Make poverty history - if not now, when?

On 26 and 31 July respectively, two European political leaders, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, delivered major political speeches that are of critical importance to our country, our continent and the rest of the world. The one spoke at the University of Dakar in Senegal, and the other at the United Nations in New York.

Because of the global and timely significance of these addresses, I believe that as many of us as possible should study them, of course with no obligation to agree with them. Nevertheless, they present urgent and important tasks to which we must respond.

All humanity, including ourselves, must respond to the many important challenges posed by the objective process of the rapid expansion of an integrated global political economy - properly and scientifically understood - that is colloquially described as globalisation.

At the same time, as a movement, we must vigorously address the national, African continental, and universal tasks we face, consistent with the national democratic and internationalist obligations that have defined our movement, the ANC, for many decades.

The problem of the colour line

This imposes a requirement on us to study, understand and act on the basis of a thorough, honest and disciplined analysis of objective national, continental and global reality. As much as we must be resolute in our actions, so must we accept the reality of a complex and dialectical process through which we come to identify the content of our dynamic social reality, and therefore the setting to which we must respond.

The liberation of our country in 1994 created the possibility for the realisation of a dream that the African masses, and not only the leaders, have entertained for a long time. This is the dream of African unity.

In our case, this was first expressed both as the dream of the unity of our Continent and the unity of the African oppressed, who, as Pixley Seme said, had to bury the demon of tribalism. On the larger plain, relevant to all Africans without regard to tribe and defined place of residence, incorporating the African Diaspora, on the eve of the century, WEB du Bois said the problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the colour line.

We now live in the first decade of the 21st century. The problem we all face, as Africans, without regard to tribe and place of residence, incorporating the African Diaspora, remains still, the problem of the colour line, at this stage relating to our socio-economic upliftment and liberation, and our advance away from the periphery of global human society.

Basing ourselves on the historic place of our continent in the birth and evolution of humanity, and the birth of organised human civilisation, we have a duty, and every right to say the 21st must and will be an African century.

The major addresses delivered by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown, leaders of former European colonial powers, seek to respond to the challenge to liberate the billions in the South from poverty, especially as this relates to our continent and us as Africans.

What Sarkozy said

In this regard, President Sarkozy said: "The weakness of Africa, which knew so many brilliant civilisations on its soil, is due to the fact that she did not engage with other cultures for a long time (because of slavery and colonialism). Africa paid dearly for this disengagement from the world, and it made her very vulnerable. But from all her sufferings, Africa has drawn new strength by re-engaging with herself. This re-engagement, whatever the painful conditions of its birth were, is Africa's true strength and real chance at this moment when the first world civilisation is emerging...

"(The possibility to be able to study, to work, to live decently) is basically what all of Africa wants. Africa does not want charity. Africa does not want help. Africa does not want permits.

"What Africa wants is solidarity, understanding and respect, and this must be given to her. What Africa wants, is that one does not take over her future, think for her, or decide for her. What Africa wants is what France wants; namely cooperation, association, and partnership between two nations, equal in rights and duties.

"Youth of Africa, globalisation as it is, does not please you. Africa has paid too high a price for the mirage of collectivism and progress, to cede to that of laisser faire policies. Youth of Africa, you believe that the free market is beneficial but that it is not a religion. You believe that competition is a means but it is not an end in itself.

"You know that if Africa is too naïve, Africa will be condemned to being the prey of all the world's predators. And you do not want that. You want another globalisation, with more humanity, more justice, more rules.

"I have come to tell you that France also wants this. She wants to fight along with Europe, along with Africa, with anyone in the world who wants to change globalisation. If Africa, France and Europe want it together, then we will succeed. But we cannot express this desire for you."

What Brown said

Addressing the urgent need for a practical manifestation of the solidarity of which President Sarkozy spoke, Prime Minister Brown said: "Unless we act, the planet will by 2015 be suffering not less but more environmental degradation and millions of people will still be struggling on less than one dollar a day with millions of children still hungry...

"The calendar says we are half way from 2000 to 2015, (the period set for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals). But the reality is that we are a million miles away from success...

"We cannot allow our promises that became pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolise broken promises.

"We did not make the commitment to the Millennium Development Goals only for us to be remembered as the generation that betrayed promises rather than honoured them and undermined trust that promises can ever be kept.

"So it is time to call it what it is: a development emergency which needs emergency action...

"So when the need is pressing, when it is our generation that has made historic commitments, when the time to meet them is now short, the simple questions that - to paraphrase the words of an American president - we must ask are:

"If not now, when? If not us, who? If not together, how?

"And I believe the scale of the challenge is such that we cannot now leave it to some other time and some other people but must act now, working together...

"For you also know what I know: that the world has the technology to cure, the science to heal, the medicine to save lives.

"Past generations had the old excuse. They could say: If only we had the knowledge. If only we had the technology. If only we had the medicine. If only we had the science. If only we had the wealth.

"Today we have the science, technology, medicine and wealth: what we now need is the unity and strength of purpose to employ the ingenuity and resources we have - and to employ them well - to help those who need it.

"And we need a compact - the rich accepting their responsibilities to invest, to support, to end protectionism and to deliver our promises; the developing countries accepting their responsibilities to reform, to open up to trade, and to be transparent and free of corruption...

"So it is time to call into action the eighth of the Millennium Goals so we can meet the first seven. Let us remember Millennium Development Goal eight - to call into being, beyond governments alone, a global partnership for development, and together harness the energy, the ideas and the talents of the private sector, consumers, NGOs and faith groups, and citizens everywhere."

The order of the day

In Dakar, President Sarkozy made the important statement that in his view, which he did not seek to impose on us, Africa would never achieve her developmental goals if she accepted a globalisation process driven by a religion of laisser faire (free markets), and should strive for a globalisation process "with more humanity, more justice, more rules".

He called for solidarity, cooperation, association, and partnership among the nations, "equal in rights and duties", and warned against supporting policies that would condemn Africa to remain "prey of all the world's predators".

Prime Minister Brown also called for "a global partnership for development", involving governments, business, civil society and the citizen. He argued for a compact between the rich and the poor of the world. He argued that the means and the know-how exist radically to push back the frontiers of poverty, globally.

He required of the rich that they implement resource transfers to the poor and create the conditions in their countries to empower the poor to extricate themselves from misery: he required of the poor to create the necessary conditions for development, including ensuring that resources meant for development reach the masses of the people rather than end up in the pockets of a predatory elite.

The important statements made by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown come at a critical time during the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations and the ACP-EU negotiations, with the latter intended to conclude the ACP-EU Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) by 31 December this year, as mandated by the 2000 ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement.

The Economic Partnership Agreements

The outcome of the EPA negotiations is of critical importance to the achievement of the vital anti-poverty objectives emphasised by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown in the speeches we have cited.

Everything that has happened so far with regard to the EPA negotiations suggests that the ACP and EU countries should urgently engage in an honest, comprehensive and critical assessment of the fundamental bases of these negotiations, which were defined in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA).

We would argue that what is fundamentally wrong is that, essentially, the CPA is based on prescriptions derived from the infamous "Washington Consensus".

This "consensus" stands out as the most prominent contemporary exemplar of the free market fundamentalism against which President Sarkozy spoke.

The decisive interventions proposed by Prime Minister Brown seek to respond to the "market failures" that derive from adherence to the "religion" of free markets propagated by adherents of the Washington Consensus.

When he spoke in Dakar, President Sarkozy addressed the need for the world rich and (African) poor to enter into a partnership in which the participants would be "equal in rights and duties". When he spoke in New York, Prime Minister Brown defined reciprocal but differentiated duties for the rich and the poor.

World's poorest vs world's richest

However, the central issue in this equation was raised by Oxfam in its 2006 document, "Unequal Partners". Under a sub-heading, "Next round: world's poorest vs. world's richest", it said: "The EPA negotiations are being conducted between the 25 EU countries, which have a combined GDP of $13,300bn, and six groups of African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. Among these ACP countries are 39 of the world's 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The smallest group, the Pacific Islands, has a combined GDP of only $9bn - 1,400 times smaller than the EU's. Even the largest group, the West Africa region, is more than 80 times smaller than the EU in terms of GDP. Given these vast inequalities, it is not hard to see where the power lies."

It is not possible for us, in this Letter, to discuss the impact of this structural and gross power imbalance on the important issues that President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown addressed in their important speeches. This journal discussed this critical issue in its 2004 editions, Vol 4 Nos 41-48.

Responding to the critical need to ensure that the ACP-EU EPA negotiations indeed respond to the urgent challenge radically to push back the frontiers of poverty among "the world's poorest", in March 2005 the British Government Department for International Development (DFID) issued a statement entitled: "Economic Partnership Agreements : Making EPAs Deliver for Development".

Balancing the equation

Because of the importance of the issues it raised, below we quote the DFID statement in full, which said:

"EPAs must be designed to deliver long-term development, economic growth and poverty reduction in ACP countries.

"We believe that:

• In its work on EPAs with ACP regional groups, the EU should take a non-mercantilist approach and not pursue any offensive interests.
• Developing countries can benefit from liberalisation in the long run, provided they have the economic capacity and infrastructure they need to trade competitively. However, without the capacity or the right conditions, trade liberalisation can be harmful.
• Each ACP regional group should make its own decisions on the timing, pace, sequencing, and product coverage of market opening in line with individual countries' national development plans and poverty reduction strategies. Regional groups should have the flexibility to move towards more open markets along a non-linear path if necessary. We will not force trade liberalisation on developing countries either through trade negotiations or aid conditionality.

"Implementing this in practice:

• EPAs must ensure that ACP regional groups have maximum flexibility over their own market opening. The EU should therefore offer all ACP regional groups a period of 20 years or more for market opening, on an unconditional basis. Each regional group should be offered this full period.
• Within EPAs, the EU should make an upfront offer of complete duty and quota-free market access to each ACP regional group, with no strings attached. In addition, the EU should further simplify and liberalise rules of origin under EPAs.
• There should be an effective safeguard mechanism for ACP countries to use if faced with a surge of subsidised EU imports.
• EPAs should be accompanied by additional resources to enable the ACP countries to benefit from trade reforms and build their export competitiveness. The EU, in coordination with international financial institutions and other donors, must provide additional financial assistance to support the ACP countries. This assistance must support them in building the infrastructure and economic capacity they need to benefit from trade with the EU and the rest of the world, and put in place the institutions to help manage change and protect vulnerable people, supporting poorer countries with the cost of transition.
• Investment, competition and government procurement should be removed from the negotiations, unless specifically requested by an ACP regional negotiating group. It is for ACP regional groups to judge the development benefits of any agreements on these issues and the EU should not push for them to be discussed. If included, any negotiations on government procurement should be limited to transparency.
• A review mechanism for EPAs - with full ACP regional group ownership and participation - should be introduced to ensure they are delivering the intended developmental benefits.
• The (EU) Commission should be ready to provide an alternative to an EPA at the request of any ACP country. Any alternative offered should provide no worse market access to the EU than is currently enjoyed under Cotonou preferences.
• In addition, the EU should propose within the WTO that Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, should be reviewed as suggested by the Commission for Africa, in order to reduce the requirements for reciprocity and increase the focus on development priorities.

"Implemented along these lines, Economic Partnership Agreements should provide real development benefits to the ACP countries."

What is to be done!

France and the UK are important members of the EU. What President Sarkozy said in Dakar on 26 July, and what Prime Minister Brown said in New York on 31 July suggest that they would be ready and willing to intervene now, five months before the planned finalisation of the EPAs, to ensure that they are consistent with the guidelines spelt out by DFID. What was said in Dakar and New York last month, by leaders of two important global players, France and the UK, suggests these countries are ready and willing to intervene in the WTO negotiations, through the EU, to help ensure an outcome, this year, which respects the reality that, as globally agreed, these negotiations are accurately described as the Doha Development Round.

On this latter issue, in her statement on 8 June this year, as Chairperson of the G8, after the Heiligendamm meetings that included the G8, African leaders, and the G5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "We stressed the need for achieving an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive agreement on the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), which will enhance worldwide trade among and between developed and developing countries and reinforce multilateral trade rules...We pledged to work with a high level of ambition in all areas of the DDA and call on all WTO members to demonstrate constructive flexibility to bring these negotiations to a prompt successful conclusion. The time has come to translate the continued commitment on political level into tangible results. Therefore we urge Ministers in charge of trade, in particular from leading developed countries and major emerging economies, to provide in the coming weeks a solid platform for a multilateral negotiation leading to an agreement on modalities."

There is no reason to suppose that President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not act, in the context of their important July speeches, to ensure that the EPA and DDA negotiations address the objectives they enunciated.

The poor billions of the world are entitled to expect that all those for whom Chancellor Merkel spoke on 8 June would support what Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown would do, responding to the urgent need honestly to answer the questions relating to the global struggle against poverty and underdevelopment - if not now, when? if not us, who? if not together, how?

What the media says

The truth, public accountability and the mind of an editor

The "Letter from the President" in our last edition (Vol 7 No 29) discussed a self-proclaimed 'investigative' report published by the East London newspaper, Daily Dispatch.

Commenting on this report, University of Witwatersrand Professor of Journalism, Anton Harber, wrote: "I am sure that those who say the media always gets it wrong, is staffed by people too junior and inexperienced to do a professional job, is only motivated by the desire to sell papers and make money and does not serve the national interest will now swallow their words. For once, maybe, there will be a letter from the presidency praising journalists for their role in drawing government's attention where it is needed. Right?"

For his part, however, rather than swallow any words, the President commented on the dramatic but false report published by the Daily Dispatch centred on stillbirths and the death of new-born babies at Frere Hospital, which is located in East London.

The President cited some of the conclusions arrived at on these matters by a team of medical doctors, led by a Professor Green-Thompson, which the Minister of Health had sent to Frere Hospital to establish the truth and, if necessary, make recommendations about the allegedly disastrous situation "exposed" by the Daily Dispatch.

The Green-Thompson report found that with regard to the principal accusation made by the Daily Dispatch, about a high mortality rate for newborns, and the reasons for this, the 'investigative' report published by this newspaper was nothing more than a grotesque falsification of reality. The President did not ask the question - how could the editor of the Daily Dispatch allow the newspaper she controls to be used to propagate extraordinary falsehoods!

Subsequent to the publication of our last edition, one of our readers supplied us with a copy on an article published on 12 July by the Botswana newspaper, Mmegi. The article, datelined Grahamstown, and headed, "Mbeki succession battle stalls development", reported on a speech made by the editor of the Daily Dispatch, Phylicia Oppelt, to "journalists from nine Southern African Development Committee (sic) SADC countries on Monday..."

The content of the Mmegi report suggests that Oppelt was brought to Grahamstown presumably as an appropriately knowledgeable person, to "educate" the visiting journalists from our neighbouring countries about the Eastern Cape.

Obligations of journalism

We must accept that what she said represented her honest view about the Eastern Cape, based on her knowledge of the province. Our view in this regard is informed by what she said about the obligations of her profession when the Hefer Commission sat to consider the allegation published in City Press, that the then National Director of Public Prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, had been an agent of the apartheid security forces.

Then, while working for the Sunday Times, she commented on the role in this affair that had been played by two of her fellow journalists, Vusi Mona, then editor of City Press, and Ranjeni Munusamy, a former colleague at the Sunday Times. She wrote:

"I am affronted and offended by what these two 'journalists' have done. Over the years, I have come to respect this profession for its ability to speak truth to power; to elevate the smallest issues that affect the poor and dispossessed into forceful arguments for change...

"That mirror that we so dearly love to hold up to society has now been turned on us - and we do not look at all well. We are being asked questions about trust and integrity; whether we are capable of speaking truth while attempting some kind of impartiality. For this, as far as I am concerned, is the cornerstone of what we do."

Then, in 2000, when still at the Sunday Times, she wrote about the response of her newspaper to the challenge posed by the South African Human Rights Commission investigation into the issue of racism in the media. Among other things, she said:

"In March this year, as the Human Rights Commission's inquiry into racism in the media gained momentum, we at the Sunday Times began exploring where we stood in relation to both the hearings and racism...

"Our newsrooms in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth are populated by journalists from diverse backgrounds and when we sit behind our computers to write or edit stories, our concerns, personal prejudices and backgrounds accompany us."

The preceding observations suggest that Oppelt:

• is proud of her profession and works to defend its ethics;
• recognises the need to be truthful, objective and impartial in reporting any story;
• is firmly opposed to the media allowing itself to be misused as an instrument of particular or special interests, precisely to maintain its independence, public trust and integrity;
• understands that the public accountability the media demands especially of government must also apply to the media; and,
• recognises the reality that no journalist does their work as an extraordinary individual, whose reporting is not influenced by their upbringing and life experience, with the attendant personal concerns and prejudices.

This journal is fully, and unequivocally, supportive of these principled and ethical positions to which Oppelt is committed, as expressed in various comments she has made over the years.

We must therefore believe that whatever she might have said, or may say, reflects her honest, bona fide, opinion, which informs her professional conduct as a journalist. Proceeding from this understanding, as we do, we believe that we have the possibility to gain some understanding of the mind of an important opinion-maker, the editor of the Daily Dispatch.

Facts and allegations

During the years of our first democratic government, 1994-1999, our government embarked on a process to acquire equipment for our airforce and navy and awarded contracts to various European companies to supply this equipment.

The award of the contracts in this regard sparked off a controversy based on allegations that the award had been attended by corrupt practice, involving both the government negotiating team and some of the bidding companies.

From the very beginning of this controversy, our comrades in government, including the then Deputy President of the Republic, Thabo Mbeki, said they both welcomed a thorough investigation of all elements of the defence acquisition process, and wished to assure our country and all citizens that no corruption of any kind had taken place in the process leading to the award of the primary defence contracts.

However, despite this reality, which has survived all challenges to this day, in the face of all the noise that has been made in this regard, Oppelt wrote in the Sunday Times on 5 February 2001:

"And we have a President who twists and turns on his own word and toys with the trust South Africans have placed in him. He shies away from being honest with us. He uses a special broadcast to launch a vicious attack on a judge. The brouhaha over Judge Willem Heath's participation in the arms probe seems like a smokescreen to hide the real issue of exactly what happened when the deal was struck...

"Where did things go wrong? When did the ANC start believing its own publicity that it would always be the one and only defender of democracy and choice of South Africa's people? Eventually, another, more representative champion will arrive who will listen to the people and not to a party that believes it is above those who voted it into power."

Like everybody else who has, over the years, alleged that the primary contracts were awarded in a corrupt manner, Oppelt has not advanced a single fact to explain the basis for these assertions.

Precisely because of what she thinks of our movement and its leadership, as reflected in these comments, we should not be surprised that Oppelt should take it as her task to discredit our movement and destroy its credibility in the eyes of the people.

This brings us back to the Mmegi report. The principal elements of this report were that Oppelt told the journalists that:

• our movement, the ruling party, is divided into two factions, grouped around our President and Deputy President respectively, Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma;
• the Premier of the Eastern Cape, Nosimo Balindlela, who is allegedly "pro-Mbeki", is "aligned to factionalism and this is creating enormous damage to us";
• senior officers in the Eastern Cape provincial government, who belong to the "pro-Zuma" faction, use their power to sabotage the development programmes of the Eastern Cape government;
• for this and other reasons, no economic opportunities exist in the Eastern Cape: as a result of this, "the 7.04 million residents of Eastern Cape are impoverished and survive on hand-outs because employment opportunities are limited. This has resulted in university graduates leaving the province to join big employers in economically vibrant places such as Johannesburg and Cape Town. Some people in the area, she said depend on selling rotten food from landfills";
• the Eastern Cape is trapped in a general crisis, indicating dysfunctionality.

We do not know what information Oppelt gave to substantiate the allegation she made about the division of the ANC into two factions, and what the Premier of the Eastern Cape has allegedly done as a supporter of the "pro-Mbeki" faction, which 'alignment to factionalism' is "creating enormous damage" to the people of the Eastern Cape.

Neither do we know what information she provided about what allegedly "pro-Zuma" officials did to frustrate the programmes instituted by the "pro-Mbeki" Premier, which, as a result, makes it difficult for the province to develop.

We also do not know whether Oppelt explained the 350-year history of our country. This would include the impact on the Eastern Cape of the legacy of the Ciskei and Transkei "native reserves" and bantustans, as well as the entrenched impact of the Eastern Cape colonial "Kaffraria".

We do not know what she said about what the apartheid system did to negate any perceived "positive" elements of the colonial period, including the conscious destruction of such eminent educational institutions as Lovedale and Healdtown.

Similarly, we do not know what she said about the many positive public and private sector developments in the Eastern Cape, initiated and led by the local and provincial spheres of government, with the ANC serving as the ruling party, which have resulted in the population of the Eastern Cape regularly to confirm its confidence in, and support for, the ANC in successive democratic elections since 1994.

We are satisfied that the preceding comments, in their totality, explain why the Daily Dispatch, edited by Oppelt, published the elaborately false "exposé" on Frere Hospital.

The entirety of our media says one of its tasks is to provide timely, objective and accurate information to our people. It says that it respects its obligation to be fair and balanced in the communication of both news and opinion. It says that it enjoys the prerogative of being the unique social institution that has the possibility and the duty to tell the truth and the whole truth, without prejudice, and without fear or favour.

Concerns and prejudices

However, as Oppelt said in 2000, the excellent people who manage and communicate the news and opinions disseminated by the same "dispassionate" media have their "concerns, personal prejudices and backgrounds (that) accompany them", which dictate the mindset within which they write and broadcast what the public absorbs as consumers of media news and opinion.

Given all this, it is not difficult to understand how the Frere Hospital story gain the prominence it did, and what has happened to legitimise a "damage-limitation" exercise since the communication of the results of the Professor Green-Thompson scientific medical inquiry.

Taking into account what Mmegi reported we can do no more than to urge vigilance among all our people, about the news and opinion in our media, which present themselves as a truthful, balanced and unbiased reflection of South African reality.

The Frere Hospital story demonstrates the deeply disturbing reality that it is perfectly possible for otherwise decent South Africans, some of whom might occupy important positions as opinion-makers, to falsify the truth, consistent with their concerns, personal prejudices and backgrounds. Thus would they use the possibility to generate popular opinions, especially through the media, that serve to increase the possibility of the public acceptance of their agendas.

However, regardless of who owns, controls and manages whatever medium of communication, the fact cannot be denied that the media, the Fourth Estate, is a public institution. The challenge we face, as do all other societies across the world, is that this Estate, unlike the First, Second and Third, has determined that it falls outside any obligation to submit itself to any practical process of social accountability.

It argues that the very survival of democracy means that it must, among other things, have the right to communicate fabrications, provided it can explain these away as the expression of the inalienable democratic right to freedom of expression and a free press.

Thus do the personal concerns, prejudices and backgrounds of editors serve to override everything that motivates society to accept the Fourth Estate as a legitimate player in a social realm which, ineluctably, demands rigorous accountability of all those who claim that they represent the interests of the citizen.

In a situation in which objective reality represents a gross and severe imbalance in terms of public accountability, between company-appointed and elected representatives of the people, sustained public conflict between the two becomes inevitable.

It is inevitable that this conflict will and must, in the end, result in a population that reads one thing and hears another, as in the Western democracies, crying out: "A plague on both their houses!"

Inevitably, the citizen, whom neither the corporate appointee nor the elected representative of the people can deprive of their cognitive capacity, will come to the conclusion that it is best to rely on their knowledge and instincts, and consciously shed all dependence on guidance both by the media and those they might have elected.

The dramatic Frere Hospital story as originally told, the subsequent government response, and everything since, address a critically important challenge our society faces. How committed are we all to the view and practice, and to what extent do we know that our democracy, born of enormous sacrifices, can only survive and grow only if it feeds on a diet of honesty and the truth?

Côte d'ivoire

La guerre est fini! The people of South Africa extend their best wishes to the people of Côte d'Ivoire

We congratulate you, brothers and sisters, on the inspiring and highly successful ceremony you held in Bouake on 30 July to destroy the weapons of war, when you ignited the Flame of Peace.

We were deeply moved when we heard Prime Minister Guillaume Soro proclaim Bouake, the capital of the rebellion, as - the Capital of Peace!

We were deeply moved when we heard President Laurent Gbagbo proclaim - The War is Over - La guerre est Fini!

We undertake to continue working hand-in-hand with you as you continue the struggle to reunite, democratise and develop the beautiful Côte d'Ivoire, transforming her into a zone of peace, prosperity and national reconciliation.

We commit ourselves to work with the leaders and people of Burkina Faso and all your other neighbours as they support you in your noble efforts.

Africa will be free! Africa will unite! Africa will prosper!

Return to Index