The news agency has reported numerous cases of illegal trade and activation of satellite terminals
Starlink satellite communication terminals, manufactured by Elon Musk's SpaceX for exclusive use on his network, can be purchased illegally in countries where no agreement exists for their use – including nations that are subject to international sanctions, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. A growing black-market trade has reportedly emerged in territories with poor internet coverage and quality, where there is a need for high-speed online communications. Starlink kits, developed and operated by the US aerospace company, are in “widespread use” in Yemen, which is in the midst of a decade-long civil war, according to an unnamed government official cited by Bloomberg. Western diplomats told the news agency that the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces are using Starlink systems in Sudan “for their logistics,” as the internet has been down in the country since February. Musk denies providing Starlink to RussiaREAD MORE: Musk denies providing Starlink to Russia Web users in South Africa and Venezuela can also bypass a ban and activate Starlink terminals using retailers and international credit cards. The South American nation is the subject of sanctions imposed by the UK, the US, and other Western allies. In South Africa, where the government hasn’t yet approved Starlink’s application to operate, terminals are being traded on Facebook groups. Dealers offer to purchase and activate kits in neighboring Mozambique, where they are licensed, and then deliver them over the border to South African customers. SpaceX currently has some 5,500 Starlink satellites in low-earth orbit, providing web services to around 2.6 million customers. The company launched in 2019, while CEO Elon Musk is aiming to increase the total number of satellites to 42,000 in the coming decades. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian authorities claimed that the Russian military had been using the Starlink satellite service on the battlefield. The service has been widely used by the Ukrainian Army during the military conflict after Musk unlocked the service for Kiev's forces in the early stages of the conflict. Musk has denied supplying the Starlink satellite internet network to Russian troops, while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had never officially ordered SpaceX’s internet terminals, adding that they are not certified for use in Russia.
It was an easily targeted spot for slave traders and gold grabbers who covertly masqueraded as traders. Therefore, it features prominently in the African historical narrative of capital and human exploitation by Europeans. Dr. Judith Spicksley, a historian at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation (WISE) at the University of Hull, in her seminal article ‘Pawns on the Gold Coast’, describes how early in the trade relationship, Europeans took gold pawns as security for debt. However, as unorthodox rules for slave operations weakened and the lust for more gold overshadowed the emergent supply, Europeans turned increasingly toward the use of human pawns. This is no different from other exploitative processes that led to the loss of precious resources on the continent. Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Read more Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Official evidence of the looting of Ashanti Gold began during the Anglo-Asante War of 1874, when Britain’s military invasion of the Kumasi empire, sitting on the largest gold reserves in the region, inflicted much damage. Armed with explosives and superior firearms, the British military went on a sordid quest for Ashanti’s Gold Royal regalia – like the Mponponsuo sword created 300 years ago by the Kingdom’s Okomfo (spiritual leader) Anokye, which led the list of looted items in 1874. Under the pretext of ending slavery, British military incursions and lopsided trade treaties enforced with superior military might on African leaders occurred. Leaders who resisted were exiled, like the Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh, who was exiled to Seychelles in 1874. The British established trading ports, ensuring Britain declared itself a legitimate ruler on foreign soil. The rulers of several African kingdoms acted as middlemen in these trades, often against their will, but had to consent for self-preservation. The spoils from these conquered kingdoms paid for these wars. In Asante, the Asantahene, ruler of the Ashanti people, signed the harsh Treaty of Fomena in July 1874 to end the war. A standout clause in the treaty between Queen Victoria and Kofi Karikari, King of Ashanti, was the payment of 50,000 ounces (over 1,400kg) of approved gold as indemnity for the expenses caused to the Queen of England by the war. Britain incurred costs from these wars at the expense of its opponents, destroying Africa’s biggest empires. 1874 wasn’t the only instance of looting. In 1896, ceremonial swords, cups, and other vital items measuring a palace’s royalty were stolen. In his 2020 book ‘The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution’, Dan Hicks, a British archaeologist, anthropologist, and professor at the University of Oxford, repudiates the presence of these artifacts in Western museums, which perpetuates a narrative of colonial superiority and cultural dominance while erasing the histories and voices of the communities from which they were stolen.
Although discussions about the restitution of African artifacts predate independence in most African countries, they intensified in the latter half of the 20th century. Archaeologist and Nigeria’s head of the Federal Department of Antiquities, Ekpo Eyo, sent circulars to several European embassies in 1972 about the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes (thousands of 14th- to 16th-century plaques and sculptures taken by the British from the African Kingdom of Benin in the late 19th century) and spurred official pronouncements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This convention offers a shared framework among state parties regarding actions required to prohibit and prevent cultural property import, export, and transfer. The convention emphasizes that the return and restitution of these cultural properties are the linchpin of the convention, which mandates safeguarding the identity of peoples and promoting peaceful societies to strengthen the spirit of solidarity and stifle the expansionary rise of black-market trades across the continent. ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? Read more ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? After 150 years, the Ashanti Gold artifacts are held in various museums around the world, including major museums in Europe and North America. The British Museum in London holds 32 of the 39 historical artifacts, while seven treasures are at the Fowler Museum of the University of California in Los Angeles. Other minor artifacts, which receive little attention, are held in museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Musee du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and other smaller regional museums or private collections. In restitution efforts for the Ashanti Gold artifacts, complex legal and logistical hurdles are at play. Firstly, there has to be established provenance through examining documentation, archives, and historical records, owing to the difficulty arising from the long years of history and multiple transfers. Variations in international laws governing the repatriation of cultural property also add to the myriad of challenges. Transporting the artifacts from current holders to their destination and settling associated legal disputes or financial concerns provides further complication. Collaboration among international partners toward this is essential for successfully repatriating these artifacts. In conclusion, this extensive discussion about restitution aims to deepen existing Euro-African diplomatic relationships. The emphasis on restitution primarily lies in its utility as a building block for reconciliation; it aims to rectify pre-colonial injustices, foster international dialogue, and advance the growing bilateral trade between countries on both continents. The Ghana restitution experience will provide the policy framework and lead the roundtable engagement for restitution claims from other countries in Africa. As noted earlier, this action will not only demonstrate contrition but also make the most declarative statement from the West and other collaborators regarding their penitence during this ruinous expedition in colonial Africa.