Guinea, Guinea, Guinea

Located on the swampy Western corner of Africa, Guinea-Bissau is something of a non-entity in world affairs. This small former Portuguese colony is wedged between Guinea-Conakry and Senegal and its pluriethnic population speak a variety of languages, with the Portuguese-based Kriol serving as a lingua franca. Its lack of notoriety is not helped by the fact it shares a name with three other sovereign states worldwide, as well as a beloved family pet.

With sky-high levels of crime, danger and poverty, Guinea-Bissau receives fewer tourists per year than North Korea. The few functioning hotels in the capital are likely to be filled with aid workers or diplomats who drew the short straw when it came to postings. In the 40 years since independence from the Portuguese, no President has fulfilled a term of office, with civil war and coups d’etat aplenty in the nation’s short history.

But economic woes have led to the emergence of an alternative industry. Drugs. According to a UN report, Guinea-Bissau is in danger of becoming the world’s first ‘narco-state’, as drug traffickers use its multitude of isolated islets as a transit point for cocaine on its way to the streets of London and Lisbon. In a country where a majority live on less than a dollar a day, the police and army are easily bought, allowing the drug importers to operate with impunity.

But all is not lost. Some efforts are being made to modernise the economy, and its unspoilt beaches and islets could become home to an eco-tourism industry, whilst a large diaspora sends healthy remittances from Europe and Brazil. The past four decades have seen one setback after another in Guinea-Bissau, and recent elections will provide hope that a new government will kickstart the economy, impose law and order and instill the nation with the values and ideals of liberation laid down by the national icon, Amilcar Cabral.

Nigeria's Conflict

The shocking kidnap of over 200 schoolgirls from the town of Chibok in Nigeria's northeastern Borno state demonstrates the challenges which the Nigerian government face in their fight against Boko Haram. The terrorist group, whose name means 'Western education is sinful', have been conducting a guerrilla war against the country's military since 2009, and this conflict rages in the impenetrable jungle of one of Africa's most complex states.

Nigeria is perhaps the archetypal colonial invention. A Muslim north and a Christian south were joined into one nation by British authorities in 1914 in a process mirrored across the continent, as different tribes and ethnicities were joined together by people who drew lines on a map from thousands of miles away, often having never visited the land in question. Emerging from British rule in 1960, Nigeria's development has been hampered by coups, rebellions and civil war from the outset, caused partly by the difficult demographics of the country.

 So what is Boko Haram's ideology? Islamic fundamentalists who advocate the implementation of Sharia law across Nigeria. the organisation is estimated to be made up of hundreds of young men who are lured by the prospect of money, glory and power by the barrel of a gun. Boko Haram have been responsible for dozens of hijackings, carbombings and kidnappings since their inception, and the Nigerian military has waged a largely unsuccessful campaign against them. Hampered by poor maps, inadequate training and shoddy weaponry, Nigerian troops often find their biggest enemy to be local government in the north of the country. Provincial politicians are often suspected of being in Boko Haram's thrall, both militarily and financially, evincing Nigeria's reputation as one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

At 174 million strong and with a flourishing diaspora, the Nigerian population should have a bright future, with oil from the Niger Delta playing a large role in recent development. However, it is crucial that the government engage the provincial governors under whose noses Boko Haram act with relative impunity. Otherwise, it will not be too long before there is another Chibok.

The Englishman Who Never Was

The England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) have just announced that they are to part ways with their highest-scoring batsman of all time - Kevin Pietersen. Following a disastrous Ashes Tour from which few, if any, positives can be taken, this unsavoury divorce only adds to the England team’s woe. Alongside the sacking of coach Andy Flower, Pietersen’s contract termination means it is the Southern Africans who have taken the blame for the side’s capitulation Down Under.

But Pietersen’s exit from the national fold will certainly not be mourned in all quarters. His petulant, precocious and seemingly selfish nature has split opinion since he burst onto the scene a decade ago. With his bleached blond hair, forthright nature and aggressive style at the crease, Pietersen certainly did not fit the usual template of an England player and certainly ruffled the feathers of English cricket’s Establishment.

His background certainly has not helped. Born and raised in Kwazulu-Natal, it was not until the age of 21 that he made the trek to play for Nottinghamshire, citing disillusionment with South Africa’s racial quota system. His English mother made him eligible to represent his adopted country and, after a residence period of four years, he joined the ranks of Greig, Lamb, Hick et al in swapping allegiances from Southern Africa to England. From the start he was the focal point of the England side in both Test Match and One Day International Cricket, and his unorthodox and swashbuckling style left bowlers quaking in their boots at grounds around the world

But controversy has blighted his career from start to finish. Disputes with management ended his short-lived reign as captain and cost the well-respected coach Peter Moores his job. At times it felt as if Pietersen saw himself as bigger than the team, with shortsighted shot selection ending many an innings of late. He ends his career with more runs than any other player who has represented England, but the unanimous decision not to select him for the tour to the West Indies demonstrates that the thin ice has finally cracked beneath his feet.

England will see his departure as a chance to start afresh and rebuild anew. There will surely be more to come in this saga, with rumours of backroom bust-ups and fall-outs already abound, but one thing is for sure: English cricket has lost an exceptional talent, the like of which we will probably never see again, for better or worse.

Two Nations, One Goal

The pastmonth has been a time of mourning for millions in South Africa and across the world. The death of the nation’s first Black President means the loss of an inspirational figure of peace, freedom and justice. Much will be written about the effect Mandela had on his native South Africa, but it is important to remember how his struggle was mirrored across the Orange River.

Wrestled from the Kaiser’s clutches in 1915 by a force of invading South Africans, Namibia became a de facto province where the tiny White minority had hegemony. Apartheid came in 1948, and despite opposition from the UN, Namibia remained a South African possession for the next 40 years. Pretoria held steadfast as normal against international pressure, and the early 60’s saw the beginnings of violent, armed struggle from the South West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO.) SWAPO and the  ANC were natural allies  and were fighting the same enemy, fighting political and racial discrimination. As well as sharing values, they shared information, tactics and techniques as leaders mingled freely in Zambia. A fitting display of African unity.

In 1971, as Mandela sat incarcerated Robben Island, he was joined by members of his ‘ally’ SWAPO. The Namibians were on hunger strike, and Mandela and his fellow ANC prisoners leapt at the chance to take part too. These displays of united, pan-African disobedience must have got under the skins of the authorities who may sensed their days were numbered.

But the memory of Mandela and his struggle is doomed to be tarnished by the weaknesses of the men who have succeeded him. The frailties of Mbeki and Zuma as both politicians and men have been laid out before the world in the past week as the media dissect South Africa’s history post-democracy. In 1992, with apartheid in its death throes and Namibia crippled by drought and poverty, Nujoma risked losing foreign aid by purchasing sleek new jets and helicopters with government money. As the Second Congo War erupted in an already weak and beleaguered DRC, Nujoma committed Namibian troops ostensibly to support his neighbours, but more likely to protect his family’s mining interests in the mineral-rich nation.

The loss of this unique pillar of African freedom will be felt not just in the bustling streets of Cape Town or the rolling hills his ancestral home of Qunu, but also across the African continent. In Windhoek, Swakopmund and Okahandja, Namibians will remember that his struggle was their struggle.

Plastic Brits: Mercenaries or Professionals?

In the last Ashes Test the England team sheet contained two players born in South Africa and one born in New Zealand. Compared to other games over the last decade, this was actually a particularly English-heavy XI. The England team has a history of naturalised players, many from Southern Africa. From the Hicks, Lambs, Smiths and Greigs of yesteryear to the Kieswetters and Dernbachs of today, England has been a destination for players who saw their professional futures away from home. But the prevalence of foreign-born players has come in for criticism, with Ashes-winning captain Michael Vaughan calling it a ‘problem.’

Players who moved to England as children, like Strauss and Prior, have as good a claim as anybody to wear the three lions. Nobody could seriously question their loyalties, and people who do are likely the same kind of people who question those of Ravi Bopara or Monty Panesar because of their heritage. It isn’t the Priors or Strausses of this world that I take issue with, rather the Trotts and Pietersens. Trott, a former South African U’19 star, and Pietersen, who first played cricket in England aged 20, have been two of England’s best performers in recent years, and this could be behind the general atmosphere of acceptance that they have the right to represent their adopted country. After all, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,.

Gary Ballance, a Zimbabwean by birth who represented the African nation at U’19 level, said in an interview with The Mail that he felt “100% English” having come over “at a young age.” That age was 16, and an age at which he felt he was Zimbabwean enough to represent that nation.

But the question of nationality is a difficult one in itself. All-rounder Ben Stokes moved to Cumbria when he was 12 and few have questioned his legitimacy to play for England. His recent century against the Aussies may have quietened any dissenters. Ballance’s legitimacy has been questioned by the media, whereas Stokes’ have not, meaning the cut-off point for Englishness seems to be between the ages of 13 and 15. God knows what will happen if a Saffa who turned up on these shores ages 14 earns a place in the team!

It’s important to avoid xenophobia when discussing nationality, but if there is one environment in which where people come from is crucial it is surely international sport. If not, why do we have teams representing nations? Why not the South African Proteas, based in Cape Town but comprising players from all corners of the globe? Or the England Roses, based at Lords but just as likely to have a captain from Kolkata as Cockermouth? The money-driven, mercenary nature of the Indian Premier League may be the blueprint for the international scene of the future. The ubiquity of foreign-raised (notice ‘raised,’  not ‘born’) players in the England squad says more about the lack of quality of our own youth system than the quality of those abroad.

5 Unsung African Greats

Joyce Banda
In an often male-dominated continent, the emergence of a female President is a cause for celebration. Banda has been the leader of Malawi since 2012, and is a shining example of empowerment for women across the continent. She founded the Joyce Banda Foundation for Better Education and has been involved with various philanthropic endeavours in the country.


 Rudi van Vuuren

2003 was a busy year for van Vuuren. He played for Namibia in both the Rugby and Cricket World Cup, a feat unmatched before or since. Not only showing prowess in world of sport, he is also a qualified doctor and runs a conservation organisation that protects Namibia's animals and provides healthcare to the indigenous San community. Not bad, huh?

Freddie Mercury - Zanzibar

Farrokh Bulsara

Not a name that rolls off the tongue, but you might know his stage name: Freddie Mercury. Born in Zanzibar off the East African coast, Mercury became a music icon as the lead singer of Queen. His flamboyant on and off-stage persona made him legendary and his untimely death in 1991 sent shockwaves around the world.

Sid James

Born Solomon Cohen in Johannesburg in 1913, James served in the South African Army in World War II. He rose to stardom in post-war Britain, becoming a star of the cult Carry On franchise. He took his on-screen lothario persona into his private life as well, having a well-publicised affair with actress Barbara Windsor.

Navi Pillay - South African

Navi Pillay

Born in Durban in 1941, she gained a BA from the University of Natal and became the first non-White woman to have a law practice in the province. Pillay defended anti-apartheid activists in her native country and later headed the Rwanda Tribunal, helping bring to justice some of the most evil war criminals in Africa. She is now the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.

What if the UK and SA had invaded Zimbabwe?

Improbable? Sure. Impossible? Apparently not.

Just over a fortnight ago, Thabo Mbeki made a startling revelation to the press. At the beginning of the last decade, according to the former President, Tony Blair had broached the idea of a potential invasion of Zimbabwe. With the economy in freefall and land reform in full flow, the country looked more unstable than ever.

Let’s put morals aside for a moment and see what might have happened if an invasion had gone ahead 12 years ago.

2001

 After talks in London, Tony Blair and Thabo Mbeki announce their intention to invade the former British colony of Zimbabwe.

 British air superiority neutralises strategic ground targets, such as airfields and barracks. Any civilian casualties are written off as ‘collateral damage’ and ‘a necessary evil,’ never mind if some of the ‘barracks’ turn out to be schools or hospitals.

 The Commonwealth’s newest member, Mozambique, allows a coalition of British and South African troops to cross into Manicaland, whilst more gather at Beitbridge.

The British public are torn. A million march on Whitehall, but how many millions more support the invasion with a glint of Empire in their eyes?

The few Whites left in the country become even more fearful, barricading their front doors and hiding from the inevitable backlash in the days following the invasion. Deaths are inevitable.

The poorly-trained and ill-equipped government forces fall to pieces against the overwhelming strength of the British Army, throwing down their weapons and fleeing to the countryside. Only Mugabe’s loyal bodyguards, battle-hardened in his own illegal war in the Congo, put up a fight. After a period of frenetic progress, the British and South Africans have hegemony.

Mugabe flees but can’t evade capture for long, eventually dying of old age whilst on trial for ‘war crimes,’ his memory tarnished. A warning of what power can do to a man.

Propped up by the Coalition, Tsvangirai assumes the Presidency. The US stays quiet; their dealings with Africa tainted by disaster in Somalia.

As the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner flutters from Parliament House, things turn sour for the Coalition when the late Mugabe’s forces regroup upcountry. Faced with an invisible enemy that knows the terrain, the British gradually withdraw to their bases, just as they will in Helmand. The countryside becomes a battlefield in which the indigenous guerillas move freely among the people, using hit-and-run tactics to wear the enemy down.

The huge Zimbabwean diaspora flooded home when Coalition supremacy became clear, re-equipping the nation with the teachers, nurses and doctors it so sorely needed. But how long will they stay?  As the years pass and violence grows, how many will turn tail and leave once again?

The agricultural industry surely collapses as the countryside becomes a battlefield. Will the return of white farmers have any impact beside angering rural Zimbabweans, for whom Mugabe’s land reforms were a Godsend?

  Those Zimbabweans who were alive in the Bush War know all too well the outcome. Britain, caught up once again in a messy, unwinnable war far from home, pulls out. Dogged by accusations of neo-colonialism, the Labour Party loses the next election. South African withdrawal is  just as undignified.

 From the power vacuum in Harare emerges a new leader who is just as aggressive and anti-imperialist as the last.  The world is left asking whether Zimbabwe is better off than before.

It’s all just conjecture. Who knows what might have happened if an invasion had gone ahead? How do you see it? As always, Zimbabwe provokes more questions than answers.