In a recent article, Washington columnist David Ignatius (2009) smugly concludes that ‘we have an enemy that makes even more mistakes than we do’, and because of that, al-Qaida’s extremist ideology has been and will continue to be a failure. I wonder if the three Spaniards, two Italians and one Frenchman currently held hostage by those claiming to belong to al-Qaida au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI) in the Malian Sahara would agree.
From GSPC to AQIM: The evolution of an Algerian islamist terrorist group into an Al-Qa‘ida Affiliate and its implications for the Sahara-Sahel region
Al-Qa‘ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Algeria’s largest and most active Islamist terrorist organization, was formerly known as the Groupe salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat, and usually referred to by its French acronym (GSPC, Salafist Group for Call/Preaching and Combat). It began in the late 1990s as a splinter faction of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), then fighting a bloody insurgency against the Algerian military government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state. GSPC/AQIM eclipsed its predecessor and remains active not only in Algeria but also in the neighboring Sahelian states. Best known for its raids and bombings against Algerian military bases and convoys, the group has also perpetrated kidnappings of European tourists and terrorist attacks in Mauritania and Mali. It has likewise been linked to planned strikes in Europe, as well as to smuggling and human trafficking across the vast Sahara. This article will examine the transformation of the GSPC, whose stated goal was the overthrow of Algeria’s long-ruling secular nationalist government, into AQIM, a participant in the global jihad allegedly committed to the destruction of the “Far Enemy.”
The Western Sahara conflict: regional and international repercussions
The lack of resolution of the Western Sahara conflict boils down to two main points: the conflicting positions of Morocco and Western Saharan nationalists, on the one hand, and geopolitical considerations, on the other hand. These geopolitical interests have been the main impediment to the resolution of the conflict because they strengthened the obstinate position of Morocco, which argues, thanks to external support, that it will only negotiate on the basis of ‘autonomy’ within Moroccan sovereignty. This proposal currently enjoys the implicit consent of France, the United States, and Spain, regardless of UN resolutions that refute any preconditions for the current negotiations.
Call for Papers: “Africa for Sale”: Analysing and Theorizing Foreign Land Claims and Acquisitions
International Conference : ”Africa for Sale”
Analysing and Theorizing Foreign Land Claims and Acquisitions
Groningen University, Netherlands
Thursday 28 and Friday 29 October 2010
While foreign land acquisitions in Africa are no recent phenomenon, the last several decades have witnessed an unprecedented level of large-scale land acquisitions all over the continent; millions of hectares of land in Africa are increasingly claimed by and leased out to transnational entities, government businesses, multinational corporations, and international organisations. Sometimes referred to as “neo-colonialism” due to their resemblance to colonial land exploits, these acquisitions have been largely driven by a global “scramble” for food security and access to natural resources. Foreign actors gain access to land in part by employing discursive tools and media to portray African farmland as “unused” or “unproductive” while the local farmers are portrayed as “backwards”, underdeveloped, environmentally destructive, and desperately poor. access is also secured through the market capitalist economy and often legitimized as “economic growth” or “sustainable development”. Indeed, proponents argue that land deals bring new technologies, improved agricultural practices, poverty alleviation, and modernisation to developing countries.
However, the presence of foreign stakeholders in local territories also involves an encounter of often contradictory cultural paradigms, leading to pervasive social, economic and cultural changes and/or conflicts. In practice, these new land deals often result in the forced eviction of subsistence farmers from land which is simultaneously viewed as their “cultural heritage”, thereby severing them from their cultural and socio-economic attachments to past, present and future.
While the nature and scope of large-scale, foreign land acquisitions has been taken up by the non-governmental arena (e.g. NGOs) very little academic scholarship has addressed these deals both analytically and theoretically, from [comparative] historical and contemporary perspectives. In turn, several important questions remain unanswered: What are the implications of foreign land leases for local populations? How are these deals mediated, structured and legitimized? What is the role of multinational corporations in the economic, political, social, and environmental governance of developing countries in Africa?
Submissions addressing historical and contemporary aspects of foreign land acquisitions are welcome. We also encourage papers that offer methodological tools and theoretical models to analyse these land acquisitions. Due to the multifaceted theme of the conference, we seek and welcome abstracts from a variety of disciplines.
Contributions addressing the following four fields are particularly welcome:
1.) Food security: Foreign (government or company) investments in “unused,” arable land for large-scale agricultural production.
2.) Large-Scale Mining: Multinational claims to land for mineral exploitation.
3.) Conservation Projects: International environmental NGO acquisition or control of land for biodiversity conservation and/or protected area management.
4.) Tourism: Land acquisitions for purposes of tourism development.
The following thematic list is provided to help orient potential submissions: Cultural Implications; Poverty and “Sustainable Development”; Food and Human Security; Neoliberalism; Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); China’s Engagement in Africa; Environmental, Social and Cultural Impacts; Socio-cultural dimensions of “compensation”; Multinational Mining; Land Tenure Conflict; Food and Financial Crisis; Bio-engineering; Corporate Governance; Offshore Food Production; Debt-for-Nature Swaps; REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation); Carbon Trades; Biopiracy; Ecotourism; Mining-Conservation Partnerships; Biodiversity Offsetting; Climate Change; Land as Cultural Heritage; Cultural Change; Resettlement; Indigenous Environmental Knowledge; World Bank “Growth Poles” Project; Special Economic Zones (SEZs)
Important dates:
– 15 May 2010: deadline for abstract submission of individual papers (max. 400 words) including brief biography of the author(s) (max. 100 words)
– 15 June 2010: selection of papers by the Conference Organising Committee and designing of the final programme
– 1 September: deadline for submission of selected papers (max. 8.000 words)
Abstracts and papers should be written in English. The conference language is English.
Please forward your submission to:
Conference Organising Committee:
Michel Doortmont (Groningen University), Sandra Evers (VU University Amsterdam),
Froukje Krijtenburg (independent researcher), Caroline Seagle (VU)
Email: NVASconference2010@hotmail.com
Conference fee:
– 25 euros for students (two days) and 12,50 euros per day.
– 50 euros for NVAS members (two days) and 25 euros per day.
– 100 euros for other participants (two days) and 50 euros per day.
Any further queries or requests for information on the conference should be sent to the above email address.
US Foreign Aid Bill: $8 billion “shall” go to GMO research
The “Global Food Security” bill is back. After its introduction in the Senate a year ago, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton have been quietly pressing for this piece of legislation that aims to fight global hunger with one hand while orchestrating a giant taxpayer subsidy to pesticide and ag biotech companies with the other. The bill, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act — for Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA) — would refocus aid programs on agricultural development, with a caveat: public funding of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is what this bill means by “agricultural development.”
Last spring Pesticide Action Network joined Food First, Union of Concerned Scientists and other partners in commending the overall intention of the bill, while calling for the removal of the corporate give-away clause buried in its language. The Lugar-Casey Act directs some $7.7 billion to agricultural research and development, much of which could go directly into the coffers of corporations like Monsanto because of one clause mandating that research funds “shall” go towards GE crop research. Monsanto (the world’s largest purveyor of GM seeds) has done more lobbying on the Lugar-Casey Act than any other interest.
USAID would be responsible for implementing the bill. Over the last two decades, this agency has spent millions of US taxpayer dollars on developing GE crops, with not one success story to show for it. A highly touted partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya failed to deliver anything useful for farmers. After fourteen years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials.
“At the end of the day, GE crops don’t have much to offer – especially to farmers in the developing world,” notes PAN senior scientist Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman. The bill’s single-minded focus on promoting GMOs runs directly counter to the scientific findings from the most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date, the IAASTD
http://www.panna.org/mag/summer2008/agriculture/business-as-usual-is-not-an-option.
This landmark report highlights the need to strengthen agroecological research to support small-scale farmers, while decreasing corporate control of seeds and the food system. “We will be working with partners in the coming weeks to mobilizing a strong message to the Senate reiterating our call to strip the GM clause from the bill,” adds Ishii-Eiteman.
Global Food Security Act
Foreign Policy in Focus
http://www.fpif.org/articles/global_food_security_act