What does the adventure of Simon Mann and his band of latter-day mercenaries who plotted to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea, teach Africa and the world? Simple. In the words of the British journalist, Alice Thomson: "Interfering Europeans, whether they come clutching guns or a mocrophone,

In the October 2004 issue of New African, I wrote an article entitled " The Mercenaries Must Be Stopped", in which I detailed an attempt by white mercenaries to mount an invasion of Equatorial Guinea to overthrow its government and replace it with one which would share the country's oil resources among a group of European businessmen who financed the coup. I ended the article with the following words:

"Having been provided the opportunity, are the governments of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea going to use it to send out a loud and clear message that the Africa of today will not tolerate interference in its affairs by any latter-day incarnations of Cecil Rhodes, who think Africa was created for them to reap profits from it?"

The Zimbabwe government was one of the governments immediately concerned with the matter, and I must say that after stalling initially, it eventually acted in a manner that demonstrated its awareness of how to safeguard Africa's long-term interests.

The leader of the group that had planned to capture Equatorial Guinea and its oil resources, Simon Mann, a former captain of the British commando regiment, the "Special Air Services" (SAS), had been trying to purchase the arms for the Equatorial Guinea operation in Zimbabwe.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A product of what many people regard as the most notorious "snob-manufacturing factory" in England, a "public school" (that means fee-paying, privately-run institution) called Eton, he probably thought he could charm the pants off the Zimbabwean authorities with his haughty manner and "excellent contacts". His actions showed that he thought the Zimbabwe authorities were so stupid that they would sell him a whole cache of arms without checking on his background. Yet an elementary check-even on Google, without going to the trouble of using the services of a firm that specialised in what is called a "due diligence" investigation-would have produced the information that Mann was involved with companies, such as "Executive Outcomes", that skirt the murky lines between subversive military operations in Africa, and the provision of "security services" to profit-hungry companies operating in areas of Africa where resources are being fought over ruthlessly by all sides.

Whichever side such "para-military" organisations fought on, they did so purely for one thing: money, or in their peculiar parlance, wonga. They offered their services to those who required them, for purely mercenary reasons. They might add a public relations element to their efforts so that they could be presented as assisting a side that was the "legitimate" government, or the "anti-communist element" in a conflict, etc.

In countries like Sierra Leone, they might fight on the side of a government trying to ward of attacks by a vicious guerrilla movement like the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). But it would not escape their notice that certain areas of Sierra Leone produced diamonds, and that securing those areas would be more profitable than, say, the capital Freetown, which the government was more interested in securing. But if they fought in Sierra Leone on the side of the "legitimate" government, they would just as well fight on the side of a "bandit" army trying to oust a government in Africa (such as Unita in Angola or Renamo in Mozambique).

What was inescapable was that whatever ideological language they employed in any particular situation, the bottom line consisted of only one word-wonga. And whoever paid the largest amount of wonga got the most ruthlessly efficient units they could assemble.

Members of the units could be the most racist persons on earth-such as the "buffaloes" in South Africa, who carried out brutal massacres for the apartheid regime and in Namibia against the ANC and SWAPO, and who deliberately left a false trail, indicating that their barbaric massacres were merely part of "black-on-black" violence by atavistic African "tribes" out to annihilate one another.

Needless to say, many of the Western media bought into this line of thinking, and made a meal of "black-on-black" violence in the dying days of apartheid, because, of course, it fell, perfectly, into the parameters of their "groupthink" paradigm.

What Mann did not know--and again, this was the result of his snotty inability to credit African governments with a modicum of common sense--was that in his particular case, the Zimbabwean authorities had been receiving briefings from South African intelligence authorities (where Mann had been based since October 2003 plotting with, among others, another "public school" product, Mark Thatcher, son of the former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher) on how to seize Equatorial Guinea.

The conspirators were under surveillance in South Africa; their telephone conversations were bugged and their financial transactions monitored. So when Mann arrived in Zimbabwe in March 2004, he made his purchase of weapons and used his "contacts" in high places to arrange to collect them personally from a part of Harare airport not normally used for commercial operations, he, of course, thought everything was hunky-dory.

He was the most surprised person in the world, therefore, when, after the plane had landed on 7 March 2004, it was surrounded by the Zimbabwe police and the 64 mercenaries, as well as the crew, were arrested, together with Mann himself. They were all handcuffed and carted off to prison. Mann realised, too late, that he had been set up. The next day--8 March 2004--15 suspected mercenaries, who had preceded the Harare group to Equatorial Guinea, with a cover story that they were there to set up a fishing and tourism business in partnership with some Equatorial Guineans, were arrested.

Their leader was a South African called Nick du Toit who soon confessed his part in the plot. He implicated Mann, Thatcher and the other plotters. He was tried and sentenced to 34 years imprisonment on 26 November 2004. Eleven of his accomplices received lesser sentences.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In Zimbabwe, meanwhile, the legal authorities inexplicably charged Mann and his mercenaries only with attempting to obtain "dangerous weapons", instead of offences relating to "treason", which would have attracted heavier prison sentences.

On 27 August 2004, Mann was tried and admitted "attempting to possess dangerous weapons" and was jailed for seven years. His band of mercenaries received much lesser sentences.

It is puzzling that the Zimbabwe prosecution approached the issue of the mercenaries with a certain amount of laxity. But insiders say the Zimbabweans were being tactical, as they were under intense pressure by Tony Blair's government to let Mann go.

But had the Zimbabweans not heard of the activities of "Mad Mike" Hoare of Britain and his French counterpart, Bob Denard? Had they not heard of "The Dogs of War" who had laid waste to the Congo and several parts of Africa in the 1960s and 1970s? A mere seven years for a modern-day "Mike Hoare" flying a Boeing 737, who had landed in Zimbabwe with armed mercenaries and had blatantly lied about his intentions?

In fact, Mann only served four years imprisonment in Zimbabwe; his sentence was reduced by a third due to "good conduct". He was to have been released in May 2007. But the Zimbabweans had, in the mean time, signed an extradition treaty with Equatorial Guinea, and two days before Mann's release, he was arraigned in Harare again. This time, he faced an application from Equatorial Guinea that he should be extradited to face charges of plotting to overthrow its government. The sentence, if he was found guilty there, would be heavy.

Mann's propaganda accomplices in the West raised a hue and cry on his behalf, painting this perfectly legal extradition request from one African country to another, as something of a "rendition" of the American Guantanamo type. But the Zimbabwean court dismissed the concerns over the human rights record of Equatorial Guinea, canvassed by Mann's defence attorney. The Zimbabwe magistrate, Omega Mugumbate, rejected arguments by the defence that Mann would not receive a fair trial if extradited to Equatorial Guinea. This was a laughable argument: would the new regime that Mann intended to install in Equatorial Guinea have given a "fair trial" to anyone caught-with weapons-attempting to overthrow the new government?

On 9 May 2007, the Zimbabwe magistrate agreed to extradite Mann to Equatorial Guinea. Earlier, on 25 Aug 2004, the South African police had put Mark Thatcher under house arrest in Cape Town, on suspicion of involvement in the coup. Although Thatcher was alleged to be one of the major financiers of the coup, he was later released from house arrest after posting a bail of R2m (about $300,000). On 24 November 2004, a court in Cape Town ruled that Thatcher must answer questions under oath from Equatorial Guinea on the coup plot. On 13 January 2005, Thatcher pleaded guilty to having played a role in the plot, under a plea bargain agreement that allowed him to avoid jail by receiving a four-year suspended sentence, and paying a R3m fine ($500,000).

Why Thatcher was offered this plea bargain, when the South African authorities possessed evidence of almost everything that had taken place with regard to the plot, remains a mystery. But his mother, Margaret Thatcher, can be a great actress and frail as she is, if she threw herself on the mercy of certain influential and humanitarian personages in South Africa, telling them that she would surely die if Mark went to jail, the scales of prosecution-if not of justice itself-would weigh in Mark's favour.

On 30 January 2008, Mann was deported from Harare to Equatorial Guinea to face coup plot charges, after losing his appeal against extradition. On 11 March 2008, Mann confessed in Malabo, the Equatorial Guinean capital, to having plotted to oust the country's president. Mann was put on trial on 17 June 2008. The prosecution demanded that he be jailed fot 32 yeats. During the trial, Mann confirmed that Mark Thatcher was part of the plot. On 20 June 2008, die last day of his trial, Mann begged for leniency, saying he was sorry for having been part of the plot. On 7 July 2008, Mann was sentenced to 34 years and four months imprisonment.

The shocking aspects of the plot against Equatorial Guinea, namely, that in this day and age, people can sit down and plot how to seize a whole island and its inhabitants, demonstrates the total lack of morality that infects parts of Western society. Mann can be said to be a soldier of fortune, a role that is not unknown in history. His co-conspirators, including Mark Thatcher, are also businessmen, and quite often businessmen do dirty things in order to become richer.

But those whose behaviour has been most shocking in this affair are the British journalists and other "opinion leaders" who have attempted to justify the actions of Mann and his cabal, on the grounds that President Nguema is a bad egg of the Idi Amin type, and therefore getting rid of him would be doing a favour to Equatorial Guinea and its people. This argument doesn't wash because it is not only Nguema who has ever established a dictatorship on African soil. There was hardly an outcry from the British press for the overthrow of the likes of Sani Abacha, Mobutu Sese Seko, Kamuzu Banda or Jean-Bedel Bokassa, all of whom were dictators and yet were tolerated by the West.

What is enlightening is that despite the assumption Westerners make that their society is liberal and humanitarian, there are still "opinion leaders" in the West who do not care a hoot for the loss of "public school" product,Mark Thatcherinnocent lives that would occur in an African country, such as Equatorial Guinea, if it was invaded by mercenaries.

On 17 January 2005, The Times (of London) ran an article entitled "Mark is worth his Guinea", written by Bruce Anderson, who argued, only half-jokingly, that there was an "unpleasant tone" to some of the mockery to which Mark Thatcher had been subjected on account of his part in the coup plot. Now that Mark's mother, Margaret was no longer in power, Anderson said, "petty creatures who would never have dared to assail her in her prime" were trying to "avenge themselves through her son".

Even though anyone who regarded Mark as a reliable associate in a dangerous plot would "seem to have good grounds for a plea of insanity", [Anderson went on] there was "only one correct response" to the attempt to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea -"regret that it failed". For although oil had been discovered in Equatorial Guinea, Nguema was "more likely to eat [sic] his people than enrich them".

If Mark and his friends had succeeded, Anderson added, "there might have been hope". Anderson concluded: "Mark Thatcher is not the man to overthrow governments. But what a pity he did not "succeed."

What conclusion is to be drawn from these sentiments? That it would have been perfectly okay to have mounted the coup, if the actors involved had been individuals more worthy of Anderson's respect than "Mark and his friends".

It is as if no human lives were involved. Mark and his friends-or the better version of the cast-would just have walked on to a place on a card (map) gone over to the radio and taken it over, and lo and behold, there would have been new owners of the oil, and all would have been well for the poor people of Equatorial Guinea-that is, if, in the meantime, they had not died in the "crossfire", (as often happens to the poor when those who can buy arms fight over their heads).

But if Bruce Anderson's article was callous and condescending, it was as tepid tea compared to the unrefined to the unrefined hooch presented in a piece written by a Andrew Roberts in the online daily magazine, Firstpost, on 9 July 2008. Entitled "Privatise the business of deposing dictators", Roberts argued for "British government protection" for people like Simon Mann.

"There was something noble [sic] in attempting to rid the world of one of Africa's most brutal dictators and replace his regime with the opposition party," Roberts wrote. He Catalogued a long list of the evils perpetrated by Obiang Nguema and declared: "Anyone involved in attempting to overthrow this vicious monster should be protected by the British government to the utmost of her ability, and lauded by the rest of us."

Roberts was not done yet: [This] "brings us to Robert Mugabe,"he wrote. "With Britain, South Africa, the US, the African Union and the United Nations all absolutely ruling out an invasion of Zimbabwe-which is the only realistic way that his claws can be prised off the levers of power-surely it is time to look at the privatised option?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"A mercenary operation removing Mugabe and his senior henchmen and putting Morgan Tsvangirai in his place could be clean, quick and universally popular among ordinary Zimbabweans. Further, it would have 100% deniability by world governments and multinational organisations. That is why mercenary coups in Africa are an idea whose time has come," Roberts concluded.

It is because of such execrable opinions that the South African government should have been far more discerning in dealing with Mark Thatcher. A high-profile public trial, with a stiff prison sentence as its climax, would have sent a message to people like Andrew Roberts and Bruce Anderson that it is all right sitting before a computer in London inciting people to go into Africa to murder innocent people and describe them later as "collateral damage", but that when the murderous attempts fail, cries for the perpetrators of the murders to be handed humanitarian punishment would not be entertained.

However, it is not every writer in the West who is unaware of the silliness and hypocrisy inherent in the idea that white people should continue to assume ownership of the world and do what they like with it. In an article entitled "White men must stop meddling in Africa", (Daily Telegraph 27 Aug 2004), Alice Thomson wrote:

"It sounds incredibly romantic. Equatorial Guinea has been run by a tyrant for 25 years and now some English public school boys... want to liberate the country, aided by their South African chums. Their aim is to provide a new, more Westernised leader and, in the process, free up some of the oil reserves for more worthy causes than processs, free up some of the oil reserves for more worthy causes than the dictator's Swiss bank accounts.

"Surely, that's all President Bush was trying to do in Iraq ... It could all be fiction... But if true, how these men of fortune must have enjoyed preparing for the coup. What fun raising the money for this extended camping trip and all those boys' toys, the helicopters, the AK-47 rifles, the hand grenades ...

"But the last thing that Africa needs is a bunch of hypocritical, homicidal mercenaries taking up the white man's burden... The many peoples of the African continent are uniquely ill-served by their leaders. But now, a bunch of mercenaries has provided the perfect evidence that white people are still meddling incompetently in Africa.

"They might claim that their motivation was humanitarian, but their backers were paying them to get their hands on Equatorial Guinea's natural assets, and the mercenaries were apparently ready to kill to do it... The only lasting solution to Africa's problems will be an African one. Interfering Europeans, whether they come clutching guns or a microphone, should stay at home."

But will they listen to Alice Thomson? Africa must make them listen.