Mauritius forgot to hide the china

Press, 13 July 1976, Page 20

Mauritius forgot to hide the china

By

JOHN BORRELL

in the “Guardian,” London

“The time for talking about Southern Africa is over,” the Organisation of African Unity’s official spokesman, Mr Peter Onu, told correspondents at the beginning of t’ e O.A.U.’s summit meeting in Mauritius. “What is needed now is action and not words, and I can promise you that this will be an actionorientated meeting.” Coming as it did after the Soweto shootings in South Africa and with a steadily escalating guerrilla war in Rhodesia, the statement seemed to promise a more militant black African approach to white ruled states south of the Zambezi. But the promise failed to materialise. As the debate on what to do about Southern Africa developed, it became clear just how dependent on South Africa many African countries are. At least 15 had to admit to having trade links with Pretoria and half of them reluctantly acknowledged that to sever these ties in the interests of PanAfricanism would be economically disastrous. Mauritius itself was a clear example of the African dilemma. The island’s tourist industry is dependent on South Africans, 20,000 Mauritians work in Natal, and trade between the two countries is growing steadily. Once * became clear that the Soweto riots had made South Africa a key issue, the Mauritians attempted to

cover up their South African connections. They banned South African Airways flights for the duration of the conference, they spent a week removing South African wines from hotel wine lists, and at several hotels hundreds of signs written in Afrikaans were removed. But they could not cover up completely. South African saerry was available in many bars, Cape apples were sold openly in the streets of Port Louis and even the crockery at the conference centre was clearly marked “Made in South Africa.” In the end 'they passed a rather loose resolution condemning the Soweto shootings and pledging greater support to the South African nationalist movements. But no one came forward with concrete suggestions on how to help the nationalists and the resolution seems fated to gather dust in the files in Addis Ababa. Unable to agree on concrete ways to speed up the downfall of South Africa, generally regarded as the common enemy, it seemed hardly Surprising that the organisation should find itself boggedd own by disputes between its own members. At the opening of the Summit, President Kaunda of Zambia pointed to the huge round O.A.U. emblem with its motto. “We shall not be divided” and declared that in spite of problems like the

Spanish Sahara, Africa would remain united. Few leaders seemed to share his optimism. The dispute over the Spanish Sahara brought a walk-out by two member states and a subsequent threat by one of them to leave the O.A.U. From the beginning of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting which preceded the Summit the Spanish Sahara had been a thorny issue. The Mauritian Government refused to allow five members of the Polisario nationalist movement to stay in Mauritius, but later relented under Algerian presure, and allowed them to return. This offended Morocco and Mauritania, which shared the Spanish Sahara between them after last year’s decolonisation agreement with Spain. The Foreign Ministers’ meeting and the Summit were both studded with clashes between the Algerians and Morocco, and Mauritania and finally, in apparent despair, the Heads of State agreed to an extraordinary Summit to discuss the whole question. Since the only other extraordinary summit called by the O.A.U.—that held earlier this year to discuss Angola—ended with Africa split neatly in two, few delegates seemed optimistic that it will achieve much. Ethiopia and Somalia

clashed once again over the French enclave of the Afars and Issas, and although it was finally agreed to hold a round-table discussion on the issue in Ghana later this year, considerable tension still exists between the French colony’s two neighbours. Two of Ethiopia’s neighbours, Kenya and the Sudan, also found themselves embroiled in disputes with other African countries as a result of events which took place while the conference was in progress. After the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport, a visibly anguished Uganda Foreign Minister, Juma Oris, told the conference that Kenya had had a hand in the raid. “This is in violation of the O.A.U. and U.N. charters,” he said, “but in spite of the provoca-

tion we will not attack any African country.” While African leaders meeting behind the barbed wire surrounding the exclusive Trou aux Biches Hotel had a quiet chuckle at President Amin’s fury, the Kenyan Vice-President, Daniel Arap Moi, made a quick telephone call to President Kenyatta. Then, straight-faced and solemn, Mr Moi told the heads of State that Kenya had no prior knowledge of this Israeli raid and therefore condemned it. “They also violated Kenyan airspace to mount the raid, so we are as angry as the Ugandans.” The final tear in the thin fabric of African unity came at the closing session of the conference when an angry

President Nemery of Sudan made a stinging attack on Libva, accusing it of masterminding the attempted coup against his Government. “The captured mercenaries have confessed to having been trained in Libya by Libyan instructors. They have been financed and equipped by Libya to undertake this mad and senseless adventure,” he said. “Isn’t it ironical that these resources which are so desperately needed to support the liberation forces in Southern Africa are being squandered on senseless destruction by an independent African state.” The irony can hardly have escaped the tiredest of homeward - bound delegates. They came to bury apartheid but finished up digging graves for one another.