, which is the true fruit, is a kidney-shaped achene that does not split open after drying. Inside the shell, which contains corrosive oil, is a large curved 2-3 cm seed, the edible cashew nut. As the nut matures, the peduncle at the base enlarges into a fleshy, bell-shaped, fruitlike structure, popularly known as the false fruit or cashew apple. This thin-skinned edible false fruit has yellow spongy and juicy flesh, which is pleasantly acidic and slightly astringent when eaten raw, but highly astringent when green (Behrens, 1996).

The cashew tree grows at altitudes of up to 1000m, in mean annual temperatures ranging from 17-38 ºC, and does not tolerate frost. Distribution of rainfall is more important than the amount, and the tree grows in a range of 500-3500 mm of rainfall. This crop is able to adapt to very dry conditions, as long as its extensive root system has access to soil moisture. It prefers deep and fertile sandy soils but will grow well on most soils except pure clays or soils that are otherwise impermeable, poorly drained or subject to periodic flooding. It fruits well if rains are not abundant during flowering and if the nuts mature during the dry period. With this generic classification, and disregarding the edaphic constraints, all territory in Guinea-Bissau is suitable for cashew cultivation, although a tuned ecological and land capability zoning remains to be established in the country.

Following the rainy season which begins in late May and ends in early November, the cashew trees absorb the soil’s nutrients. In January and February, the trees bloom after which the blossoms turn into the cashew fruit that is harvested between April and June.

The cashew tree was introduced into Guinea-Bissau by the Portuguese in the XIXth century and during the early XXth century and was mainly used in local farmers’ home gardens. Cashew cultivation had a first organized impulse under the instigation of Governor Sarmento Rodrigues (1945-1949), who promoted its expansion. By the mid-1950s, nut production was estimated to reach 300-400 tons per year. The potential value of the cashew tree, its hardiness and the possibility for use in intercropping or as a kind of cover for long fallow periods in order to recover soil fertility, has been suggested as a priority for research and experimentation. As a consequence, the Overseas Agronomic Research Mission (MEAU) designed the Cashew Development Plan in Portuguese Guinea. The plan was developed under an integrated value chain perspective, considered necessary for the development of the territory and its people. Thus, to fulfill its objectives, during the 1960s MEAU set up a multi-disciplinary six year research project. Given the tree’s rusticity, MEAU promoted cashew cultivation in soils depleted by other crops such as maize, upland rice or groundnuts, as well as by fire (Sardinha). As a result of such research that emphasized the financial comparative advantage of cashew crops, production skyrocketed.

Guinea Bissau is now the second-largest cashew producer in West Africa and in the top five globally. An estimated 223,000 hectares are under cashew cultivation. Today, about 85% of the population depends on cashew farming.

The 2016 Report of the World Bank Macroeconomic and Fiscal Management (MEM) Practice Notes for Guinea Bissau,    

“From a macroeconomic perspective, Guinea Bissau faces two major challenges: low productivity and high vulnerability. Apart from a history of fragility which has been underlying Guinea-Bissau’s stop-and-go character of development, structural economic challenges keep the country from growing at a faster pace that would enable progress toward reducing the high levels of poverty. The dominant cashew sector at least partly lies at the heart of the structural challenges. Whilst export volumes have increased, deteriorating Terms of Trade—especially with respect to rice for which cashew is bartered—have been undermining incomes, domestic savings, and in turn investment. This at least partly explains low productivity levels and the structural slack in the economy. It leaves the country dependent on international aid which is volatile and aggravates the effect of military coups through plummeting public investment—especially given the low levels of domestic revenue. Both Terms of Trade shocks and political shocks are thus amongst the most important sources of vulnerability for Guinea-Bissau’s economy.

Investments to make the cashew sector more productive, but especially to diversify the economy, will be crucial for Guinea-Bissau. The country requires both more jobs and more productive jobs. This is especially true given expected pressures on the labor market from demographic change. Whilst there is room to improve the productivity of the cashew sector, for example by moving into processing rather than raw exports (see 2015 CEM), many of these new jobs will have to be located in other activities. The 2015 CEM and the latest national development plan identify rice, fisheries, tourism, and even mining as potential areas to add productive jobs. The production of groundnuts or sesame are other alternatives. Switching into these areas can not only raise productivity but also diversify the economy, reducing its vulnerability to the cashew price. Attracting FDI by improving the business climate can reduce the country’s dependence on donors for investment and generate knowledge spillovers that can help with the country’s economic transformation.”

A 2015 report stated,

“According to the Minister of Economy and Finance, ‘The cashew campaign is the main source of income of our farmers and the main export commodity of Guinea-Bissau, and about 90 percent of our exports are cashew nuts, a tremendous weighting in our GDP.’

‘In 2015 about 175,000 tons of cashew were exported and this year, we expect to export 180 000 tons, probably a little more given the good prospects for this year's campaign,’ Geraldo Martins explained.

Due to the importance of cashew to the national economy the government in its development strategy focuses on the work of its entire chain, since its production, marketing to export.

‘If all the annual production was transformed locally before export of the finished product, certainly the gain would be much more important, because it would bring added value to the product, given that the price charged for a kilo of raw nuts would not be the same’" he added. 

The main obstacles to the transformation of cashew are the acquisition of raw materials for processing, and the actual price of the raw material, said Josué Gomes de Almeida, Coordinator of the Rehabilitation of Private Sector and Support to Agro-industrial Development Project, funded by the World Bank.

 ‘When the market is good in terms of the price paid to producers, all transformers cry, and when the price is bad for producers, everyone talks about local transformation,’ said Jose Gomes de Almeida, stressing the need for this contradiction to be resolved since ‘in government policy, the fight against poverty must be reflected in rural world where cashew is produced.’

Rui Fonseca, Assistant FAO Programs, recalled that the diversification of agricultural production in the country ‘is important’ and that why his agency will launch ‘a program in partnership with the European Union at the end of April, for cashew improved production quality and also for the development of horticulture.’”

Now consider that Guinea-Bissau: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Third Review under the Staff-Monitored Program highlighted that, 

External current account slightly deteriorated in 2021 despite of a record cashew nut campaign and remittances. Cashew nut exports have increased by 39.9 percent in 2021, compared to 13.2 percent growth of imports, and reduced the trade balance deficit. Workers' remittances reached a historical record level at 7 percent of GDP and contributed to the improvement in the secondary income account. As a result, the current account deficit is estimated to have reached to 3.2 percent of GDP. The August 2021 SDR allocation contributed to closing the external financing gap and enabled the authorities to pay debt service of BOAD —the regional development bank—for 2021 and 2022.

9. The stock of public debt increased slightly despite the improvement of the fiscal position. The stock of public debt increased by 2.0 percent of GDP in 2021 with an increase in domestic debt corresponding to the SDR allocation on-lent by the BCEAO. . . .

32. Guinea-Bissau is at a high risk of external and overall debt distress. With the reclassification of BOAD, the share of external debt reaches 40.1 percent of GDP (from 26.7 percent in the July 2021 DSA). The risk of external debt distress is high because the indicators based on the debt-service ratios breach their indicative thresholds under the baseline. Overall risk of debt distress is also high because the PV of public debt relative to GDP remains well above its indicative benchmark throughout the projection period (DSA). . . .

41. Output and export diversification would contribute to promote strong and inclusive growth while strengthening Guinea-Bissau's external position. Export diversification declined significantly in the last three decades when cashew nuts production took off which are still exported unprocessed which present 97 percent of total exports with India and Vietnam representing about 80 percent of the exports' market. It mostly replaced rather than added to other production such as rice and groundnuts. The decline in diversification is evident across a range of diversification measures that consider the number of products exported, the number of trading partners, and the relative value of exports in different product codes.”

Thus, despite a record cashew nut campaign and a 39.9% increase in cashew exports, public debt increased even while profits were used to pay debt service to the regional development bank. 

Meanwhile, cashew funds continue to pour in. In February of 2022, O Democrata reported that the National Cashew Agency of Guinea-Bissau made plans to boost the productivity of farms from 300 kg of cashew nuts per hectare to 1,500 kg. The newspaper quoted the head of the agency, Caustar Dafá, as saying another intention is to improve the quality of the cashew nut crop using techniques appropriate for Guinean producers. Mr Dafá said his agency had agreed in January to form a partnership enabling the transfer to Guinea-Bissau from Brazil of technology for machinery for processing cashew nuts. Alanso Fati, President of the National Association of Farmers of Guinea-Bissau, ‘Guinea-Bissau needs to invest more in technology to increase its output of cashew nuts.”

The Hindu Bussiness Line reported that 

“‘Beta Group, the Kerala-based food company, which owns the Nut King brand, will be setting up an industrial unit in the West African country of Guinea-Bissau for cashew business. The company is all set to sign a $100 million MoU with the Government of Guinea-Bissau over a period of five years to procure, process, and export value-added cashew, mainly to the US and China markets,’ said J Rajmohan Pillai, Chairman, Beta Group.”

In October of 2022, China-Lusophone Brief reported,

“Chinese state-owned company Grupo Human Construção e Investimentos has agreed with the authorities of Guinea-Bissau to buy the country´s cashew nuts production and later build cashew processing units. Grupo Human signed two memoranda of understanding with the ministries of Commerce and Energy and Industry of Guinea-Bissau, after four days of market prospecting in the country. Abdu Jaquité, delegate of the Government of Guinea-Bissau to the Permanent Secretariat of Forum Macau for the Economic and Trade Cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking countries, told RFI that initially the Chinese will buy practically the entire production of cashew nuts.

In a second phase, Hunan plans to build processing units in the country, Jaquité said at the signing of the agreements. “They want to buy, if possible, 250,000 tons, which means practically all agricultural production”, the delegate underlined, adding the Chinese plan includes “to establish a factory for processing cashew nuts right here in Guinea-Bissau”. The Chinese province of Hunan, RFI added, is available to serve as Guinea-Bissau’s gateway to the world’s largest market with around 1.5 billion consumers.”

The question must be asked, in whose interest is all this cashew investment for? Is this any different from the redemptive and extractive mono-mercantilism model that Cabral identified in the 1960’s? Does increased investment in cashew value-added infrastructure address the priority long-term problems of Guinea Bissau? Does it not, in fact, make the people of Guinea Bissau even more dependent on a single crop?

And where do the profits go besides to the development banks? To answer this question, one must understand who owns the land and the farms. In Cashew cultivation in Guinea-Bissau – risks and challenges of the success of a cash crop the authors state, 

“At the end of 1974, marking the end of the colonial era, several hundred hectares of cashew orchards had been planted, but no industrial processing of cashew nuts or apples was carried out. The amount of raw cashew available was still not enough to feed a decortication unit with a capacity considered economically viable at the time. Thus, the impetus for development of cashew gained during the 1960-74 period, was dampened in post-independence. However, some non-governmental organizations and cooperation agencies developed a relevant action using cashew in the context of forest interventions. The use of cashew trees as a cash crop, in forest protection schemes or as a way to recover soil fertility in fallows was stressed. Cashew was considered an important species to be used to restrain deforestation, because of its acceptability by the peasants. “

Here it should be noted that, according to some studies, the rate of deforestation has increased from about 2 percent per year between 1975 and 2000 to 3.9 percent over the 2000 to 2013 period. Overall, Guinea-Bissau lost about 77 percent of its forests between 1975 and 2013; only 180 sq km remain, mainly in the south near the Guinea border. Likewise, woodlands regressed by 35 percent over the 38 years, a loss of 1,750 sq km.

The authors of Cashew cultivation in Guinea-Bissau – risks and challenges of the success of a cash crop continue:

“A semi-manual decortication unit with a capacity of 250 tons per year and a bottling line for cashew apple juice and jams were built on Bolama Island in the late 1970’s with Dutch co-operation. Although this plant has proved to be economically unsustainable, its implementation was a strong boost to cashew cultivation.

By the mid-1980s, two factors gave new impetus to the intensity of planting and trading in the domestic market. The first was a non-organized race for the occupation of land by villagers, as a result of a significant increase in land grants to commercial farmers or "ponteiros" by government authorities. Since 1984, government policy aiming to increase agricultural production initiated large concession grants and, as of 1987, land distribution increased. It was estimated to represent around 300,000 ha out of an estimated agricultural area of 1,100,000 ha and 1,400,000 ha of silvo-pastoral land. These lands, contrary to what happens with traditional farmers, were demarcated and registered in the Land Registration Services of the Ministry of Public Works.

The gaps in the land property law, which overlooked customary rules that grant property rights to those who planted permanent crops, meant that traditional farmers tried to secure land to ensure their access to it. Cashew, due to its hardiness and quick growth, was an obvious choice. The second driving force was the authorities’ initiative to curtail cashew smuggling to Senegal, due to increased internal consumption and the revival of the cashew decortication factory in the Sokone province of that country. An informal barter trading practice was thus put in place, wherein cashew was exchanged for rice at a ratio of one to two, which evolved due to the relative change of the quotations of the two commodities to one to one. More recently, data from a country report for 2013 report a deterioration in the terms of trade, 1kg of rice being exchanged for up to 3 kg of cashew (Cont and Porto, 2014).

Another factor which can help to understand the continuous cashew expansion and consequent decrease in production of staple crops. It is the comparative advantage of cashew in terms of the differential days invested by cultural cycle and added value of the agricultural work invested per day. Since the traditional farmers’ strategy was to optimize work invested in agriculture, we can see a strong drive to shift from traditional agricultural practices to cashew cultivation. . . .

Cropping systems and cultivated varieties

Two main types of cropping systems co-exist in Guinea-Bissau: the peasant and the commercial system, locally known as "ponteiro". The vast majority of cashew orchards are owned by small farmers in villages all over the country. The average smallholder plantation is thought to cover 2-3 hectares, though farmers often have no idea of the size of their planted area.

The process of cashew expansion usually starts in the land closest to the center of villages and expansion follows a centrifugal trend. A piece of fallow land or semi-natural woodland or savanna woodland is prepared by cutting down the woody vegetation, which is burned by the end of the dry season. In the most frequently used system, cashew is intercropped in the first two or three years with food crops (e.g.: rainfed rice, millet, sorghum, maize or groundnuts). Every year a new piece of land can be prepared and sown with cashew and food crops. Cashew trees are sometimes also planted as live fences, despite the fact that their spreading habit makes them unsuitable for close spacing.

Plant spacing is traditionally very close (e.g.: 3-5 m), with roughly defined or even non-existent rows. However, in recent years this trend has begun to change, with greater plant spacing and the use of well-defined rows in the younger cashew orchards. Within the lines the trees are often paired because two seeds are sown per hole with the idea that at least one may survive. Farmers who sow close together often do so following the advice to sow a large number of trees and thin them later, which is a good proposition for rapid establishment of a crop, minimizing costs of weed clearing and avoiding severe development of termite colonies. Unfortunately, many farmers never get around to thinning the trees.

At the level of the small farmer there is no varietal selection and no care is taken in the establishment of orchards. There is also no support dispensed by the very weak structures of agricultural research and extension in the country. These orchards, owned and explored at the family level, are small, rarely exceeding a few hectares and growing with virtually no agro-chemical inputs.

To tackle some of the problems mentioned, in the 1990 decade the Trade and Investment Promotion Project (TIPS) included an extension component that promoted cashew planting seminars around the country, nursery establishment and post-harvest technologies. However, at the end of the project, no ministry took over the continuation and consolidation of the objectives. Therefore, only a minority of farmers had incorporated the knowledge made available.

At the "ponteiro" or commercial system level, a number of plantations are distributed throughout the country, with great heterogeneity in terms of size and care dispensed to the orchards. The orchards owned by small “ponteiros’ are established using a method similar to that of the traditional farmers, with no care for the choice of seeds and close tree spacing. Conversely, in a few agro-industrial farms whose extension surpasses 1000 hectares in some cases, care has been taken in the selection of parent material and in adequate tree spacing. Nevertheless, in both peasant and commercial systems no agro-chemical inputs were used in the cashew orchards. Thus, the Guinean cashew nuts are organic and can fetch a higher price if suitably processed and marketed, and comply with stringent hygiene standards as demanded by international markets. However, this is yet to be fulfilled. . . .

Cashew tree and land ownership

In Guinea-Bissau the land is formally considered state-owned but, as in most of West Africa, consuetudinary land tenure practices are linked to the planting of perennial plants, in particular fruit trees (Fenske, 2011). In times of increasing population density, and when the sale of land is becoming a common practice, cashew orchards can act as land tenure insurance (Temudo and Abrantes, 2012). In this respect, the cashew nut tree possesses several advantages: it is a rapid growing tree which does not require much care or manpower to establish and maintain and, above all, produces a non-perishable fruit with an assured market. On the other hand, cashew works like insurance for the elderly, in times of exodus of young males to the towns, because it requires little manpower that can be largely provided by women and children (Lundy, 2012). The role of cashew trees in the marking of land tenure can thus explain, to a certain extent, the success of the crop and is a matter that requires further study.

Trade, exportation and local processing of cashew

The outflow of annual production of cashew nuts occurs during the so-called "cashew campaign", which runs approximately from March-April to August. During this period, small free-lance buyers and officers of medium sized companies travel the country acquiring cashew nuts or exchanging them for rice.

From 2004 onwards, the cashew nut market became relatively liberalized and less dependent on rice bartering and more on a cash basis than previously. In approximate terms, the overall marketing chain from farm to port is quite short. There are up-country buyers acting on behalf of urban buyers; raw cashew nuts are delivered to town warehouses where they may be further dried, bagged and consolidated in loads, or sent directly to exporters in Bissau. Exporters may or may not re-bag the cashew nuts and then sell them to international dealers or processors for shipment to India. Participation in this chain of commercialization is licensed and each of the agents in the chain has to pay a fee to the Ministry of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (CCIA). As of 2004 there were about 300 registered buying agents and 40 exporters.

Fleeing from this general scheme, rural farmers maintain the custom of receiving a loan on rice on account of cashew nuts to produce the next season, often at an exchange ratio unfavorable for them. In years of low cashew nut production, this practice can have serious consequences for small farmers, specifically at the food security level.

The absence of a legislative and regulatory framework to structure the cashew market, a commodity that commands such importance to the country’s economy is surprising, and is a situation which should be remedied so that it can function with integrity and transparency of price formation and transactions. Without this market structuring, for which there are already positive examples in Africa, it is difficult to attain a fair partition of benefits for the majority of farmers.”

As per the Volza's Guinea Bissau Raw cashew nuts Exporters & Suppliers directory, there are 277 active raw cashew nuts exporters in Guinea Bissau exporting to 489 Buyers.

LION OVERSEAS PTE LTD accounted for maximum export market share with 146 shipments followed by DELTA STAR GENERAL TRADING LLC with 122 and OKI GENERAL TRADING LLC at the 3rd spot with 70 shipments.

ARREY AFRICA SARL is the largest cashew nut processor in the country. According to its website, 

“Our company is located in Bula - Guinea Bissau. Arrey África has been operating a cashew nut processing plant with 5,000 m² of built area since 2015, and we have 225 employees.

In January 2021, we started the operation of another unit, in the same city, with twice the production capacity and forecast to hire 400 employees, with a built area of 7,000 m².

The Arrey Group also operates another factory in Brazil, EUROALIMENTOS, located in the city of Altos – Teresina/Piauí, with 400 employees and 15,000 m² of built area. For 25 years, it represents one of the most important industries in the state of Piauí.

Sustainability is part of one of our main goals; with this, we started the Bio project, through purchases from local cooperatives, where suppliers/producers are georeferenced, which demonstrates the origin and good practices of the products we process.

The AGRICERT certification gives us the right to guarantee the origin and qualty of our products.

Arrey África Company, together with the World Bank and the Private Sector Rehabilitation and Agroindustrial Development Support Project (PRSPDA), created a project within the cashew nut sector, directly linking farmers to the transformer in 2018.

The project has the help of 8 peasant cooperatives from two regions of the country (CACHEU and OIO).

In the same year of 2018, the orchards of 3,509 producers were georeferenced, and an area of 9987ha, which the Arrey Africa Company certified in organic cultivation through the Agricert certifier.

We have bio europa certificates, NOP, Haccp food safety certificate, and we are implementing the BRC, Smeta certificate… During the cashew nut season, Arrey África pays a bonus to the cooperatives, so that they are the ones who connect and transport the raw material from the producers to the factories, processing plants that Arrey has in the town of Bula, Comarca de Cacheu, where we process 4000MT of cashew nuts per year.

Arrey África this year 2022 will make available 6840m2 of its land in agreement with the city's school of agricultural technology for the cultivation of different vegetables and seedlings of the cashew nut tree for delivery to producers who join the project within the scope of improving the orchards of cashew.

Since 2015, our company has been exporting cashew nuts to several countries in Europe (Spain, France, Italy, Holland, Germany...), as well as the United States of America, Brazil and Asia.”

The Arrey Group includes Arrey Hotels, Arrey Construction, and Arrey Group Trade and Industry.

Alphonsa Cashew Industries, on its websites, states, 

“The family has been in the cashew business since 1958. Alphonsa Cashew Industries was established as an independent business in 1986 by Babu Oommen under the patronage of his father and founder of the family business, Oommen Geevarghese. . . . Alphonsa is one of the largest direct procurers (on actual user basis) of Guinea Bissau raw cashew at the farm-gate level. . . . In line with our vision to vertically integrate our business and to create one of the most comprehensive traceability systems in the cashew industry, we started our Direct Procurement Programme in 2010 with our first procurement center being set up in Sampa, one of the most prominent cashews producing region in Ghana. This was followed by us expanding our direct sourcing footprint to Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Tanzania and Guinea Bissau.  What started as a single company has today grown to 12 independent companies, each lead by a descendant of the founding family, that is collectively one of the largest business group in the cashew industry.We began our direct procurement in 2019 with sourcing and shipping activities based out of Bissau, the capital of the country. . . . We have an ownership or active engagement in all stages of the cashew value chain starting from procurement of the highest quality raw cashew nut at the farm-gate level from 6 origins to in-house processing in 13 processing facilities in India and distribution of superior quality cashew kernels to over 300 customers spread across 43 countries worldwide. Cochin Chamber of Commerce, one of the most reputed Chamber of Commerce in India, ranks us among the top 10 shippers of cashew from India. . . .” 

Guinean economist Aliu Soares Cassama has stated, “Our economy has had a deficit in the trade balance for a long time. In other words, we import more and export less. We know that economic agents do not have purchasing power due to the total paralysis of the State, and this situation will further complicate the economic weakness that the country is experiencing.”

AMILCAR CABRAL HAS TAUGHT US HOW THE ECONOMY OF GUINEA BISSAU DEVELOPED FROM A CASH CROP MONO-MERCANTALIST SYSTEM STARTED BY THE EXPORTS OF PEOPLE, THEN PEANUTS, NOW CASHEWS. THIS IS PROFITED FOREIGNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF GUINEANS.