Dr. Christian A. Williams: "Liberation Movement Camps in Southern Africa"

Description

Transcript

[music]

Speaker 1: On the go sprint lectures on African mobilities podcast by Africa Multiple.

Speaker 1: Okay, hello and welcome to the seventh edition of our podcast series sprint lectures on African mobilities. My name is Joachim Lengelbach. I am postdoctoral researcher in the research section mobilities working on the project Africa and the global history of refugee camps focusing mainly on Eastern and Northern Africa in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties. In this edition we want to look into past struggles not only around mobility but also connected to it struggles for freedom from colonial oppression and white minority rule in Southern Africa. And camps did play an important role in the history of Southern African liberation movements in exile in the so-called frontline states. So I am really happy and glad to have Christian Williams here connected from Bloemfontein in South Africa who will give a lecture on the camps of liberation movements in Southern Africa. Christian Williams is a senior lecturer in the anthropology department at the University of Free State and a Humboldt fellow in the anthropology department at the University of Freiburg in Germany. His research examines histories of Namibians who lived in exile during Southern Africa's anti-colonial struggles and draws from his doctoral training in both anthropology and history. He published a monograph on SWAPO's exile camps with Cambridge University Press in two thousand fifteen and is now preparing a new book that explores the interplay between personal religious faith and anti-colonial exile politics through a Namibian refugee past. To continue working on this he will move to Freiburg in July hopefully if it will work out for the second part of his Humboldt fellowship. From his many publications I just want to highlight one most recent that was last year Christian edited a forum on African refugee history in the African Studies Review and apart from the editorial which gives a great introduction into approaches in this emerging field he also contributed an article to this forum titled SWAPO's struggle children and exile homemaking the refugee biography of Mawazo Nakadilu calling for more historical research into refugee biographies. Today he will give a talk titled Liberation movement camps in Southern Africa. So thank you for joining us here and applause for your team.

Speaker 2: Thank you Joachim for that introduction and thanks for everyone for joining me today. So my lecture today will focus on as Joachim said liberation movement camps in Southern Africa drawing from my twenty fifteen monograph as well as other secondary literature that has come out on this topic in the last several years. So from nineteen sixty to nineteen ninety tens of thousands of people fled Southern Africa's white minority regimes for exile in neighboring recently decolonized countries. Although some of these exiles scattered across the globe the vast majority remained in Southern Africa residing in camps administered by liberation movements representing their countries of origin until their eventual repatriation. It follows that liberation movement camps differed from what we commonly think of today as refugee camps camps administered by host nation and or transnational humanitarian agency on behalf of a community of people whom the United Nations and the international community recognize as refugees. At the same time they were not strictly military camps for even camps designed to train and deploy guerrilla soldiers often accommodated children women the elderly and others with no military training seeking refuge with a liberation movement. Rather liberation movement camps were hybrid spaces that defy labels commonly used to categorize camps globally today. And they have cast a long shadow shaping nationalisms and international relations across Southern Africa's recent past and present. Here I will consider Southern Africa's liberation movement camps from four perspectives through their chronology as they evolved in the Southern African region over time through the broader international solidarity networks that sustained them through the experiences of those who inhabited them and through their regional legacies. On the fourteenth of August nineteen sixty two Holden Roberto and some senior officials representing the FNLA an Angolan liberation movement opened a camp at Kinkuzu southwest of Leopoldville now Kinshasa. Although by this time Algeria Egypt and Ghana had provided military training courses to small groups of freedom fighters Kinkuzu was the first camp to be opened by an exiled Southern African liberation movement in a host country. The camp was short-lived. In nineteen sixty two and nineteen sixty three the year when the Organization of African Unity first met the Congo appeared to be a strategic location from which to infiltrate the Southern African region from liberated Africa. Also Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula sought to position himself in OAU politics as a Pan-Africanist committed to supporting a collection of liberation movements known as the Congo Alliance.

Speaker 1: By the middle of nineteen sixty four however, Adoula was deposed as prime minister amidst rising political strife in the Congo, abruptly changing the face of Congolese liberation politics. Early the same year, Tanzania's president Julius Nyerere declared his willingness to open camps for liberation movements inside the country's borders, and by the year's end, Zambia had achieved political independence, paving the way for liberation movements to establish camps there. It is these two frontline states, Tanzania and Zambia, where most of Southern Africa's liberation movements initially opened camps. Of these early camps, the first and most significant for several prominent movements was Kongwa. In April nineteen sixty four, the Tanzanian government, on behalf of the OAU Liberation Committee, set aside a tract of land for liberation movements then hosted within Tanzania's borders. The land was situated at the site of an abandoned railway station located eighty kilometers east of Dodoma near the village of Kongwa. Initially, the Mozambican liberation movement Frelimo and the Namibian liberation movement Swapo were based at Kongwa, and within months they were joined there by South Africa's ANC, Angola's MPLA, and Zimbabwe's ZAPU. Each liberation movement managed its own camp, governing the daily lives of hundreds of fellow nationals according to routines set within their respective areas of control and with oversight from the Tanzanian Defence Force. Some of the movements remained at Kongwa for only a year or two before relocating to other sites years. Regardless, the template for structuring camp life and addressing camp conflicts remained remarkably similar across many of the camps which liberation movements administered in Tanzania. The same point also applies to some extent to Zambia, where liberation movements established camps in designated military zones utilizing Zambia's strategic borders. Officially, the purpose of many of these camps was to train new recruits for Southern Africa's burgeoning guerrilla armies. Camps' origins and perceived purposes were considerably more complex than official government discourse suggests, however. For example, by nineteen sixty four, President Nyerere was not only committed to supporting Southern Africa's liberation through armed struggle, but also concerned about how to manage the growing numbers of Southern African exiles then residing in Dar es Salaam. By allotting camps to the liberation movements at Kongwa, the Tanzanian government was able to not only demonstrate its Pan-African commitment but also to control exiles' mobility and address concerns about its own security. At the same time, some of those exiles relocated from Dar es Salaam to the camps were unhappy about the move, especially aspiring students. During the early nineteen sixties, many young men were recruited from Southern African countries to join liberation movements in Tanzania on the premise that, through their liberation movement, they would be able to access secondary and tertiary education denied to them by colonial regimes. Some exiles did access such education, but far more were sent to camps where the liberation movements offered them basic military training and lessons in revolutionary guerrilla warfare, a very different education than what many had sought. For them, liberation movement camps could feel like detention camps. At the same time, liberation movement camps could also arguably have been designated as refugee camps, for the Tanzanian and Zambian governments granted refugees to Southern African nationals as groups irrespective of individuals' political affiliations and military activities. The mid nineteen seventies marked a watershed in the history of Southern Africa's liberation movement camps in at least two respects. First, the overthrow of the Portuguese government in April nineteen seventy four led not only to the political independence of Angola and Mozambique but also to the opening of these countries to liberation movements. From nineteen seventy six to nineteen seventy eight, Swapo established a vast network of makeshift camps in southern Angola inhabited by the flow of people infiltrating and fleeing Namibia, and larger semi permanent settlements deeper in the country, all with the support of Angola's MPLA-led government. Likewise, following the Soweto uprising of June nineteen seventy six in South Africa, the MPLA permitted the ANC to provide military training to new exiles at camps in northern Angola. Similarly, ZANU, which became increasingly embroiled in conflicts with the Zambian government during the nineteen seventies, opened camps in Mozambique with support from Frelimo from nineteen seventy seven, recentering its operations in exile there. The second watershed, from the mid nineteen seventies onwards, liberation movements began to establish camps for fellow nationals whom the movements especially sought to designate as refugees. The first such camp may have been the Old Farm, a piece of land on the outskirts of Lusaka which Swapo purchased from the Zambian government and where it established a Namibian health and education center in nineteen seventy three. With the collapse of Portugal's colonial empire the following year, the impetus for establishing such centers became far greater, as vast numbers of Namibians, South Africans, and Zimbabweans, including many women and children, fled into Angola and Mozambique. By the nineteen seventy six, the Zambian government had closed the Old Farm and had allotted a much larger Namibian Health and Education Center to Swapo in Zambia's Western Province. In nineteen seventy eight, the Angolan government followed suit, replacing camps primarily inhabited by Namibian non-combatants in volatile southern Angola with a larger, more secure camp to the north in Angola's Cuando Cubango province.

Speaker 1: The Tanzanian government set aside similar camps for the A N C, enabling the liberation movement to provide schooling and health services for non-combatants in Tanzania's Morogoro province from nineteen seventy seven onwards. Despite widespread use of the term refugee to refer to such camps, they nevertheless shared important features with other liberation movement camps. These include the primary role of liberation movement officials in administering the camps, the constant threat of colonial forces targeting the camps, and the presence of liberation movements' armies at these sites. To maintain liberation movement camps, the liberation movements relied also on recognition and aid from a broader international community. One key site of recognition was the O A U, through the O A U Liberation Committees Fund, which were then dispersed to the liberation movements with the with O A U officially, which the O A U officially recognised. O A U aid accounted for relatively little of the resources that liberation movements required to run their camps, but O A U recognition was important, influencing the recognition that liberation movements received from foreign governments and the willingness of potential host governments to account to accommodate them. More significant in financial terms were donations made by the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries to the liberation movements which they recognised. The Chinese government offered similar forms of aid to Southern African liberation movement camps, to Southern African liberation movements and their camps from the night up for movements that found themselves on the wrong side of the Sino-Soviet split. During the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties, the Nordic countries, United Nations agencies, and Western non-governmental organisations had also all become important sources for aid for liberation movements administering camps. By nineteen sixty nine, the Swedish government had begun to pledge direct official assistance to O A U recognised liberation movements, followed by the governments of Finland and Norway in nineteen seventy three, and various United Nations bodies and N G Os thereafter. Although these donors often spoke of the quote humanitarian purpose of their assistance, aid was repeatedly channeled into liberation movement camps, which as noted, where military and humanitarian aims were deeply entangled. Moreover, such humanitarian donors played a crucial role in defining liberation movement camps and their inhabitants for the international community, generating extensive support for liber for Southern Africa's political refugees. Initially, much aid was sent to liberation movements in an ad hoc manner, through interpersonal networks, and frequently aid responded to humanitarian crises with basic commodities. During the late nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties however, liberation movements such as Swapo and the A N C received consistent large quantities of aid from Scandinavian countries and the U N H C R, and camp inhabitants were rarely living in such dire circumstances. Indeed, during the nineteen eighties, the Nordic countries shifted from commodity aid to project aid at a number of these liberation movements' camps, building fully fledged schools and medical facilities there. Liberation movement camps shaped divergent experiences, which at first glance appear contradictory. On the one hand, many experienced the camps as sites of comradeship within a national community. Former camp inhabitants and historians who have chronicled such experiences emphasised several points here. These include inhabitants' national pride after completing military training courses, and empowered roles for women who were able to join guerrilla armies or pursue higher education due to the support structures available to them and their children in the camps. Provision of basic services in camps was highly symbolic for many camp inhabitants, who often could not access such quality services as colonial subjects. Similarly, foreign aid in camps highlighted liberation movements' international standing and capacity to be an independent nation on the global stage. Such experiences reflect liberation movements' efforts to build new nations through the camps that they administered. Consider for example this citation from Swapo's nineteen seventy three proposal to purchase the Old Farm. The philosophical basis of this centre is to germinate a model nuclear community, which would form a foundation for the future Namibian society. There, Swapo envisages to reorient Namibians with different cultural, social and educational backgrounds towards the ideals of one Namibia, one people and one nation.

Speaker 1: In articulating this vision, SWAPO drew from an established body of theory for anti-colonial guerrillas engaging with civilian populations which had been put into practice elsewhere globally. In the southern African context, Frelimo became especially associated with radically transformed social relations in its camps and liberated zones inside Mozambique. At these sites, the liberation movement asserted its will not only to create a new social order but also a new man, quote unquote, a new kind of human being which would be better than the traditional and colonial beings which had come before and which would shape the post-colonial future. At the same time, liberation movement camps repeatedly produced conflicts which threatened to pull emerging nations apart. Conflicts revolved around exiles' differing access to resources and privileges, setbacks in armed struggles, rumors of traitors and spies, and the work of liberation movements' own security apparatuses. Conflicts also reflected the same markers of social difference including ethnicity, region, generation, gender, and education. Repeatedly, liberation movement officials used violence to respond to internal division and discipline their own members. And frequently, movements perpetrated this violence with the support of host governments whose leaders tended to side with liberation movements' established elites. To understand these conflicts and how they could emerge from the same sites that generated such powerful feelings of comradeship, it is important to grasp how everyday life in liberation movement camps was. From the moment in which exiles entered a camp, they were reliant on those who administered them to access food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and weapons, all the necessary resources for their survival and for fighting a war. Camp inhabitants were also required to follow the particular rules and routines of the camps in which they were living, including restrictions on their ability to move within and beyond camp space and to associate with other camp inhabitants. Moreover, as previously noted, camp inhabitants were vulnerable to colonial regimes which at times targeted camps with attacks. Under the circumstances, there was strong impetus for exiles in camps to submit themselves to a nationalist movement that could provide for them and protect them. And yet, the national communities formed in camps were very hierarchical and often unstable, especially when liberation movement officials used their control over camp daily life to assert power over rivals in a national community. Comradeship and conflict in the camps also frequently spilled beyond camp borders. Although liberation movement camps were partially contained spaces with restriction on movement inside and outside the camp periphery, there was also interaction between exiles and local hosts surrounding these sites. At times, locals admired freedom fighters and benefited from them. In some cases however, locals came to resent these foreigners who developed a reputation for fighting criminality and womanising. Perhaps the most consistent bond and source of conflict among exiles and hosts were the children born to exile-host couples near liberation movements' camps. More than thirty years after the end of Southern Africa's liberation wars, liberation movement camps remain powerful sites of historical production across the region. Although the physical spaces of camps have been abandoned or repurposed, the camps figure prominently in the national histories of the region's post-liberation nations and of the frontline states that hosted them. Moreover, they remain significant in the personal narratives of many former exiles and other citizens whose own relationships to anti-colonial struggle is inextricable from these sites. For the now ruling parties of Southern Africa's post-liberation nations, there is much at stake in controlling histories of exile camps. All of these parties were once exiled liberation movements, and they relied heavily on narratives of anti-colonial resistance from exile to bind and govern national communities. Integral to any rendering of these exile histories are the camps where liberation movements first governed their fellow nationals and where most exiles lived. Although the symbolic weight of exile camps differs across the region's different nations, they are important to many governments as they legitimate their authority to rule. Former exiles also frequently narrate camp histories as they seek recognition for their bravery and suffering during the liberation struggle. Often these narratives affirm an official history articulated by liberation movements upon whom former exiles now rely for resources in a post-colonial nation.

Speaker 1: At the same time, as former exiles attempt to gain leverage over the recognition that they are granted, they often include details of their own unique experiences in camps. In so doing, they present historical knowledge that extends beyond the boundaries of an accepted national history and of competing histories that oppose it. Many histories of the camps are rendered in this manner, be they via organized interest groups, such as ex-combatants, struggle kids, or survivors of various kinds presenting stories to government officials, or via individuals narrating their experiences to others in everyday encounters. A similar point also applies to local host communities in the frontline states, some of which have begun to publicize histories of camps as they seek to create heritage sites and appeal for government resources. Finally, it should be noted that many enduring legacies of camps have not entered the public political realm or have only done so to a very limited extent. Far-flung southern African locations are bound together by the children born near camps and by the exiles that died near camps. Moreover, many feel nostalgia for liberation movement camp life, wherein, despite its hardship, inhabitants could often access food, shelter, and other resources that are difficult to come by for many in post-colonial, post-apartheid Southern Africa. In these and other contexts, liberation movement camps in the past remain integral to Southern Africans' lives in the present.

Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Christian, for this interesting talk. I would first like to take the opportunity to ask a question myself and then open the floor for the others. One thing that struck me from your work, it seems that refugee camps can also have a liberating or empowering potential for political struggles. And I think this is an important point because usually, and especially in critical research, camps are rather seen as something negative. But I think in your work also shows the potential of camps as spaces for empowerment and political self-organization. And I think other examples where it could fit in are protest camps of social movements, from Tahrir Square in Cairo to protest camps against the European border regime or protests of refugees in Berlin or Paris. So coming together and self-organizing in camp can indeed be an empowering base for political action. And I was just curious, do you think that the liberation movement camps also fit into this narrative of what you might call liberating camps or were they more military camps with authoritarian command structures or were they both?

Speaker 1: So my short answer is both. And depending on where one lived, what your point of reference is, you can easily emphasize one or the other. I tried in this talk to really weigh in on both sides of this. And I do also in my book, though a good portion of the book becomes focused on some of the conflicts and hierarchies that emerged in the camps, which I argue are so crucial to understanding hierarchies in Namibia today. But if one doesn't understand the liberating experiences that people had in camps and just sees them as sites of oppression or totalitarianism, then one is missing a lot of the camp experience. Even for those who found themselves embroiled in conflicts in camps, they will often acknowledge that side of the camp experience or how exciting it was to be at a particular camp. I think there's a lot that could be said on this topic. And of course, as one might expect, the liberation movements have often emphasized that liberating quality of the camps. But it's certainly not all mythology. It was a very real part of the experiences that many had. And I would argue that the liberating aspects of the camps and the more of liberation movement camps and the more authoritarian qualities were integral to each other in many ways. The threat of violence, the threat of regimes to exiles both before they arrived in the camps and then in the camps generated some of the intensity of bonding in those spaces. And it wasn't all just superficial bonding, for sure.

Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to read out one question from Joachim Gaube, professor of African History in Bayreuth.

Speaker 1: Short question, do we have figures or even rough estimates about how many persons lived or experienced these camps?

Speaker 2: So this is a really difficult question to answer. I mean there are there are figures, uh but what's um if you were to go into the historiography of of different Southern African liberation movements and where that touches on camps, uh you'll see that there's very little integration of those historiographies. So, um that's uh what I in my book I am effectively writing about SWAPO but I'm drawing from the other secondary literature and trying to initiate a conversation that moves across the historiographies and and for preparing this talk I've tried to really you know uh you know really consolidate that comparative work that I was doing in the in the book. But um I could only give the the broadest guesses um for for numbers. I mean with with respect to uh SWAPO, there were perhaps uh sixty thousand Namibians in exile um all across the Namibia's years of Namibia's liberation struggle um of whom almost all of those would have spent some time or other in a camp even if they weren't based in in camps. Um the numbers for South Africa are similar which uh speaks to the uh a difference in the Namibian and South African experience of exile in the camps when you consider how much smaller Namibia is as a population than than South Africa, those numbers are comparable for the two countries. For uh Mozambique and Angola the numbers are larger. Um however how many were in liberation movement camps is another question. So many um Mozambicans that went into exile were were actually housed in camps by United Nations camps and other NGOs in southern Mozambique and although the the liberation movements sometimes were moving into those camps, they were not what I'm calling liberation movement camps. And so what the numbers in the liberation movement camps is a tough question. Similarly with with Angola and if there are figures on the Zimbabwean numbers, I can't recall what they what they are and I think they're a bit higher than the Namibian and South African numbers. But that gives you a general feel for what kinds of numbers we're talking about and some of the complexity of compiling them.

Speaker 1: Okay thank you. Next is Stefan Ouma, he's professor of economic geography in Bayreuth.

Speaker 3: I just wanted to ask which role these camps play in current debates on xenophobia in South Africa either as a kind of point of meta-reference or as something that people who were in the camps use to fight for more inclusive politics because I rarely read something, I mean I don't follow the press closely but I don't see a discourse happening along these lines, Tanzanians fought for us now we should be more friendly to them.

Speaker 2: So the camps have come up as a point of meta-reference for sure. Um it's not uh it's certainly uh South African politicians and in commenting on and you know speaking out against xenophobic violence have spoken to how you know the frontline states received South Africans in exile including how they were received in camps. So it definitely is a point of meta-reference in the debates but um to what extent um it's there in more specific references of more other kinds of politics, politics of recognition for various exile groups in South Africa, this I'm uncertain and I think it's striking that I am uncertain because I am not familiar with it and I think I'm not a scholar of South Africa's liberation struggles so I could be missing what's what's out there but I do live in South Africa and I obviously am extremely interested in the topic and I've only heard them come up as points of meta-reference sort of leaders speaking very generally on these on these points. And of course the xenophobia issue is not the same issue in Namibia, xenophobic violence at least is not the same issue in Namibia so not surprisingly it hasn't come up there in the same way.

Speaker 1: Yeah thank you. Next I have a question from Petty Kinyera. Petty Kinyera is a postdoctoral researcher in Geography in Bayreuth currently based in Uganda. Thank you Christian for your talk. Growing up as a child of a soldier, I spent substantial amount of my time in internally displaced persons camps in northern Uganda. Until now I have not come to understand clearly what a camp is. Could you speak a bit more about what to you constitutes a camp to justify your positive gesture on camps?

Speaker 1: So, a camp for me is a contained or semi-contained space. So there is restriction on mobility from inside to outside, in which there is considerable power over the daily life and the meeting of basic needs of inhabitants, as well as to greater and lesser degrees of the kinds of information that inhabitants can circulate or at least what official knowledge is. And so, when I think of camps, I think of these. To reiterate and put a finer point on it, I think about mobility, I think about access to resources and how they're administered, and I think about exchange of knowledge and its limitation. And I think that one can work with these different three different kinds of qualities when thinking about different kinds of camps. But of course, what this looks like across various kinds of camps that we might think of is very different. And of course, if we use the camp in a broader sense than the way I am defining it, then even these points dissolve. I once—I was reading—I led a reading group at University of the Western Cape on camps about a decade ago, and I got my hands on a book written by an architect about camps that was sort of working very glibly with the word camp, including summer camps in the same place as concentration camps and everything else where people use the word camp. So, we think of all the ways that term is used. It really can mean very different things. But for me, there are these three core qualities which certainly apply to the camps that liberation movements administered, and that look different in liberation movement camps than in refugee camps as commonly understood, and military camps as commonly understood. And that's why although those terms were certainly in use with reference to liberation movement camps in southern Africa very often, I argue that we should refer to liberation movement camp as a kind of camp because the way that these three qualities worked in a liberation movement camp were distinct in a number of ways.

Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. One more question from Joëlle. I'll read it out. What do we know about the circulation of revolutionary knowledge between the different movements, SWAPO, ANC, MPLA, et cetera, in and around the camps? Did they have a shared knowledge?

Speaker 1: So, yes, that's a very interesting question. Because yes, there were certainly shared knowledge, shared reference points. And yet, one of the things I find remarkable about liberation movement camps is the extent to which different liberation movements administered those camps and remained within their camps even when these camps were alongside one another. That to me is part of the fascination with Kongwa. I've written a chapter of my book is on Kongwa, and I've written a separate article on Kongwa and gone back to it in a number of articles that I've written. Not only was it the first camp for many of the—you know—for four of the liberation movements, for four of southern Africa's five post-liberation nations. It's also—all the liberation movements were literally right next to each other at this camp. And yet, there is very different knowledges in the different parts of the camp and limitations to what was exchanged, even though there certainly were exchanges between the camps. So I think that's striking. So yes, there is shared knowledge, but some of that shared knowledge—I mean, surely there was exchange—and we can talk about to what extent that happened between liberation movements—but some of that shared knowledge is just from the overlapping places where these liberation movements were trained far from southern Africa, say, points of reference—the Soviet Union or China or Algeria—or, I mean, people were reading the Little Red Book, Mao's Little Red Book, in multiple camps in Kongwa, but that didn't necessarily come from the people in those movements exchanging it with each other, but from their experiences being trained elsewhere in the world. And of course, that also speaks to some of the differences between liberation movements and how much of the knowledge was shared. Because although some movements like SWAPO—I mean, SWAPO was not caught in the sino-soviet split in the same way that some other movements were, where I mean, we could talk about Zimbabwe—you know, ZAPU is the Soviet-supported movement and ZANU is the Chinese-supported movement, and that shapes those different movements in some different ways. And SWAPO was able to gain support from across this divide and a number of other Cold War divides. But depending on where these different movements fit in these Cold War divides, where they received training in other parts of the world, be they China, Soviet Union, or even other African states, that...

Speaker 1: That shaped the kind of knowledge that was circulating in the camps and what was being read to some extent too. So it's quite a complex question that you're asking and difficult to theorize in a way that sort of draws it all together without going into lots of details about one liberation movement or another.

Speaker 2: Thank you so much Christian. I think we've reached the end of our time here. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1: Thanks very much for the invitation and for the questions. These are really good questions to think with.

[music]

Speaker 2: This was On the Go: Sprint Lectures on African Mobilities.

Value Annotations

Origins & context

Generated by

Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct