A Matter of War: Imari Obadele, Our Enslavement in the 13 Colonies and the United States, the Republic of New Afrika and Reparations

Excerpts from REPARATIONS YES! A Suggestion Toward the Framework of a Reparations Demand and A Set of Legal Underpinnings

by

Imari Abubakari Obadele, Chairperson, The People’s Center Council (National Legislature) of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika, September 1987

“The central proposition of this paper and the draft bill for reparations which is annexed hereto is that our enslavement in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States was a matter of war - war conducted against Afrika under authority, initially, of the British government and the legislatures of the Thirteen Colonies and ultimately under authority of Clasue One, Section 9 of the First Article of the United States Constitution.

[Clause One, Secion 9, Article One, states: “The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”]

It was war conducted against Afrikan people - who grew into a nation, an oppressed nation, between 1660 and 1860 - within the United States under British and Colonial authority and, ultimately, the authority of Clasue Three, Section Two of Article Four of the U.S. Constitution.

[Clause Three, Section 2, Article Four, states: “No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”]

The conditions of our degradation, a subordinated and exploited people denied liberty by force, are too well known to be re-documented or chronicled here. Justice Harlan, writing his dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, at 29, said that the provisions of the 1850 ‘Fugitive Slave Act…. placed at the disposal of the master seeking to recover his fugitive slace, substantially the whole power of the nation.’ The U.S. Army under Andrew Jackson destroyed the New Afrikan states in Florida. Militia and White civilians carried war to all our communities in the woods. The U.S. military and White civilians put down the attempts of first, Gabriel Prosser and then Denmark Vesey and John Brown and Osborne Anderson to seize land and build New Afrikan states. For these state-builders the U.S. courts authorized bloody executions, corporal punishment, and transportation beyond U.S. shorees. . . .

It is the position of this paper, embracing propositions enunciated by the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika sixteen years ago, that the United States conducted war against the New Afrikan nation on this land throughout the era of slavery, that the war was authorized by the United States constitution and carried out in aggressive military actions against the efforts of our people to seek freedom individually and to build New Afrikan states collectively, by the United States government itself, by the various State Governments and by civilians mobilized against the New Afrikan People and nation.

It is the proposition of this paper that reparations must be part of a general settlement of the war which the United States has waged against us.

In keeping with settlements consummated at the end of World War I and World War II, and with the precedents in International Law created by these settlements, the settlement for New Afrikan people must include not simply money reparations but exercise of the freed and informed right to self determination by our people, and the release of our militants, soldiers, prisoners of war, now in U.S. jails, who were taken in defense of our nation against the United States.

In summary, the money damages are due, of coure, for labor stolen from our forebears, for cultural assault, and for unjust war, with accumulated interest. But the money portion of our reparations must be a significant contribution toward rehabilitation: repatriation for those who wish and can achieve citizenship in an Afrikan state, rehabilitation of the New Afrikan states and incipient states, and their successors, destroyed on this soil during the war which was slavery and afterwards. There must be reparation payments for rehabilitation of us as a people, our social structure in the United States, and culture, in recognition of the design followed in the United States to make us into a race of ignorant subservients, unable to revolt, and forgetful that We had a duty to do so. . . .

There are reparations due to certain Afrikan states for the war which the United States authorized against them; to us, as well, for our states that were weakened or destroyed in Afrika during the course of America’s war there, which resulted in our enslavement.

(A state, with its army, protects the people. People cannot be harmed by outsiders unless the army is destroyed, rendered ineffective, or co-opted) And it is also tru that discussions must be held with Nigeria and other states on reparations for us. These could involve not simply trade arrangements but substantial political and diplomatic assistance for those of us who want indpendent statehood.

Those discussions ar separate, however, from the claims against the United States - and the subject of this paper.

The precedents for the claims described above are to be found in

1) the agreements which concluded World War I and World War II;

2) the U.S. Supreme Court case, The United States v. The Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 15 Peters 518 (1841);

3) the New International Law Regime, which took rise with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, 14 December 1960; and

4) the principles involved in the work of The Indian Claims Commission, Title 25, U.S.C.A., Sections 70 et seq.

With respect to the lapse of time between the United States initial ceasefire agains us (The Thirteenth Amendment of December 1865) and Queen Mother Moore’s proffer of the Ethiopian Women’s complaint against the United States and petition for reparations to the United Nations in 1965, three comments are particularly appropriate. First, Queen Mother Moore’s efforts were not a beginning; at no substantial period during the era since slavery have our people neglected wholly the campaign for reparations. Second, it has been the power of the United States and its refusal to consider reparations for New Afrikans which has frustrated our efforts heretofore, not any failure on our part to pursue these demands. . . .

WAS IT WAR AND DO WE HAVE SELF-DETERMINATION RIGHTS?

Two essential questions should be addressed. First, was it war? Second, do New Afrikans have self-determination rights? Also implicated is the question as to whether New Afrikans in the United States constitute a ‘nation.’ We turn now to the first question.

In general, ‘war” has been traditionally of two types, conflicts between states, which are governed by international law and practice, and civil wars, in which part of a state contends for sovereignty over territory claimed by the parent- state. Lately, conflicts of liberation movements, including conflicts like that in South Afrika at the present time, where the liberation forces are unable to place armies openly in the field or to hold and govern territory openly, have gained status under the international law. The 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, states in Article One:

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragrah include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and aliean occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The record is replete with instances of armed conflict and armed suppression of suspected miltants by the United States, during and after slavery. Moreover, the general conditions of slavery make clear also that We were subject during the slavery era to ‘colonial domination and alien occupation.’ . . .

Professor von Glahn notes that ‘a British report in 1870 showed that between 1700 and 1870, a total of 107 conflicts had been initiated without the formality of a declaration of war.’ He goes on: ‘The United States, too, has conducted wars without a declaration: an undelcared war with France from 1798 to 1801, the invasion of Florida in 1811 under Generals Jackson and Mathews, the brief Mexican invasion in 1916, the undeclared war with the Soviet Union in 1918-1919, and, of course, the vietnamese conflict from 1947 onward (for the United States, from March 7, 1965, to March 29, 1973).’

The effort of some New Afrikans to form an indpendent state has been an almost continuous effort from the time of our first fights and revolts in this land to the present. . . . If the level of U.S. military attacks against New Afrikans and the New Afrikan nation receded in the period following the Civil War, our colony was nevertheless subject to a racially conscious policing by sheriffs and local police. The army, too, would appear to suprpress us during uprisings such as those in 1919, the 1940s and the 1960s. The reason for the reduction in naked military attacks lay mainly in our resort to parliamentary means of struggle after the Civil War. But there was no abandonment of the drive for independent New Afrikan statehood - nor for the other two objectives toward which some of our people had striven traditionally: (1) full citizenship in the United States, and (2) return to Afrika.

It is relevant to the charge of war agianst the United States that we were still an occupied and oppressed nation in this period between the Civil War and 1968. We were a colony living on territory claimed by the United States, subject until 1968 to a body of legislation and court decisions which defined our subordination to the White nation and facilitated the Whte nation’s economic and cultural exploitation of us, and our social degradation.

Even the Malcomites, who after March 1968 led the struggle for independent statehood and were resolute practitioners of armed self-defense, eventually supported by the Black Liberation Army, pursued a strategy of attempting to organize, peacefully, an independent plebiscite. This parliamentary strategyy was in accordance with the precepts of the New International Law Regime, ushered in by the United Nations’ Declaration On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, supra, in 1960. When the organizing of the armed, self-defensing cadres of the Provisional Government accelerated in Mississippi in 1971, however, the United States turned to its military option. At dawn on Wednesday, August 18, 1971, a force of FBI agents and Jackson city police, accompanied by an armored truck, attacked the official RNA Provisional Government Residence. They shot it up and then charged the seven occupants of the house, along with the four who had spent the night at the office several blocks away, with murder of the police lieutenant who died in the attack and with assault of the FBI agent and the policeman who were wounded. In the fall of 1981 the United States brought massive military force to bear in McComb County, Mississippi, to arrest Sister Fulani Sunni Ali, a longtime RNA officer, who was quietly conductin a summer camp for children in the country. The pretext was the New York Brinks incident, during which Black Liberation Army members were implicated, some arrested and some jailed, and one murdered in cold blood by the police as he lay helpless on the ground.

If it is possible to argue that the form of the war against us cahanged after the Civil War, from military activity to occupation duties, the United States kept the military sanction always ready - and, from time to time, used it.

The question was land. The United States Government, unable to export us en masse after the Civil War, was not especially concerned that U.S. policies had fueled our growth as a separate people - giving us our own perspective and history and common gene pool, raising up, between 1660 and 1860, a vastly numbered New Afrikan nation on this soil. Our status as a nation, despite our numbers, posed little more problem for the United States than the many Indian nations - so long as We did not focus overly on our separateness and nationhood, and so long as We did not seriously act for statehood, for sovereignty over land.

The international law, in our era before 1960, was shaped by Europeans and their conquests. This included the question of sovereignty over land, national title to land. And the law was clear. For instance, the principle of prescription sitll means that a state may acquire title over land originally belonging to another state, by occupation over a long period of time. How long is a ‘long’ time? There seems to be no generally accepted international standard. One U.S. court decision, dealing with awards to Indian states, determined that title to land could be recognized for a group which had occupied it ininterruptedly for 50 years. The United States’ objective with respect to the RNA Provisional Government (PG-RNA) was to prevent undisturbed occupation for any period of time.

There is little doubt that the United States realized that a form of the prescription principle is embedded in the New Afrikan Creed, which today is part of the Republic’s constitution, the Code of Umoja, and which is recired by gathered Provisional Government cadre at meetings and all imporant occasions. ‘I believe,’ runs the paragraph from the Creed, ‘that all the land in America, upon which We have lived for a long time, which We have worked and build upon, and which We have fought to stay on, is land that belongs to us as a people.’ . . . There is little doubt that the United States understoon that the PG was acting upon this principle in Mississippi.

The partiuclar problem for the United States was that the Provisional Government had been created at a founding convention and then regularly elected, by popular vote since 1975. Although the voting has always taken place in several cities, the totals. so far, have always been small - the largest being 5,000 votes cast in 1975. But the fact of the vote and the potential for it becoming a widespread institution among New Afrikan people, despite the perpetual press ‘white-out’ of New Afrikan activities, posed and pose a serious problem for United States policy-makers. To begin with, the United States is a party to the 1933 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, done at Montevideo, Uruguay. This convention’s definition of the ‘state’ is in fact the definition which has entered into the principles of United States law, repeated in numerous contexts. Article one of the convention states:

‘The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territtory; (c) government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.’ [Siphiwe note: here is the rationale for having a strong and effective Ministry of Foreign Affairs within the PG-RNA].

The Provisional Government was (and is) a democratically elected government; it was voted for in Mississippi, which testified to representation of a permanent population, and it carried on various nascent forms of relations with China and Cuba (and, in the days since the Mississippi effort of the 1970s, is continuing to broaden these relations with other states). What was lacking, then, to convert this state-building entity, the Provisional Government, into a state was uninterrupted possession of land. [Siphiwe note: now, after almost 58 years, what formal relations or support does the PG-RNA have with other governments? What presence does it have as an observer to the African Union or United Nations? What diplomatic communications history does it have with other states? This is the missing element today that a strong and visionary Ministry of Foreign Affairs can correct.]

The United States’ attack on the Provisional Government in Mississippi and the subsequent major de-stabilization of the Provisional Government by the jailing of some of its leaders and a continuation of the FBI’s disinformation campaign (the COINTELPRO) were simply consistent with the attacks in former days on Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, John Brown, and Osborne Perry Anderson, the New Afrikan states in Florida, and the state of Tunis Campbell. The rationale was simple and obvious: the United States . . . was not prepared to abide the creation of an independent New Afrikan state in North America. Thus, the attacks, the recurrent hot war.

But there was a difference in the international law regime under which the military actions against the New Afrikan states and state-builders before 1960 were carried out and the international law regime under which U.S. military attacks against the Provisional Government were carried out after 1960. The Decolonization Declaration (U.N. General Assembly Res. 1514) said, simply, that ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination; . . . .’ This language has been carried over into the human rights conventions. It was a victory of the Afro-Asian bloc in the General Assembly, achieving numerical prominence for the first time in 1960, and it marked a revolution in the international law. The Declaration states also:

‘4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence…’

Therefore the international law that counted had been written and accepted by the United States and European powers. It served the ratification of their conquests of the rest of the world and codified practices which they had found to be mutually convenient. The Versailles Treaty of 1920, ending World War I, joins the Berlin Treaty of 1885, as a leading statement of the international law as the White and powerful states of the world saw it and enforced it. This document provided for our degradation: it left the Afrikan and Asian colonies of the world War I victors in place and, instead of freeing those held by the defeated Germany, gave our hapless countries and peoples to the mandated ‘care’ of Britain, France and Belgium - at the same time that this treaty was concretizing self-determination as a right for Czechs and Poles and several other people in Europe.

The Afro-Asians in 1960, with the assistance of Canada and a few other states, re-wrote the international law. From that point, not only Europeans but all peoples had a right to self-determination. A subsequent, relatively rapid development of the new law followed. The Principle of self-determination was incorporated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, The Declaration on Principles of International Law, on 24 October 1970.

The United States abstained from voting on the 1960 Declaration, objecting to the word ‘independence’ in the title, arguing that independence was not the only possible result of an act of self-determination by a people. This was true but irrelevant. Neverheless, the United States Representative, James J. Wadsworth, speaking to a plenary session of the U.N. General Assembly on 6 December 1960 made the following extraordinary remarks - which, of course, under U.S. constitutional principles, are deemed to be the words of the U.S. President and an authoritative statment of international law as the United States sees it:

‘First let me say what we mean by colonialism…. It is the imposition of alien power over a people, usually by force and without the free and formal consent of the governed. It is the perpetuation of that power. It is the deniel of the right of self-determination - whether by suppressing free-expression or by withholding necessary educational, economic, and social development.*** Obviously not all colonial regimes have been the same…. But, however important these differences, the fact remains that colonialism in any form is undesirable. Neither the most benevolent paternalism by a ruling power nor the most grateful acceptance of these benefits by indigenous leaders can meet the test of the charter or satisfy the spirit of this age.

The Declaration on the Principles of International Law in its ‘principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples,’ states, inter-alia:

‘Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination. . . bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.’ . . .

To sum up, I have argued here that the United States has waged war against us, as individuals and as a nation. (I have deferred the question of whether We are a nation under international law.) My central and underlying point is that our reparations, based upon slavery claims, are best presented in the context of the United States’ having denied us the exercise of our right to self-determination.

This is because the most fruitful precedents for our reparations claims are those which have arisen out of the reparations payments and the self-determination arrangements made in settlement of World War I and World War Ii. It is also because the fact is the United States did wage a most heinous war against us.

In appraiding the situation of New Afrikans in the United States it is important to keep in mind that We have, almost from the beginning, followed simultaneously three - not one - strategies of struggle. (This is to say that simultaneously some of us have followed each of the strategies.) Those strategies have been, first, a return to Afrika (Paul Cuffee through Garvey to the Hebrew Israelites); second, to change the United States and join it as full citizens (Richard Allen through Frederick Douglass to Marin Luther King), and, third, to build an independent state on land claimed in North America by the United States (Gabriel Prosser through Tunys Campbell to Malcolm X and the Provisional Government -RNA). Throughout our three hundred years of struggle on this soil We have, from at least 1660, been evolving into and have become a Black Nation, a New Afrikan nation, even with the simultaneous pursuit of three strategies. . . .

For clarity on the difference between ‘nation’ and ‘state’ it is perhaps helpful to call on Professor Robin Alison Remington in her discussion of Yugoslavia. She writes: “A country is the piece of real estate occupied by the state. Neither a country nor a state is a ‘nation.’ Rather, a ‘nation’ is a group of individuals united by common bonds of historical development, language, religion, and their self-perceived collective identity.*** According to the 1971 census, the Yugoslav population is 20.5 million, including five official ‘nations’ and a variety of nationalities. The nations are the Serbs, 8.4 million; Croats, 4.8 million; Slovens, 1.7 million; Macedonians, 1.2 million; and Montenegrins, 608 thousand.’

Elsewhere I have made a contribution toward (I hope) clarity.

‘People live in states. The United States is a state; all the fifty states make one United States, and in international law the entire United States (with its 50 constituent states) is known as a state. A state has people land and government. The government, acting for the state, protects the people and the land from outside attack by means of diplomacy and its army; government controls conflict among its own people by education and indoctrination and by means of law, courts, and the police. The government, representing the state, has final control over the lives of people. Only the state, through its government, can lawfully jail people or kill people - either by executing them or sending people to war.

But people come before states. This is to say that nations exist before states. States are created to protect nations. For, a nation is the people and their beliefs and their perspective (their way of looking at themselves and the world) and their way of life - their social structure and their economic struacture. These have arisn out of a people’s own special history, over time. States can be created suddenly, by declaration, by new constitutions, by military coups and successful revolution and by treaty. But nations can only be created by time: nations are people brought together by common history and common mission and common struggle, cemented by common values and a common way of life, on a given land mass, over time. Nations must evolve. They come into being by growing over decades.

The United States began as a white nation, a new English nation, which grew up between 1607 and 1776 in a land away from England. In England the people were having a different experience and history than the English in America. In America the Whites, led by the English, fought Indians and Afrikans for that in which they, the Whites, believed: they believed in the superiority of Whites over Indians and Afrikans and the righ of Whites to take all the land and oppress and exploint Afrikans and Indians.

These Americans, the Whites, built a state, a Republic, to protect the American nation. They did not build this state to protect Indians or Afrikans; in fact, it was built to help Whites better oppress and exploit Indians and Afrikans. It was built to protect the white nation.

Meanwhile, We, the Afrikans, were forming into a new nation also, a new Afrikan nation. This happened between 1660, when the English in America decided definitely to hold us in slavery, and 1865, when our work and sacrifice in the Civil War brought an ende to slavery. In those two hundred years We who had come from different nations in Afrika, where our states had been weakened or defeated altogether, fused into a new people, a new Afrikan people. Struggle against the oppression of the White nation in North America, the United States, fused us. Over the course of 20 decades.’ . . .

So the proposition of this paper and the annexed draft reparations legislation is that the United States waged long, cruel, and unjust war against us as a nation, and for that there is responsibility. . . .

Today the New Afrikan nation, still pursuing simultaneously its three strategies of struggle, has no victorious armies to compel compliance, only the international law - and the strength and ingenuity of the uses to which We and our allies may put the politics of the American state. . . .

In brief, the terms of the attached draft legislation reflect practices which are not unknown to the United States and other states which particpated in or observed the arrangement which followed the two world wars. The plan would provide reparations to the state-building Provisional Government but reparations would go, as well, to individuals and to organized, serving community groups. . . .

As a teacher of young people, I am also convinced that part of the strategy must be to alter the textbooks and our conventions in teaching the American experience - and to alter kindred conventions in movies and literature - so that Americans and New Afrikans, living now, may come to a deep appreciation of the nature of the war waged against us and Indians in America and of the military occupation We have suffered here, as well as the creative, persistent, courageous, and often brilliant struggle Indians and New Afrikans have waged in response.

In the end, history makes clear that to win reparations We must be prepared to take this righteous struggle into the streets. We must be prepared to stop all the machinery of America, if need be, until the just debt of reparations is paid.

FREE THE LAND!”

"Resistance generally begins with the desire of individuals to remove intolerable conditions imposed by an unpopular regime. Feelings of opposition towards the governing authority and hatred of existing conditions that conflict with the individuals values, interests, aspirations and desired way of life spread from the individual to his family, close friends and neighbors. In the 1950s and 60s, this was exactly the case for 'Black people' towards the insitutionalized racism, 'Jim Crowism', and second-class status that had long been imposed by the oppressor-state social order. Rosa Parks felt that to have to surrender her bus seat to a white male was intolerable. The Deacons for Defense regarded systmatic Klan murders, bombings and beatings of the people to be intolerable. The men and women who joined Huey Newton and Bobby Seale to form the Black Panther Party had determined that racist police oppression and brutality was intolerable. {Note: Siphiwe Baleka felt that being forced to pay income taxes to a fraudulent IRS was intolerable and thus he stopped paying taxes. He felt an undignified life in the USA was so intolerable he left and moved to his ancestral homeland of Guinea Bissau. He felt the lack of international recognition of New Afrikan rights to self determination was intolerable so he accepted to serve as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of New Afrika.] A significant problem for the New Afrikan Independence Movement today is that New Afrikan people, for the most part, do not perceive either their personal or their collective condition as 'intolerable'. In fact, since the 1980s, the paramilitary style police intimidation/repression campaign that begun with COINTELPRO (Phase One) has escalated to the degree that rampant killing of New Afrikan males by police as a matter of policy is viewed to be routine. It is an irony that our people hled conditions to be intolerable which have subsequently worsened, and that they now find not merely tolerable, but actually, of little or no cause for concern. A significant part of this problem has been an underdeveloped understanding of war and warfare on the part of our people in general and our nationalist leadership in particular . . . . The facts are that New Afrikans are still enslaved, and have no control of the major factors that govern their lives. . . . It is imperative that we undertake a major campaign to make self-determination a cause that is compelling or which seems compelling enough to motivate sufficient numbers of New Afrikans to act assertively in its support. It is our task to convince the New Afrikan people that they have nothing to lose and more to gain by rejecting oppressor-state domination over their lives and futures, and establishing independence. This belief system will not come to the people on its own, and will especially not even be considered by them as long as the oppressor-state's information warfare machine is allowed to run un-checked." - from the New Afrikan Military Science Institute, The Strategic Communications Campaign and Narratives for Information Battles, MSI 2-2 21 November 2010

Plebiscite Workshop at the New Afrikan People's Convention, December 30, 2023

WILL 2024 BE THE YEAR OF PAN AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONAL UNITY?: THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS

“Birds which fly without coordination, beat each other’s wings.”  

Baganda, Uganda proverb

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

The generation of young African people of today ask:

Does the Pan African Movement have an institution that represents all of us, is SUPPPORTED by all of us and speaks with one recognized voice? Where do all the Pan African Organizations register and coordinate their activities? What is the mechanism through which all Pan African organizations can work together?

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

Three separate Pan African Congresses are being organized for 2024: one that was first called by H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori Quao that is scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe, one called for by the Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) to take place in Kampala, Uganda, and one called for by the Republic of Togo . If all three are successful, we will have succeeded in creating three very high-level and well respected entities with the same vision, objectives and agendas with separate, uncoordinated structures competing with each other for both popular support and African Union recognition.

Moreover, other entitites and initiatives outside of the Pan African Congress legacy format are also pursuing the same vision, objectives and agendas, particularly concerning the establishment, governing and administrating for the African Union 6th Region. Not only is this a waste of resources in duplicate and redundant efforts, it will further show that the Pan African movement and the African Diaspora 6th Region does not fully understand itself, the potential of the moments, and is incapable of organizing and managing its own affairs. 

How can the Pan Africanists demand a “One Africa” when it can not set the example of a “One Pan African Secretariat” that is supported by all Pan Africanists that can speak with one voice? How can the African Diaspora demand a “One Africa” when it can not set the example of a “One African Diaspora 6th Region” with a high council that is supported by all Africans in the Diaspora and can speak with one voice?

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

Why the Pan African Congress?

The first Pan African Conference, called by Sylvester Williams in 1900, appealed to the leaders of the world not to ignore the sufferings of Black people. W.E.B. DuBois then championed Pan African Congresses in 1919, 1921, 1923 and 1927. By the time of the Fifth Pan African Congress in 1945, the imperative of the African World was an end to colonialism, which led to the formation of the Organization of African Unity in 1963. The challenge for the participants of the Sixth Pan African Congress in 1974 was how to harness Africa’s new independent power, deconstruct neocolonialist regimes, and unite the diaspora under a common Pan-African agenda. To achieve this, the 6th PAC sought to encourage dual citizenship for Africans from the West and establish a Permanent Secretariat. 

Courtland Cox, Secretary General of the 6th Pan African Congress, stated in his closing remarks to the delegations, “I believe this Congress has clearly advocated new imperatives: an end to neo-colonialism and imperialism, and the revolutionary social transformation of African societies and communities…I think this Congress has ratified the validity of African people meeting to chart a political course for our common problems. We as African people still have an obligation to continue our own most important contribution to human advancement—the building of a strong, just Africa, and the forging of a United African People.”

WORKING PAPER ON DESIRABLE RESULTS OF THE 6TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS, TANZANIA 1974

However, according to Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, Secretary General of the International Preparatory Committee of the 7th PAC held in 1994 in Kampala, Uganda, “One major question for the movement was how to define the tasks of the Pan African struggle for the twenty first century. . . .Perhaps the greatest weakness of the 6th Pan African Congress was the inability to transform all the good resolutions into a concrete organizational and institutional framework of action. Subsequently, its impact was not as decisive as it could have been, than if it had had an institutional base after the Congress. It is a mistake which the 7th Pan African Congress sought to rectify by agreeing to set up a permanent secretariat in order to reverse the spasmodic initiatives of the past.” Indeed, Resolution 1 of the 7th PAC is entitled, “Concerning a Permanent Post-Congress Organizational Structure.”

Why the Pan African Secretariat?

The Pan African Secretariat has not realized what it was supposed to do. This is partly attributed to the unforeseen death of Dr. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, General Secretary of the Pan African Movement and principal organizer for decades, which led to a period of reorganization with a continuing lack of funds during which the proper functioning of the Secretariat was affected over the next decade. In addition, 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.

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

“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.”

The Pan African Congress, the African Union and the African Diaspora 6th Region

The struggle against apartheid in South Africa kept the Pan African world united. In May 1994, Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the new President of South Africa and campaigned for the lifting of sanctions against Libya. A few months later the 7th PAC convened in Kampala, Uganda making its first priority the establishment of the Pan African Secretariat and a Pan African Parliament. Five years later, President Gaddafi of Libya called the extraordinary meeting of the OAU at Sirte in 1999 and decided to set in motion the resolution of the 7th Pan African Congress, that there should be an African Union. Within two years the Constitutive Act of the African Union was written, ratified and the AU came into being in 2002. Then, in February of 2003, the AU amended its Constitutive Act with Article 3(q) that “invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union . . .”, and thereby launched the African Union 6th Region. This development provided, at least in theory if not yet in substance, an alternative to the PAC as a framework and institutional path to uniting Africans abroad with those at home. This was acknowledged by the 8th Pan African Congress (PAC8.0) held in Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015 that concluded,

“Recognizing the need for permanent and enduring organizational structures and operational principles for sustained activism in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resolutions arising from preceding Congresses to the 8th PAC; . . . COGNIZANT of the concerns expressed by a significant number of delegates regarding the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner. . . . ACKNOWLEDGING the strengths that are gained through collaborative partnerships based on transparency, integrity and political synergies, . . . We acknowledged the need for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 of the AU, and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union and the United Nations Decade for the Peoples of African Descent. Efforts such as these can serve to educate and stimulate individuals within the Global African Family who have not been previously reached to be mobilized in their own interests. . . We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063 . . . Recommend that the identification of appropriate organizations to be a conduit for Africans of the Diaspora to partner with the PAM initiatives at all levels and facilitate the involvement or inclusion of Africans from the Diaspora who have repatriated back home to Mother Africa. Strongly support the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

PAN AFRICAN IMPERATIVE - HARMONIZE EFFORTS 

“We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063” 

- 8th PAC, Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015

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

“Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa. . . . The African Diaspora Pan African Congress will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region.

- H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, Call for the ADDI African Diaspora Pan African Congress (ADPAC now “8PAC1”) - September 2022

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

“Sixty-four (64) countries participated in the GADS in which President Muhammadu Buhari called on Africans home and abroad to connect and create a common front through strategic frameworks to address the challenges arising in the new world order.” 

- Global African Diaspora Symposium (GADS), 27-28 April 2023 at the Rotunda Hall, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abuja

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

“The Ministers stressed the need to move towards a synergy of action by Pan­ Africanists and welcomed the project to organize the 9th Pan-African Congress in Lome, in 2024, by Togo, in collaboration with the African Union, on the theme ‘Renewal of pan-Africanism and Africa's Role in the Reform of Multilateral Institutions: mobilizing resources and reinventing Itself for action’.” 

- The African Political Alliance (APA), first ministerial conference in Lomé, Togo - May 3, 2023

THE WAY FORWARD - WHAT IS NEEDED: A UNITY DECLARATION AND 100,000 ENDORSEMENTS

By the end of 2024 we can have:

1. A Permanent Pan African Secretariat with a physical headquarters and operational funding;

2. An AU 6th Region High Council with a physical headquarters, operational funding, and 10-15 Ambassadors at the AU Permanent Representatives Committee which would give the AU6th Region equal status as the other five regions;

3. An AU 6th Region Registry that serves as a census that would collect a $1 registration fee from each person in the AU6th region, some amount of which would fund AU6th Region administration and programming as well as Pan African Secretariat support.

In this way, all Africans - both those at home and abroad - can achieve a functional unity, fund itself and speak with one voice. The series of Pan African Congress, IF UNITED AND COORDINATING TOGETHER, can achieve this. How do we manifest this unity?

1. Evidence of Unity at the Top - this can be achieved by H.E. President Yoweri Museveni, Republic of Uganda; H.E. President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, Republic of Zimbabwe; and H.E. President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe, President of the Togolese Republic signing the DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION.

2. Evidence of Unity in the Middle - this can be achieved by having each event’s organizing committee sign the DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION and agree to appoint one member to the Pan African Imperative Harmonization Steering Committee whose purpose is to ensure the harmonization of their respective agendas.

3. Evidence of Unity at the Foundation - this can be achieved by having 100,000 people endorse the Pan African Congresses Harmonization bycompleting the online form at the bottom of this post.

DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION

Whereas the 8th Pan African Congress (PAC8.0) held in Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015 concluded, “Recognizing the need for permanent and enduring organizational structures and operational principles for sustained activism in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the resolutions arising from preceding Congresses to the 8th PAC; . . . COGNIZANT of the concerns expressed by a significant number of delegates regarding the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner. . . . ACKNOWLEDGING the strengths that are gained through collaborative partnerships based on transparency, integrity and political synergies, . . . We acknowledged the need for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 of the AU, and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union and the United Nations Decade for the Peoples of African Descent. Efforts such as these can serve to educate and stimulate individuals within the Global African Family who have not been previously reached to be mobilized in their own interests. . . We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063 . . . Recommend that the identification of appropriate organizations to be a conduit for Africans of the Diaspora to partner with the PAM initiatives at all levels and facilitate the involvement or inclusion of Africans from the Diaspora who have repatriated back home to Mother Africa. Strongly support the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

Whereas H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao issued in September 2022 the call for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 (PAC8.1) to be held in late 2023 in Harare, Zimbabwe stating, “Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa. . . . The African Diaspora Pan African Congress (PAC8.1) will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region”;

Whereas Sixty-four (64) countries participated in the Global African Diaspora Symposium (GADS), 27-28 April 2023 at the Rotunda Hall, in Abuja, Nigeria  in which President Muhammadu Buhari called on Africans at home and abroad to “connect and create a common front through strategic frameworks to address the challenges arising in the new world order”;

Whereas the Governing Council of Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) under the patronage of Ugandan President H.E. Yoweri Museveni is planning to convene the 8th Pan African Congress Part 2 (PAC8.2) in Kampala in August of 2024 to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the 7th PAC held in Kampala in 1994; 

Whereas The African Political Alliance (APA) first ministerial conference in Lomé, Togo - May 3, 2023 stated “The Ministers stressed the need to move towards a synergy of action by Pan­ Africanists and welcomed the project to organize the 9th Pan-African Congress (PAC9) in Lomé, in 2024, by Togo, in collaboration with the African Union, on the theme ‘Renewal of pan-Africanism and Africa's Role in the Reform of Multilateral Institutions: mobilizing resources and reinventing Itself for action’”; 

Whereas the Global African Diaspora Forum, held July 4-7, 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya has just concluded; and

Whereas The Global RootsSynergy Roundtable (GRSR), led by the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group (AUADS) issued the Accra Declaration in November 2019 and hosted the Addis Ababa Summit in May 2022, of which the Resolution from this Roundtable was submitted to the African Union Commission in cooperation with the CIDO, AU ECOSOCC and ACPHR, is now proposing at its Maputo Summit 10-13 July, 2023 to establish an AUADS High Council (HC) that would provide a coherent governance organizational voice for Diaspora participation in the African Union;  

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED

1. Agree, in the spirit of UBUNTU, to communicate, provide mutual support, and effectively collaborate when possible;

2. Agree to harmonize our agendas into a connected effort for mutual benefit;

3. Agree that the AUADS Maputo Summit, the PAC8.1, the PAC8.2 and the PAC9 should be viewed as independent and complementary efforts in alignment with the PAC8.0 resolution “for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives. . . . and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union” in order to overcome “the negative impact on the PAM of not convening subsequent Congresses in a timely manner”;

4. Agree that the PAC8.1 should be viewed as the next necessary step in accordance with PAC8.0 resolution for “the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”;

5. Agree that the PAC8.1 Limited Agenda, and specifically the Agenda Item: Pathway to Dual-Citizenship For Continental Diaspora and Descendants of the Formerly Enslaved is the direct fulfillment of the Working Paper on Desirable Results of the 6th Pan African Congress (PAC6), Tanzania, 1974 that stated, “encourage African and Caribbean states to recognize the principle of dual citizenship for Africans from the West. . . . and that special effort be made to facilitate their acquiring of African citizenship”; 

6. Agree that the PAC8.1 Harare Declaration should include a resolution that the AUADS High Council Proposal finalized at the Maputo Summit should be included as an agenda item to be reviewed, revised where applicable through the process of consensus and ultimately adopted at PAC8.2 and thereby opening the nominations process for both AU 6th Region Ambassadors to the AU Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) and AUADS High Council executives and administrators to be elected at PAC9 in Lomé, Togo; and

1. Agree to the Harmonization Calendar

Drafted by:

Siphiwe Baleka, Coordinator PAC8.1

Reverend Kwame Kamau, African Reparations Minister

Principals solicited:

H.E. President Yoweri Museveni, Republic of Uganda

H.E. President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, Republic of Zimbabwe

H.E. President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe, President of the Togolese Republic

H.E. Kahinda Otafiire, Minister of Internal Affairs of Uganda and Chairman, Governing Council of Global Pan African Movement (GPAM)

H.E. Professor Robert Dussey, Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Integration and Togolese Abroad, Republic of Togo

H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori – Quao, MD FAAFP, Founder and President (ADDI) 

Former African Union Permanent Representative to the United States 

Dr. Barryl A. Biekman, PhD., Coordinator of the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group Europe & Co-Facilitator of the Monitoring & Policy Working Group

CALL FOR THE PAC8.1 CONGRESS BY H.E. AMBASSADOR ARIKANA CHIHOMBORI QUAO

CALL FOR THE PAC 8.2 BY THE GLOBAL PAN AFRICAN MOVEMENT

Siphiwe Baleka and Kamm Howard: Notes on Reparations & Plebiscite Strategy

Kamm Howard and Siphiwe Baleka at the Accra Reparations Conference, November 2023

In July of 2022, Balanta B’urassa History & Genealogy Society Members Siphiwe Baleka and Kamm Howard had the following email exchange discussing reparations and a plebiscite for self determination in the United States:

From: Balanta Society <balantasociety@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 8:04 PM

Subject: Re: Update - Plebiscite Re: Urgent Vote: The People's Struggle

A key to any plebiscite and successful international legal assistance in recognizing the "right to self determination" will be establishing the colonial status and "trust territory" of the historic five-state territory identified by the RNA. To assist in this we could use the federal Indian trust responsibility.  According to the U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Affairs,

“Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government."

Previously, we had no status as "tribes" since American ethnocide severed our ancestral links and replaced our natural ethnic/tribal status with the dehumanized "black/negro" status designation that fell outside the tribal trust responsibility and international law.

Now, with the advent of DNA testing and the ability to re-establish ancestral/ethnic/tribal identity, new pathways towards nationhood status can be pursued. This is addressed in Agenda Item 1 of  the Agenda for Black America's Restoration and Self Determination  which is to identify the ancestral lineage of every person claiming to be the descendant of slaves. This has also been adopted by the Illinois House of Representatives through Resolution 292. This can be accomplished through a federally subsidized, 4-year college training program in applied genealogy producing 2.1 million graduates employed as professional genealogists over the next 15 years in the Lineage Restoration Workers Project. With both DNA-testing paid for through the project and genealogy documentation, all New Afrikans will be able to identify and claim their "tribal" heritage - i.e Balanta in America or Mende in America, etc. Having identified the original tribal and national identities, a tribal plebiscite could be conducted where each tribe could vote on whether it wanted a tribal trust relationship similar to the Indian land reservations in the US, or if they wanted to become part of the Republic of New Afrika or return to their original tribal homeland.

In any event, it is yet another legal strategy that could result in legal obligations of the US government. 

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

From: N'COBRA Chicago <ncobrachicago@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: Reparations Leaders Successful Vatican Meeting

Thank you all. Please share and study the Presentment. This is the model going forward - identifying crimes/harms, detailing the legacy from those crimes, and indicating the reparations needed to address the legacy.  Crimes, Injuries, Repair. The Kamm-Durban Model

Kamm 

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

From: Balanta Society <balantasociety@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 7:31 PM

Subject: Re: Reparations Leaders Successful Vatican Meeting

To: N'COBRA Chicago <ncobrachicago@gmail.com>

Brother Kamm,

Regarding this: "This is the model going forward - identifying crimes/harms, detailing the legacy from those crimes, and indicating the reparations needed to address the legacy." - do we not also need to add something like "initiating international legal proceedings" if we are saying that the guilty parties have a moral and legal obligation? If we have identified specific violations of international law, what are the specific steps needed to initiate legal proceedings in international forums? Whose responsibility is it to answer such questions? For example, suppose down the road the Vatican refuses to provide satisfactory remedy - what then? 

How do you hold the Vatican, a party to the Geneva Convention, responsible for its role in the total war/war crimes/crimes against humanity if not by taking them before the World Court/the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN)....

As the wealthy Nigerian businessman, Chief Bashorun M. K. O. Abiola, who was later elected President of Nigeria said in a speech delivered in London in 1992: “It is international law which compels Nigeria to pay her debts to western banks and financial institutions: it is international law which must now demand that the western nations pay us what they have owed us for six centuries.”

I think we need to do more than just identify which international laws were violated - we need to know exactly what we must do to enforce international law (if possible), or at least the exact steps needed to bring litigation. This is what Malcolm X was attempting to do - enter the World Court. How do we do that? Where are we in the process? If it requires a UN member state to initiate the case, which UN Member state are we consulting about this like Malcolm was consulting with Kenya? IF no state is willing to initiate a case, how do we get a specialized agency at the UN to request an advisory opinion from the court? What exactly is the process??? Why haven't we done this already???

Anyway, this is what your great work has provoked me to think about!

Congratulations again.

Siphiwe

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

From: N'COBRA Chicago <ncobrachicago@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 4:56 AM

Subject: Re: Reparations Leaders Successful Vatican Meeting

To: Balanta Society <balantasociety@gmail.com>

All great questions, Siphiwe. What I did not mention in that model, which is the model for a presentment to the criminal entity, is the mechanism I put forward several years ago called Reparations Enforcement. It speaks exactly to the questions you raise. Who enforces our international/divine  lega/humanl right to be repaired? Only states can go to the the World Court, as you stated. However, through education, mobilization and direct action, we have the ability to be the enforcers. We also must do as you suggest, get state parties to take upon the cause. This cannot be done in isolation. When we saw Zimbabwe and Brazil jump out there after Durban, both were neutralized, punished and coopted by right-wing/ neo-colonial forces of the West. 

The major necessity for us now is wide-spread education and then synchronized implementation. That is why the Presentment must be translated in all the colonial languages we speak. We are 1 billion strong. We have to have instruments and actions to mobilize a critical mass to achieve our desired ends. All that you are thinking of  is relevant and once we develop the answers,  we have to find ways to operationalize the answers.

We are assembling minds to first come up with the answers, while we must spread the presentment. Please let me know what resources are need for you to translate the Presentment into Portugese to distribute in  Guinea Bissau, Angola, Mozambiqiue and Brazil?

Kamm

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

From: N'COBRA Chicago <ncobrachicago@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 9:53 PM

Subject: Re: Reparations Leaders Successful Vatican Meeting

To: Balanta Society <balantasociety@gmail.com>

Brother Siphiwe, your thinking is always on a high level. I would like for us to continue this conversation in a separate thread. The Chair of the Permanent Forum of People of African Descent is with the Global Circle. We also have a representative with the AU involved also. Before reaching out to anyone, we need to develop a list of contacts and needs. It would be best to assess in a comprehensive manner than individually.  

 As far as the translation, you determine which route the Balanta Society wants to take. We will get the resources to make it happen.

Here is the 2014-15 document on Reparations Enforcement

Kamm

Siphiwe and Kamm in Guinea Bissau, June 2021

Siphiwe and Kamm at the Cacheu Slave Museum "Door of No Return" in Guinea Bissau

Kamm and Siphiwe meeting with the Minister of Culture in Guinea Bissau

Siphiwe, Robin Rue Simmons, and Kamm at the 1st session of PFPAD

Kamm and Siphiwe at Accra Reparations Banquet 2023

STOP CALLING IT A SLAVE TRADE: YOUR ANCESTORS WERE PRISONERS OF WAR! NKECHI TAIFA REFLECTS ON THE TEACHINGS OF IMARI OBADELE

"Resistance generally begins with the desire of individuals to remove intolerable conditions imposed by an unpopular regime. Feelings of opposition towards the governing authority and hatred of existing conditions that conflict with the individuals values, interests, aspirations and desired way of life spread from the individual to his family, close friends and neighbors. In the 1950s and 60s, this was exactly the case for 'Black people' towards the insitutionalized racism, 'Jim Crowism', and second-class status that had long been imposed by the oppressor-state social order. Rosa Parks felt that to have to surrender her bus seat to a white male was intolerable. The Deacons for Defense regarded systmatic Klan murders, bombings and beatings of the people to be intolerable. The men and women who joined Huey Newton and Bobby Seale to form the Black Panther Party had determined that racist police oppression and brutality was intolerable. {Note: Siphiwe Baleka felt that being forced to pay income taxes to a fraudulent IRS was intolerable and thus he stopped paying taxes. He felt an undignified life in the USA was so intolerable he left and moved to his ancestral homeland of Guinea Bissau. He felt the lack of international recognition of New Afrikan rights to self determination was intolerable so he accepted to serve as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of New Afrika.] A significant problem for the New Afrikan Independence Movement today is that New Afrikan people, for the most part, do not perceive either their personal or their collective condition as 'intolerable'. In fact, since the 1980s, the paramilitary style police intimidation/repression campaign that begun with COINTELPRO (Phase One) has escalated to the degree that rampant killing of New Afrikan males by police as a matter of policy is viewed to be routine. It is an irony that our people hled conditions to be intolerable which have subsequently worsened, and that they now find not merely tolerable, but actually, of little or no cause for concern. A significant part of this problem has been an underdeveloped understanding of war and warfare on the part of our people in general and our nationalist leadership in particular . . . . The facts are that New Afrikans are still enslaved, and have no control of the major factors that govern their lives. . . . It is imperative that we undertake a major campaign to make self-determination a cause that is compelling or which seems compelling enough to motivate sufficient numbers of New Afrikans to act assertively in its support. It is our task to convince the New Afrikan people that they have nothing to lose and more to gain by rejecting oppressor-state domination over their lives and futures, and establishing independence. This belief system will not come to the people on its own, and will especially not even be considered by them as long as the oppressor-state's information warfare machine is allowed to run un-checked."

- from the New Afrikan Military Science Institute, The Strategic Communications Campaign and Narratives for Information Battles, MSI 2-2 21 November 2010

In her amazing book, Black Power, Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice, legendary reparations lawyer Nkechi Taifa writes, 

“I also studied at the political feet of Imari Obadele. I heard Brother Imari speak so often for so many years that I sometimes don’t know where his words ended and where mine began. My political philosophy fused with his, and I often mimicked, quoted or paraphrased his words, tone and inflection. I learned the history, politics and New Afrikan political science from Brother Imari in his own words, and from his own strong, uncompromising voice.

I learned from him that freedom, independence, and self-determination, all aspects of Black nationalism, have been objectives sought by Black people ever since we were kidnapped and forced to come to this country. . . . Ever since our ancestors were snatched from our homeland of Africa, there have always been people who fought back and fashioned resistance movements to regain freedom and independence. Brother Imari taught that it was military forces nurtured in the hills of Santo Domingo that brought independence to Haiti. One-hundred seventy-five years before that, we revolted and established the legendary Palmares Republic, which lasted over 100 years, located in what is now Alagoas, Brazil, bordering Bahia. . . .

‘Sister Nkechi,’ Brother Imari would stress, 

‘You must internalize the history of Black resistance to enslavement. . . . We did not come here voluntarily. . . . We came as the result of war. . . . Let us start with Article One, Section Nine [of the U.S. COnstitution]. This Article expressly guaranteed and sanctioned the continued importation of kidnapped African prisoners of war to every state that might desire enslaved people until the year 1808. We need to remember that the U.S. upheld in its Constitution in Article One, Section Two, Clause Three the further dehumanization of the African prisoner of war by relegating their status to that of 3/5 of a White man. . . . It was war conducted against the African nation in America under the authority of yet another constitutional provision – Article Four, Section Two, Clause Three, known as the fugitive slave provision. This Clause mandated that no African, even if he or she had reached a free state, was safe. And it was the duty, the legal obligation, and the constitutional responsibility, of every White person to track down runaway people and deliver them up to the government.'

Brother Imari analyzed that this right to self-determination would extend to the right to return home to Africa, since we had been in America as the result of a vicious kidnapping, unmatched in human history. He taught that the right to self-determination would extend to the right to general emigration, as our families had been cruelly fragmented and spread across the diaspora. The right to self-determination would also extend to the right to seek admission as citizens to the American community and strive to make a multi-racial democracy real.

He concluded forcefully, ‘and the right to self-determination would extend to the right to establish an independent separate territory of our own.’ This was justifiable because we had been illegally denied the rights and privileges afforded those in the American community. The Black Nation had legally been constructed outside of the American community, and as a consequence, we found ourselves in great numbers, enforced illiteracy, and severed homeland ties on soil claimed by the U.S. . . .

Brother Imari and the Republic of New Afrika taught me that international law prohibits Portugal from going to Angola and telling the Angolan people that they are Portuguese citizens. That same law prohibits France from making the Algerian people French citizens. Yet that is exactly what we have accepted from the U.S. government, without debate. They said the 14th amendment made us citizens, and we accepted that message, lock, stock and barrel – despite our rights under international law, and despite the repressive actions of the U.S. government and its White citizenry.

Brother Imari stressed, ‘It is not too strong to say that all this was and is, war,’ though not being declared with the usual solemnities. Despite this war by the stronger nation against the weaker, ‘Black nationalism,’ he declared, ‘survived and persisted to the present day.’

‘The problem,’ Brother Imari often stated, ‘is that White nationalism and fraud has left many otherwise fine African minds among us functionally unable to think of independence and land as a viable option for nationhood.’ He continued. ‘Some of us, however, feel that freedom cannot be amorphous and misty. It must be, as Brother Malcolm once stated, for land and sovereignty.’ Brother Imari further taught me that unless the struggle is for land and independence, ‘it is a domestic matter between citizens of a nation who are treated right and those who are treated wrong, and it is to be settled as a domestic matter between them.’ 

Unfortunately, we have suffered the tragic results of the lack of such a settlement process for over 100 years. . . . 

Barely a year after the RNA’s move to Jackson, MS, as accounted earlier, eleven RNA workers including its now President, Brother Imari, were arrested and imprisoned on bogus murder and conspiracy charges, as well as ‘waging war against the state of Mississippi,’ a scurrilous charge later dropped. . . .

I recall hearing Brother Chokwe Lumumba speak at a gathering around the late 1970s. I was captivated by his fiery presentation. ‘We aren’t talking about a mere question of police brutality,’ he admonished. ‘We’re not talking about a question of civil rights,’ he stressed. ‘We’re talking about a question of war. You may not be at war, but you’re certainly in war!’ he argued. . . . He charged on. ‘We need a plebiscite and we need a military campaign because even if we don’t fight, we die. And people need to know the difference between a crook and a freedom fighter because if we leave it to CBS, we’ll never know!’ . . . 

NAN-PPOW stressed that Prisoners of War (POWs) are a form of political prisoner. These people are members of oppressed nations who have been captured and imprisoned by forces of another nation in the course of warfare, declared or undeclared. POWs usually take the position, consistent with international law, that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over them . . . .

There is a great deal of documented international law to support this position, including the Geneva Convention Protocols One and Two, and Resolutions 1514 and 3303 of the UN General Assembly, which state that colonialism is a crime against humanity and those captured fighting against it are prisoners of war. . . . .

I told the Student Committee Against Racism that the endless names of freedom fighters that began to resist and respond to the war the White nation had been waging against the Black nation on this soil should be common household parlance. I stressed that we must honor, respect and teach about them and their resistance to oppression.

Sundiata Acoli once said that the media rarely say where freedom fighters come from or why they appear. Assata Shakur has stated that the resistance movement calling itself the Black Liberation Army (BLA), rose during the 70s and continued the response to the war that had been waged against African people since the time of the slave trade.

‘The idea of a BLA,’ she said, ‘emerged from conditions in Black communities. Conditions of poverty, indecent housing, massive unemployment, poor medical care, and inferior education. The idea came about because Black people are not free or equal in this country.’ . . .

I emphasized, ‘Our movement is part of the same resistance movement the maroons waged against the slaveholders; the same resistance movement that built the Palmares Republic; the same resistance movement Vesey and Prosser attempted to organize; and the movement Nat Turner struggled for. It was the movement David Walker wrote about; the movement Sojourner Truth spoke about; and the movement Harriet Tubman lived.’ . . .

I remembered the teachings I learned from Brother President Imari Obadele and his persistence on the use of international law. One in particular was use of the international Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, as a defense to the incarceration of Black prisoners of war in the United States, along with various other international law instruments emphasizing the rights of colonial peoples to self-determination. . . .

My revolutionary legal arguments were not only inspired by the theoretical writings of President Imari Obadele, but also by the real life words of Sister Safiya Bukhari, who was arrested in 1975. I beamed when I heard how she bravely stood up in a U.S. courtroom along with her co-defendant Masai Ehehosi and challenged adamantly, ‘You cannot try me in your courts of law. I am a prisoner of war and a citizen of the Republic of New Afrika.’

Safiya and Masai boldly maintained that the State of Virginia had no jurisdiction over them because they were ‘descendants of persons kidnapped from Afrika for purposes of slavery, not allowed to return to Afrika after slavery.’ They demanded their release from custody from Virginia because they were ‘prisoners of war,’ captured while in active status as soldiers in the Black Liberation Army in the U.S., and as such, should be released to the authorities of their nation, the Republic of New Afrika, released to another friendly country, or held under circumstances provided for prisoners of war by customary usages of international law and the appropriate conventions to which the U.S. is a party.

Similarly, in his letter to President Jimmy Carter,64 dated July 16, 1978, President Imari admonished:

‘In United States prisons are such persons as Sister Safiya Bukhari and Brother Masai in state prison in Virginia; James Haskins at Terre Haute, Herman Bell at Atlanta, and others, all members of the Black Liberation Army and citizens, like all blacks, of the black nation, the Republic of New Afrika, who have declared in U.S. Courts that they are prisoners-of-war, having been taken in acts of belligerency against the United States, which is waging a war of genocide against the black nation. Despite the fact that the United States is a signatory to the Geneva Convention of 1949, not one of these persons, not one Indian or black in American jails, has been ex-tended the protections of the Treaty.’ . . .

Gilda Sherrod Ali concluded . . . ‘Our people are at war with the police in the U.S. We are at war on crack cocaine in the U.S. We have a lot of work to do.’

Through it all, Assata Shakur was liberated, the Brinks trial began, the MOVE compound was bombed,an Independent Black Foreign Policy was developed, and the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA)57 was birthed.

It can never be overstated the influence of Obadele’s wisdom upon me, and it is my hope that one day he and his philosophies will be elevated to their rightful place in the annals of history. . . .”

A Matter of War: Imari Obadele, Our Enslavement in the 13 Colonies and the United States, the Republic of New Afrika and Reparations

**********

REVISITING THE BATTLE PLAN: THE STRATEGY OF THE REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRIKA TO LIBERATE BLACK AMERICANS

**********

REVISITING THE BLACK LIBERATION ARMY'S MESSAGE TO THE BLACK MOVEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD

**********

Excerpt from CARICOM Reparatins Commission leader Prof Hilary Beckles' speech “The Age of Terror: Europe and the Trade in Africans in West Africa,” given 3-2-2023

"We also know that this military engagement in Africa began as a search for gold. And shifting from gold trade to the kidnapping of enchained labor. That was the enormity of this military complex that was unleashed upon the indigenous people of Africa . . . In Europe the royal families were the principle investors in these military operations. . . . The British Royal African Country had the full might of the British army and navy behind them. No West African government had the military capacity to withstand the military onslaught of these companies. These companies built forts along the coast of West Africa from Senne Gambia to Congo. . . . These corporations, and I have to emphasize this for people who have not been effectively exposed, there is a belief which you will find from observing movies and Hollywood type images, that slave traders were just a group of random individuals who took a small ships went out and randomly grabbed people and took them down the river and put them on a boat. You are looking at the most highly organized commercial military complex at this time. These corporations had dozens and dozens of ships, and thousands of soldiers in West Africa on the coast to protect the storage and the shipment. They were Highly militarized with the latest military technology with the guns and the cannons and they were able to penetrate deeply into Africa with this military capacity. The Wealth that they accumulated, which was in the first instance the monopoly wealth of the royal families, eventually tricked down to the private sector, when they were given free access and down to the banks. The Bank of England was established in 1694 to help to finance the slave trade. All of the wealth coming back into England, going to the royal family and aristocracies that money had to be converted into investment capital . And so the Bank Of England was created . . . ."

Balanta Society Report from the Accra Reparations Conference, November 14-17, 2023

Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America President Siphiwe Baleka addressing the Accra Reparations Conference.

As a service to my people and for the sake of full disclosure, let me start this story from the beginning. I am taking the long journey so that everyone can understand the various nuances that took place during the Accra Reparations Conference. My participation involves a substantial backstory. . . .

Dr. Beryl Biekman invited me to commemorate the 20 Year Anniversary of the Article 3q Amendment 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.” I was the only “African American” present when the article was passed at the African Union in February 2003 and finalized on July 11, 2003 in Maputo. Dr. Biekman wanted to make July 11 “Africa Diaspora Day” at the African Union. I was fortunate enough to be on the panel with Dr. Eric Phillips, Chairman, Guyana Reparations Committee and one of the CARICOM Reparations Commission (CRC) three Vice-Chairs, entitled, VISION STATEMENTS ON THE GLOBAL CASE FOR REPARATORY JUSTICE: LEGAL STRUCTURES, MECHANISMS, INSTRUMENTS & MODALITIES. Unfortunately, Mr. Dorbrene O’Marde, Chairman for the Antigua and Barbuda Reparation Support Commission and another Vice-Chair of the CRC led by Sir Hilary Beckles, was unable to join the panel. After the panel, I made the following recommendations:

It was during this time that I learned about the upcommoning CONTINTENTAL STUDY TOUR ON REPARATIONS AND HEALING TO THE CARIBBEAN to be hosted by the REPUBLIC OF BARBADOS, 24th – 29th JULY 2023. According to the event’s Concept Note,

“The high-level study tour will bring together Ambassadors and representatives from selected Member States of the African Union, Pan-African academics, advocates, practitioners and campaigners in Africa, who have worked on or are working on issues related to reparations, healing and Pan-Africanism. The aim of the study tour is to bring together voices and perspectives of the African political and civil society leadership to draw lessons and learnings from their Caribbean counterparts on how to develop a unified front on reparations for historical crimes. . . . This study tour will offer an opportunity for political leaders and actors in the African continent to share and learn about the “hows” of advancing a collective agenda in the political and civil society spaces. . . .A group of distinguished experts in the field of reparations and healing from Africa and the Caribbean will come together to facilitate a series of actionable dialogues on key themes related to the reparations movement.”

Seeing a great opportunity for Pan African collaboration in the spirit of Ubuntu, and knowing my expertise on the issues of Afro Descendants’ Right to Return, Citizenship, and the business of internal reparations and healing the transgenerational epigenetic effects of chattel enslavement and ethnocide, I felt it my duty to attend the Study Tour. Towards that end, I sent the following letter to Dr. Justice Alfred Mavedzenge, PhD Constitutional law (UCT) | LLM Constitutional & Admin law (UCT) |LLB (UNISA) |BA (MSU) Senior Legal Advisor/Programs Director for Africa Judges and Jurists Forum (AJJF):

Justice Alfred Mavedzenge replied,

“We have to follow protocol my brother. This is an AU Study tour and i cannot make those decisions without the organisers. Unfortunately the organisers from the AU are on flights at the moment and i cannot reach them. . . . Its going to be difficult to do the logistics to bring you to Barbados because all of the organisers are now travelling and they are no longer available to process those logistics. Lets keep in touch and make sure you participate in the next activities brother.”

On August 9, I messaged Justice Alfred Mavedzenge and we had the following exchange: ,

Me: Nsumna. Greetings Justice Alfred. As per your instruction, “Lets keep in touch and make sure you participate in the next activities" can you forward to me the information on how I can participate in the next event in Accra in October? Thank you in advance. 🙏🏾 Additionally, I'm still trying to get information on any of the discussion in Barbados concerning an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ. I'm about to publish another article on this.

Justice Alfred Mavedzenge: Greetings Nsumna. Sorry i missed your call. Its almost midnight here. We are not involved in the Accra event my brother. About the study tour, we do not have the report yet. It is being drafted and it should be ready by first week of September. I do not have any information about the Advisory opinion. I am also not sure if there is any Opinion. What i heard people discussing in Barbados is the possibility of applying for one.

Me: Nsumna. Greetings again. Ok, Thank you. No, there is no Advisory Opinion, but a Request is being made through the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent (PFPAD). Epsy Campbell Bar has responded to me, author of the Request and the exact questions to be answered, directly. You can see her letter of response by clicking the link. My concern is that if the Barbados group initiates a separate request for an Adivsory Opinion, it may have negative consequences, especially if the right questions are not asked. The ICJ may not appreciate multiple requests on essentially the same subject with different questions. Anyway, this is why I am trying to connect with people from the Barbados event. Please forward to me the contact for the next Study Tour event, which I was told was to be held in Accra, in October. From who can I get information?

Justice Alfred Mavedzenge: Indeed, the problem is exactly what you mentioned of multiple resquests and lack of channels to share information across the board. I am not sure who exactly is organising the Accra event but i know that its being organised by the Ghana govt. If you have a contact in Ghana they will let you know. Otherwise if i find the contact i will also share with you.

Me: This is the event in Ghana? But it’s not connected to the Study Tour? I’m a little confused…. https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/slave-trade-reparations-au-approves-ghana-conference.html

Justice Alfred Mavedzenge: the Study tour and the Accra event are two different things organised by two different groups Chief. Thats why i have no knowledge of the Accra event bro. The Accra event is being done by the Govt of Ghana while th Barbados study tour was organised by civil society but for AU Ambassadors

Me: My apologies for the nuisance. 😂Yes. This is my source of confusion. So what is the next Study Tour event? This is what I am trying to find out. 🙏🏾

Justice Alfred Mavedzenge: No worries brother. The reparations movement is fragmented and that is the problem

Meanwhile, on August 11, I had the following exchange with Hilary Brown, Programme Manager Culture & Community Development · CARICOM Secretariat:

Me: Greetings Dr. Hilary Brown. I am Siphiwe Baleka and Dr. Baryl Biekman suggested I contact you to talk about a very serious Global Afrikan Reparatory Justice strategy - requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ. I came up with the strategy to use the mandate for the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent to pursue this. Here is the orignal mandate, signed by 248 African and African Diasporans, that was sent to Ms. Epsy Campbell Barr. I was not invited to the Study Tour in Barbados, but I attempted to come anyway, following the recommendations to the PAN AFRICAN ROOTS-SYNERGY MAPUTO ROUNDTABLE (PARSMR) panel 𝑽𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑶𝑵 𝑺𝑻𝑨𝑻𝑬𝑴𝑬𝑵𝑻𝑺 𝑶𝑵 𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑮𝑳𝑶𝑩𝑨𝑳 𝑪𝑨𝑺𝑬 𝑭𝑶𝑹 𝑹𝑬𝑷𝑨𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑶𝑹𝒀 𝑱𝑼𝑺𝑻𝑰𝑪𝑬: 𝑳𝑬𝑮𝑨𝑳 𝑺𝑻𝑹𝑼𝑪𝑻𝑼𝑹𝑬𝑺, 𝑴𝑬𝑪𝑯𝑨𝑵𝑰𝑺𝑴𝑺, 𝑰𝑵𝑺𝑻𝑹𝑼𝑴𝑬𝑵𝑻𝑺 & 𝑴𝑶𝑫𝑨𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑰𝑬𝑺. I did submit these recommendations to present to the Study Tour to Justice Alfred Mavedzenge, Eric Phillips and David Commissiong. Dr. Biekman indicated that you would be willing to listen to a discussion of the PFPAD Request for an ICJ Advisory Opinion. My concern is that if the Barbados group initiates a separate request for an Adivsory Opinion, it may have negative consequences, especially if the right questions are not asked. The ICJ may not appreciate multiple requests on essentially the same subject with different questions. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐈'𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐎𝐌 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬.

Hilary Brown: Greetings Siphiwe. Thank you for making contact and sending all this material. After I’ve finished reviewing, I will send my feedback. Thanks for your patience.

Unfortunately, I did not hear back from Ms. Brown. However, by September 17, Dr. Biekman, Dr. Eric Phillips and I began working on the draft for the Dutch Apology in Legislation. Here is the draft that I submitted which became the base for the final draft:

It was during this period that Dr. Eric Phillips became familiar with my work on the Dum Diversas declaration of total war and the prisoner-of-war suffering chattel enslavement and ethnocide legal strategy that I was advancing at the Inter American Commssion on Human Rights (IACHR). the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, and, most recently, at the fifth periodic review of the United States under the International Covenenat on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

At first, Dr. Phillips felt my work was brilliant and supported it. When I shared my concerns after reading the article explaining that 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐍’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 (𝐈𝐂𝐉) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟏𝟎 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, Dr. Phillips replied:

So, thinking that Dr. Phillips was my ally in CARICOM, I was surprised when out of nowhere he became the most vocal critic and our debates in various WhatsApp group spilled over into an email thread with over 250 stakeholders. It wasn’t until my first conversation with Mr. Dorbrene O’Marde that I understood that he was behind Dr. Phillips’ about face! Here is an excerpt of the email thread exchange/debate on the eve of the Accra Reparations Conference answereing some of Dr. Phillips points:

Me: “My good comrade Eric,

At least now we are discussing some of the important strategies. So let me address some of your statements.

1. "you seem to believe that because you are not invited to a meeting between CARICOM and the Africa Union, that they have colonized minds etc ......." The Conference was not advertised as a meeting between CARICOM and the AFRICAN UNION. According to the public announcement, 

"The Accra Reparations Conference, being co-organized by the Republic of Ghana and the African Union Commission, seeks to promote dialogue, knowledge sharing and actionable strategies among diverse and relevant stakeholders. . . .The Accra Reparations Conference, building on previous and present efforts in favour of reparation intends to build an all-African peoples unified front for the advancement of the cause of reparatory justice. That front endorsed by the African Union, with the strategic support of CARICOM and various stakeholders in the United States of America and in Europe will constitute the first ever African Committee of Experts on reparations. The Committee, drawn from relevant fields including law, will be established for the purpose of developing a Common African Position on Reparations and incorporate therein, an African Reparatory Programme of Action. . . . The conference will convene political leaders from the African continent and the Caribbean region, policymakers at the global, continental, regional and national levels, academics and scholars, civil society actors and relevant stakeholders from around the continent 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝑫𝒊𝒂𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒂 for substantive deliberations, the sharing of best practices, and the development of actionable strategies to promote and advance a continental initiative for reparatory justice."  

So you must correct yourself and stop making it seem like this is a private CARICOM/AU meeting. Secondly, I am invited. Attached is my invitation letter. Thirdly, the Resolution on Africa’s Reparations Agenda and The Human Rights of Africans In the Diaspora and People of African Descent Worldwide - ACHPR/Res.543 (LXXIII) 2022 - Dec 12, 2022

"Calls upon member states to: . . . take measures to eliminate barriers to acquisition of citizenship and identity documentation by Africans in the diaspora; to establish a committee to consult, seek the truth, and conceptualize reparations from Africa’s perspective, describe the harm occasioned by the tragedies of the past, establish a case for reparations (or Africa’s claim), and pursue justice for the trade and trafficking in enslaved Africans, colonialism and colonial crimes, and racial segregation and contribute to non-recurrence and reconciliation of the past;, . . . 4. Encourages civil society and academia in Africa, to embrace and pursue the task of conceptualizing Africa’s reparations agenda with urgency and determination.” 

If it was necessary to call for the conceptualizing of an African reparations agenda, it meant that the current one was insufficiently African....  It is because some are still using the colonial narratives and frameworks while pushing back against "Africa's claim" and the new narrative(s) that conceptualize Africa's reparations from Africa's perspective - one long rooted in African indigenous law related to the treatment of prisoners of war - is why I am suggesting that some still have colonized minds. 

2.  "Your view of approaching the ICJ with a "prisoner-of-war" strategy that has no historical or literature heritage (Durban, DDPA, even the PFPAD which is a derivative of Durban") is questionable from a practical point of view. " -  First, it is not "my" view. It is a view shared by many, including the 248 activists, professors and lawyers who are signatory to the Request for the ICJ Opinion. Second, it is based on history and literature as well as documented slave voyage data. Did you think I made up the narrative out of thin air? Perhaps you might think otherwise if you read Prof Hilary Beckles' speech “The Age of Terror: Europe and the Trade in Africans in West Africa,” given 3-2-2023. Professor Beckles repeatedly states, 

"We also know that this military engagement in Africa began as a search for gold. And shifting from gold trade to the kidnapping of enchained labor. That was the enormity of this military complex that was unleashed upon the indigenous people of Africa . . . In Europe the royal families were the principle investors in these military operations. . . . The British Royal African Country had the full might of the British army and navy behind them. No West African government had the military capacity to withstand the military onslaught of these companies. These companies built forts along the coast of West Africa from Senne Gambia to Congo. . . . These corporations, and I have to emphasize this for people who have not been effectively exposed, there is a belief which you will find from observing movies and Hollywood type images, that slave traders were just a group of random individuals who took a small ships went out and randomly grabbed people and took them down the river and put them on a boat. You are looking at the most highly organized commercial military complex at this time. These corporations had dozens and dozens of ships, and thousands of soldiers in West africa on the coast to protect the storage and the shipment. They were Highly militarized with the latest military technology with the guns and the cannons and they were able to penetrate deeply into Africa with this military capacity. The Wealth that they accumulated, which was in the first instance the monopoly wealth of the royal families, eventually tricked down to the private sector, when they were given free access and down to the banks. The Bank of England was established in 1694 to help to finance the slave trade. All of the wealth coming back into England, going to the royal family and aristocracies that money had to be converted into investment capital . And so the Bank Of England was created . . . ."

So, I think you should defer both to me and Professor Beckles - the prisoner-of-war narrative is well documented in history and well understood by those of us who have taken up the mandateof conceptualizing Africa’s reparations agenda with urgency and determination.Professor Beckles correctly identified the military nature of the enterprise, but he fell short of providing the complete narrative of naming the war - the declared Dum Diversas War - to properly frame the military action. Once we do that - and teach the world that we are victims of warfare, not trade, then we will have a true and firm basis for our agenda. Imagine trying to talk about World War I and World War II as the "Era of European Resource Adjustment" or some other innocuous name......

From a practical point of view, it was already stated at the 2nd Seesion of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as the ICJ are inadequete for adjudicating reparatory justice claims concerning the enslavement of African people and subsequent violations of their human rights, including crimes of genocide and ethnocide. Thus, practicaly, it doesn't make sense to enter a claim in those arenas. However, preliminary to such claims, however, would be requesting an advisory opinion in which the court would answer the fundamental questions which would determine the case. This is the reason why requesting the advisory opinion from the ICJ on the set of questions pertaining to status as prisoners of war is the correct move at this time. That's the nature of precedent - there must be a "first time".....

3. "it was African tribes who fought other African tribes...to obtain "prisoners-of-war" ......albeit, they were incentivised by colonisers...."   And this is the strength of the Dum Diversas-prsioner-of-war-ethnocide narrative. Reparations are for the victims of that warfare. As victims, we determine what responsibilities each party has. There is no escape for Europeans for their role simply because some Africans entered the war in complicity with the Europeans. That is not a contradiction nor a conceptual problem. We are not children here saying, “well, he did it, too!" as if people can't look at what happened and see who did what. When you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar, there is no legal defence recognized as, “But he did it, too so why am I being punished?”  We identify who captured and sold us - period. The Africans involved are guilty for what they did and the Europeans involved are guilty for what they did. The Africans owe us recognition of our right to return and the Europeans owe us the wealth derived from our ancestors labor as well as damages for the crime of Ethnocide. Africans did not commit Ethnocide against us. Africans did not subject us to chattel enslavement. But Africans were involved in capturing us as prisoners of war. Shouldn’t they also atone and pay reparations in the form of granting citizenship and assisting in our reintegration? Is that what Article 3q of the AU Constitution is all about?

More importantly, however, is that there is substantial body of African law pertaining to prisoners-of-war prior to the European invasion. From this body of African law comes our position that, according to African law, chattel enslavement and ethnocide were illegal at the time. This is important because current international law demands that where there is a conflict of laws/legal system, it is the legal system of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed that must govern adjudication. Thus, IT WAS ILLEGAL. Professor Beckles paper addresses this: 

"The chattel slave was not an African product. One of the characteristics of European History has been this notion that slavery existed everywhere and therefore there was nothing new in what they were engaged in and this was one of the first mythology and lies and deception imbedded in European History. The word Slavery was used historically in the most loose and elastic fashion to include all relationships in which individuals experience some reduction in your freedom. Institution of marriage, the female experience some reduction of freedom through resources, control of them, naming and control of children. This is imbedded in most systems of the world historically. This was seen as the shallow end. Then there was a question of What do you do with prisoners of wars, you go to war you have prisoners you have a choice, You can execute them as losers or bring them home and integrate them into your community but now they are now working on behalf of the state, chief or family. But these people had rights. They had rights to live in the community, rights to resources, rights to their own family, to get married, they could become high officers in the families in the royalty. . . . None of that was significant in the context of what the Europeans wanted. The Europeans invented a new category of slavery that had never been seen on planet earth before. No culture of civilization had ever created this thing called chattel slavery. Have never been found before. It was something specifically created to enslave the African and bring him across the Atlantic to slavery in the Americas. That moment in history. How do I establish the authenticity of that statement? What chattel slavery was? This is something that seems to have erupted from the depth of hell. Never seen before. First, A Chattel slave under law is not a human being. In no system of labor,in no system of domestic usage, in no system of family usage, in no system in which the word slavery was used before were those people denied their human identity –all of these people who were classified as slaves loosely were seen as heroic people were people who had status in their families. They performed domestic work, they performed agricultural work, they were married they had their children, many became ambassadors of the kings to go and do things on behalf of the king, they were just servants. In chattel slavery The African was not a human being, the African was property. The so called domestic slave in Africa was not Property, they were human beings whose identity was respected."

Here, Professor Beckles establishes the connection between the prisoners of war, identity and Chattel slavery resulting in ethnocide in European law. And herein lies the superiority of the strategy I am presenting: it allows African nations to tell the FULL TRUTH OF WHAT HAPPENED. It allows African nations to understand that some Africans were complicit in capturing prisoner of war and transferring them into European jurisdictions. Thus, the responsibility of AFRICANS is recognizing our "Right to Return" to African jurisdictions/territories - i.e. our ancestral homelands. This principle is already established in law and most famously in the 1841 Amistad case. Thus, what we the victims are asking is for citizenship and reintegration programs from African states. Now, when African states grant us citizenship and integration programs, which is the full spirit of the Article 3q Amendment to the AU Constitution, then African can take the moral and legal high ground by saying, "we have fulfilled our responsibility towards reparations for our role in the 'slave trade', now it is time for Europe to do the same and take responsibility for its role." THAT IS THE ONLY PATH TOWARDS TRUE AND FULL REPARATIONS and Africa must lead the way first!  

4. "Individuals have no legal standing in international courts" - duh! But prisoners of war have standing under the Geneva Convention and peoples have standing under the ICCPR. It is only for the states protecting them to invoke them. Why hasn't CARICOM or the AU invoked the rights of all those peoples/ethnic groups that suffered ethnocide in Guyana and Surinam? You know, all those PEOPLES we named in the Dutch Apology Draft Legislation? If you think my strategy is trying to get individuals to the ICJ, then you have fundamentally misunderstood what we are doing.

5. "The point I am making is that your personal quest seems to be overshadowing the broader practical approach to reparations." - please let this be the last time you express such a foolish opinion. The number of letters of recommendation, support, and signatories to the Request for the ICJ, let alone the private financial backing supporters have donated is ample proof that I am a true representative of the people speaking truth to power and not someone on a personal quest or seeking glory. You create disharmony and disunity among my many supporters in the reparations movement by attempting to suggest that this effort is personal rather than the historical imperative of the moment and the duty owed to our ancestors. There has always been disunity in our movement, long before me, and I am speaking up for the people who seem to be left out of a lot of important meetings that are doing things in the name of reparations that aren't really reparations.

Really, given the public announcement of the goals and outcomes for the meeting, whether you agree with the prisoner of war strategy or not, don't you think its leading proponent should be given a platform to present it? If I truly am the "superior intellect" in the room as you once put it, why wouldn't the AU and CARICOM want me there to contribute? Fortunately, I have been invited. Unfortunately, the conference is requiring that I self -fund my participation while those with salaries and employment from neocolonial institutions are having their travel and accommodations provided. 

Siphiwe

Dr. Phillips: ‘My good comrade

Sir Hilary is one of the architects of Caricom's 10 point plan, which you are trashing.....although you have quoted him of the Age of Terrorism speech which I attended.....and which he would have incorporated in his thinking about the 10 point plan....the possible legal versus diplomatic versus political solutions

You need to understand the practical realities of the world we live in....   this implies understanding the forces we are dealing with in the ICJ and Europe and agree on what is possible what is achievable.....this is often very different from the academic purity we use in understanding the various possibilities of redress....including your prisoner of war approach from Dum Diversas which is an ecclesical pronouncement.....so unless the Cathloic Church was the government of all European states..we have another complexity.

Look forward to seeing you on Accra....and I hope we take lessons from the Gaza War and Covid 19 into our understanding of appropriate strategies

Eric”

Me: “Greetings Eric,

Of course I know Professor Beckles is an architect of CARICOM's 10 point plan. Apparently, from his recent speech, his understanding has advanced and we are uplifting that part of it while providing constructive criticism where needed. So do not say we are trashing CARICOM's 10 Point Plan. I and many others just aren't satisfied with it. I agree - there are possible legal versus diplomatic versus political solutions .... We are advocating a particular legal and diplomatic solution. Are we not welcome in the arena? Do not be so condescending to suggest that I don't understand the practical issues of the world we live in. Perhaps you need to understand the value of uncompromised voices who speak truth to power. Such voices are necessary. But mind you, I have a diplomatic track record with some successes, so I am not as naive as you may suggest. Since the conference requires that I self-fund my participation while it pays the expenses of those who already have salaries and resources from colonial and neo-colonial institutions and governments, it is still a question whether or not I will make it as a people's representative to Accra. Again, part of the realities of the neocolonial world and system we live in is that those with salaries and government positions are sponsored and those without, those who sacrificed such things in order to stand with the people without contradiction .... Well, we must find our own way..... Ancestors willing, I will see you there my friend. Here's to a worthy debate!

Siphiwe”

Kamm Howard “Good discussion. 

I see this in a different although companion view of what is being largely expressed here. What we are witnessing in the current global reparations movement is a form of elite capture. Officially elite capture in a form of "curruption" where elites siphon off public resources for the benefit of the few. 

I this regard, we see governments and elite orgs co-opting the challenges and cause of reparations that has historically been a grassroots movement. When the Durban World Conference was held, it was a call by civil society, in particular in  1996  the New York based Atty. Roger Wareham of the December 12 Movement (New York, USA) shares his vision of a world conference against racism with Jabril Adelbagi of Sudan,  a high-ranking diplomat at the United Nations, Geneva Switzerland. 1997 UN General Assembly announces there would be a 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), one year after Roger’s and Jabril’s conversation.

This officially brought states into the reparations discussion in one swoop. Not all were on board and many had to be pursuaded in Durban. The outcome was the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. The Caribean States were the first to move as a block with the DDPA. Although Brazil and Zimbawe were the two states that did the most immediately coming out of Durban. (This led to the illegal conviction of DiSiva and the sanctions by the West on Zimbawe. Although DeSilva has returned to power- less-radical however,  the sanctions still remain on Zimbawe). Civil society elsewhere, were still the driving forces on the reparations question. 

Fast foward to the creation of the Permanent Forum and the Accra Summit of 2022. Two initiatives were put forth by civil society that have been captured by the PFPAD -

1) Reparations Presentment to the Vatican to engage in discussions on reparations for inaugurating the TrransAtlanctic Chattelization Wars (as described by Prof. Chinwiezu - who also gave us the concept of internal reparations) After being informed, the Pres of PFPAD sent a letter to the Pope indicating the work of Global Circle for Reparations and Healing thar delivered the Reparations Presentment to the Pope, requesting private conversations. The PFPAD as a body was unaware of this letter nor was the GCRH or any civil society org brought into the discussions or shared with any outcomes. 

2) The ICJ opinion on the status of Afro-descendants being prisoners of war. This was raised at PFPAD 1 and as we all know a pettition for adooption was presented a PFPAD 2. What occurred was the capture of this idea by those who have state power to be utilized only for state reparations CARICOM nations.  

The Accra Summit. The 2023 Accra Summit is the result of the 2022 Accra Summit that was held by Civil Society - in particular the group of orgs that were funded by MacArthur that later became the Global Circle for Reparations and Healing. (The group that with the help of Siphiwe, authored and delivered the Reparations Presentment to Vatican) Accra 2023 is governments and the AU. They list CARICOM as participants, not the CARICOM Reparations Commission CRC,  as they would have to invited the National African American Reparations Commission. However, NAARC, unlike CAR, is civil society. The GCRH were not involved in the planning of Accra 2023 and were just recently invited - as they wanted financial contributions for our participation, which we do not have. Yet they are basing the conference on the work and outcome documents of 2022 Accra Summit, while calling the 2023 Accra Summit an inaugural conference. 

German "Aide" to Namibia A more glaring example of elite capture in its full sense is what is taking place in Namibia. It has been the Ovaherro people (the orgs fighting on their behalf) who have been fighting for reparations for decades from the genocide and land theft of their people from the German government. Because of this fight, the German government pledge $1.1B for development projects over 30 years to "begin the healing".. This was not to the Ovaherro people, was not a return of land, was not financial  reparations. But aide to the government, who is not directing it specifically to the repair of the the genocide of the Ovaherro people or the return of their land.  It is for development projects for Namibia were the Ovaherro people are a minority ethnic group in Namibia. This is criminal. 

As civil society orgs who have led this fight for centuries, we must demand that African states and formal bodies include of in every step and take direction from us. This is one more the internal struggle that we are facing. . . . .

Bro Eric, with all due respect, I have tremendous respect for member states of the CARICOM Reparations Commission and those who sit on that body coming from their respective governments. I simply stated that CRC is supra-governmental body. No judgement what-so-ever. As a Commissioner of the National African American Reparations Commission, we have taken great instruction from the work of CRC. (I have no idea how you came up with an assessment that I was intimating that CRC were "political hacks!")

I am offering constructive critique in hope of changing course before more damage is done. It is factual that very significant actions, introduced by civil society are being moved forward by state players without collaboration with the civil society entities that introduced the actions 

This is not good for the movement. I gave 4 global examples without attacking anyone. (Yes, I named a person but no attack) And the Barbados conference was first shared in Atlanta at the Decolonizing Wealth Conference. Prior to this Barbados conference, at PFPAD 1, it was announced that a joint lawyer/civil society body would be created to address some of the legal issues in the movement - the ICJ opinion request sparked that announcement. However, in Barbados, civil society was left out. I raised this in Atlanta as the planning for Barbados was being initiated and got no response. 

We can and must do better in our collaboration. No one knows this better than our brothers and sisters in Namibia. The Accra conference should at a minimum leave with a governmental consensus  to the Nambian government to give the Ovaherero people their reparations.”

As one participant to the discussion commented, “Finally! Someone is addressing the CARICOM elephant in the room. They have moved on with little to no concern for African Americans who are waging the same fight for reparations that they are.  Has anyone else noticed that? We, the African Americans who are devoting our lives for the Caribbeans right to be included to receive reparations because they live in the US.  Anyone else have thoughts about that? “

This sentiment was expressed in the video African Americans UK "Blacks" NOT invited 2 African Union Reparation Conference Accra Ghana ARC2023? by Yenko Africa

Meanwhile, David Comissiong and I had a rather negative email exchange, too. Thus, there was this subtext that African Americans were being excluded from the Conference and that I, personally, was being excluded for reasons unknown. Given my extensive experience and involvment in the the legal arena, I couldn’t understand why I was not asked to contribute. Feeling a sense of duty, then, I reached out to the Conference Secretariat and several people wrote letter of recommendations, including Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, J.D., M.A. Executive Director Restitution Study Group, Christopher Jones IDPAD Coalition U.K., Dr. Lazare Ki-Zerbo Vice – Président, Centre international Joseph Ki-Zerbo pour l’Afrique et Sa Diaspora, and Cecile Johnson, CEO/Founder African Development Plan Inc./  Human Rights Defender for Afro-Descendants - asking that I be included in the conference:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Deadria Farmer-Paellmann
Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 12:24 PM
Subject: Letter of Recommendation for Siphiwe Baleka to be named to the African Committee of Experts on Reparations at the Accra Reparations Conference
To: <repaconf23@africa-union.org>, <secretariat@accrareparationsconference.com>

To the Accra Reparations Conference,

I am reaching out to you as an advocate for slavery reparations active in the movement for the last 25 years. During that time, I have been exposed to many of the leaders of this struggle and their various strategies for success. Very few have displayed as broad a vision toward justice as Siphiwe Baleka. It is my understanding that the upcoming conference will constitute the first ever African Committee of Experts on Reparations. For the benefit of our people, I recommend that you consider Mr. Baleka for service on this esteemed Committee.

Mr. Baleka is well researched on the transatlantic slave trade and slavery. He has a comprehensive knowledge of our specific African origins, as well as the places we were deposited in the Americas, the conditions of the people,  and the various international agreements and instruments utilized in this crime against humanity. He also has a great knowledge of African nations today through residency and travel.

Mr. Baleka is well versed in DNA technology and how it can be utilized in an effort to secure reparatory justice. This is something my own organization embraces in our work.

Lastly, Mr. Baleka has been engaged in the international community writing policy, listening to and mobilizing peoples, and representing the interests of all Africans. I find him to be a brilliant resource and tireless contributor in work that requires creativity, precision and stamina.

I believe that Mr. Baleka will be an excellent resource and reliable, unifying team player as a member of your esteemed African Committee of Experts on Reparations. I recommend him without reservation.

Respectfully submitted,

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, J.D., M.A.
Executive Director
Restitution Study Group
www.rsgincorp.org

Apparently, the letter writing campaign was successful, since I received an invitation to attend the conference as a delegate:

With this letter of invitation, I was thus preoccupied with raising the funds to pay for my transportation and accommodation at the Accra Reparations Conference. Thanks to some great supporters, I was able to raise $1,815 of the $3,000 fundraising goal to purchase a plane ticket. I now had a Peoples’ mandate as their representative and a mission to:

1) Introduce and explain the Dum Diversas-prisoner of war-ethnocide narrative and legal strategy;

2) Win over the CARICOM representatives and members of the African Union;

3) Influence the decision on the composition of the proposed African Committee of Experts on Reparations and make sure it includes those who have advanced the most in internal reparations;

Before departure, however, there was something extremely important that had to happen. I had to get the blessing of my Balanta ancestors by visiting the sahe ndang (“sacred tree”) in the village of Rucuto. After that visit, the elders prepared a sacred amulet which they gave to me the day before I departed for “All this blessing on your behalf and wishing success in Reparations conference and beyond. May all that comes out of your mouth be like honey!”

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The power of the amulet would turn out to be immediately significant. Upon landing in Accra, while go through passport control, I was asked to show my yellow fever card. Unfortunately, I had left it in my desk at home. Anywone who goes through passport control in an airport in Africa knows how difficult they can be. When I explained to the lady in the booth that I had a yellow fever card but didn’t have it with me, she suggested I get a picture of it. Unfortunately, I couldn’t connect to the airport wifi so she connected me through the hotspot on her phone. Still, no one could find my yellow fever card in my desk! After 20 minutes, however, the lady in the booth looked at me and said, “I want you to go to the conference.” She handed me my passport, nodded her head and signalled me to pass. And with that, the door was open. This was my confirmation of the ancestors help because I have had numerous very negative experiences at passport control… Towards the end of the conference, I would get a second, crystal-clear confirmation of the power of traditional African spirituality and my Balanta amulet.

Following the photo gallery is my report from the Conference.

(hover over the picture for a description)

Self (Crowd) funding my journey.....

As I was initially invited but not sponsored, I had to self fund my journey….

Press Conference

On Friday, November 10th, Siphiwe Baleka, renowned African-American rights activist, president of the Balanta History and Genealogy Association in the United States and leader of the Reparation Council for Guinea-Bissau, held a press conference press at the Dafana Institute. The main reason was his imminent participation in the Accra Reparations Conference, scheduled to take place from November 14th to 17th this year.

Attending the state banquet with Wangechi Muthiru from Kenya

With the powerful Dr. Rhoda Arrindel of St. Maarten

With Izmira Aitch-Hegbe and Balanta Society member Kamm Howard, Director of Reparations United

Izmira Aitch-Hegbe making a presentation from the floor.

Traditional African Clothing

In order to fully represent the people of Guinea Bissau, each day I wore a different “pano di pinti” clothe which captured the attention whenever I walked into the room. Everyone wanted to know where I was from, and thus Guinea Bissau was put on the map. In fact, CARICOM Secretary Hilary Brown, in her closing day keynote speech, made reference to the example of internal reparations that I had set.

With Nana Yaw and another brother from Ghana

With Hilaire Ntakuwundi, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Communal Development, Burundi

With Akwasi Awua Ababio, Director of Diaspora Affairs, Government of Ghana

With President of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, Ms. Epsy Campbell Barr

With Dr. Julius Garvery and an Ambassador from Surinam

With Dr. Khafra and Asha Kambon of the Trinidad & Tobago Emancipation Support Committee

With Dr. Desta Meghoo

With Dorbrene O'Marde

Chairman for the Antigua and Barbuda Reparation Support Commission and also serves as the Vice-Chair of the CARICOM Reparations Commission (CRC), led by Sir Hilary Beckles

With Nkechi Taifa

Somehow, Ghana President H.E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo posted my picture on his facebook page....

and my picture made it into the Ghana press!

I will have more to say about the Open Society Foundation which financed the Conference......

With Dr. Ereicka Bennet, Head of Mission, Diaspora Africa Forum

I was lucky to attend a reception honoring Dr. Julius Garvey, shown here with “Rabbi”. During the reception, I convinced Dr. Garvey to take the African Ancestry dna test to establish the ancestral lineage of his parents, Marcus and Amy Garvey.

With Dr. Ron Daniela and Kamm Howard

With members of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent

I was fortunate enought to be in the same hotel as Catherine Namakula (left) and Barbara Reynolds (WGEPAD Chair, right). We had plenty of great conversations throughout the week.

With Dr. Jimni Adisa, Director CIDO and Head of ECOSOCC at the African Union

Dr. Adisa and I first met in 2003 at the African Union when it adopted Article 3(q) to the Constitution which would be the basis for the Diaspora as the 6th Region of the African Union.

Having lunch with Sharon and Patricia

During lunch, I continued my conversations with Dr. Eric Phillips, Chairman, Guyana Reparations Committee and one of the CRC's three Vice Chairs

With Hazel "The Revolutionary"

Balanta brother Kamm Howard on stage

Dr. Chenzira Kahina

Dr. Rhoda Arrindell

With Brian Kagoro and Gnaka Lagoke

Brian is managing director of Programs at the Open Society Foundations. He is playing an influention role behind the scenes and in front. Gnaka is the Coordinator of Togo’s 9th Pan African Congress

An important conversation . . .

During the 3 hour bus ride to El Mina, Gnaka and I were able to discuss the harmonization of the three Pan African Congresses which are being organized separately.

The gate....

What was interesting was the tour guide mentioning that the original gate had to be replaced because the space between bars was so wide that the prisoners of war held captive, who had been at near starvation for weeks, became so thin and emaciated that they could slip between the bars and escape. So they made new gates to prevent this.

Nkechi Taifa at the El Mina prison

With PFPAD Member Justin Hansford

A little social time with Sharon

Sharon invited me to Apio, her wonderful shop where she produces and sells high quality distilled palm wine - info@naninidistilleries.com +233 502 568 828

Me with Woder, Eric Phillips, David Comissiong and Sharon

On my return, I stopped in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire

On Monday, November 13th, I was invited to the official banquet opening the Accra Reparations Conference. Here is H.E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana, speech at the gala affair:

Here is the video from the first day of the Accra Reparations Conference

DAY 3 OF THE ACCRA REPARATIONS CONFERENCE

(I’m still looking for video from Day 2)

In my notes from the first day, I wrote,

“Africa must first set the exampe of justice and reparations by having a comprehensive “Right of Return” policy that established a unique immigration status for DNA-tested and identified people of African descent (descendants of prisoners of war) that grants citizenship without qualification or fees. Until Africa has such an open citizenship and naturalization Right of Return law, it is in no position to expect European nations to fulfull their obligations - moral, historic, legal and economic.” Here is an example of a Right to Return proclamation for legislation that we have presented to the new administration in Guinea Bissau.

Now, when it is said, “these crimes ….. or crimes against humanity……” WE should say “THIS WAR RESULTING IN WAR CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE FROM AFRICA.” Which is more devasting, a crime or a war? We natural give more “weight” to a victim of “war” than we do to a victim of a mere “crime”. When speaking of our experience, We must refer to the war and name it. This was illustrated, somewhat embarrisingly, during Dr. Julius Garvey’s presentation. Dr. Garvey was making a point about the enormity of the lost African lives during the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1800’s. Dr. Garvey mentioned the tens of millions of deaths in World War 1, the tens of millions more in World War II, the lives lost during the Korean War, the Iraq and Afghanistan War, the War in Ukraine….. And then, we Dr. Garvey sought to contrast that with the over 100 million Africans who died, he incongruously referred to the “SLAVE TRADE”. Perhaps I was the only one who caught it and was taken aback. Why are all the other references to WARS and yet the reference to our experience of losing more than 100 million people is to the benign slave TRADE……???? We do an injustice to our own cause by accepting the colonial narrative used to mask the true nature of what happened, diminishing the horrors of war and reducing them to the gentle “trade”…..

Prof Hilary Beckles, the leader of the CARICOM Reparations Commission makes this exact point in his speech “The Age of Terror: Europe and the Trade in Africans in West Africa,” given 3-2-2023. Professor Beckles repeatedly states, 

"We also know that this military engagement in Africa began as a search for gold. And shifting from gold trade to the kidnapping of enchained labor. That was the enormity of this military complex that was unleashed upon the indigenous people of Africa . . . In Europe the royal families were the principle investors in these military operations. . . . The British Royal African Country had the full might of the British army and navy behind them. No West African government had the military capacity to withstand the military onslaught of these companies. These companies built forts along the coast of West Africa from Senne Gambia to Congo. . . . These corporations, and I have to emphasize this for people who have not been effectively exposed, there is a belief which you will find from observing movies and Hollywood type images, that slave traders were just a group of random individuals who took a small ships went out and randomly grabbed people and took them down the river and put them on a boat. You are looking at the most highly organized commercial military complex at this time. These corporations had dozens and dozens of ships, and thousands of soldiers in West africa on the coast to protect the storage and the shipment. They were Highly militarized with the latest military technology with the guns and the cannons and they were able to penetrate deeply into Africa with this military capacity. The Wealth that they accumulated, which was in the first instance the monopoly wealth of the royal families, eventually tricked down to the private sector, when they were given free access and down to the banks. The Bank of England was established in 1694 to help to finance the slave trade. All of the wealth coming back into England, going to the royal family and aristocracies that money had to be converted into investment capital . And so the Bank Of England was created . . . ."

Professor Beckles, like Dr. Garvey, goes as far as emphasizing the scale of the atrocity but failes to name the war! In my conference notes, I wrote,

“We talk about the abolition of the slave trade. . . . We give dates, documents, etc. But what about the beginning of the ‘slave trade’? How come nobody except myself mentions that it started on June 18, 1452 with a declaration of total war that resulted in a military invasion and the capturing of prisoners of wary?”

And it should be pointed out that Unlike genocide and war crimes, which have been widely recognized and prohibited in international criminal law since the establishment of the Nuremberg principles, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, even though such crimes are continuously perpetrated worldwide in numerous conflicts and crises.

And this underscores why I took to the floor to educate the Conference on the truth: what we erroneously and ignorantly call the “trans Atlantic SLAVE TRADE” was actually the result of a declaration of war issued by Pope Nicholas V on June 18, 1452 know as the Dum Diversas Apostolic Edict which stated,

“we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, 

AND TO LEAD THEIR PERSONS IN PERPETUAL SERVITUDE, AND TO APPLY AND APPROPRIATE REALMS, DUCHIES, ROYAL PALACES, PRINCIPALITIES AND OTHER DOMINIONS, POSSESSIONS AND GOODS OF THIS KIND TO YOU AND YOUR USE AND YOUR SUCCESSORS THE KINGS OF PORTUGAL.”

It is important, as this conference aims to move us forward towards “Building a United Front to Advance the Cause of Justice and the Payment of Reparations to Africa” that we emphatically begin our narrative and claim with the Dum Diversas as the starting point instead of 1619 as H.E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana unfortunately did during his opening statement to the Conference. This makes legal strategic sense, too, since 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 Establishing Africa’s reparation claim on the foundation of “war crimes” has a solid, stronger legal foundation. Indeed, this is the answer to Brian Kagoro’s question that he posed in his opening remarks. Mr. Kagoro stated,

“The Fundamental Question: Is the black body worthy of repair? What is the legal basis…..?”

And this leads to the question, who is Brian Kagoro and why is he important? Why did he give a keynote address at both the Opening and Closing of the Accra Reparations Conference? Why is he giving keynote addressess all over the place????

Siphiwe Baleka, President of the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America and Brian Kagoro, Programme Support Division Director of the Africa Regional Office (AfRO) of the Open Society Foundations (OSF).

According to the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs,

“Brian Kagoro is the Programme Support Division Director of the Africa Regional Office (AfRO) of the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Prior to that he was Founder and Executive Director of UHAI Africa Group, a governance and development consulting firm with operations in Johannesburg, Harare, and Nairobi. Brian is a Pan Africanist and a constitutional and economic relations lawyer.

Prior to establishing UHAI Africa Group, Brian was the Regional Programme Advisor for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Africa Governance and Public Administration Program, where he also led the UNDP Africa Governance Team within the Regional Service Centre for Africa. Prior to joining the UNDP, Brian served as Pan African Head of Policy and Advocacy at Action Aid International. Prior to joining Action Aid, Brian was a Partner at Law at Kantor & Immerman Legal Practitioners in Zimbabwe, where he also served on various Corporate and civil society Boards.

Read Full Bio”

Now, it is important to understand that it was the Open Society Foundation that financed the Barbados’ Study Tour our of which came this Accra Reparations Conference, also financed by the Open Society Foundation. It is said that “The Open Society Foundations champions the search for bold, democratic solutions to our urgent, common challenges that advance justice, equity, and human dignity.” According to the Open Society Foundation website, “George Soros began his philanthropic work in Africa in 1979. Today, Open Society–Africa works on democratic governance, economic advancement, and a host of other issues across the continent.” In 2022, OSF expenditures in Africa totaled $112.5 million, 8.5% of its global budget. Here is the OSF Leadership:

So Brian Kagoro is financed and supported by the OSF and this can partly explain his presence at the Accra Reparations Conference and eslewhere.

Prior to coming to Accra, I had never heard of Brian Kagoro. Recently he went viral for this video:

At the conference, I found all of Mr. Kagoro’s words to be “on point”. Immediately I traded contacts and began sharing messages and documents via WhatsApp. In particular, I found this quote very pertinent and shared it in a WhatsApp group:

Watch this excellent and bold speech Brian Kagoro gave at the 8th East African Philanthropic Conference: https://youtu.be/3pZ0E701Cq8?si=nOFadZUNSZ-lB-DB

However, to my surprise, I started receiving messages cautioning me to be careful of uplifing Mr. Kagoro because of perceived contradictions from his past in Zimbabwe. Another video posted by Rutendo Matinyarare was also going viral:

Apparently, Mr. Kagoro was being accused of collaborating with the West, especially the United States, in bringing sanctions against Zimbabwe and her people, in order to help the political opposition win an election. So I didn’t know what to think….. We talk about traitors, neocolonialists, elite capture, etc., but nobody raises their hand to identify themselves as one of them. So how are we to know?

So I just decided to ask Brian Kagoro himself about it. Let him explain himself.

Below is the paper Mr. Kagoro asked me to read stating his position back in 2010. From reading it and watching a few videos, my understanding is the Mr. Kagoro was taking a principled stand against impunity in Zimbabwe, and specifically against the constitutional provisions that would have allowed Mugabe (and others) to remain as President for life and also would make government officials immune from criminal prosecution. On that I have no problem and in no one does it serve as a kind of Pan African Contradiction. What is troubling to many, however, is that if he did, in fact, collaborate with the US in calling for sanctions, that would be a serious contradiction to the values of Pan Africanism which demand African solutions to African problems. As of this writing, Mr. Kagoro and I have yet to speak where he can answer to this directly.

[Note: at this moment the phone rings. It’s Brian Kagoro. We speak for exactly one hour].

I confronted Brian directly with the accusation that he betrayed his people by collaborating with the west and he promptly set me straight with facts. I also challenged him on the very apparent contradiction that he, as a servant of the OSF was himself an example of the African elite serving white masters who needed to be liberatied. (Note: Brian volunteered his time and never got a salary from OSF over his four years with them. Much of his work was self-funded from his law practice) He answered these shots calmly and skillfully. I realized that the allegations being made against him are largely malicious and/or uniformed. I took ten (10) pages of notes during our conversation. Rather than go into detail about what he said, suffice it to say that I am satisfied with Brian’s position. It’s apparent to me that Brian Kagoro is suffering a similar situation that my brothe Kamm Howard suffered, as the former National Co-Chair of NCOBRA when he accepted the McArthur grant and people complained that he had “sold out”. However, like Brian, Kamm believed that the philanthropic spaces could be tapped to do liberation work without being co-opted. That’s an ongoing debate, of course, and one that I prefer to answer by removing all contradictions and relyiing on Africa and African people to liberate ourselves. But the reparations objective, is, after all, to get resources from the West that are rightfully ours. So it can be argued that philanthropic support is, in fact, micro reparations that are to be used. Brother Kamm was, in my opinion, wrongfully slandered by many who did not know the real story of what happened or why, and those people certainly did not factor Brother Kamm’s track record to give him the benefit of the doubt. At this point, Rutendo Matinyarare’s allegations about Brian Kagoro are a non-issue for me. As Brian said to me,

“The AU coing is a blessing and a challenge. The formation and composition of the African Committee of Experts on Reparations is a decision for the AU member states who will make nominations. . . . I worked to pre-empt the process. CARICOM, CIDO, activists can put together a Commission. Working Commissions can make a report to AU ECOSOCC and CIDO to be part of the process. We must not let the political class hijack it; we must not let the philanthropic class see it as purely economic, and we must not let academic class see it as a research and study project.”

This was exactly my point in the article,

WHO IS AN AFRICAN EXPERT ON REPARATIONS?

All of this speaks directly to the elite capture mentioned by Kamm Howard and others above. Indeed, Esther Stanford Xoesi, Reparationist, Jurisconsult, Community Advocate, Educator, Environmentalist & 'Ourstorian' of the International Social Movement for Afrikan Reparations (ISMAR) tweeted:

SO THE QUESTION NOW IS: HAS THE OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION CAPTURED THE GLOBAL AFRICAN REPARATIONS MOVEMENT (Along with the McArthur Foundation and Liberated Capital through its #Case4Reparations)?

Indeed, I asked Dr. Ron Daniels, founder of the National Afrian American Reparations Commission (NAARC), a partner of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, if he had been consulted about the Accra Reparations Conference or the membership of the proposed African Committee of Experts on Reparations. He shrugged his shoulder and said, “No.” And Kamm Howard, Director of Reparations United, explained above, and is worth mentioning again,

“The 2023 Accra Summit is the result of the 2022 Accra Summit that was held by Civil Society - in particular the group of orgs that were funded by MacArthur that later became the Global Circle for Reparations and Healing. (The group that with the help of Siphiwe, authored and delivered the Reparations Presentment to Vatican) Accra 2023 is governments and the AU. They list CARICOM as participants, not the CARICOM Reparations Commission CRC,  as they would have to invited the National African American Reparations Commission. However, NAARC, unlike CAR, is civil society. The GCRH were not involved in the planning of Accra 2023 and were just recently invited - as they wanted financial contributions for our participation, which we do not have. Yet they are basing the conference on the work and outcome documents of 2022 Accra Summit, while calling the 2023 Accra Summit an inaugural conference. ‘

The other significant aspect of the Accra Reparations Conference was that it allowed for me to spend time with Gnaka Lagoke, the Coordinator for the proposed 9th Pan African Congress scheduled for 2024 in Togo. This was promoted by the South African representative on the first day of the conference and others throughout. As the Coordinator of the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 that was called by H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao and was supposed to have taken place already this year but was postponed to January of 2024 and still pending a final date, I had submitted a “harmonization” plan to bring both Pan African Congresses, along with the planned 8th Pan African Congress Part 2 that was called by the Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the 7th PAC held in Kampala, Uganda in 1974. Thus, on the 4th day of the Accra Conference, I sat with Gnaka on the bus to and from the El Mina prison and discussed the harmonization plan.

Sister Brenda, Gnaka Lagoke, Siphiwe Baleka and Hazel “The Revolutionary” on the bus to El Mina prison.

In conclusion, I captured much more in my notes as there were a lot of very powerful presentations made by panelists. I had many conversations with the CARICOM delegates, including Hilary Brown, Dorbrene O’Marde, Steve Reid, Rhoda Arindell, David Comissiong, Dr. Chenzira Kahina, Dr. Claudius Fergus and Dr. Eric Phillips. I believe I won them over as colleagues, if not necessarily to all of my positions. But getting to meet people face to face and spending time together as human beings and not intellectual combatants is becoming more important to me.

At the end of the day, what’s important is for CARICOM and the AU to demonstrate Ubuntu with the stakeholders who are not sovereign states and ensure that we all move forward together. The proposed legal committees, expert committees, etc. can not be drawn from the small click of networked folks who are part of the philanthropic cabral of reparations elites. Many of the best minds and vetran activists are un-funded and largely excluded from these kinds of gatherings. Here is where the AU’s failure on its own Diaspora initiative is glaring and bespeaks for the need of an AU 6th Region Headquarters, representatives on the AU Permanent Representatives Committee, and a governing AU 6th Region High Council.

Siphiwe Baleka, Dr. Barryl Biekman, and Dr. Eric Phillips

The next step now is for all jurists, lawyers, students enrolled in law school, professors and other legal consultants to submit their

Input on the Request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the Status of Afro Descendants Under the Geneva Convention

Here is the ACCRA PROCLAMATION ON REPARATIONS that was published after the conference. It should be noted that there was no decision making process at the conference. There were no breakout session where delegates were asked to present recommendations or draft language. There was no voting on anything. Basically what happened was that a small, unknown group wrote the proclamation and it was told to the delegates that this was going to be the way forward. They gave the delegates the microphone so that they could, in a very limited way from the floor, express themselves but it should be clear that this document represents the proclamation of the people behind the scenes who organized it and NOT the collective work and consensus of the delegates that attended.

POST CONFERENCE UPDATE

It is becoming more and more clear that CARICOM is waging a propoganda campaign to position itself as “taking the lead” in the global Afrikan Reparations Movement. Watch this video starting at the 1:17.45 mark and count the number of times the phrase “CARICOM/Caribbean/We are taking the lead . . . .” Additionally, the point is simultaneously asserted the it was the Caribbean that lead from the beginning.

Now, you can’t have it both ways. There is no reason to “take” the lead if you already possessed it. This is the reason why both Dr. Ron Daniels and Kamm Howard (see videos above) had to talk about the historical record. If we are all on the same team, why the need to keep asserting that you are taking the lead??? Previously, the reparations movement was led by civil society but it has now been captured by states. June Soomer makes an important point. The reparations movement in the United States is a movement of the people seeking reparations from its own government whereas the reparations movement coming out of the Caribean is now a movement of states seeking reparations from other governments and entities. . . . CARICOM is thus seeking a “development” approach while seasoned activists are seeking a more “justice” approach. . . .

The History . . . .

The leaders of the reparations movement, that started in the United States and took on its modern form at the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA) founding meeting, September 26, 1987, that was convened for the purpose of broadening the base of support for the long-standing reparations movement. Imari Obadele issues call to more than 25 organizations and individuals to come to Washington, DC to develop a definitive campaign for reparations for Blacks in the United States. Participants invited to these meetings included James Turner, Chair and Founder, Department of Africana Studies, Cornell University; Sonia Sanchez; Dorothy Benton Lewis, founder, Black Reparations Commission; Omali Yeshitali, African People’s Socialist Party; Chokwe Lumumba and Ahmed Obafemi, NAPO; Sylvia Hill and Gay McDougall, Southern Africa Support Project; Abudadika (Sonny Carson); Haywood Burns, NCBL and Dean, CUNY Law School; Omowale Satterwhite, The Community Development Institute in Palo Alto, CA; Nkechi Taifa ; Dr. Manning Marable; Aisha Muhammad; Dr. Ron Walters; Adjoa Aiyetoro; Bobby Seale; Elombe Braith, Patrice Lumumba Coalition; State Senator Henry Kirksey; Askia Muhammad, and Nzinga Warfield-Coppock. Vincent Godwin (now Kalonji Olusegun) chaired the five organizing meetings. 

HISTORY OF THE REPARATIONS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Belinda Royall presented a petition to the Massachusetts General Assembly requesting pension from the proceeds of her master’s estate because it was the product of her own uncompensated labor in 1783.

Special Field Order No. 15 (1865) military order issued during the Civil War on January 16, 1865 by General William Tecumseh Sherman issuing 40 acres of land to freed people. [See Here]

Henrietta Wood, a free Black woman, successfully sued for reparations from her kidnapper who had sold her into slavery illegally in 1870.

Callie House and Isiah Dickerson organized the National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association with the goal of providing compensation to formally enslaved Africans, mutual aid, and burial costs in 1898.

Marcus Garvey saw the redemption of Africa as recompense for the exploitation of African people; He petitioned the League of Nations to turn over the former German colonies in Africa to the UNIA in 1919.

The Peace Movement of Ethiopia petitioned President Franklin Roosevelt and the Virginia legislature in 1930s for reparations.

Paul Roberson, William Patterson, and W.E.B. Du Bois launched the 1951 Genocide Campaign that included a call for repair and reparations in 1951.

Robert Brock in 1956 formed the Self-Determination committee in Los Angeles, CA which advocated for reparations for over 40 years.

Queen Mother Audley Moore appealed to the UN in 1957 and 1959 into 1962 for reparations for African Americans.

Republic of New Afrika – called for a separate black nation in southeastern US (organized by Imari Obadele and his Malcolm X Society) and $400 billion in slavery damages in 1968

African American Repatriation League appealed for support for blacks to emigrate to Africa as compensation for slavery

Martin Luther King Jr. called for reparations in 1963 and 1964 through a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged” – “The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in slavery.”

Black Panther Party was formed and issued a call for reparations as part of its 10-Point Program in 1966.

Republic of New Afrika was formed with a demand for land to create a separate government composed of the “Black Belt” states in the souther U.S. and several billions of dollars in 1668.

Black National Economic Conference issued the Black Manifesto with a demand for reparations from churches in 1969.

National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America was formed and began the contemporary reparations movement.

Whitney Young of the Urban League suggested a Marshall Plan for African Americans.

James Forman former executive director of SNCC in May 1969 targeted religious institutions in the Black Manifesto; he demanded $5 billion in reparations from white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues – some white Protestant churches increased their annual contributions to Black organizations by $1 million

NCOBRA

August 21, 1987,

Imari Obadele, the president of the RNA, and an avid organizer for reparations, seized the time several weeksprior to the convening of the NCBL (National Conference of Black Lawyers) conference at the urging of Queen Mother Dorothy Benton Lewis, leader of the Black Reparations Commission, and issued a call to more than twenty-five organizations and individuals to come to Washington, D.C. and discuss building support for the armed struggle in Namibia, South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. Development of a definitive campaign for reparations for N'COBRA was born the next year,

September 26, 1987

First organizing meetings held in D.C. at the headquarters of the Majestic Eagles.

November 8, 1987

Second organizing meeting held in D.C. at the headquarters of the Majestic Eagles.

January 16, 1988

Third organizing meeting held in Jamaica Queens at Southern Queens Park Association.

February 27, 1988

Fourth Organizing meeting held in DC at the Commission for Racial Justice. The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) is formed.

April 10, 1988

Fifth organizing meeting in Philadelphia, PA at the MarcusGarvey House. An N’COBRA acting Executive Committee was formed that included Kalonji Olusegun, Imari Obadele, Nana Seshibe, James Turner, and Adjoa Aiyetoro. Washington, D.C. was chosen as the headquarters.

April 8, 1989

First N’COBRA Town Hall Meeting held at he Frank D. Reeves Center, in Washington, DC. Speakers include Senator Bill Owens, of Michigan, Kalonji Olusegun, Nkechi Taifa, Chokwe Lumumba, Imari Obadele and Adjoa Aiyetoro.

June 1989

N’COBRA receives a letter from Congressman John Conyers, of Detroit, Michigan, requesting the organization’s review and comment on a legislative summary that he planned to incorporate in a bill to be introduced to the House of Representatives. 

July 8, 1989

N’COBRA convenes a public meeting at the Reeves Center, in Washington, DC to discuss and respond to Congressman Conyers’ request.

November 20, 1989

Congressman Conyers introduced H.R. 40 to the House of Representatives

June 1990

First N’COBRA annual Reparation Conference is held at Howard University, National Co-Chairs are Kalonji Olusegun and Adjoa Aiyetoro, Esq. Special guest, State Senator Bill Owens, discussed the reparations bill he introduced in the Massachusetts State Legislature.

September 1990

Nkechi Taifa, as chair of the DC Chapter of NCBL, requests the DC Council to issue a resolution in support of Reparations through the Honorable Wilhemina J. Rolark, Chair of the Judiciary Committee. The DC Council issues a resolution.

The first Pan African Conference on Reparations was held in Abuja, Nigeria in 1993.

Lost and Found Nation of Islam under the leadership of Silas Muhammad petitioned for a UN hearing on Reparations.

History of Black Americans suing for reparations

• 1995 Cato v. U.S.

• 2002, Imari Obadele (Republic of New Afrika) won an indirect consideration of the legality of reparations in the federal court of claims; Obadele v. U.S.

• 2002, Deadria Farmer-Paellmann sued Aetna Insurance Company, Fleet Boston Financial (successor of Providence Bank founded by Rhode Island businessman/slave trader John Brown), and the CSX Railroad; the claim alleged that these companies conspired with slave traders and illegally profitted from slavery

History of Black Americans being paid reparations

1. Rosewood survivors and descendants paid by FL

2. Timothy Pigford (black farmers) vs. USDA – $1.25 billion in 1999; Pigford II case as well

3. North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina

   History of reparations being recommended to Black Americans

4. 1997 – Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Riots of 1921

5. 2005 – Virginia and private donations provided scholarships to pursue higher education to African Americans whose public schools were closed in Prince Edward County after Brown V. Board

6. 2006 – commission recommended reparations be paid to descendants of Black people killed in a riot that destroyed Black homes and businesses in 1898 in Wilmington, NC; the legislature refused

   History of Reparations Internationally

7. 2001 The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa

   Present day mobilizing for reparations in:

8. U.S., Caribbean (CARICOM), South America, Various countries in Africa and in 2016, the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent 2016 call for reparations
   

So it is quite clear where the leadership of the reparations movement has come and it seems that some withing CARICOM, responding to a kind of inferiority complex, find the need to assert themselves as “the leaders”……

Input on the Request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the Status of Afro Descendants Under the Geneva Convention

Delegates to the Accra Reparations Conference 2023 entering the prison used to house African prisoners of war before departing from the Door of No Return and trafficked to the Americas were they suffered chattel enslavement and ethnocide.

The following form is for lawyers, judges, professors, activists and legal strategists to provide input on specific questions that are intended for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give its Opinion on fundamental legal questions related to the Global Afrikan Reparatory Justice Movement.

The questions were first developed by Siphiwe Baleka and then endorsed by 248 others who signed the 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.

The President of the Permanent Forume on People of African Descent, Ms. Epsy Campbell Barr, officially incorporated this item on the Agenda of the third session of PFPAD in April 2024. Meanwhile, CARICOM has announced that it, too, is considering requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ.

𝐃𝐫. 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐚 𝐍. 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐭, 𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐎𝐌 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲-𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐫𝐚 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 stated,

"Reparatory justice for the Caribbean Community is a priority for our heads of goverment who agree that collaboration with Africa on reparations is critical to moving this agenda forward. They have expressed their full support for the convening of the Accra Reparations Conference as 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 between the Caribbean and Africa on reparations. It is in this context that we welcome the update that the African Union is also seeking to develop a common position on reparations and 𝒂 𝒓𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒑 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝑫𝒊𝒂𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒂 𝒐𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆. The Accra Reparations Conference is therefore timely to facilitate Dialogue on the reparations agenda. . . . 𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐎𝐌 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐲. 𝐖𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧. . . . "

The ACCRA PROCLAMATION ON REPARATIONS that was published after the conference states,

"𝟔. 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: This will involve engagement, in close coordination with the African Union Commission, on the question of how international law interacts with or supports the quest for reparations, including the potential for exploring litigation options in regional and international court systems. This effort will require the African Union, including the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, CARICOM and Latin American states, Europe and all other regions of the world, among others, 𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚, 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑵𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅, 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎, 𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒅 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒔, 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒕𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒅. In addition, we support actions being taken in and outside the Continent by individual Member States and descendants of victims of these historical crimes and call on the African Union to lend its weight behind future litigatory actions for reparations."

At the third session of PFPAD, Siphiwe Baleka made an impassioned plea for new PFPAD President June Soomer to sign the Request before the conclusion of the session and send it to the Registrar of the ICJ. Siphiwe Baleka received a standing ovation!

Nevertheless, President Soomer told TAG24 NEWS that she will not take independent action on the petition request. The matter must first be discussed among all of the forum members, she said, and a decision will not be reached until all legal considerations are taken into account. Nevertheless, Dr. Soomer has since stated, that we must take our reparations case to the ICJ.

Therefore, we are using this input form so that civil society can provide a legal analysis of the fundamental questions to be submitted to the ICJ.

To contribute to this recommendation and assist in the research and collaboration, please complete the following questionaire or answer the question and send to: balantasociety@gmail.com

INPUT ON THE REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE ICJ ON THE STATUS OF AFRO DESCEDANTS UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION

(please complete this online form or send your answers, study or analysis to balantasociety@gmail.com)

A Matter of War: Imari Obadele, Our Enslavement in the 13 Colonies and the United States, the Republic of New Afrika and Reparations

Now, by comparision, consider:

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM - December 30, 2022

The ICJ—at the behest of the UN General Assembly (UNGA)—may soon advise that international law requires Israel to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw from the disputed Palestinian territories. The UNGA initiated the case by a resolution, passed on December 30, 2022, that requested an ICJ advisory opinion on two questions relating to the legal status and consequences of Israel's presence in “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.”

SOUTH AFRICA institutes International Court of Justice proceedings against ISRAEL under the Genocide Convention and requests provisional measures. - December 29, 2023

Within days of the proceedings initiated by South Africa, Israel began withdrawing troops from Gaza.

INPUTS

WHO IS AN AFRICAN EXPERT ON REPARATIONS?

“The African Committee of Experts on Reparations can not be comprised solely of technocrats. It must consist of people who have advanced the most in internal reparations - the self repair and recovery from ethnocide. If someone in CARICOM for example gets development aid and yet can not identify who are their maternal and/or their paternal ancestors in Africa and have no desire to identify with being African and have not re-organized their life around Pan Africanism and Ubuntu, can they really be said to have been repaired? The African Committee of Experts on Reparations should be composed of people who can properly guide the technocrats. Mere educational and professional credentials does not make one an expert on reparations. proposed candidates should be asked, what is the evidence of your self repair and how have you used external resources for the benefit of africa and her peoples’ self repair?”

- Siphiwe Baleka, Coordinator of the Lineage Restoration Movement

The Accra Reparations Conference began on November 13. It is co-organized by the Republic of Ghana and the African Union Commission. According to the Conference’s concept note, 

“The Accra Reparations Conference, building on previous and present efforts in favor of reparation intends to build an all-African peoples unified front for the advancement of the cause of reparatory justice. That front endorsed by the African Union, with the strategic support of CARICOM and various stakeholders in the United States of America and in Europe will constitute the first ever African Committee of Experts on reparations. The Committee, drawn from relevant fields including law, will be established for the purpose of developing a Common African Position on Reparations and incorporate therein, an African Reparatory Programme of Action.“

This begs the question - who is an African expert on reparations? 

The first part of this question should not be glossed over. The question as to who is an African has been around since before the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and still challenges the global Pan African community. Are the European diaspora who live in Africa and hold citizenship to AU member states considered “African”? If so, then “nationalism” as constructed by post-Berlin conference is the operative paradigm and thus “white” people who hold African passports would be considered “African”. Peter Tosh answered the question simply: As long as you are a Black man you are an African.

Then there is the further confusion created by the lack of clarity on who is African when considering the question of the “African Diaspora”. To many people on the continent, especially governments, the African Diaspora consists of people who hold African citizenship and are living outside the continent. However, in February of 2003, the African Union adopted the Article 3q Amendment to its Constitutive Act 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.”

Controversy surrounded and still surrounds what was meant by the full participation of “Africans in the Diaspora”. A distinction was made between the ‘historical diaspora” - those living outside of the African continent because of being taken as a prisoner of war, trafficked across the Atlantic, and subjected to chattel enslavement and ethnocide - and the “contemporary diaspora” consisting of those people who migrated from the African continent in more modern times. Today, though the African Union “Sixth Region” is much talked about, it still doesn't officially exist on equal footing as the other five regions. The 6th Region has no representation in the AU Permanent Representative Committee (PRC), nor has the historic diaspora elected its representatives to take its twenty seats it was originally allocated in the Economic, Social and Cultural Council. Indeed the Definition of the Diaspora Committee for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 called by H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori Quao, has been studying and providing its recommendations on a final definition of the African Diaspora. 

Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say that an African Committee of Experts on Reparations would consist of members who have African maternal or paternal ancestry. Or, in other words, people whose non-recombinant DNA comes from the various people living on the African continent from 500 to 2,000 years ago. This of course would include both the “contemporary” and “historic” diasporas. People with both European maternal and paternal DNA who happen to be citizens in an African country would not be eligible for an African Committee of Experts on Reparations.

Perhaps the more difficult question, then, is, who is an expert on reparations? How does one become an expert on such a thing? What are the qualifications?

Let me start this part of the discussion by using an example. Consider the activity of swimming. Who would we call an “expert” swimmer? Someone who has read a lot about physiology? Someone who worked at a swimming pool or beach? Or someone who has and can perform the act of swimming with a very high degree of skill? In the case of the latter, of someone who could swim with a very high degree of skill, would it be necessary that they have swimming awards from formal competitive swimming or would a demonstration of their “expertise” be enough without the accolades? Same thing with a heart surgeon. Would we consider someone who has read a lot of textbooks and attended medical school but never performed a heart surgery an “expert” on heart surgery? If someone successfully performed heart surgeries but was never “certified” by the medical community - could they be considered an “expert”? If you think that scenario is far fetched, consider a lawyer. If someone who never went to law school yet successfully litigated several cases - could they be considered an “expert”, as in the case of “Brian Mwenda” who won 26 legal cases while practicing before the High Court of Kenya, even though he was never licensed to practice law in the first place? Does not government institutions hire former “criminals” who are “experts” in counterfeiting and computer hacking?

The definition of expert is: a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Here, “authoritative” means able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable, considered to be the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon, proceeding from an official source, commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed.

Now, in this sense, we are talking about experts on reparations as it pertains to global Afrikan reparatory justice for the trafficking of prisoners of war from their ancestral homelands on the African continent and their enslavement and ethnocide in the Americas. In this sense, reparations means repairing the damage done to those communities, families and individuals that were directly victimized and affected. It means restoring to the condition before the war started, before the invasion, and before the trafficking of the prisoners of war. And that condition was being free from the jurisdiction and economic and other systems of non-African people.

An expert on reparations, therefore, would be someone with authoritative experience of reverse engineering that process - someone that recovered from ethnocide, repatriated to his or her ancestral homeland, obtained citizenship, learned their ancestral language, and re-integrated into the village(s). This is what the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA) calls “internal” reparations. A person that has achieved a high level of internal reparations and has had  several years development experience could rightly be called a reparations “expert” since he or she would have a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of the repair process and experience on both sides of the Atlantic. Such people should definitely be included on any African Committee of Experts on Reparations. 

https://www.tag24.com/politics/reparations/how-dna-could-hold-the-key-to-one-mans-genetic-case-for-reparations-2761745

In so much as moral and historical appeals to reparations have largely been unsuccessful in securing the commitments, the status change, the change in power relationships, and the sacrifice of material and financial resources, legal efforts now seem to be the next step. People who have filed reparations claims in domestic, regional, and international courts could be considered experts. 

Now consider that the Resolution on Africa’s Reparations Agenda and The Human Rights of Africans In the Diaspora and People of African Descent Worldwide - ACHPR/Res.543 (LXXIII) 2022 - Dec 12, 2022 declares that 

"2. Calls upon member states to: . . . take measures to eliminate barriers to acquisition of citizenship and identity documentation by Africans in the diaspora; to establish a committee to consult, seek the truth, and conceptualize reparations from Africa’s perspective, describe the harm occasioned by the tragedies of the past, establish a case for reparations (or Africa’s claim), and pursue justice for the trade and trafficking in enslaved Africans, colonialism and colonial crimes, and racial segregation and contribute to non-recurrence and reconciliation of the past;, . . . 4. Encourages civil society and academia in Africa, to embrace and pursue the task of conceptualizing Africa’s reparations agenda with urgency and determination.” 

Thus, people with a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of African legal systems and customs pertaining to prisoners of war and slavery in Africa prior to the military invasion of the Dum Diversas war should also be members of any African Committee of Experts on Reparations since, in accordance with principles of African law as well as current international law and Global Afrikan Reparatory Justice, the jurisdiction governing adjudication must be the jurisdiction where the crime occurred which, in this case, originated on the African continent.

Since “external” reparations involves the transfer of technology, land, material and financial resources to be deployed in advancing indigenous African systems of health, education, public works, trade, and banking, people with training in both those indigenous African systems and the Western modern systems need to be part of any African Committee of Experts on Reparations.

The Accra Reparations Conference should not make the mistake of appointing elected officials, popular personalities, and people with neo colonial attitudes and lack of solid Pan African track records to any African Committee of Experts on Reparations. As one person put it, what good is getting $100 million or $10 billion or more if those educated in neocolonial systems only recreate them under the outward label of “African”? Western styled developmentalism is not reparations, and getting resources for government administrations following neocolonial development models that reproduce capitalistic wealth and social inequality will not lead to a strong, powerful African Renaissance. Thus, members of any African Committee of Experts on Reparations should be people who can be trusted to speak authoritatively from an African perspective that is in opposition to neocolonialism.

Thus, one way to bring structure to the proposed African Committee of Experts on Reparations is to follow NCOBRA’s 5 Injury Areas of systemic oppression & systemic slavery which are: 

1. PEOPLEHOOD 

2. EDUCATION 

3. HEALTH 

4. CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

5. WEALTH/POVERTY 

I would change #4 to LAW. Each area could have one expert from the African Continent and one from the African Diaspora. That’s a total of 10 Experts. For example, who has come from the west and demonstrated wealth creation from an indigenous African enterprise? Who knows how to organize and amplify and distribute effective African medicine?

The remaining five experts could be selected for recognized expertise in any field related to internal or external reparations such as immigration, agriculture, diplomacy, administration, project management, marketing, etc.

This will be all the more important since the proposed African Committee of Experts on Reparations will develop an action plan for a sustainable reparatory justice process in Africa, taking into account the historical context, current challenges, and future prospects while the proposed global Reparations Fund will be established to support the activities of the Committee of Experts on Reparations.

What the Afrikan people want is an African Committee of Experts on Reparations who can be trusted to speak truth to power, who will be uncompromising and unapologetic about what is truly needed and owed, and who will not be tricked or duped into neocolonial compromises that do not lead to the transformation of African countries’ negative sovereignty to the positive sovereignty needed to safeguard the well-being of African people at home and abroad.

https://www.tag24.com/politics/reparations/siphiwe-balekas-landmark-petition-seeking-reparations-for-us-ethnocide-dismissed-2892204

What Real Reparations Looks Like: A Visit to the Balanta Village in Rucuto, Guinea Bissau

On Thursday, October 26, 2023, I went to visit a Balanta community in the Rucuto tabanca (village). The visit was requested after word spread that I had traveled to the United Nations and demanded reparations for Balanta people recently while confronting the U.S. State Department for its state-sanctioned ethnocide against the Balanta people in America and the violation of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Geneva Convention. The visit was part of my CALL TO ORGANIZE BALANTA PEOPLE WORLDWIDE in order that they can exercise their rights under international law since no government, not even the government of the Republic of Guinea Bissau, is protecting them. Thus, it must be Balanta people themselves, working on both sides of the Atlantic and wherever they find themselves, who must take responsiblility for their own well-being and development. Like Amilcar Cabral, I realized I must travel throughout Guinea Bissau, visit the Balanta villages, and organize them one by one.

So on the morning of October 26, I and Daniel Nabicamba, Founder of the Dafana Institute, set off to visit the Balanta people living in Rucuto, about 45 kilometers from the capital city of Bissau. The gallery of photos and the videos below will tell the story and show you what happened. But it’s important to say now how we got to this point in order to emphasize that

THIS IS WHAT REAL REPARATIONS LOOKS LIKE!

Let’s review:

1. In the 1760’s, a boy from a village in Untche (in modern day Guinea Bissau) was captured and taken prisoner at the slave fort in Cacheu and trafficked to Charleston, South Carolina were he was subjected to “Negro Codes” that amounted to state-sanctioned ethnocide and was subsequently subjected to chattel enslavement. Here is the actual historical documentation.

2. The history of my family in America is thus told from the point of view that we are captured Balanta prisoners of war held under the jurisdiction of the United States suffering political and economic slavery created through the forced citizenship erroneously imposed by the 14th amendment of the US Constitution without our consent.

3. On September 28, 2010, I took a DNA test and discovered my Balanta paternal origins. This began the process of repairing from ethnocide and chattel enslavement. Since then, I have been preserving my ancestral culture and language. In 2019 I founded the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America and I published the three-volume Balanta B’urassa, My Sons: Those Who Resist Remain - the first comprehensive history of the Balanta People from their pre-Kemetic origins. I also published Balanta Kentohé Language Lessons Series 1 , 2 and 3 complete with 35 free video lessons.

4. In January of 2020, I made my first vist to Guinea Bissau, started negotiations with the government, met with Balanta elders, and distributed free Balanta language books in the villages. This resulted in the ground-breaking Decade of Return Initiative and the Citizenship Program for the Balanta prisoners of war in America.

5. Members of the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America have been resposible for renovating a Headquarters that served as the Olympic Training Center for the Guine Bissau Olympic Swim Team, providing naming ceremonies for Balanta prisoners of war in America, distributing food in nine Balanta villages, helping five groups of Balanta, Fula, Djola and Brame descendants return to their ancestral homeland, established the Lineage Restoration Council of Guinea Bissau, served as the Patron and financial sponser of the Sports Society of Guinea Bissau senior girls futbol team that won the league championship in 2023 and placed three players on the women’s National team, represented Guinea Bissau for the first time in the African Continental Swimming Championships while establishing the Guinea Bissaus Swimming Federation and much more.

6. The ultimate result has been a sustained diplomatic and development effort for Balanta people on both sides of the Atlantic.

THE ONLY THING MISSING HAS BEEN RECOGNITION AND FUNDING TO FURTHER REPAIR THE CONNECTION AND IMPROVE THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL VILLAGES

On Friday, October 27, I was informed that the two proposals I submitted to the Decolonizing Wealth Project - Liberated Capital’s Case for Reparations Fund were rejected. That was $225,000 that was going to be used to bring development to Balanta people on both sides of the Atlantic.

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

During my visit, my Balanta hosts showed me the vast acres of rice fields that they plant and harvest by hand. What they wanted was a single tractor! Later, they showed me a break in their construction and they wanted to send a team to fix it which would require a team to stay there for 3 or 4 days. All they needed was a 50 kilogram bag of rice so that they could eat and work. Fortunately, BBHAGSIA member Nicole Holmes donated the money and the work has commenced.

All of this is to say that the purpose of reparations is to repair the damage done after a war to the communities that were invaded in Africa, and the people who were harmed, starting with the prisoners of war that were trafficked, enslaved and suffered ethnocide. My life is now a living example that repair and recovery from eight generations of ethnocide is possible and this is what it looks like - experiencing and bringing the physical, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social, economic and political transformation necessary to Africans at home and abroad as one people!

A Visit to the Balanta Village in Rucuto, Guinea Bissau

Arriving in Rucuto

Daniel and I talking to the young men about life in America.

Electricity Reality

There’s no electricity so they rely on portable solar power for a lot of things, including flashnlights for use at night.

DINNER

They went fishing to have food for dinner tonight!

Sahe Ndang

I was taken to the sacred tree where the Alanta Ndang (elders) talked to the ancestors for me. I was ask to tell them my problems and what solutions I wanted.

Repair needed

The break in their construction was creating a lot of problems. A group of men were ready to come and do the work. All that was needed was enough food for 3 or 4 days. . . .

Back at the family compound

Life in Rucuto is very social and organized.

Wealth

Balanta wealth is measured in cattle and relationships.

After sending the 50kg bag of rice and other food, the reapir was completed on November 4, 2023 thanks to the reparations provided through the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America through the Decade of Return Initiative.

United States Confronted About State-Sanctioned Ethnocide Against Balanta People at the United Nations

October 16, 2023 Geneva Switzerland - The State Department of the United States of America was confronted with questions about U.S.-sanctioned ethnocide against Balanta people in the United States by Balanta Society in America President Siphiwe Baleka during the Civil Society Consultation held at the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations at Route de Pregny 11, 1292 Pregny-Chambesy. The consultation with senior level officials of the United States Government was led by the Honorable Ambassador Michele Taylor, Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council ahead of its scheduled fifth periodic review under the Internationa Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which takes place on the 17th and 18th of October.

From left to right: Ms. Heidi Todacheene, Senior Advisor Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior; Mr. Robert Gilchrist, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Mr. Justin Vail, Special Assistant to the President for Democracy and Civic Participation, Domestic Policy Council of the Executive Office of the President; The Honorable Ambassador Michele Taylor, Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council; and Mr. Steven Reed, Mayor of Montgomery, Alabama.

Mr Baleka was the seventh speaker during the session and, after first speaking in his native Balanta language and presenting himself as a living example of an Afro Descendant recovering from ethnocide committed by the Unites States, asked the following questions which had been previously submitted to the July 12 Civil Society Consultation but were not answered then:

Q1. What remedies are available to the Balanta people in America for redress for ethnocide?

Q2. Will the government of the United States of America engage in negotiations with the Balanta people, the government of the Republic of Guinea Bissau, the Vatican, and the Government of Portugal, under the Geneva Convention, for the final “release and repatriation” of the descendants of the Balanta, Fulani, Mandinga, Papel, Manjaco, Beafada, Brame (Mancanha), Bijago, Djola (Felupe), Mansoaca prisoners of war who were trafficked to and enslaved in America?

Q3. How can the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America engage in the process of receiving reparations for the crimes of slavery and ethnocide?

Mr. Jonathan Smith responded with the Department of Justice’s standard position against “trafficking” which, in this context, would either be a reference to the experience of being captured as a prsioner of war, put in chains, imprisoned and then “shipped” accross the Atlantic to be dehumanized and subjugated to chattel enslavemenr, or else a complete misunderstanding of the issues being raised. Mr. Justin Vail then acknowledged the issue of America’s slavery heritage and the current reparations movement, and Mr. Aaron Ford added that Mr. Baleka’s demonstration of ethnocide repair was impressive and then apologized for having to give the admittedly unsatisfactory answer that reparations would best be handled by the municipal and state level. Noting that none of the US Delegation responded directly to the first question, Mr. Baleka seized the moment to ask, “Can anyone respond to the issue of ethnocide that I raised?” The room fell awkwardly silent after which Mr. Baleka took his seat.

According to Mr. Baleka, “It was the first time that Balanta people were acknowledged by the United States government. And though I didn’t expect much by way of their on-the-record responses, I was encouraged by the private discussions I had during the reception with Shoba Sivasprasad Wadhia, Ambassador Taylor, Robert Glichrist, and the President of the National Bar Association, Dominique D. Calhoun, all of whom were unaware of the growing Lineage Restoration Movement and gave helpful advice on how to proceed.”

ICCPR 2023 Delegation Biographies

Delegation Representatives

Michele Taylor, Ambassador

Ambassador Michèle Taylor was sworn in as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council on February 22, 2022. Ambassador Taylor is a lifelong human rights activist and advocate with a determined commitment to service. As a daughter and granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, Ambassador Taylor brings to the Human Rights Council a profound appreciation for the crucial role the Council can and must play to promote universal human rights and protect human rights defenders. Ambassador Taylor is an advocate of women and girls in all their diversity, having long championed access to STEM careers, action to end violence against women, and equality for LGBTQI+ persons.

Bathsheba N. Crocker, U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN

Bathsheba “Sheba” Nell Crocker was confirmed by the Senate on December 18, 2021 and presented her credentials on January 18, 2022 as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of Ambassador. Ambassador Crocker most recently served as a Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of State.

U.S. Government Advisors

Michelle Brane, Executive Director, Family Reunification Task Force, DHS

Michelle Brané is the Executive Director of the Family Reunification Task Force, and a Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the chair of the Task Force. As executive director, she oversees the inter-agency task force's day-to-day operations as it seeks to find and reunite the children and parents. Ms. Brané has more than 25 years of experience working on immigration and human rights issues at the Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Bosnia. She has extensive experience in program management and advocacy.

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) supports the Department's mission to secure the nation while preserving individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law. She leads CRCL to integrate civil rights and civil liberties into all Department activities by: Promoting respect for civil rights and civil liberties in policy creation and implementation; Communicating with individuals and communities whose civil rights and civil liberties may be affected by Department activities; Investigating civil rights and civil liberties complaints filed by the public regarding Department policies or activities, or actions taken by Department personnel; and Leading the Department's equal employment opportunity programs and promoting workforce diversity and merit system principles. Prior to joining the Biden-Harris Administration, Wadhia spent over two decades working as in the field of immigration in private practice, non-profit, and higher education. Most recently, she served as the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law at Penn State Law in University Park.

Royce Bernstein Murray, Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security, DHS

Royce Bernstein Murray is a Senior Counselor to the Secretary for Homeland Security. In her current role, she works to ensure that the U.S. immigration system protects the rights of refugees and other vulnerable noncitizens while maintaining the security of U.S. borders and the enforcement of immigration laws. Over the past 25 years, she has worked on migration and human rights issues for the U.S. government, nongovernmental organizations, academia, and the World Bank.

Deborah Plunkett, Associate General Counsel, DOD

Deborah Plunkett is Associate General Counsel with the International Affairs division at the U.S. Department of Defense. In her role, she counsels regarding compliance with applicable law, including international law. This includes supporting robust U.S. engagement in processes like the ICCPR review.

Ann Marie Bledsoe Downes, Principal Deputy Solicitor for Indian Affairs, DOI

Ann Marie Bledsoe Downes is the Principal Deputy Solicitor at the Department of Interior. She oversees the team of over 400 attorneys who provide legal counsel and advice to the Department of the Interior. In that role she is led by a U.S. Department that for the first time is led by an Indigenous Secretary, Deb Haaland, from the Pueblo of Laguna. The Department provides services to 574 federally recognized tribes with a service population of over 2.5 million American Indian and Alaska Natives and places emphasis on the policies of tribal self-governance and self-determination.

Heidi Todacheene, Senior Advisor to the Secretary, DOI

Heidi Todacheene serves as Senior Advisor to the Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and as the Executive Director of the Interior’s first-ever Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC). In her role, she oversees the Administration’s Indigenous and International priorities at the agency and strengthens the United States’ federal trust relationship with the 574 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and their leadership.

Johnathan Smith, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ

Johnathan Smith is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. The Division enforces federal statutes that prohibit discrimination and works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all persons in the United States, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. In his role, Johnathan helps oversee the Division’s investigatory, enforcement, and policy efforts.

Finnuala Tessier, Attorney Advisor, DOJ

Finnuala Tessier is an Attorney Advisor in the Office of Policy and Legislation in the Department of Justice Criminal Division. In her role, she coordinates the Division’s response on policy and regulatory issues, including processes like the ICCPR review. In addition, Ms. Tessier is a member of the Department’s Sentencing Policy Group, through which she works on many of the criminal justice and sentencing policy initiatives that are the subject of the ICCPR review.

Jennifer Goodyear, Labor Attache, DOL

[pending]

Robert Gilchrist, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, DOS

Robert S. Gilchrist is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Human Rights and Labor. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor. His last position was United States Ambassador to the Republic of Lithuania 2020-2023. Prior to being ambassador, Mr. Gilchrist Director of the Department of States Operations Center, Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Embassy in Sweden, Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Embassy in Estonia, and the Director of Nordic and Baltic Affairs in the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. Among his earlier assignments, Mr. Gilchrist was Deputy Political Counselor at the United States Embassy in Iraq, Chief of the Political Section of the United States Embassy in Romania, and a Special Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of State.

Mary Catherine Malin, Deputy Legal Adviser, DOS

Mary Catherine Malin is a Deputy Legal Adviser at the Department of State. She has served in the Legal Adviser’s Office for over 37 years. As deputy she supervises a number of offices, including the office that handles legal issues pertaining to human rights and refugees. She previously served in the section of the Legal Adviser's office for United Nations Affairs.

Justin Vail, Special Assistant to the President for Democracy and Civic Participation, DPC

Justin Vail serves as Special Assistant to the President for Democracy and Civic Participation at the White House Domestic Policy Council, where he works to strengthen American democracy.

Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Education

Catherine E. Lhamon is the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. In her role, she works to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in US schools.

Karim David Marshall, Senior Advisor, EPA

Karim D. Marshall is the Senior Advisor for the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR) at the Environmental Protection Agency. In this role, he works to advance OEJECR’s mission to coordinate implementation of EJ priorities across the agency’s national programs, regions, the Administrator’s Office, and across partnerships with other federal agencies and coregulators in state, tribal, and local government, industry, and communities.

Jessica Swafford Marcella, Deputy Assistant Secretary, HHS

Jessica Swafford Marcella was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs and Director of the Office of Adolescent Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on May 10, 2021. In this capacity, Ms. Marcella oversees the nation’s family planning program, advises the Department on a number of public health priorities, including reproductive rights, as well as leads efforts across HHS related to adolescent health, including administration of the evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention program.

Demetria McCain, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, HUD

Demetria McCain serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). At FHEO, McCain assists HUD’s efforts to eliminate housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive communities.

Lynn Grosso, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, HUD

Lynn Grosso is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under Lynn’s leadership, HUD enforces broad civil rights authority to provide inclusive, accessible housing, free from discrimination, across the nation.

Joshua Black, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs, NSC

Josh Black is Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs on the National Security Council (NSC) staff at the White House. He leads the NSC team responsible for United Nations and international organization affairs, refugee/migration policy, and global criminal justice.

Non-Federal Government Advisors

Aaron Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada

Aaron D. Ford is the Attorney General of the State of Nevada. In his position, Attorney General Ford has led his state’s legal defenses against efforts to overturn free and fair elections; held legally accountable those who had a hand in causing the opioid crisis in Nevada; and worked diligently for criminal justice reform.

Steven Reed, Mayor of Montgomery, Alabama

As the first Black Mayor of Montgomery, Alabama in the city’s 200-plus-year history, Mayor Reed is transforming the Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement into a leader in the New South. Despite challenges stemming from the global COVID-19 pandemic, state legislative overreach and old powers gasping for relevancy, Mayor Reed’s bold, progressive vision continues shifting the narrative and changing the trajectory for Montgomery – creating a community where everyone has a chance to live, learn and earn.