Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

[ugorji ugorji]

Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions By Chinweizu Being a talk delivered at the African Liberation Day Public Forum at Accra Polytechnic, May 26, 2008 organised by the PAN-AFRICAN COUNCIL GREETINGS, Pan African comrades! I am here to remind us all of our Pan-Africanist duty to stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in their present trials and tribulations. May I remind you of Pan-Africanism's Black Solidarity principle that, in Nyerere's words, "as long as black people anywhere continue to be oppressed on the grounds of their color, black people everywhere must stand together in opposition to that oppression". In Zimbabwe for the last 8 years, the Black population has been under severe attack by the imperialist white power enemies of Black Africa, namely the UK, the USA and the EU. The people of Zimbabwe need our Pan-African help and solidarity against an economic war inflicted on them through sanctions allegedly targeted at only their leaders. Sanctions have crippled the Zimbabwean economy. Markets for Zimbabwean exports are closed because Blacks now own the land stolen by Rhodesian colonizers. Foreign tourism has also plummeted, costing tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. Basic imports are unavailable; currently (as of March 2008), Zimbabwe suffers from widespread food shortages, the world's highest inflation rate at over 100,000 per cent. A sizeable part of the population has been forced to seek economic refuge abroad. This is all happening according to the white power plan. We should recall that former US Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs, Chester Crocker said in a 2005 testimony to the US Senate for the Zimbabwe Democracy Act (i.e. sanctions and regime change legislation) "To separate the Zimbabwean people from ZANU-PF we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do." (Democracy Now! April 1st, 2005). And that is precisely what is happening. The economy is indeed screaming, by enemy design. The enemy intended to so torture the Zimbabwean people that they would reject ZANU-PF at the polls. Of course, enemy propaganda claims that the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy is simply the result of land reforms and mismanagement by the ZANU-PF regime. My friends, if you believe that you can believe anything. You can even believe that all the weapons of mass destruction in the world are stockpiled in Saddam Hussein's shoes! So we come to the question: Why are the white powers torturing the black people of Zimbabwe? They call Zimbabwe an "outpost of tyranny" and claim they want to remove ZANU-PF from power and bring to the Zimbabweans the pleasures and benefits of democracy. But that is a bloody big lie. In actual fact, they want to reverse the land reforms of the last 10 years, and engineer a situation where the whites, at less than 1%of the population can go back to owning more than 70 per cent of the arable land, including most of the best land. That is why they are, through sanctions, which is an act of economic warfare, torturing the black people of Zimbabwe. But how did whites ever come to own land in Zimbabwe, and so much land at that? The answer lies in what happened during the so-called Scramble for Africa in the closing decades of the 19th century. Following the notorious Berlin Conference of 1884-85, the European powers set out on their scramble to conquer and seize the lands of Black Africans. In 1889 Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company (BSA) gained a British mandate to colonize what would become Southern Rhodesia. In 1890 - a pioneer column of white settlers arrived from South Africa at the site of the future capital Harare, and started grabbing land. The Black owners of the land opposed the white land stealers. But by 1893 the Ndebele uprising against BSA rule was crushed. But that statement does not convey how it was done. For a flavor of the genocidal war and sustained terrorism the British inflicted on the Blacks who resisted their land grab, consider the case of the Amandebele (Matabele) of what became Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). By the trickery of treaties and the terrors of war, the Amandabele were dispossessed of their land, stripped of their cattle, reduced to the status of bondsmen, scattered, barred from moving about from place to place except under a system of permit or pass, and made to do forced labour on the farms and mines of Whites. The net result, as reported at the time? The net position is this: The native population of Southern Rhodesia possesses today no rights in land or water. It is allowed to continue to live upon the land on sufferance and under certain conditions . . . There appears to be no attempt on anyone's part to deny the bedrock fact that these 700,000 natives have been turned from owners of land into precarious tenants.1 And among the methods employed in the race war and terror campaign that achieved this? In the words of the Matabele Times, We have been doing it up to now, burning kraals because they were native kraals, and firing upon fleeing natives simply because they were black.2 And for a glimpse of the spirit in which the British troops waged that race war, consider these words by an adventurer friend of Cecil Rhodes, a certain W. A. Jarvis: The best thing to do is to wipe them all out as far as one can - everything black. And in letters to his mother, Jarvis wrote: I hope the natives will be pretty well exterminated. . . There are 5500 niggers in this district (Gwelo) and our plan of campaign will probably be to proceed against this lot and wipe them out then move on towards Bulawayo wiping out every nigger and every kraal we find. . . .And after these cold blooded murders, you may be sure there will be no quarter and everything black will have to die, for our men's blood is fairly up.3 At the end of it all, the Amandabele view of what the British had done to them was this: Our country is gone, our cattle have gone, our people are scattered, we have nothing to live for, our women are deserting us; the white man does as he likes with them; we are the slaves of the white man, we are nobody and have no rights or laws of any kind.4 This armed and genocidal seizure of the land of the blacks would be compounded and given a fig leaf of legality when, in 1930 the colonial government passed the Land Apportionment Act, which divided the colony into separate areas for whites and blacks. The act allocated to white settlers, who numbered only about 50,000 (less than 5 percent of the colony's population), approximately 50 per cent of the land. Leaving the other 50 per cent to the 95 per cent of the population that was black. Now, as we all know, it was not until 1980, after a 15 years guerilla war against the white settler government of Ian Smith, that the stage was set for the blacks to recover their land after almost a century of white usurpation. The setting for that was the Lancaster House agreement of December 1979. The three-month long conference almost failed to reach conclusion, due to disagreements on Land reform. Mugabe was pressured to sign and land was the key stumbling block. Both British and American governments of the day offered to buy land from willing white settlers who could not accept reconciliation (the "Willing buyer, Willing seller" principle - which could not be changed for ten years) and a fund was established, to operate for ten years from 1980 to 1990. The British assisted in setting up the Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development in 1981. At that conference, more than �630 million of aid was pledged. The first phase of land reform in the 1980s, which was partially funded by the United Kingdom, successfully resettled only 71,000 families out of a target of 162,000. What, after that, became of the Lancaster House provisions on land and the pledges? Having secured the non-expulsion of the defeated white settlers, Britain proceeded to renege on its commitment to fund the repurchase of the land it had stolen a century earlier. By its own admission in 2004, "Since independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe" That's �44m out of the �630m pledged in 1981. The Zimbabwean Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noted that it was estimated that about $2 billion would be needed to properly support land reforms in the country. The government said it received only �40m between 1980 and 1996, and that, though a mission--sent by John Major to evaluate the position after the �40m provided under Mrs. Margaret Thatcher had been exhausted--recommended that further funding be given to Zimbabwe to complete the land reform programme, when John Major lost the 1997 general election to Tony Blair, the new regime immediately repudiated all the undertakings made by the British under the Lancaster House Agreement to assist Zimbabwe with land reforms. It quotes a letter written to the Zimbabwean Government on November 5, 1997 by Ms Clare Short, the then newly appointed Secretary of State for International Development, which reads in part: "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonized not colonizers." Given this clearly worded reneging by the British Government on its Lancaster House commitments, the Zimbabwean government felt it was left with no option but to legally designate for acquisition in 1997 "nearly 1,500 white-owned farms for resettlement to landless peasants." That was how the Zimbabwean crisis was launched. Because Zimbabwe, when faced with Britain's perfidious reneging on the Lancaster House Agreement, dared to try to repossess the stolen lands by any means necessary, Britain, supported by the white powers, launched a campaign of regime change, using sanctions and all the other familiar devices in the imperialist bag of tricks. They have demonized the Zimbabwean leadership, crippled the economy with sanctions, organized and paid for an opposition called the MDC. It is a script we have seen before in other parts of the world including Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The result is the ongoing torture of the Zimbabwean people. And where do the allegations of human rights violations, and lack of democracy come in? Or the claim that Mugabe has ruled for too long and is too old? That is all part of the regime change scenario. Given their decision to drive ZANU-PF from power for daring to take back the land stolen by whites, these are all ways of giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it. It's all part of the faked story to justify regime change. It's like the famous weapons of Mass Destruction that the world was assured that Saddam had stockpiled! But we must not be fooled. We must not forget that Mugabe has stayed long in office by being elected and re-elected each time. Now, is it for the imperialists, or for the Zimbabwean electorate to decide when Mugabe should stop ruling? And all this noise about elections not being free and fair? When was the last time any elections were held in Saudi Arabia, let alone free and fair elections? Yet nobody is organizing regime change there! When was the last "free and fair" election in Nigeria or Kenya for that matter? Yet nobody is organizing regime change in these countries. Why not? Precisely because they hand over to the imperialists even what the imperialist have not dreamt of asking to be given. The point of it all is that, if a regime defends the interests of its people, it will earn the enmity of the imperialists, and become a target for these accusations and sanctions. But if it serves imperialism, it can be as undemocratic as Saudi Arabia, as suppressive of human rights as the Obasanjo regime was in Nigeria, or Pinochet's in Chile, and the imperialists will give it their seal of approval. What is the role of Tsvangirai and the MDC in all this? Tsvangirai and the MDC are simply regime change tools of the imperialists. He belongs with black traitors like Dhlakama of RENAMO and Savimbi of UNITA. Not only have they been lavishly funded by the imperialists, but Rhodesian whites have openly supported MDC and come to Zimbabwe saying they will be taking "their" farms from indigenous Zimbabweans when Tsvangirai becomes president. Make no mistake about it. What ZANU-PF has been doing since 1997 is to collect reparations by any means necessary, after having patiently given the imperialists every opportunity to abide by their own pledges to fund their own "willing seller, willing buyer" formula for land redistribution. For carrying the liberation struggle to its second stage, ZANU-PF deserves the support of all anti-imperialist Black Africans, of all Pan Africanists. We mustn't forget that when white-ruled Rhodesia was under sanctions in the 1960s and 1970s, it was helped to bust sanctions and survive by white-ruled South Africa and white ruled Mozambique. Now that Black Zimbabwe is under punitive sanctions from the vengeful white world powers, why are Black-ruled South Africa and its other SADC neighbors not doing enough to help Zimbabwe defeat these sanctions? What is Black Africa doing to help? We must all do much more! We will not have done enough until these sanctions are defeated with our visible help. So I must ask each and every one of you: what are you, in Pan-Africanist solidarity, prepared to do to help the Zimbabwean people today? Having said all that, it is our comradely duty to also ask ZANU-PF to thoroughly review its methods of fighting sanctions and its methods of telling its story to its people and to the world. For it seems not to have done an adequate job of that so far. Chinweizu is a Black Power Pan-Africanist; the author of The West and the Rest of Us, Decolonising the African Mind, and other books. He is the co-founder of the Committee Against Arab Colonialism in Black Africa (CAACBA). For further information please contact Chinweizu 1 E. D. Morel, The Black Man's Burden, p. 50. 2 Ibid., p. 47. 3 Quoted in Stanlake Samkange, "The History of Zimbabwe: Source of Nationalism", in J. O. Okpaku et al., The Arts and Civilization of Black and African Peoples,Vol.5, Lagos: CBAAC, 1986, pp. 245-246. 4 E. D. Morel, op. cit., p. 47. Tools Send to a friend Printer-friendly version

© 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).

--

Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

[kenneth harrow]

if you go to the front page of the ny times on line, you will see a picture of a baby whose legs were broken by mugabe's youth core when they couldn't find its father.
there is a point where one's repulsion at this horrific practice becomes overwhelming.
can anyone really apologize for mugabe now;
let chinweizu deny the ugly reality; no images will move him, i presume; anything can be called "western propaganda." even idi amin played this card.
for jews, this is familiar: it is called holocaust denial.
ken harrow

Kenneth W. Harrow
Professor of English
Michigan State University
har...@msu.edu
517 353-7243
fax 353 3755

[kayodek...@yahoo.com]

Dear Kenneth, you missed the point Chinweizu is making. You are the one denying the historical context of the Zimbabwean crisis. Those who do so are mesmerised by the demonisation of Mugabe by Imperialism. Why is no one talking about the British and American culpabity in the crisis arising from the mismagement of the land question? If Mugabe dies today that would not solve the crisis more than the hanging of Sadam Hussein has solved problems in Iraq. Does it occur to Africans that the West never demonised Mussharaf as they helped solve problems in Pakistan. Afrcans should be more rigorous in discussing the Zimbabwean. Kayode Komolafe Lagos..

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:26:23 -0400
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

There indeed comes a time when matters need not be over-intellectualized. Zimbabweans are groaning under the jackboot of a revolutionary turned ruthless dictator. It is clear that Zimbabweans want political change. They spoke clearly in the recent election, preferring a thoroughly compromised Mr. Tsvangirai to the bumbling incumbent. That choice ought to indicate to many of Mugabe's defenders the extent of Zimbabweans' revulsion at Mr. Mugabe's damaged leadership. They are now so battered that they are prepared to turn to a stooge of the West. Tsvangirai's recent electoral successes are a sad commentary on the state of disillusionment with Mugabe's rule in Zimbabwe. In fact, Mugabe's political intransigence and administrative incompetence is precisely the reason why a buffoon like Tsvangirai was able to best him in the last election and is sure to beat him in a fair run-off.

 

I hope that Mr. Mugabe's defenders ( I used to offer Mugabe a nuanced, heavily qualified support in the early days of his madness) will realize that opposition to Mugabe in the current impasse is not indicative of one's endorsement of what the West has done and continues to do to the people of Zimbabwe, an infliction for which Mugabe has become a convenient excuse. I hope that these defenders will see much of the growing African opposition to Mugabe for what it is: solidarity with the suffering, terrorized people of Zimbabwe (victims of Mugabe's terror) and a thoughtful rejection of the old game of using Western persecution as a foil for domestic political brigandage.

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Ghandi

[kenneth harrow]

i see clearly as you and chinweizu the demonization of mugabe. that has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual culpability! that's the mistake. simply because the bbc or others are obsessed with him has nothing to do with his actual behavior, which now is completely off the charts. you cannot excuse the horrific actions he has countenanced in these past few years. i have no problem finding fault with the english or the americans; but they are not the agents of zimbabwe's fall now, it is robert mugabe and the military autocracy he has created; and all of us, african or not, should condemn what is happening there now.
kh

[Pius Adesanmi]

"can anyone really apologize for mugabe now"

Good question, Ken. The answer, unequivocally, is no. Mugabe needs to go. Africa needs to find an urgent solution to that open sore. African governements should begin by not recognizing the farce Mugabe wants to organize on Friday. However, you do know that when one question stands, other questions can/should stand beside it. Put differently, let question one perch and let question two perch. Whichever says the other shouldn't perch, let its wings break!  So, here is question two: why are Saudi Arabia and Nigeria so different from Zimbabwe?   These two countries have between them enough violations of human rights in the last two decades to make Pinochet's Chile look like paradise. Both are in a consistent oxymoronic relationship with democracy - I hope you do not take the Yar'Adua joke seriously as democracy. Why are Washington and London not weeping louder than the bereaved with regard to these two countries? Saudi Arabia's case is very well known. Let's focus on Nigeria. In only two decades, Nigeria's genocidal state has wiped out three towns - Umuechem, Odi, and Zaki Biam - in the service of Washington and London. This criminal state has declared war on the people of the Niger Delta with the tacit approval of Washington and London. I'm sure you read my friend, Ike Okonta's Where Vultures Feast. There were pictures of roasted human bodies, raped women, and burnt houses in the local media when Obasanjo's scorched earth policy raged through Odi and Zaki Biam. Now, why didn't any of those pictures make it to the front page of The New York Times, like the picture that moved you so strongly today? Perhaps, if you'd seen pictures of Odi, Umuechem, and Zaki Biam, you'd be equally appalled by the criminal double standards of Washington and London? What was President Clinton's stance on Abacha? He said he wouldn't mind a civilian President Abacha so long as the tyrant organized credible elections! I read Paul Zeleza's urgent expose on Zimbabwe. He describes firsthand reports of thuggery, violence, and intimidation of the opposition that he received. As I read Zeleza, I couldn't help feeling that even a local government chairmanship election in Nigeria is a lot more violent than what th world media is reporting about Zimbabwe. In Nigeria, our politicians "capture" democracy with cutlasses, machetes, and AK-47s for elections. That's how Yar'Adua's mandate was "captured". Well. along with massive rigging. What do we hear from the Western world when these atrocities happen in Nigeria? Well, listen to Baroness Lynda Chalker: "you cannot have perfect elections, not even in the West"!   For some us, Zimbabwe becomes a double tragedy when Washington and London feel sufficiently enamoured to throw their hypocritical and morally-gangrened mouths into the matter. They just do not qualify to talk about Zimbabwe, let alone indulge in the sort of drumbeats to which they have treated the world so far.   Pius Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com --- On Thu, 26/6/08, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:

Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

[Adeniran Adeboye]

Kenneth Harrow,

If all the reporting of Mugabe's culpability come from the Western press such as the BBC, what credibility should we attach to such? At what point would you consider the failure of the West to live up to the initial commitment to a judicious redistribution of the arable land?

Adeniran Adeboye

[Eligius Ihewulezi]

I enjoyed reading Chinweizu's article, but there is one important thing lacking in his write-up. Chinweizu did not explain why Mugabe thinks that he is the only politician that can rule Zimbabwe. This is the madness of many of our African leaders, who think that they must rule till death even when they are most unpopular.

Cajetan.

--- On Wed, 25/6/08, ugorji ugorji <odozi...@winning.com> wrote:

> * Send to a friend
>
> * Printer-friendly version

>
> © 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights
> Reserved).
>
> --
> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

[Eze Agu]

Dr. Ochonu,

Thanks for this nuanced analysis which I think speaks for many
thinking Africans. Despite our many reservations about the Western
campaign against Mugabe, its now clearly time to side with the people
of Zimbabwe. I guess it may be too late now for a third party like
Simba Makoni to come in as e.g. interim president and conduct fair
elections later in the year.

Eze Agu

>> (c) 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).

[Wassa Fatti]

All of us need to be clear with the present crisis in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe situation is a challenge to all Africans. Does the West have any moral responsibility to tell  Africans about democracy? Where they the same Westerners who denied Zimbabweans the right to Demcracy? How many Africans died to liberate Zimbabwe? How can Africans now think that they have same interest with West to demonize Mugabe? Anytime the West attacks a leader in Africa, their interest is threaten. So Africans need to sober up fast to defend the of Africans in Zimbabwe that is now challenging Western manhood in Africa. The misery Africans are facing in Zimbabwe is not Mugabe's making, but Western creation. If Africans think the MDC is the solution to post Mugabe and join the West in demonizing our historical icon of the anticolonial struggle, we are betraying the principles of our ancestors who died for us to live. We have paid heavy price in killing our prophets such as Nkrumah, Lumumba, Cabral, Ya Assante-wa, Malcolm X amd many others for the West to keeping on exploiting and looting our resources and our humanity.
 
Mugabe need the support of all true Africans at present.
Wassa.

---

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:20:51 -0400
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com; USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
From: har...@msu.edu

[Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng]

It appears that some people think that Tsvangirai and the MDC members are not Black or that it is ok to opress white or non-black people. This cannot stand as a principle and Nyerere did not mean to imply or invite blind solidarity with every black dictator.

 
Kwasi
 
(Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng, Journalist & Communications Consultant)
 
Programme Coordinator
 
Cultural Initiatives Support Programme
 
Du Bois Centre
 
PMB CT 219, Cantonments, Accra
 
Tel: +233 21 770677
 
Please copy OFFICIAL correspondence to kgape...@cispghana.org

---

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:26:23 -0400
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

From: har...@msu.edu
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"...and all of us, african or not, should condemn what is happening there
now." - kh

Like we all comdemmned apartheid and the European historical brutalization
of Africans that led to the current imbroglio?

Get used to it - Robert Mugabe is a product of the the yet to be resolved
European invasion of Africa, just like all the other "puppet dictators"
Africa has produced since her so-called "Mickey Mouse independence" (Lucky
Dube).

Robert Mugabe is NOT the "gebinning" of Zimbabwe - and Robert Mugabe is
NOT Zimbabwe!

There is no way way to anaylze or understand or criticize Robert Mugabe
without factoring in European historical, and Western on-going complicity
in the debacle.

Africans would be fools to naively buy lock, stock and barrel into the
one-sided anti-Mugabe crusade being mounted by the West.

And just like the one-sided anti Saddam Hussein cruasde has merely plunged
Iraq into total tragedy, the same could happen in Zimbabwe if Africans
should keep on cheering the West's attack on Robert Mugabe, while
studiously ignoring the ACTUAL PROBLEM of Zimbabwe - WHO OWNS THE LAND?

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

"kenneth harrow" <har...@msu.edu> writes:

>>----------

>>> * <mailto:?subject=Black Africa's duty to
>>> help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions&body=Black

>>> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat
>>> sanctions

>>> http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/policy_politics/article01/250608>Send
>>> to a friend
>>> *
>>> <http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index2_html?itemID=article01&print=print>Printer-friendly

>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>© 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).
>>>
>>>--
>>>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

>>>Get a Free Account at<http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!

[basil ugochukwu]

I held a discussion with a Kenyan friend not too long
ago about what is going on in Zimbabwe. It made sense
because here was a kenyan whose country had just
survived a typical African virus offering some
perspectives on another African country that caught
the same virus long before Kenyans voted December
2007. Surprisingly, this Kenyan's sympathy was with
Mugabe. My sympathy, on the contrary is with the
people of Zimbabwe. I'm in no way exonerating Britain,
the US and the EU from the charges Mugabe has heaped
on them. But whatever sympathy anyone wants to offer
Mugabe dissolves inside the fact of his apparent
uselessness to a Zimbabwe of tomorrow. At over 80 and
having ruled for all of 28 years let him just throw in
the towel. If in all these years in power he has been
unable to raise a successor who can sustain his land
reforms, who can also win a free and fair election and
if his very presence in power is still required to
maintain those reforms, he has failed miserably. The
West cannot be held responsible for that!

> >----------

=== message truncated ===

[Nkolika Ebele]

Thank you Cajetan for hitting the point. How come it African leaders do not think we have enough talents here to explore as leaders,that once any of them gets to power, it becomes 'till death do us path'. What scholars like Chienweiu should be doing now is find strategies of getting African leaders out of power. The west may have contributed to our woes but the west cannot take the blame forever for what we are doing to ourselves. Africas sholud wake up and take responsibility.

Nkolika.
Unizik Nigeria.

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Eligius Ihewulezi <caje...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Meshack Owino]

"I held a discussion with a Kenyan friend not too long ago about what is going on in Zimbabwe ... Surprisingly, this Kenyan's sympathy was with Mugabe."   Well, this Kenyan believes that Mugabe should go home. Mugabe has been a total disaster to his country, and should in fact be begging for forgiveness for his economic policy blunders and crimes against his own people instead of ranting about how he is the only one who can stand up for his beleaguered country against the West.   In fact, this Kenyan believes that the best strategy for dealing with tyrants like Mugabe of Zimbabwe and political conmen like Kibaki of Kenya, who after calling elections proceed to rig them in order to continue holding onto power, is by giving them two choices: standing down or going to the Hague. Allowing these blood-soaked thieves, conmen, and tyrants to share power with their rivals after rigging elections and messing up their countries is tantamount to rewarding criminality.   Meshack Owino. ------------------------     --- On Thu, 6/26/08, basil ugochukwu <ugoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: basil ugochukwu <ugoch...@yahoo.com> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwedefeat sanctions To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Indeed, one's condemnation of Mugabe's madness must be grounded not in Western propaganda and self-interested obsessions with Mugabe but in the interests and image of Zimbabweans and Africans. That is why it took some of us some time to  unequivocally call for Mugabe's departure. We wanted to to see clearly that it is the desire of the Zimbabwean people (and not just that of the West and the Zimbabwean opposition elite) to see the old man go. The last election was a seminal moment in this regard. Unlike previous elections, the country spoke clearly about its desire.

 

The hypocrisy of the West is galling, as Pius has pointed out. That is why I have never been persuaded by Western discursive intrusions into this matter, basing my positions, instead, on internal political dynamics within Zimbabwe and on the interests and preferences of the Zimbabwean people. But African leaders should not be allowed to rail against colonialism and neo-colonialism while adopting their methodology (divide-and-rule and violence) to terrorize their citizens and hold on to power against their will. Such hypocrisy should also be condemned and should rob the leaders of the high ground of raising the specter of Western persecution and injustice whenever their domestic political standing is in jeopardy.

 

The tragedy of Zimbabwe is not only that Mugabe has pulled the country to the brink of catastrophe; it is also that he has, by his megalomaniacal actions and ruthless repressions, made the emergence of a Tsvangirai a foregone conclusion and the emergence of a credible alternative virtually impossible. Had the old man not become so politically paranoid, an orderly transition to a credible successor would have ensued. Zimbabweans' support for Tsvangirai represents a tragic embrace of anyone-but-Mugabe.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Indeed, one's condemnation of Mugabe's madness must be grounded not in Western propaganda and self-interested obsessions with Mugabe but in the interests and image of Zimbabweans and Africans. That is why it took some of us some time to  unequivocally call for Mugabe's departure. We wanted to to see clearly that it is the desire of the Zimbabwean people (and not just that of the West and the Zimbabwean opposition elite) to see the old man go. The last election was a seminal moment in this regard. Unlike previous elections, the country spoke clearly about its desire.

 

The hypocrisy of the West is galling, as Pius has pointed out. That is why I have never been persuaded by Western discursive intrusions into this matter, basing my positions, instead, on internal political dynamics within Zimbabwe and on the interests and preferences of the Zimbabwean people. But African leaders should not be allowed to rail against colonialism and neo-colonialism while adopting their methodology (divide-and-rule and violence) to terrorize their citizens and hold on to power against their will. Such hypocrisy should also be condemned and should rob the leaders of the high ground of raising the specter of Western persecution and injustice whenever their domestic political standing is in jeopardy.

 

The tragedy of Zimbabwe is not only that Mugabe has pulled the country to the brink of catastrophe; it is also that he has, by his megalomaniacal actions and ruthless repressions, made the emergence of a Tsvangirai a foregone conclusion and the emergence of a credible alternative virtually impossible. Had the old man not become so politically paranoid, an orderly transition to a credible successor would have ensued. Zimbabweans' support for Tsvangirai represents a tragic embrace of anyone-but-Mugabe.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Meshack Owino <mas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Olabode Ibironke]

When Mugabe raised the issue of land redistribution after almost 20 years in power, and only  after his regime began tethering on the brink of disaster, I thought then that he was doing his people a serious disservice by turning that legitimate and all-important issue into an instrument of salvaging  his own checkered political career.  He has succeeded marvelously to the extent that he has pulled the wool over people’s eyes and set them to debating imperialism and land reform, instead of Mugabe’s dictatorship—classic political maneuver! Someone remarked the other day that Zimbabwe is the only country in modern history that has gone from great prosperity to great poverty without a war. For whatever reason this has happened, it indicates a change in the governance of that country has long been overdue. Mugabe is not the savior Zimbabwe is looking for, what else can he do, what new ideas does he have? You do not support leaders or governments for the sake of it. Government is not about individuals, it is not a religion, it is about achieving good and practical outcomes and changing the lives of the people for the better. Mugabe has not done this, obviously and no longer seems capable of doing this—so why support him still???

 

Bode Ibironke

[okello oculi]

One of Mugabe's main weaknesses is his not being a fund-donor to African NGOs. Moreover, it must be hopeless expecting to earn critical and non-hysterical insight from those NGOs with their eyes on making the Queen's Sinners' List 2008.

--- On Thu, 6/26/08, Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng <gape...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng <gape...@hotmail.com>
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions
> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2008, 5:08 AM
> It appears that some people think that Tsvangirai and the
> MDC members are not Black or that it is ok to opress white
> or non-black people. This cannot stand as a principle and
> Nyerere did not mean to imply or invite blind solidarity
> with every black dictator. Kwasi (Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng,
> Journalist & Communications Consultant) Programme
> Coordinator Cultural Initiatives Support Programme Du Bois
> Centre PMB CT 219, Cantonments, Accra Tel: +233 21 770677
> Please copy OFFICIAL correspondence to
> kgape...@cispghana.org
>
>

> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:26:23 -0400To:
> USAAfric...@googlegroups.comFrom:

> har...@msu.eduSubject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re:

> Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctionsif
> you go to the front page of the ny times on line, you will
> see a picture of a baby whose legs were broken by
> mugabe's youth core when they couldn't find its

> father.there is a point where one's repulsion at this
> horrific practice becomes overwhelming.can anyone really

> apologize for mugabe now; let chinweizu deny the ugly
> reality; no images will move him, i presume; anything can
> be called "western propaganda." even idi amin

> played this card.for jews, this is familiar: it is called
> holocaust denial.ken harrowAt 05:16 AM 6/25/2008, you

> AddressesGet a Free Account at www.mail.com!

> Kenneth W. HarrowProfessor of EnglishMichigan State

> Universi...@msu.edu517 353-7243fax 353
> 3755_________________________________________________________________
>
> All new Live Search at Live.com
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/
>

[Ochwada, Hannington]

Dear All,

I would like to share the pieces pasted herewith with you on the
subject of Mugabe -- they are neither from NY or BBC but the Kenyan
press. Let us face it things are bad in Zimbabwe. Those of us who come
from are Kenya are cognizant of the fact that power hunger was the
cause of the election fiasco in our country in 2007 and not any
imperialist intrigue. In fact, were it not for external pressure
exerted on the president of Kenya and his supporters there would still
be bloodletting to this day (please note I am not saying things are
okay). We certainly need not apologize for Mugabe. Yes, we understand
and agree that external forces have vested interests in our countries
but for how longer shall we turn a blind eye and simply pass the buck
on to imperialist maneuvers? READ ON...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82sX2YHKsAo&feature=user

http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=126082

Thanks -- Hannington Ochwada

COMMENTARY

Hail Mugabe, long live Bob, you are a true African hero

Story by CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO
Publication Date: 6/26/2008

Hearing it being told, Zimbabwe’s Big Man Robert Mugabe is an insane
old man who should be locked up in a mental asylum, not running a
country.

Writers, like this columnist, have been challenged to acknowledge the
“good side” of Mugabe. So we did.

Recently I watched a documentary of the DR Congo’s thieving former
dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. The programme revealed that Mobutu liked to
hit on his ministers’ and ambassadors’ wives, and would take them off
to his room as they watched.

Mugabe started dating his present wife, Grace, who is 40 years his
junior, when she was a secretary at State House, and his wife Sally was
ailing. Grace Marufu, as she was then known, was married to Flight Lt
Patrick Guririza.

When Mugabe decided to take Grace as his, he didn’t do as Uganda’s
former dictator (and friend of Mobutu) Field Marshal Idi Amin did when
he set eyes upon the beautiful Sarah Kyolaba. Idi was immediately
smitten, but like a good general, he first inquired about the
competition.

He was told Sarah had a boyfriend, a fashionable musician of the time.
Idi sent his boys round to the fellow’s house a few nights later, and
he was never seen again, leaving him to take Sarah as his youngest (she
reportedly also became his favourite) wife without any rival lurking in
the shadows.

Compared to Mobutu who grabbed many people’s wives, Mugabe stole only
one. And compared to Amin, he didn’t kill Flt-Lt Guririza. He exiled
him to China as a diplomat. So in those two regards, Mugabe is far
better than Amin and Mobutu.

Now, for those who are too young to remember, in 1980 a young sergeant
in the Liberian army called Samuel Doe seized power in a coup. He was,
like many African military dictators of his time, an appalling ruler.
Rebellion broke out in his country. One of the rebel leaders was
another strange man, Prince Johnson.

As Doe’s forces succumbed to the rebels, the man was still hanging
around in the presidential palace. The story goes that, sensing
danger, Doe hurriedly arranged a helicopter for a last-minute escape.
However, the presidential guard, realising that he was leaving them to
be killed for his sins, detained him and said they were not going to be
left to “die alone”.

So it was that in September 1990, the rebels captured Doe. They
stripped him naked, tied his hands behind his back, and begun torturing
him. In a video that was widely circulated at the time, and that didn’t
do the image of Africa much good, Prince Johnson is shown ordering his
men to chop off a bloodied Doe’s ear and stuff it in his mouth.

Having killed Doe, the rebels fought over his intimate bits, heart and
liver which they ate raw in the belief that all his powers would be
transferred to them.

Now, compare that to how Mugabe has treated opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai. In the first round of the elections, Mugabe’s supporters
and police beat up and intimidated the opposition and mugged them of
some of their votes.

Still, they had sufficient decency left. They didn’t steal enough to
deny Tsvangirai victory. They only rigged it to prevent him getting the
more than 50 per cent required by law.

A few weeks earlier, Zanu-PF goons had set upon Tsvangirai and beaten
him senseless, leaving him with huge gashes on the head, closed eyes,
and a major limp. Still, he lived to win the first round. If it had
been Liberia, Tsvangirai would have had his ears cut off, killed, and
then the remnants eaten.

You have to give Mugabe his due.

You might say it’s partly because of sanctions against him, but unlike
other presidents, Mugabe spends a lot of his time in Zimbabwe. In that
way he’s definitely better than Cameroon’s strongman Paul Biya.

In the last few years, Biya has lived mostly in France although he
remains president. He returns to Cameroon for brief periods (perhaps to
collect money from the Central Bank). But for sure, whenever elections
are up, he comes, rigs the poll, and goes back to France.

There are those who say that, in the process, Biya has become the first
truly hi-tech African president — he rules by remote control. Without
the options of Biya, Mugabe has built his palaces in the outskirts of
Harare, not on the Riviera.

Finally, there is Mugabe’s friend, former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu
Haile Mariam, who has lived in exile in Zimbabwe since he was deposed
nearly 18 years ago. It’s estimated Mengistu killed at least 1.5
million people during his cruel rule.

On the other hand, when he was faced by the Matabeleland-based
rebellion against his rule between 1982 and 1983, Mugabe unleashed the
notorious Fifth Brigade to quash it. More than 20,000 people were
killed.

It might well be that Mugabe harbours Mengistu to remind himself that
he is “not as bad”. His regime killed “only” 20,000 people, as opposed
to the former Ethiopian hard man who dispatched 1.5 million.
Quoting kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>:

>> ----------

>>> * <mailto:?subject=Black Africa's duty to
>>> help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions&body=Black

>>> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat
>>> sanctions

>>> http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/policy_politics/article01/250608>Send
>>> to a friend
>>> *
>>> <http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index2_html?itemID=article01&print=print>Printer-friendly

>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> © 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

>>> Get a Free Account at<http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!

[Gemini]

When you know that somebody wants to roast you, you don't cover yourself in
oil and sit down by the fire. If Robert Mugabe is the victim of Western
plots, does he claim that he did not know that he would be the subject of
such plots? What avoidance strategies did he adopt other than 'Na only me
go de tanda for President!'?

While the Queen of England's withdrawal of the knighthood is deeply
irritating, given that it (the K) had been awarded after the Ndebele
massacres, and Nelson Mandela's birthday condemnation equally so, none of
this can exonerate Cap'n Bob from his own responsibilities. Too much of the
argument on Zimbabwe, pro Mugabe, contra Tsvangerai or vice versa, seems to
be predicated on an assumption of absolute helplessness of African actors.
We look at our counterparts in Asia, including China (which did not achieve
its present status on the basis of aid and waiting for the West to rescue
it) and we refuse to take responsibility for our own condition. It is all
because of the plots of the West. Well, with that mindset, we aren't going
to help Zimbabwe defeat nuttin!

One expects that Cap'n Bob will survive this Friday and emerge as Zimbabwe's
newly re-elected President. That (barring any sudden change of mind on his
part in the face of the British Queen and Saint Nelson's chastisement) is
likely to be the outcome of the strategy-challenged Morgan Tsvangirai's
last-minute withdrawal from the polls. One hopes that once he is past that
hurdle, has made his point and saved the people from Morgan Tsvangirai,
Mugabe will take swift moves to hand over to a successor and take himself
out of the equation. (I believe the Zimbabwean legislature has the power to
elect a president if the incumbent retires or resigns or whatever). After
all, not only is he over 80, he has also been in power for a ridiculously
long time and is clearly totally out of touch with the lives of ordinary
Zims. (Or does anybody think that he really knows what it is like to go and
buy a loaf of bread with zillions of zim dollars? When indeed, did he last
go to buy anything? He must have long since forgotten!)

No, the West is not going to rush in with aid and assistance to any chosen
successor of Mugabe, but they wouldn't have done so even if Morgan
Tsvangirai had taken over power (anybody who doubts this should ask the
Kenyans whether promises of aid and assistance for resettlement and
reconciliation in the wake of their own post-election crisis settlement have
been met, or the people of countries where the chosen Western ruler has
taken power from Nicaragua to Afghanistan, whether promised aid has been
delivered. Fortunately - unlike Mugabe waiting for British money to
organise land re-distribution - the Kenyans will get on with re-ordering
their country without holding their breaths waiting for the promised aid).
But Mugabe has painted himself into a corner and is locked into a pattern of
behaviour that is all about him, him, him, and not about the suffering
citizens of Zimbabwe. Just as we are seeing in Cuba, the US is still
huffing and puffing, but Raoul Castro is just calmly taking simple steps to
make life just that little bit easier for ordinary Cubans. I would also
expect that if Cap'n Bob doesn't take the necessary steps himself, those in
his administration who are currently clinging to his coat-tails will be
sensible to organize the necessary. In Nigeria, we too had a captain who
was steering the ship onto the rocks. He forgot that his officers also had
their cargo on board. And when the captain insists on steering the ship
onto the rocks and won't change his course, there's likely to be a 'Man
Overboard!'

Ayo Obe

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"I would like to share the pieces pasted herewith with you on the
subject of Mugabe -- they are neither from NY or BBC but the Kenyan
press. Let us face it things are bad in Zimbabwe."

What's your point? Are things then any better in Kenya?

Are things any better in Nigeria, or in the Congo...?

Why is the Western press not screaming through the roof?

"We certainly need not apologize for Mugabe."

Who is apologizing for Mugabe?

And who is "simply passing the buck on to imperialist maneuvers?"

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

>

[Tony Agbali]

The hypocrisy of the West in reneging on their commitment has given Mugabe a reason to renege on his commitment to his people, perceiving himself as a savior of the people and Life President of his arrowhead 1980 revolution. But when the same savior begins to renege upon his commitment sacrificing the same people he forgot for, shouldn't now we take a critical look, and say on this matter this is wrong.  The MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, maybe seen as a puppet of the West, rightfully or wrongfully, but when both Mugabe and Tsvangirai present themselves to the ballot, they were entering into a contract that was risky, that anyone who was dumped, should accept the people's decision. The current atmosphere is not about the ideological goodness or wrongness of either Mugabe or Tsvangirai, though it may serve as a tapestry in examining the current events and political impasse in Zimbabwe. What this is about is fairness based upon ethical principles and the smooth rather than manipulated operations of the political process, manifested in the way people voted in March. MDC as a party has made some critical mistakes and flirtatious manuevers that sounds flippingly inconsistent. At one point they said they had overwhelming majority in the March pool and would not recontest the rerun. The swiftly decided to rerun.  If Mugabe is the devil, the opposition who claims to know this devil seems not to have learnt how to eat with the long spoon. In agreeing to a rerun, I am sure Mugabe had a feast day, knowing how prepared he was in going to make mince meat of the MDC, both physically through violence, and systematically at the rerun electoral context. Mugabe began having his day when the former guerilla veterans came out massively in his support asserting that over their dead bodies would MDC rule, as also it was reported of Zimbabwe's military chiefs. Shortly, afterwards the Secretary of the MDC, and Vice Presidential candidate, Biti was arrested for treason while returning from a trip. As Professor Abdul Bangura noted the other day, Tsvangirai is a funny and unpredictable character; often playing the game of contraries and contradictions; while palpably enjoying himself and his big ego in doing so. However, after all of this, what is significant is not even Tsvangirai. It is about the dearth of values and ethical principles upon which all political legitimacy are rooted. It is about the desire of an oppressed people, leaving under the burden of tyranny masked and projected as authoritarian freedom.  Today, it seems many Zimbabweans will die of hunger before even getting the opportunity to possess the land that Mugabe is using as a convenient excupatory bait in designing his political signification given the dilemma of rejection.   What we are standing for is the ideals of democracy. What we are standing for is justice. What we are exxpressing is that Mugabe must be accountable, to the people, even if he is the best candidate. Mugabe must realize that if the people select a buffon as their leaders, it is their rightful choice, and that buffon should be allowed to rule the people that selected him/her.  Mugabe must realize that if in over twenty years, he couldn't negotiate the land deal and ensure its redistribution, his days now nearer to the night than morning, it seems unlikely that he would be the Moses that would seal the deal on the land issue.  Probably, others maybe more suited for this task than himself, no matter his achievement of hijacking Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) from the dark night of Ian Smith.   Mugabe enough is enough of tyranny through convenience. You have had your days, within those days if you couldn't deliver then sorry. All these sympathy of your being the hero of an anti-colonial movement maybe true; but I hardly see a difference between you and the garrulous Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, rising stars using colonialism as excuses to rule, while reneging their stance once the glittering stars of power comes within their grasp.   Mugabe, I have no sympathy for you, simply do the right thing. Have a transparent election, and abide by its decision. If it is against you just go; power is not your birthright, more so Zimbabwe is larger than a Robert Gabriel Mugabe. Mugabe "Pack your load and go" if the tides are against you, wallowing in the waves why you sink deeper has no advantages.  If you feel insecure, ask your tribes of fellow power robbers for asylum, but realize that like Charles Taylor of Liberia, when the days of reckoning comes, if you are alive you may not survive its onslaught.   Some African intellectuals may hail Mugabe the saint, but there is also the aspect of Mugabe the terror; that resides within the same Mugabe. As every human person has both deposit of good and bad, juxtaposed, Mugabe's good remains what they were, and his bad actions remains what these are. However, weighted overall, we can make the balanced judgement call regarding which Mugabe is currently the one we are seeing right now. As, far, as I am concern, I am seeing Mugabe the ugly right now, whose monstrous drive if not right now stopped, would in its overkill destroy the lives of millions.Even prior to the withdrawal of the MDC from the rerun, he has continued to state that even if that party won, he would never cede power. Then what bugs me is this. African intellectuals who have and will readily crucify the likes of Rawlings, Babangida, Biya, and others for their ignominious attrocities, would in the name of pride in a African strongman countering of imperialism, cease denouncing the attrocities of the same strongman the moment he turns into another despicable tyrannt, with the excuse that he truncated the British's hypocrisy and their stooge, Ian Smith? I amiss at this, and don't just simply understand this.   The moment Mugabe leaves right now the better, he has outlived his usefulness. True, he did some good things in the past, but at this moment except if goodness equate evil, violence, meanness, the disavowal of Mugabe's misrule, antics of despoliation, and truncation of human rights is a sure must for people with conscience.  Mugabe presently defaces the African quest for great and effaces even the best of his motives and efforts of the past. Let us rescue Mugabe from Mugabe, and in doing that rescue Zimbabwe from an avowed, at the moment conscienceless and obnoxious dictator called Mugabe. God save Zimbabwe, God save Africa, but let the people do their part to salvage African from its gloom and doomsday leaders.

--- On Thu, 6/26/08, basil ugochukwu <ugoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Igietseme, Joseph (CDC/CCID/NCPDCID)]

The inexorable and indomitable Val Ojo! I admire your consistent pattern
of kicking butts, with ready anti-personnel missiles for everybody -
left or right; only wish the arrows include one that gives your own
personal opinion on the issue at stake, that contributes to the
discussion rather than a detraction. Please, don't shot any missile at
me; please, biko! Your Buddy, Joe Igietseme

-----Original Message-----
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:USAAfric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Valentine
Ojo
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:45 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Ochwada, Hannington; kenneth harrow
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help
Zimbabwedefeat sanctions

> first truly hi-tech African president - he rules by remote control.

>>>> (c) 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights

[Pius Adesanmi]

"Too much of the argument on Zimbabwe, pro Mugabe, contra Tsvangerai or vice versa, seems to be predicated on an assumption of absolute helplessness of African actors"

Ayo Obe:   Assumption of absoluet helplessness? Surrender of initiative by African actors may be a more appropriate description of the matter. You need not look beyond the trajectory of the Zimbabwe thread in USAAFrica Dialogue for proof. When and how did the Zimbabwe drumbeat start here? If my memory hasn't gone bunkers, The Guardian of London and The Economist, largely started the thread through Hetty ter Haar and the now thankfully quiet Roy Doron. A deluge of Zimbabwe clips from ter Haar and Doron got us going. It's not as if we weren't aware of Mugabe's counter-democracy inclinations before we were jolted into action here by those clips. Why didn't we set the ball rolling? That grates! Mugabe is in the excellent company of Omar Bongo, Paul Biya, and Blaise Compaore. I haven't heard as much as whimper of disapproval of those three sores on Africa's forehead in this forum. I predict the following sad scenario. When Bongo outlives his usefulness for the Elysee, Le Monde, and Le Nouvel Observateur will begin to scream about his abuse of human rights and the suffering of the people of Gabon, a Western forum member in Paris will post a clip here and we will all suddenly remember that we have disgraceful Presidents a vie in Francophone Africa. A thread will start and last for two years.

Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com

--- On Thu, 26/6/08, Gemini <so...@multilinks.com> wrote:

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"What scholars like Chienweiu should be doing now is find strategies of

getting African leaders out of power." - Nkolita Ebele

Why only "scholars like Chinweizu"?

What about scholars like you, Nkolita Ebele, and I and the rest of us?
What shouold we be doing in the measn time?

Africa's failure is NOT Mugabe's or Abacha's or Obasanjo's or whoever's.
Africa's failure is the FAILURE of ALL of US Africans - more so the
educated ones among us - since these home-grown dictators invariably
operate with the active cooperation, connivance and support of some of the
MOST EDUCATED Africans on the continent!

Let's cut to the chase and stop this grammatical and semantic tap-dancing
round the issues on the Internet, and stop chasing shadows at the bequest
of our Western handlers and mentors. Africa CANNOT be changed by any one
single person's removal or presence - just like Euroep was not developed
by the machinations of any one person only. Even the 'devils' of Europe
(like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Tito, etc.) frequently contributed more to
her development than her 'saints'. Removing Abacha did not change anything
in Nigeria. Mobutu's death did not change anything in Zaire. Idi Amin's
demise did not change anything in Uganda. Kibaki's demise will not change
anything in Kneya. Neither will Robert Mugabe's exit put an end to the
travails and sufferings of the people of Zimbabawe. If anything, things
actually got worse after these 'actors' left the stage!

Nigerians did not fare any better under Obasanjo than they did under
Abacha, and they are not faring any better either now under 'Mr. Go-Slow
Don Catch You Ni Yen' (Fela Anikulapo-Kuti), Umaru Yar'Adua.

Africa can only be changed by the combined resolve of all of us Africans
(forget about all these hypocritical European moralists, do-gooders and
impostors who are suddenly awake to the abuse of 'human rights' of
Africans, but who in reality are only out to look out for their own
interests and for the continued exploitation of African resources by the
West) to change Africa, and to stop dancing to European waltz and tango,
and stop marching to European marshal drumbeat which are totally at
variance with our African panlogo and sowambe rhythms.

We Africans are still yet to find our own rhythm, and the drummers who can
play the kind of music to which Africans can comfortably sway and dance.

It is definitely not these Western classical music, operas and military
marches.

This oyinbo marshal music no be am!

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

[Rex Marinus]

"The tragedy of Zimbabwe is not only that Mugabe has pulled the country to the brink of catastrophe; it is also that he has, by his megalomaniacal actions and ruthless repressions, made the emergence of a Tsvangirai a foregone conclusion and the emergence of a credible alternative virtually impossible. Had the old man not become so politically paranoid, an orderly transition to a credible successor would have ensued. Zimbabweans' support for Tsvangirai represents a tragic embrace of anyone-but-Mugabe."

-Moses Ochonu
 
I'm thoroughly intrigued by the closeness of the methods now exerted on Robert Mugabe with the methods used on Nkrumah. Its very eerie: strategic isolation; massive internal subversion; international western media baiting; the use of very loud and familiar "liberal" and "conscientious" African voices (remember Mazrui et al) who began to ventriloquize about African dicatorships and failure of idealism - "the communist czar" and all that (ironically, Mazrui gave the Nkrumah Pan-African lecture in which he basically, fundamentally recanted his 1960s judgment of Nkrumah, in 2006(?)). The CPP, the nationalist party, lost grip and was "degraded." In its bid to contain externally, well-funded "opposition," and the active subversion of the sovereignty of Ghana, Nkrumah was put in the unfortunate position of using equally violent means of containment. I suspect Robert Mugabe is in that same situation today. The situation that manufactures inevitable tyranny as a blind means of self-defence.
         But two things are striking to me: I was listening to the NPR, the other day, to Akwe Amosu, the MDC rep in the US, and the correspondent of the Economist on the Diana Rehm show. I thought it odd that no representative of the Zimbabwean government was invited to provide a balancing perspective. But the picture they presented of Zimbabwe could be complete, and that is why many "thinking" Africans are skeptical over what seems to be a totally adversarial media onslaught against Mugabe. Everybody now blames Mugabe for the Zimbabwean situation. But the question is, to whom does Mugabe owe allegiance? That is the fundamental question in this situation. Secondly, let us imagine this scenario: the active internal and external subversion of Zimbabwe using three vicious modes: one, economic squeeze: the active destruction of the Zimbabwean economy by interests who just wish Mugabe either dead or out of office. Two, the use of HUNGER as an instrument of war and propaganda. Three, the active destruction of Zimbabwe's agro-economy which has been frequently blamed on the "lack of ability of the black people who have taken these farms." They are also frequently called "Mugabe's cronies." But that cannot be true, since many of these "black people" were the same who did the work on the farms, as "tenants" and "labourers." What confronts us nevertheless is a most dire reality: the genetic control of seeds; fertlizers; the strategic control of acces to modern farm tools and spares, and above all, the control of neccessary farm credits, by interests beyond the control of Mugabe.
         The very brutal pressure that has forced the Zimbabwean population into hunger, and the use of food as a means of manufacturing and controlling consent/dissent must be counted as one of th newest dimensions to the neo-colonial question in Africa. It is a new use of the "politcs of the belly." The diplomacy of affliction. Weaken them with hunger and pathogens, and control African govenments without firing a shot. This scenario is deadly, and we must confront Great Britain and its allies for the use of these devastating methods, rather than blame Mugabe who is, frankly, not the target of these measures. That is the irony, and Mugabe seems to understand, that in spite of the public orchestrations, he is not the target of these scorched earth methods. The target and the victims are the people of Zimbabwe. The question that many people are not asking is, should Mugabe resign, hand over to a younger member of the ZANU-PF, and go to sleep? Would that save Zimbabwe? Now, let us look at this scenario, which is exactly what Mugabe and his cohorts have pointed out: what is the Zimbabwean "opposition" really? Does the MDC represent what interests? Zimbabwe's sovereign interest? Zimbabwe's national security interests? The interest of those who have been called the "veterans" of the bush war who have a legitimte claim on what constitutes Zimbabwe? Mugabe also raises another importat question for us all: what would, say, Gordon Brown do in his own position as PM of Great Britain, when say, Al-Qaueda, or Iran, raises $1 billion dollars, sets up store-front Foundations which might go by the terms, "Islamic Institute of Democracy," or "Democratic Alternative for Great Britain" and begins to funnel money, and other silent resources to "opposition figures" in Britain who would campaign on a democratic over-turning of the Magna Carta to be replaced by the Law of Sharia; organizing; holding defiance campaigns; getting on the Arab countries to stop all supplies of oil to England, until victory is certain, and Gordon Brown kicked out of office? He would sit down, and hold fancy talks, I bet.
           Unfortunately, this entire thing has been fruitlessly turned into black and white, West vs Africa, and so on: but it is about business and political interests, who are active in their demand to return Zimbabwe to the status quo. Any other argument would be romantic. The question is: what is the status quo? Whose status quo? Frankly, we must look very closely, and see that Robert Mugabe has been a most calming presence in this whole thing. This would not be clear to many who have not taken the time, as the late Pius Okigbo would say, to read the minutes of the last meeting. But for his willingness to take the heat, rein-in the still active military wing of the ZANU-PF as much as possible, and stand as a buffer against all odds, we would have seen the explosion of a most bloody civil war, led by the veterans of the guerilla war. This is one bit which the MDC and their handlers are unwilling to take into account. But Mugabe knows it. Mbeki knows it. The neighbhors of Zimbabwe know it. At the heart of it all is the land question. Now should Mugabe go? He should have long been gone. The man himself is old, and wants to go home. But sometimes, these decisions are not just his alone to make. If any solution must be found, it must be at a place where no one has cared to look, because of the need to demonize Mugabe and "personalize" the Zimbabwean situation as the making of one man, and this is not true; the place to look is within the organization of the ZANU-PF. It is they who do no want Mugabe to leave. Why? Because Robert Mugabe is the shield of the party; a younger, more invested man, would be more vulnerable to this barage of heat from felt interests arrayed against Zimbabwe from outside. I do not for a moment think that Mugabe is president because he still wishes to be president. He seemed to have made that clear in the statement he released after the elections: he wished to go!  But at this stage, it is frankly, no longer about him. We must all surely be able to see this: that the man is a hostage of the West, who wish to humiliate him out of office, and of ZANU-PF, who wish that he maintain his sworn commitments to lead Zimbabwe through the second phase of what the party clearly sees as its crucial neo-colonial battles - in other words, to finish what he started. So, I ask Moses Ochonu, if you were Robert Mugabe, will you simply pack up and go? Hand over to Morgan Tsvangarai, and watch a new armed struggle commence that would doom Zimbabwe finally? I mean, the militia of "veterans" have said as much: they will not negotiate or recognize MDC and Tsvangarai. What exactly would you do? It is, of course, far easier to make these decisions/choices from a purely contained side-line within a much colored cartography of (un)reason. 
Obi Nwakanma


_____________________
"If I don't learn to shut my mouth I'll soon go to hell,
I, Okigbo, town-crier, together with my iron bell."
--Christopher Okigbo

---

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:58:51 -0500
From: meoc...@gmail.com

[Wassa Fatti]

It is the western hipocrisy that bothers many, not Mugabe. Why similar noise was not made by the west when Kibaki in braod day light cheated Kenyans after elections? Unless Africans develop a model of democracy suitable for Africans, this western model will be used against those who challenge western interest in Africa. By the way, can the west attack China for not having western the model of democracy? No. Africa's weakness is the factor to our cowardice in assuming that we have the same with our former colonizers.
Wassa.

---

From: gape...@hotmail.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:08:25 +0000

</html

[Olabode Ibironke]

“[without Mugabe] we would have seen the explosion of a most bloody civil war, led by the veterans of the guerilla war.”

 

 

At what point were the veterans reconstituted, by whom and to what end? This argument is stale. It reminds me of the argument that Abacha should remain as defense chief after Babangida stepped aside to stabilize the country because of ambitious young officers who wanted to implement a bloody revolution, blah blah blah….

 

Bode Ibironke.

</html

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

So, I ask Moses Ochonu, if you were Robert Mugabe, will you simply pack up and go? Hand over to Morgan Tsvangarai, and watch a new armed struggle commence that would doom Zimbabwe finally? I mean, the militia of "veterans" have said as much: they will not negotiate or recognize MDC and Tsvangarai. What exactly would you do? It is, of course, far easier to make these decisions/choices from a purely contained side-line within a much colored cartography of (un)reason.

 

---Obi Nwakanma

 

 

 

Obi:

 

The main problem with your formulation is that it rests on a slew of hypotheticals. But there are also other problems with it. I subscribe to the argument that Mugabe was partly created by the Western media and diplomatic attacks against him. I can't recount how many times I made this point in discussions of Mugabe during the early days of this madness. In fact I used to stress that the best strategy for the West was to ignore Mugabe, so that he wouldn't be able to mobilize support and harden the intransigence of his rabid supporters by citing Western assaults against him. If this had happened, I am sure it would have been much easier for Zimbabweans to oust him from power--or at least render him irrelevant.

 

 However, is it proper for Mugabe to respond to Western escalation by trampling on the rights and democratic expression of his own people? What has Mugabe done to the West (as opposed to his own people) as retaliation against, or in response to, the Western demonization of his legacy. For me, that is a more important question. Persecution by external forces does not give you a license to punish your own people. Tragically, it is the people of Zimbabwe who are suffering the impact of Mugabe's pretensions of omnipotence, not the Western powers that have repeatedly antagonized and betrayed him. This point should be quite easy to grasp.

 

Second point: has it ever occurred to you that the proper response to being held hostage (as you put it) by the West may not be to hold your own people and their political destiny hostage? That is essentially what Mugabe and his Zanu-PF and veteran supporters are doing.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the Zimbabwean people should trade one form of hostage situation (involving Mugabe and the West) with another (in which the entire Zimbabwean nation is being held hostage and tormented by a politico-miliatary Oligarchy with Mugabe at its head). I don't understand how the argument about Mugabe being paradoxically nurtured by Western persecution justifies Mugabe's determination to subvert the political will of his own people or to terrorize them into submission.

 

The proper response to Western machinations is to put your people's interests and voices first, thereby denying traction to the essence of Western propaganda: that you're the archetypal African dictator. Whatever happened to proving your detractors wrong by doing right by your own people. We cannot treat our own people like dirt and hope that that would not fuel and legitimize the Western propaganda that we claim to be fighting against in the first place.

 

Lastly, let me return to the hypotheticals and counterfactuals raised in your post. There is no evidence that were Mugabe to have quit, with the majority of the country supporting Mr. Tsvangirai and many more remaining neutral and conflicted in the political events of the last election, the army and "veterans" would have carried out their threats. No rebellion can thrive without a popular base of support. Most Zimbabweans simply wanted an orderly transition to some semblance of political normalcy, not another war.

 

Mugabe and his supporters were very vocal in their opposition to Tsvangirai (they ruled the public discursive space unchallenged), but they were in the minority and would have grudgingly accepted their political fates and the new reality had Mugabe had the courage to quit. They would not have been able to crush the popular will by launching and sustaining a war. Like all sore losers, they would have made some trouble, but the overwhelming desire of Zimbabweans to return to some normalcy and avoid further suffering and conflict would have prevailed. At any rate, many of Mugabe's supporters of today may not be as committed as the top army and Zanu-PF leaders to Mugabe's perpetuation. They are, after all, not as economically invested in Mugabe's presidency as the small group of Mugabe fanatics in the army and the Zanu-PF leadership.

 

Let's not forget how quickly political alliances and loyalties can shift in response to the demise or ouster of a political oligarch. I will wager that in the end, even the Mugabe fanatics would accept the flawed Tsvangirai if the alternative was, as you put it, a war that would finally doom Zimbabwe.

[Nkolika Ebele]

he argument is really stale. If he thinks his people needs him badly, he should allow them to decide in an open election without intimidation. We are tired of the indispensability syndrome of African heads of states.Let Him allow a free an fair election period.
Nkolika
Nigeria.

--- On Thu, 6/26/08, Olabode Ibironke <ibir...@msu.edu> wrote:

> From: Olabode Ibironke <ibir...@msu.edu>
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwedefeat sanctions
> To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2008, 1:44 PM
> "[without Mugabe] we would have seen the explosion of a
> most bloody civil
> war, led by the veterans of the guerilla war."
>
>
>
>
>
> At what point were the veterans reconstituted, by whom and
> to what end? This
> argument is stale. It reminds me of the argument that
> Abacha should remain
> as defense chief after Babangida stepped aside to stabilize
> the country
> because of ambitious young officers who wanted to implement
> a bloody

> revolution, blah blah blah..

[Adeniran Adeboye]

I am sure that I can agree with any judgment of President Mugabe that arises from objective reporting, not contaminated by Western power blocks. Alas the only hues and cries, so far, are coming from the West. You wrote:

Government is not about individuals, it is not a religion, it is about achieving good and practical outcomes and changing the lives of the people for the better.

I hasten to agree with you on that.  Let us now make the case that sets Mugabe and Zimbabwe apart among African governments. If we are unable to point to successes outside of Zimbabwe, let us then ask why Mugabe is being singled out.

Best regards,

Adeniran Adeboye   

[Edward Mensah]

It is about time someone called the bluff of the so called 'militia of veterans'. I mean how old are these guys if they were the guys who bravely fought Ian Smiths' army of goons? Some of them must be in wheel chairs now. And a bunch of guys in wheel chairs must hold the democratic process hostage? Give me a break.  It is pathetic to look at Mugabe pumping his geriatric fists in defiance of the democratic process, saying 'I will never give power to lackeys'.

He is in no position to give power away, the people took power from him with their votes.  Since he has the army behind him ( not the geriatric militia) he can hold on to power for as long as he is still breathing. And there is nothing AU, UN, or any group of people can do. Seems to me the people of Zimbabwe are doomed to living under his misrule until death takes him away.

And as far as I am concerned Britain is making matters worse with the sanctions. Is it not Britain that reneged on the land distribution deal? On our part, our leaders have betrayed the massive emancipatory impulses and squandered the decolonization dividends expected by Africans from them. While the west may have contributed to our woes the west cannot take the blame forever for what we are doing to ourselves. Most of us did not come here to stay forever as we seem to be doing now. But we are  stuck here because our leaders, with the exception of the late Kwame Nkrumah, who also had his faults and excesses, have destroyed the future of such a rich and beautiful land.  Well, these days I feel like praying 'cause Africa seems to need divine intervention. (There is ample evidence that divinity has also ignored us, and why not, since our problems too much.)

Mugabe is not going anywhere until he completely runs the country down the drain because that is the African way.

 

Edward Mensah

Chicago

[Rex Marinus]

"Mugabe also raises another importat question for us all: what would, say, Gordon Brown do in his own position as PM of Great Britain, when say, Al-Qaueda, or Iran, raises $1 billion dollars, sets up store-front Foundations which might go by the terms, "Islamic Institute of Democracy," or "Democratic Alternative for Great Britain" and begins to funnel money, and other silent resources to "opposition figures" in Britain who would campaign on a democratic over-turning of the Magna Carta to be replaced by the Law of Sharia; organizing; holding defiance campaigns; getting on the Arab countries to stop all supplies of oil to England, until victory is certain, and Gordon Brown kicked out of office? He would sit down, and hold fancy talks, I bet"

-Rex
 
I'd like to give another example, just to foreclose, and indemify any possibility that may set up the Arab or Muslim in my example with Britain. I will add another scenario: suppose Hugo Chavez funds, say the candidacy of the Green Party (unlikely of course), to open all key institutions including Exxon Mobil, J.P Morgan, Cargyle, Raytheon, Monsanto, etc. (you get the picutre) and run them according to the "will of the American people," which of course would be to open them to control to "international business" interest from Venezuela, China, India, Iran, and all that. First, reciept of funds from Hugo Chavez will immediately put the Green Party under a terror watch. The consequences would also be masive witch-hunt, as have happened before in the US. I mean the destruction of the Socialist party in America, and of Eugene Debbs, and the execution of the Rosenbergs; and Mcarthysm, and the recent anti-terror campaign that has filled the Guantanamo Bay holding pen, were all forms of containment by which the US government treated those whom it felt were connected with foreign interests that aimed to subvert what it saw as US interests. My point is to complicate, possibly raise the question: what would the governments of say, the US, the UK, Austrialia, and so on do, were say, Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, or Ahmedinaj, whom they have considered great adversaries, send regular and massive financial contributions; logistics support, to say the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, or in fact, any of the smaller third parties, to prosecute elections? Could MDC function, with its massive reciept of "foreign aid" were it to be in say, the political environment of Australia? Should we expect more or less from Mugabe given his interpretaion of Zimbabwe's national security interests?
         I ask because someone rightly reminds us that Tsvangirai is African too, as indeed are many of the white famers, who have been born, and who have lived all their lives in Africa. They too certainly, without question, must be considered in this debate. But in all that is the fundamental question: could this Zimbabwean situation have been resolved more easily, and more amicably, had the UK and the US governments not made intransgient diplomacy, and unseemly interference, as the cornerstone of their engagement with Mugabe? Did they harden Mugabe and the ZANU-PF strategy of resistance, who are using the anti-colonial stance, which is also where the subject lies: the unfinished decolonization, of which everyboy is now conveniently quiet, burying the issue conviniently within the propaganda of Mugabe's tyranny and intrasigence? I have always felt it simplistic to describe Muagbe as a "sit-tight" tyrant who just wants to "rule" Zimbabwe. Indeed, if Mugabe wanted to cut a deal, he would have had more lucrative bargain with the the farm monopolies, the UK and the US, who would get him a good retirement nest-egg, eulogize him as a great African statesman and visionary, fete him endlessly to the end of his life, and possibly offer him the Nobel Peace Prize for being so reasonable. These are ceryanl better than being the president of Zimbabwe with all the insults and humiliation that now accrue to that office. I consider a terribly corageous man: villified, subverted, threatened, ut he has remained steadfast to that single last question of his career: to return that sacred thing called land to the people, and endure the consequence.
        The solution to the Zimbabwean situation seems basic: a return to talks and to the 1980 agreements. And that talk has to happen with Mugabe and the ZANU-PF, who are prepared to wait it out and use every neccessary means to do this, and not with the MDC, as the UK hopes. Mugabe will not drop dead; he has said as much. And if he dies before the resolution of this, it may be worse. Mugabe is the living trustee of that agreement, and the UK should come clean, and let the man fulfill his commitments, and go home to rest thereafter. Further intransigience and sabre rattling is uncalled for. All parties in this question are likely to come with different baggage, but the West and the media in the west will continue to make the mistake of trying to wish Mugabe and the ZANU-PF away. But that is unlikely to happen.

Obi Nwakanma

_____________________
"If I don't learn to shut my mouth I'll soon go to hell,
I, Okigbo, town-crier, together with my iron bell."
--Christopher Okigbo

---

From: rexma...@hotmail.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwedefeat sanctions

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:45:47 +0000

</html

[Ifedioramma E. Nwana]

We need to learn that a stich-in-time saves nine.  The argument was on sometime ago whether Mugabe was mad or a defender of African people against white intruders.  Let us begin to see things in Africa without colour overtones.  Could those who have the power do something to save this continent.  Who knows where else this type of problem would arise.  God save us!! --- On Thu, 6/26/08, Nkolika Ebele <nkol...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rex Marinus]

"You seem to be suggesting that the Zimbabwean people should trade one form of hostage situation (involving Mugabe and the West) with another (in which the entire Zimbabwean nation is being held hostage and tormented by a politico-miliatary Oligarchy with Mugabe at its head). I don't understand how the argument about Mugabe being paradoxically nurtured by Western persecution justifies Mugabe's determination to subvert the political will of his own people or to terrorize them into submission."

-Moses Ochonu
 
Moses: what I saying is that it is indeed Mugabe who is held hostage in power, by his western adversaries, and by his party. Do you for one moment imagine that Mugabe would last more than a blink in power if it were just up to him? There is a suggestion here that Mugabe is the key problem in Zimbabwe. That is frankly an old, simplistic conclusion. Mugabe represents interests far larger than he, just as he confronts interests far larger than he. These are not hypothetical conclusions. It is also not hypothetical that he faces two options: one is to capitulate, and turn his back on it all, and the other is to continue to lead the opposition against the powerful international interests against him. Either choice leaves him scant room. And you talk about his people. Abel Muzorewa and Canan Banana: those too were "his people". Right? But I'm sure that we all recognize that in this business, you choose your people carefully, according to the interests they or you represent. I have asked a question: what exactly is the campaign issue on which Morgan Tsvangarai is campaigning? If you were Mugabe, what would you do at this stage? Get up, call a press conference, and go home? That is the easiest course of action, and possibly the most romanic. Bear in mind, that Tsvangarai and the MDC are not exactly innocent bystanders in the violence in Zimbabwe, although these are conveniently not reported in the metropolitan media. And bear in mind also that we in this forum do not know ALL the details. We respond instinctively to these images tht we are fed about Mugabe. Indeed, from your answer the impact of the images and the narrative is already obvious: ambivalence and ambiguity, which is the classic reaction of a most liminal point of reality in which you recognize that nothing as you percieve them is real: which is why you could say, yes I blame Mugabe, but I also blame the West. It is your consciousness struggling with its conditioning from the barrage of high agit-prop pictures in which Mugabe is unheimlich. - that unacanny representation of the African demon made popular by Conrad who also made us all utter: "the horror! The horor!" even though the face we see is all our faces of course. Let us all be very careful.

Obi Nwakanma

_____________________
"If I don't learn to shut my mouth I'll soon go to hell,
I, Okigbo, town-crier, together with my iron bell."
--Christopher Okigbo

---

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:15:46 -0500

[Adeniran Adeboye]

''That grates! Mugabe is in the excellent company of Omar Bongo, Paul Biya, and Blaise Compaore. I haven't heard as much as whimper of disapproval of those three sores on Africa's forehead ".......Adesanmi

And you won't.  The countries involved did not have settler colonists who had appropriated most of the arable land on behalf of themselves and the metropole. Thus there is no current danger to land resources.Further, Bongo, Biya and Compaore, as plantation overseers, do not pose any problem for the Western overlords. So, if it ain't broke, why fix it. Meanwhile, the West will project its interests and we will echo the West to underscore the 'success' of our Western schooling. 

Best regards,

Adeniran Adeboye

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions Thank you Cajetan for hitting the point. How come it African leaders do not think we have enough talents here to explore as leaders,that once any of them gets to power, it becomes 'till death do us path'. What scholars like Chienweiu should be doing now is find strategies of getting African leaders out of power. The west may have contributed to our woes but the west cannot take the blame forever for what we are doing to ourselves. Africas sholud wake up and take responsibility. Nkolika. Unizik Nigeria. --- On Wed, 6/25/08, Eligius Ihewulezi wrote: > From: Eligius Ihewulezi

> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help > Zimbabwe defeat sanctions > To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 10:05 PM > I enjoyed reading Chinweizu's article, but there is one > important thing lacking in his write-up. Chinweizu did not > explain why Mugabe thinks that he is the only politician > that can rule Zimbabwe. This is the madness of many of our > African leaders, who think that they must rule till death > even when they are most unpopular. > > Cajetan. > > > --- On Wed, 25/6/08, ugorji ugorji > wrote: > > > From: ugorji ugorji

[Tony Agbali]

Protect one dictator, you protect all. You offer excuses for one tyrannt, the same excuses become useful for validating another tyrannt. You grant one argument that favors one despot to hold his people hostage, you equally stimulates in the mind of another similar arguments enabling him or her, to continue to dominate unceasingly the lives of the citizenry. The political and colonial histories of African countries not withstanding, whether ruled by Britain, France, Portugal, Italy, or whatever the name, they share common traits in despondent tendencies. It is laughable that the same people who will readily impale a Sani Abacha, or become lethargic in the face of Obasanjo's excesses, or Rwalings extremists and reign of terror, would be conveniently holding forte for another dictator, except that that dictator does not emerge from the space they call their home.  This is sad.  Land or no land, Mugabe has become a terrorist against his own people, subverting every rational means of dissent and relegating the political process to his whims.  This every rational mind must find inexcusable; especially Africans who have found it inconvenient within their own aboriginal national spaces to denounce the tyrannts that have rampaged and ransacked their lives either in the past or in the present.  There is no excuses for a madman Mugabe among the midst of rational people. His grouse against the US and Britain in abandoning the Lancaster agreement on Land redistribution notwithstanding, once Mugabe began to rampage against his own people, he lost all moral authority. It is easy to demonize opponents to call them derogatory names and consign them into the realm of animals or inorganic existence, as the first step toward their annihilation. We saw this kind of thing in Rwanda, and watched with sealed lips until its fire consumed real people,  using the tactics of fear. Africa and Africans must say never again, that enough is enough of this hate mongering, bigotry, and deluge of super-domination in privatizing the state under the patronage of a few privatized ruling class. Significantly, Zimbabwean in the diaspora must point the direction of our collective articulations, by making their voices much more vocal.  Mugabe may have a good point on the land issue, but the land has so far become too easily a cover for erasing the good fortunes of Zimbweans and substituting it with a calumnous despotic veil. --- On Thu, 6/26/08, Ifedioramma E. Nwana <ien...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Adeniran Adeboye]

Think Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Nehru. What nation has really emerged from
colonialism by using the model of governance ( 4-year (s)election
cycles) left for them by the "departing" overlords?
Whereas longevity in office does not automatically translate into
good governance, 4-year cycles may also be insufficient for planning
and execution of programs to pull an emerging nation out of colonial
abuse.

Best regards,

Adeniran Adeboye

On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Eligius Ihewulezi wrote:

>
> I enjoyed reading Chinweizu's article, but there is one important
> thing lacking in his write-up. Chinweizu did not explain why Mugabe

> thinks that he is the only politician that can rule Zimbabwe. This

> is the madness of many of our African leaders, who think that they
> must rule till death even when they are most unpopular.
>
> Cajetan.
>
>

> --- On Wed, 25/6/08, ugorji ugorji <odozi...@winning.com> wrote:
>
>> From: ugorji ugorji <odozi...@winning.com>

>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Black Africa's duty to help
>> Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

>> To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, 25 June, 2008, 12:16 PM

>> This armed and genocidal seizure of the land of the blacks

[Chika Onyeani]

www.africanamedia.com

"ANDERSON COOPER, YOU'RE A LIAR," SCREAM AFRICANS

By Chika Onyeani, African Sun Times, June 30-July 6, 2008

“When a caller asks for help with being a compulsive liar, Anderson says he totally understands, because he did the same thing as an adolescent, lied about things as trivial as what he had for lunch. “Ultimately it all comes out and you end up looking like a complete jerk,” he says - from the Popnography of March 22, 2007, talking about when Anderson Cooper was host of the ABC program, The Mole.  In fact, I didn’t know about this when I blared the title of this article, “Anderson Cooper, You’re a Liar.” We can’t begrudge Mr. Cooper his pedigreed background, being born to the sion family of the Vanderbilts of the railraod tycoon, nor his meteoric rise in the world of broadcast journalism.  Nor should we begrudge him his recently $4 million a year contract with the CNN.  With all the encomiums written about him, you would think that Anderson Cooper is the poster child of journalistic integrity.  But I and millions of Africans disagree."  ... Read More

Chika Onyeani is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the African Sun Times, host of the "StraightTalk with Chika Onyeani on the AllAfricaRadio," and author of the internationally acclaimed no.1 bestselling book, "Capitalist Nigger: The Road to Success," and the blockbuster novel, "The Broederbond Conspiracy."

=

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Moses: what I saying is that it is indeed Mugabe who is held hostage in power, by his western adversaries, and by his party. Do you for one moment imagine that Mugabe would last more than a blink in power if it were just up to him? There is a suggestion here that Mugabe is the key problem in Zimbabwe.

 

---Obi Nwakanma

 

Obi,

 

We do not know the answer to your question, do we? Many African leaders have ENJOYED staying in power even against the clearly expressed wills of their own people, so why assume that Mugabe is different? I have never tasted power, but those who have or have been close to those who have testify that it is an alluring abode, sweet, seductive, and addictive in its own right. It is true that Mugabe faces pressure from Zanu and the army not to "capitulate." It is also true that the West has through its actions fed his political obduracy. But Mugabe remains a free moral entity, constrained but nonetheless capable of taking a courageous decision to quit power without doomsday descending on Zimbabwe. That he hasn't done that indicates that he, too, may be enjoying the aura of power.

 

At this juncture, Mugabe has clearly become a major part of the problem. Bear in mind that whoever succeeds Mugabe has to (re)visit the land issue, which has already been broached. It's not going away. So, I think it is facile logic to argue as the Mugabe die-hards in Zanu and the army are doing, that only Mugabe can, as it were, finish what he started. Don't forget that in addition to having run out of political and administrative wisdom, Mugabe has also become an alibi for Western diplomatic aggression against Zimbabwe and a distraction from constructive efforts to devise solutions to the current political and economic impasse.

 

The problem with saying that Mugabe's only choices are to "capitulate" or to resist is that you have succumbed to his perspective of looking at the situation; you have been seduced by his self-interested interpretation. The narrative of "capitulation" is a Mugabe construct. I would not characterize Mugabe's quitting power as a capitulation to the West--which is how he would want us to look at it. I would rather see it as an acquiescence to the will of Zimbabweans--the people for whom he laid down his life in Ian Smith's Rhodesia. Let's not allow the paranoid narratives and constructs of Mugabe diehards to define the discussion or shape our analysis.

 

I can only speak for myself. I will say that you're wrong to say that our revulsion at Mugabe is shaped by gory media images of him emanating from the West. I have Zimbabwean friends that I talk to. I read stories about the Zimbabwean situation mostly from independent, African sources, and from Zimbabwean websites and news sources. I do this deliberately because as I said, I don't want my perspective on Mugabe to be polluted by Western hypocritical and sanctimonious pronouncements on the matter. My position is based on what the man is doing to his own people, his own country.  The tragedy of Mugabe and the Zanu-PF oligarchy is no longer a Western media construct. We have a lot of detail coming out of Zimbabwe via African sources that are not tied to Western interests.

 

Forget Tsvangirai. Even if he comes to power, he will only be a transitional figure. The man is thoroughly compromised. That is precisely why Mugabe's holding on to power is particularly tragic; Tsvangirai ironically needs Mugabe to be as paranoia and dictatorial as he is in order to improve his electoral and political fortunes. Most Africans do not trust or like Morgan. Which is the recent election results favoring him reflect the depth of Zimbabweans' disillusionment with Mugabe, not necessarily an endrosement of Tsvangirai and his agenda. This is not and should not be about Tsvangirai but about the hapless Zimbabwean people and their political aspirations and desires.

 

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

And, by the way, we have to put a stop to this myth that Britain's failure to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement  is responsible for Mugabe's tyranny. Historically that is not accurate. Mugabe had been in power for almost 20 years before he invoked Lancashire and commenced the unilateral seizure of land. He did this only AFTER trade unions led by Tsvangirai and supported by the powerful and wealthy white farmers began to challenge his absolute power and to demand for political openness. Of course, when Britain hypocritically joined the chorus of democratic agitation, Mugabe suddenly found a perfect excuse to advance Britain's refusal to honor its end of the Lancashire land deal.

 

So, for the record, Mugabe's obsession with self-perpetuation predated his invocation of Lancashire and his seizure of land, not vice versa.

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Without defending Mugabe, the agitation by opposition groups was fuelled and financed by those who acted in furtherance of the British govt that reneged on the Agreement.

During his first 20 years in power he consistently asked the British to pay up and buy out the white farmers as promised. He was then their darling and they felt they could outwit him.

Instead of meeting their side of the bargain, they chose arbitration by the Commonwealth and AU but both found in favour of Mugabe except UK, New Zealand, and Australia for obvious reasons!

When Mugabe saw the antics of UK he introduced legislation in Zimbabwean parliament to take back the land. This was when his demonization and destruction of the country's economy intensified.

This is not a myth. It is true and but for the underlying racism over white settler land Mugabe is not worse than Museveni, Omar Bongo, Mubarak or Paul Biya most in the Commonwealth but all not getting the same regime change treatment from UK.

We must be careful not to unwittingly play into the hands of racists.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Moses Ebe Ochonu" <meoc...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:47:55 -0500
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

[moses chikowero]

Hi Folks,

It's heartening to see so much intellectual vigour here re: Mugabe. Two things
need to be put into perspective. One, Zimbabwe's economy started 'screaming
well before the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy Act and, two, for those of
you who
look at Mugabe's land reform as symbolizing his revolutionary credentials,
Mugabe is no revolutionary, and he has never been (as my name-sake
Moses Ochunu
has rightly implied). Joshua Nkomo (whom he persecuted the same way he
is doing
Tsvangirai and others before him), for example, had started to implement a
viable land reform scheme based on his party (ZAPU) farms in
Matabeleland after
1980. Mugabe seized the farms and other properties before launching his
murderous campaign against ZAPU leaders and supporters, then sat on the land
issue for 20 years. Meanwhile, Zimbabweans were not holding their breath while
waiting for a 'Marxist' revolutionary, Sir Mugabe, to complete the
decolonization. In fact, Sir Mugabe kept his army busy chasing them off the
farms as 'squatters' when they occupied the farms in agitation for land
redistribution throughout the two decades. He only gave the social dissidence
tacit approval and then hijacked it when it had become the last political card
against a viable opposition. It's only a commentary on the MDC's ideological
stance that it approached the land issue not from the point of view of the
peasants, but from that of a despicable colonial vestige, the white farmers
themselves. That's when he saw that his neo-colonial consortments with
the west
and the white farmers could nolonger be bankable; the latter had committed
apostasy by openly dubbling in politics -- worse still, opposition politics
after quietly funding ZANU for years. Mugabe's post-2000 land reform doesn't
work; it's a little more than economic blackmail for those who got the frills
after the vultures had feasted!

Meanwhile, to return to Chinweizu's thesis, the economy had started
'screaming'
well before the promulgation of the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy Act or the
formation of the supposed puppet party, the MDC. I was a teacher in 1997,
stitching together a life on less than 2 000 dollars (which was not very bad),
when Mugabe dolled out $50 000 in one-off gratuities to war veterans of the
independence war (very many of them dubious, of course) and unilaterally sent
the army to the DRC. Money for the two misadventures was not budgeted for.
These two factors sent our SAPs-battered economy spinning out of control -- in
1997! Remember it's the same revolutionary who had foisted the evil
neo-liberal
SAPs on us! So much for a revolutionary. If any Zimbabwean has worked harder
than anybody else to preserve the neo-colonial status quo before 2000 and then
to deliver Zimbabwe back to the imperialists after 2000, it's none other than
Mugabe.

Some have called for a Diasporan Zimbabwean voice, you can start from
this piece
on Mugabe's military junta:

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=565

Moses Chikowero
Dalhousie University,
Canada

Quoting Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>:

> And, by the way, we have to put a stop to this myth that Britain's failure
> to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement is
> responsible for Mugabe's tyranny. Historically that is not accurate. Mugabe
> had been in power for almost 20 years before he invoked Lancashire and

> commenced the unilateral seizure of land. He did this only *AFTER *trade

>>> hasn't gone bunkers, *The Guardian* of London and *The Economist*,

>>> largely started the thread through Hetty ter Haar and the now thankfully
>>> quiet Roy Doron. A deluge of Zimbabwe clips from ter Haar and Doron got us
>>> going. It's not as if we weren't aware of Mugabe's counter-democracy
>>> inclinations before we were jolted into action here by those clips. Why
>>> didn't we set the ball rolling? That grates! Mugabe is in the excellent
>>> company of Omar Bongo, Paul Biya, and Blaise Compaore. I haven't heard as
>>> much as whimper of disapproval of those three sores on Africa's forehead in
>>> this forum. I predict the following sad scenario. When Bongo outlives his

>>> usefulness for the Elysee, *Le Monde*, and *Le Nouvel Observateur* will

>>> begin to scream about his abuse of human rights and the suffering of the
>>> people of Gabon, a Western forum member in Paris will post a clip here and
>>> we will all suddenly remember that we have disgraceful Presidents a vie in
>>> Francophone Africa. A thread will start and last for two years.
>>>
>>> Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL)
>>> Department of English
>>> Carleton University
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>> K1S 5B6
>>>
>>> Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175
>>>
>>> www.projectponal.com
>>>

>>> > > ?630 million of aid was pledged. The first phase

>>> > > of land reform in
>>> > > the 1980s, which was partially funded by the United
>>> > > Kingdom, successfully
>>> > > resettled only 71,000 families out of a target of
>>> > 162,000.
>>> > >
>>> > > What, after that, became of the Lancaster House
>>> > provisions
>>> > > on land and
>>> > > the pledges?
>>> > >
>>> > > Having secured the non-expulsion of the defeated white
>>> > > settlers, Britain
>>> > > proceeded to renege on its commitment to fund the
>>> > > repurchase of the land
>>> > > it had stolen a century earlier. By its own admission
>>> > in
>>> > > 2004, "Since
>>> > > independence we have provided 44 million pounds for
>>> > land
>>> > > reform in

>>> > > Zimbabwe" That's ?44m out of the
>>> > > ?630m pledged in 1981.

>>> > >
>>> > > The Zimbabwean Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noted
>>> > that
>>> > > it was
>>> > > estimated that about $2 billion would be needed to
>>> > properly
>>> > > support land
>>> > > reforms in the country. The government said it
>>> > received

>>> > > only ?40m

>>> > > between 1980 and 1996, and that, though a
>>> > mission--sent by
>>> > > John Major to

>>> > > evaluate the position after the ?40m provided

>>> > > (c) 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All

>>> > Rights
>>> > > Reserved).
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>> > > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>> > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > __________________________________________________________
>>> > Not happy with your email address?.
>>> > Get the one you really want - millions of new email
>>> > addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> ------------------------------

>>>
>>> Not happy with your email address?
>>> Get the one you
>>>

>>> really want <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html> - millions of

>>> new email addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>

>> --
>> There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
>> greed.
>>
>>
>> ---Mohandas Ghandi
>>
>
>
>
> --
> There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
> greed.
>
>
> ---Mohandas Ghandi
>
> >
>

m.chikowero
PhD Candidate
Dalhousie University
Canada
(902) 494-2011 ext.3646 (b)
(902) 446-5440 (h)

[Eze Agu]

Now that we've expended much ink and energy on Zimbabwe, how about some consideration for the 4 million or so who've died in the DR Congo since 1997? How about we put Kagame, Museveni and Kabila on trial to account for these millions of African lives?

How it is that we are so engrossed with Zimbabwe where [God forgive me!] no more than 200, 000 or so have died as a direct consequence of Mugabe's actions since 1980 whereas over 20 times that number have died in the DRC as collateral damage of the looting of coltan for mobile phones?

 Is it not the BBC and CNN which now dictate the issues that Africans will work themselves into so much cyber-lather about? Yes, we must talk about Zimbabwe but spare a thought for DRC. Mugabe must go but so too must Kagame, Museveni and Kabila.

Eze

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Mugabe seized the farms and other properties before launching his
murderous campaign against ZAPU leaders and supporters, then sat on the land
issue for 20 years. Meanwhile, Zimbabweans were not holding their breath while
waiting for a 'Marxist' revolutionary, Sir Mugabe, to complete the
decolonization. In fact, Sir Mugabe kept his army busy chasing them off the
farms as 'squatters' when they occupied the farms in agitation for land
redistribution throughout the two decades. He only gave the social dissidence
tacit approval and then hijacked it when it had become the last political card
against a viable opposition. It's only a commentary on the MDC's ideological
stance that it approached the land issue not from the point of view of the
peasants, but from that of a despicable colonial vestige, the white farmers
themselves. That's when he saw that his neo-colonial consortments with
the west
and the white farmers could nolonger be bankable; the latter had committed
apostasy by openly dubbling in politics

-----Moses Chikowero

 

 

 

Moses Chikowero,

 

Thanks for fleshing out my contention with undeniable historical facts. The fact remains that Mugabe only invoked Lancaster House and embarked on unilateral land seizures only AFTER a credible challenge to his rule emerged, and only after the wealthy white farmers began to finance the opposition, with Britain opportunistically and hypocritically joining the bandwagon of democratic reform. Mugabe, as many have pointed out, was quite happy to let the land status quo (of white ownership) endure as long as his sit-tight design was secure, and as long as the white farmers stayed apolitical, and Britain and the West remained neutral. He was for a long time, the guardian of that unacceptable land situation, taking up the issue only when it was clear that that was the only viable political card he could play to blunt the opposition and stay in power.

[Eze Agu]

Now that Moses C has satisfactorily confirmed the grand theory
propagated by Mose O that had Mugabe behaved himself and kept on
playing the Kenyatta role agreed between him and Britain, we would not
be discussing Mugabe or no Mugabe, what next?

Whether Mugabe was ever a revolutionary or not, those pictures of
Tsvangirai standing behind a gloating Ian Smith are indelible in my
mind. Yes, Mugabe must go but no to Tsvangirai. I'd hate to see Ian
Smith chosen stooge become president of Zimbabwe.

Eze

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"How it is that we are so engrossed with Zimbabwe...?"

"Is it not the BBC and CNN which now dictate the issues that Africans will

work themselves into so much cyber-lather about?" - Eze Agu

Because African intellectuals are near totally bereft of any personal
initiative, imagination or creativity!

Just less than a week ago, we all worked ourselves into a lather over
CNN's Anderson Cooper's comments about HIV-AIDS originating in Africa.

Was that the first time we ever heard that song and dance - that AIDS
started when some sexually pervert Africans mated - had 'sex with',
another Oyinbo obsession: SEX (especially exotic African sex) - with
chimpanzees in the wild jungles of the Cameroon?

Then before that, we were all riled up about Kibaki and the botched
elections in Kenya as if it all started yesterday.

Now we are all engrossed in singing the latest Western/BBC/CNN/New York
Times 'Battle Hymn of the Republic', as if we only just 'discovered'
Mugabe, MDC, Tsivingarai (Europe's latest Jonas Savimbi) and Zimbabwe.

And when the West points its beacon at Darfur, we all rush there; 'female
genital mutilation', we all rush there; population explosion, we all rush
there; globalization, we all rush there; global warming, we all rush
there; abuse of 'human rights'...

Can we identify anything at all on our own?

Anytime the West screams:

"Apes obey ('Eshobee' for Nigerians), jump!"

Africans intellectuals ask meekly:

"How high, Bwana?"

Now it is "Crucify Robert Muagbe!"

And here we are begging:

"Oga, how soon?"

In the meantime, Africa has no other pressing or life-threatening issues,
ONLY ROBERT MUGABE - the West latest African 'bete noire' - pun intended!

(Please study the postings on the august forum for the past week - Roibert
Mugabe, Robert Mugabe, and still more Robert Mugabe - Europe's pain in the
butt, but Africa's burden to carry for our oyinbo oga!

Can African intellectuals start identifying and addressing African issues
independently of being goaded like so much cattle by our Western masters
and mentors who invariably put their own interests first and above all
others - including those of their African camp followers and chorus
singers?

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

"Eze Agu" <eze...@gmail.com> writes:

> Now that we've expended much ink and energy on Zimbabwe, how about some
> consideration for the 4 million or so who've died in the DR Congo since
> 1997? How about we put Kagame, Museveni and Kabila on trial to account for
> these millions of African lives?
>
> How it is that we are so engrossed with Zimbabwe where [God forgive me!]
> no
> more than 200, 000 or so have died as a direct consequence of Mugabe's
> actions since 1980 whereas over 20 times that number have died in the DRC
> as
> collateral damage of the looting of coltan for mobile phones?
>
> Is it not the BBC and CNN which now dictate the issues that Africans will
> work themselves into so much cyber-lather about? Yes, we must talk about
> Zimbabwe but spare a thought for DRC. Mugabe must go but so too must
> Kagame,
> Museveni and Kabila.
>
> Eze
>
> On 6/27/08, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And, by the way, we have to put a stop to this myth that Britain's
>> failure
>> to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement is
>> responsible for Mugabe's tyranny. Historically that is not accurate.
>> Mugabe
>> had been in power for almost 20 years before he invoked Lancashire and

>> commenced the unilateral seizure of land. He did this only *AFTER *trade

>>>> hasn't gone bunkers, *The Guardian* of London and *The Economist*,

>>>> largely started the thread through Hetty ter Haar and the now
>>>> thankfully
>>>> quiet Roy Doron. A deluge of Zimbabwe clips from ter Haar and Doron
>>>> got us
>>>> going. It's not as if we weren't aware of Mugabe's counter-democracy
>>>> inclinations before we were jolted into action here by those clips.
>>>> Why
>>>> didn't we set the ball rolling? That grates! Mugabe is in the
>>>> excellent
>>>> company of Omar Bongo, Paul Biya, and Blaise Compaore. I haven't heard
>>>> as
>>>> much as whimper of disapproval of those three sores on Africa's
>>>> forehead in
>>>> this forum. I predict the following sad scenario. When Bongo outlives
>>>> his

>>>> usefulness for the Elysee, *Le Monde*, and *Le Nouvel Observateur*

>>>> > > (c) 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All

>>>> > Rights
>>>> > > Reserved).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>>> > > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>>> > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > __________________________________________________________
>>>> > Not happy with your email address?.
>>>> > Get the one you really want - millions of new email
>>>> > addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>>> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> ------------------------------

>>>>
>>>> Not happy with your email address?
>>>>
>>>> Get the one you
>>>>

>>>> really want <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html> - millions of

>>>> new email addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>>>
>>>> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

“…this myth that Britain's failure to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement  is responsible for Mugabe's tyranny.” - Moses Ebe Ochonu

 

And whoever created such a “myth”?

 

And who ever used the word “responsible”? Is there any “uni-causality” in anything? The witch next door is “responsible” for the death of her neighbor’s new-born baby?

 

Did Britain “live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement” – yes or no?

 

Is that part of what paved the way for the Rise of a Robert Mugabe – yes or no?

 

Is that not part of the argument being used today  - and justifiably so too – by Robert Mugabe and Zanu – yes or no?

 

What is therefore so “mythical” about “Britain's failure to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement,” when it is a historically attested FACT?

 

If this fictitious “world community” – another clever creation of the West - will NOT call on Britain and the West to live up to its obligations, what moral right does that same fictitious “world community” have to call upon Robert Mugabe and Zanu (or on anyone for that matter) to live up to its obligations?

 

Please explain…

 

Dr. Valentine Ojo

Tall Timbers, MD

 

[Pius Adesanmi]

"Is it not the BBC and CNN which now dictate the issues that Africans will work themselves into so much cyber-lather about?" - Eze Agu

Dr Ojo and Eze Agu:   Good point! I've called this a surrender of initiative. Mark my words: we will begin to complain about Omar Bongo here the moment Le Monde and Le Nouvel Observateur scream: "on your marks, get set, go!" That's when we will remember that he's spent a life time as president.   Pius

Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com

--- On Fri, 27/6/08, Dr. Valentine Ojo <val...@md.metrocast.net> wrote:

Not happy with your email address?

Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Val,

If you're going to debate, at least try and understand the argument you're opposing and don't create straw men to take cheap shots at. I never said the verifiable, historically true British failure to live up to its Lancaster House obligations was a myth. In fact I have referenced that failure in several of my posts on this issue. What is a MYTH is the argument/assertion that Mugabe had no sit-tight, dictatorial design until Britain failed to live up to its obligation or until Britain started persecuting him.

Anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of post-independence Zimbabwean history knows that that is not true. Mugabe has never brooked opposition or challenge to his power. He has always been a political absolutist. This tendency emerged even during the revolution and calcified in the early post-independence period.

Yes, Western antagonism hardened Mugabe and his allies and made them more obdurate. But Mugabe's dictatorial tendency and political intolerance predated the British failure to fulfill their Lancaster obligations, and, of course, the subsequent British/Western aggression against Mugabe. Even the history of the Chimurenga itself (at least the unvanished version of it) is replete with Mugabe's anti-democratic predilections. The man has a history of omnipotent delusions that predate his problem with the British. After all, Mugabe started destroying the opposition and consolidating power before the Lancaster land accord was even broached for discussion or possible implementation.

Let me let you know that you are trying to argue with the wrong person. I will NEVER exonerate Britain or the West from what is going on. And I refuse to see the current impasse through the Western perspective. But I will also NOT see the situation through the self-serving perspective of Mugabe and his allies, or from the compromised lens of Tsvangirai. My analytical and polemical loyalties lie only with the suffering Zimbabwean peoples, who want Mugabe gone and now clearly see him as a clog in their political and economic aspirations and desires.

So, to answer your question, I strongly disagree that Britain's failure to fulfill its Lancaster House obligations was responsible for "the rise of Mugabe." Of course, that is what the old man and his Zanu and army backers would want us to believe because it lends letigimacy to their brigandage. But that doesn't make it historically true. That argument is chronologically flawed. As I said before, the outlines of Mugabe's sit-tight design was already quite discernible BEFORE the British were adjudged to have reneged on their lancaster House responsibilities, so, logically, that could not be the cause of Mugabe's political madness. That Britain's failure to fulfill those responsibilities has become an alibi for Mugabe and a key element of his justificatory rhetoric does not mean that it is historically true.

Mugabe is indeed using the British failure as an argument to perpertuate himself in power and crush the opposition. But that argument is neither true nor an acceptable justification for the tyranny he has visited on his own people (not his British and Western traducers, mind you). I agree that the West has through its aggressive approach pitted itself in a test of wills with Mugabe. But Mugabe should know better than to formulate his politics based solely on Western discourses and not on the desires and interests of the Zimbabwean people. It is foollish to jeopardize your country's stability and future because of a petty test of wills.

Allowing Mugabe's self-interested political rhetoric to determine your perspective on the crisis is just as bad as allowing Western hypocritical and sanctimonous pronouncements on Mugabe to do so. Let's put the interests and the clearly expressed will of the Zimbabwean people first in our analysis. If nothing else, the result of the last election represents a clear rejection of Mugabe and his oligarchy by the Zimbabwean people.

--- On Fri, 6/27/08, Dr. Valentine Ojo <val...@md.metrocast.net> wrote:

> From: Dr. Valentine Ojo <val...@md.metrocast.net>

> www.projectponal.com <http://www.projectponal.com/>

> > > Be Yourself @ mail.com <http://mail.com/> !

> > > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

> <http://www.mail.com/>

> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Not happy with your email address?.
> > Get the one you really want - millions of new email
> > addresses available now at Yahoo!
> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>

> Not happy with your email address?
>
>
>
> Get the one you

> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
> really want <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>

> - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!
> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>

> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>

[Folu F Ogundimu]

Moses, my brother:

I suppose you mean the Lancaster House Agreement, not "Lancashire" - for the
benefit of those who may want to research the background to the end of the
war against "UDI" and ushered in Zimbabwe.

Folu F. Ogundimu

Moses Ebe Ochonu writes:

> And, by the way, we have to put a stop to this myth that Britain's failure
> to live up to its obligations in the Lancashire House Agreement is
> responsible for Mugabe's tyranny. Historically that is not accurate. Mugabe
> had been in power for almost 20 years before he invoked Lancashire and

> commenced the unilateral seizure of land. He did this only *AFTER *trade

>>> hasn't gone bunkers, *The Guardian* of London and *The Economist*,

>>> largely started the thread through Hetty ter Haar and the now thankfully
>>> quiet Roy Doron. A deluge of Zimbabwe clips from ter Haar and Doron got us
>>> going. It's not as if we weren't aware of Mugabe's counter-democracy
>>> inclinations before we were jolted into action here by those clips. Why
>>> didn't we set the ball rolling? That grates! Mugabe is in the excellent
>>> company of Omar Bongo, Paul Biya, and Blaise Compaore. I haven't heard as
>>> much as whimper of disapproval of those three sores on Africa's forehead in
>>> this forum. I predict the following sad scenario. When Bongo outlives his

>>> usefulness for the Elysee, *Le Monde*, and *Le Nouvel Observateur* will

>>> begin to scream about his abuse of human rights and the suffering of the
>>> people of Gabon, a Western forum member in Paris will post a clip here and
>>> we will all suddenly remember that we have disgraceful Presidents a vie in
>>> Francophone Africa. A thread will start and last for two years.
>>>
>>> Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL)
>>> Department of English
>>> Carleton University
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>> K1S 5B6
>>>
>>> Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175
>>>
>>> www.projectponal.com
>>>

>>> > > (c) 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All

>>> > Rights
>>> > > Reserved).
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>> > > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>> > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > __________________________________________________________
>>> > Not happy with your email address?.
>>> > Get the one you really want - millions of new email
>>> > addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> ------------------------------

>>>
>>> Not happy with your email address?
>>> Get the one you
>>>

>>> really want <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html> - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>> <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>

>> --
>> There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
>> greed.
>>
>>
>> ---Mohandas Ghandi
>>
>
>
>
> --
> There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
> greed.
>
>
> ---Mohandas Ghandi
>
> >

Folu F. Ogundimu, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Journalism, Communication, and African Studies
Michigan State University
384 Communication Arts & Science
East Lansing, MI 48824-1212

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Folu:

 

You're right; I've corrected it in my subsequent posts, since edits are not possible in already posted comments. These British names......... I guess Lancashire came to me because I've been writing lately about cotton/textiles and colonialism. Thanks.

---Mohandas Ghandi

[Edward Mensah]

Val

 

" ......   what moral right does that same fictitious “world community” have to call upon Robert Mugabe and Zanu (or on anyone for that matter) to live up to its obligations?".

We seem to be confusing multiple issues here. Simply put, Robert Mugabe's main obligation now is to stop killing his own people. It s highly immoral for his soldiers to kill fellow citizens and give any reason for doing so. Lancashire or otherwise. There is no reason for killing your own people.  There are 2 Mugabes: the hero some of us will always respect and the modern day murderer who should relinquish power. Unfortunately he believes that whoever comes to power will invite the British and the west to invest. He will die than see these enemies back in Zimbabwe, and he will kill babies and imaginary enemies to remain in power. Did he not kill lots of his own people in Bulawayo earlier after independence? What role did land distribution have to play in that earlier mass killing?

 

Edward Mensah

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Moses:

My response to you will be short and direct.

Robert Mugabe is 84 years old, an octogenarian who can hardly still put on
his own pants by himself without help.

If he is still being kept/maintained in power, there MUST be more to him
than the mere name, 'Robert Mugabe'.

What is it?

Beyond Western Propaganda, have African intellectuals like you ever
bothered to ask yourselves:

What or who is keeping Robert Mugabe in power?

It cannot be Robert Mugabe by himself. And it cannot be his 'megalomaniac
craving' for power alone. That in and by itself is NOT enough to keep
Robert Mugabe or any 'dictator' in power anywhere in the world - not even
in Zimbabwe!

You figure out the rest.

It is noteworthy that African intellectuals invariably have 'solutions'
for other African countries, but never for their own countries. George
Ayittey is the title holder in this department, but it looks like he is
being joined by more and more African intellectuals.

I have rarely reda wher German intellectuals proposed solutions to
problems facing the French - because they are all 'Europeans' - and expect
to be taken seriously by the French, or vice versa.

The Nigerian, Ghanaian and Kenyan intellectuals here proffering solutions
to 'the problems of Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe' are confronted with worse
scenarios in their own respective nations to which they have no solutions.

The tortoise was advised to first find the cure for the wrinkles in his
own buttocks before proffering cures for other people's ailments.

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

"Moses Ebe Ochonu" <ebe...@yahoo.com>

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

My Dear Edward Mensah,
You wrote:"There are 2 Mugabes: the hero some of us will always respect..."
I think one of the factors that have turned Mugabe to this irredeemable megalomania that he is today is this misplaced and wrong emphasis on the point that Mugabe is the ONLY HERO of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. While one will not want to belittle his contributions to the liberation of Zimbabwe, the struggle was  collective and PEOPLES'  LIBERATION STRUGGLE. The people who carried out the ACTUAL fighting that  made the liberation of that country possible were ordinary Zimbabweans - the same people at the receiving end of Mugabe's current wickedness and brutality.
Mugabe was only one of MANY heroes of Zimbabwe's liberation and freedom. That Mugabe was part of the struggle does not confer the inalienable  right and authority  on him to perpetuate monstrous atrocities on fellow Africans.
Tokunbo

---

From: deha...@uic.edu

To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:52:55 -0500

Val

 

" ......   what moral right does that same fictitious “world community” have to call upon Robert Mugabe and Zanu (or on anyone for that matter) to live up to its obligations?".

We seem to be confusing multiple issues here. Simply put, Robert Mugabe's main obligation now is to stop killing his own people. It s highly immoral for his soldiers to kill fellow citizens and give any reason for doing so. Lancashire or otherwise. There is no reason for killing your own people.  There are 2 Mugabes: the hero some of us will always respect and the modern day murderer who should relinquish power. Unfortunately he believes that whoever comes to power will invite the British and the west to invest. He will die than see these enemies back in Zimbabwe, and he will kill babies and imaginary enemies to remain in power. Did he not kill lots of his own people in Bulawayo earlier after independence? What role did land distribution have to play in that earlier mass killing?

 

Edward Mensah

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr. Valentine Ojo

To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:15 PM

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

> > Be Yourself @ mail.com!

> > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com > > > > > > >  >

> __________________________________________________________

> Not happy with your email address?. > Get the one you really want - millions of new email > addresses available now at Yahoo! > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html >  >

Not happy with your email address?   Get the one you

really want - millions of new email addresses available now at  Yahoo!

 

 

--

There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Ghandi

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Ghandi

<BR

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Edward:

This is "half-intellectualism" - you lifted what served your purpose from
a much longer argument:

"If this fictitious "world community" - another clever creation of the
West - will NOT call on Britain and the West to live up to their

obligations, what moral right does that same fictitious "world community"

have to call upon Robert Mugabe and ZANU (or on anyone for that matter) to

live up to its obligations?"

This is the question you should answer.

And as to your demand:

"Robert Mugabe's main obligation now is to stop killing his own people."

Is Robert Mugabe the only African leader currently "killing his own people?"

What's the West and their African supporters (Lke you and Moses Ochonu and
Chika Onyeani et al) doing about those other African leaders "killing his
own people?"

Waiting until Britain and the West raise the alarm?

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

"Edward Mensah" <deha...@uic.edu> writes:

> from his own responsibilities. Too much ofthe argument on Zimbabwe, pro

> Mugabe, contra Tsvangerai or vice versa, seems to be predicated on an
> assumption of absolute helplessness of African actors. We look at our
> counterparts in Asia, including China (which did not achieve its present
> status on the basis of aid and waiting for the West to rescue it) and we
> refuse to take responsibility for our own condition. It is all because of
> the plots of the West. Well, with that mindset, we aren't going to help
> Zimbabwe defeat nuttin! One expects that Cap'n Bob will survive this

> Friday and emerge asZimbabwe's newly re-elected President. That (barring

> Bob doesn't take the necessary steps himself,those in his administration

> who are currently clinging to his coat-tails will be sensible to organize
> the necessary. In Nigeria, we too had a captain who was steering the ship
> onto the rocks. He forgot that his officers also had their cargo on
> board. And when the captain insists on steering the ship onto the rocks
> and won't change his course, there's likely to be a'Man Overboard!' Ayo
> Obe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nkolika Ebele" To: Sent: Thursday,

> June 26, 2008 1:24 PMSubject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black

> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions Thank you Cajetan
> for hitting the point. How come it African leaders do not think we have
> enough talents here to explore as leaders,that once any of them gets to

> power, it becomes 'till death do us path'. What scholarslike Chienweiu

> should be doing now is find strategies of getting African leaders out of
> power. The west may have contributed to our woes but the west cannot take
> the blame forever for what we are doing to ourselves. Africas sholud wake

> up and take responsibility. Nkolika.Unizik Nigeria. --- On Wed, 6/25/08,

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Val,

 

Thank you for letting us non-Zimbabweans know that we are not qualified to comment on the Zimbabwean crisis. The last time I checked though, you were still a Nigerian, not a Zimbawean, but you have commented on Zimbabwe infinitely more than I have. The record is there., So, I'd suggest that you first heed your own prescription before seeking to apply it to others.

 

Maybe you should answer your own question as to what is keeping Mugabe in power, since you seem to have some secret gateway to the Mugabe mystique. Please share your inside knowledge. Western persecution is NOT a good reason for a leader to terrorize his own people and deny them their democratic freedoms, especially since these same people are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Western forces that colonized and are now hypocritically intervening in the current impasse. The question should be: Is Mugabe's leadership still good for Zimbabweans, and is it still desirable to a majority of Zimbabweans? You know the answer to this question. Answer this question simply as an African in solidarity with the suffering people of Zimbabwe.

 

You can continue to justify and defend Mugabe's political madness all you want, but I refuse to join you in viewing the crisis from the old man's perspective. I will also not view it from a Western perspective, or from Tsvangirai's vantage point. The majority of Zimbabweans now see Mugabe as a major part of the problem and want him gone. Why is he not listening to them and is instead engaged in a silly, petty war of wits and wills with his Western traducers?

 

And you can go ahead and engage in your now familiar facile dichotomy of "supporters of the West vs supporters of Africa."  I have never known you to be capable of comprehending or engaging in nuanced reasoning, so I am not surprised. Everything, for you, is black and white (Africa defenders vs Western defenders and other such inane oppositions). This Manichean, binary reasoning is something you have in common with our common bete noir, George Ayittey. He, too, likes to reason in such simplistic terms of binary oppositions. You don't believe in a self-critical Pan-Africanism. I do. Let's leave it there.

---Mohandas Ghandi

[okello oculi]

Those with possibilities for conducting research into foreign interests and intervention in individual African countries should serve other Africans by exposing them. A lot of bile has been poured on Mugabe but where is the research on British economic intelligence and sabotage of Zimbabwe's economy? Which British Members of Parliament are actively working against Mugabe and which multinational corporations with interests in Southern Africa are behind the sing-song of super-inflation in Zimbabwe. That super-inflation is not a biblical curse by God but products of brilliant men and women in London, Tokyo, Paris and Toronto who want starve blacks in Africa to turn against patriotic and brave African leaders; while wishing to have Africans as docile occupiers of lands rich with resources.

There is a need for universities to award honorary degrees for empty levels andf varieties of insult and curses directed at Mugabe. I would rather we were hearing reports of new courses developed about exposing evolving forms of economic repression and disintegration directed at "stubborn" African leaders. I would also be glad for courses on varities in Euro-American pressures on African countries that are friendly to China and seeking for exits from debt slavery, debt-terrorism, and windows of genuine economic growth.

Okello Oculi

--- On Thu, 6/26/08, Ochwada, Hannington <hoch...@indiana.edu> wrote:

> From: Ochwada, Hannington <hoch...@indiana.edu>
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwedefeat sanctions

> To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com, "kenneth harrow" <har...@msu.edu>
> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2008, 8:48 AM
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to share the pieces pasted herewith with you
> on the
> subject of Mugabe -- they are neither from NY or BBC but
> the Kenyan
> press. Let us face it things are bad in Zimbabwe. Those of
> us who come
> from are Kenya are cognizant of the fact that power hunger
> was the
> cause of the election fiasco in our country in 2007 and not
> any
> imperialist intrigue. In fact, were it not for external
> pressure
> exerted on the president of Kenya and his supporters there
> would still
> be bloodletting to this day (please note I am not saying
> things are
> okay). We certainly need not apologize for Mugabe. Yes, we
> understand
> and agree that external forces have vested interests in our
> countries
> but for how longer shall we turn a blind eye and simply
> pass the buck
> on to imperialist maneuvers? READ ON...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82sX2YHKsAo&feature=user
>
> http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=126082
>
> Thanks -- Hannington Ochwada
>
> COMMENTARY
>
> Hail Mugabe, long live Bob, you are a true African hero
>
> Story by CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO
> Publication Date: 6/26/2008
>
> Hearing it being told, Zimbabwe’s Big Man Robert Mugabe
> is an insane
> old man who should be locked up in a mental asylum, not
> running a
> country.
>
> Writers, like this columnist, have been challenged to
> acknowledge the
> “good side” of Mugabe. So we did.
>
> Recently I watched a documentary of the DR Congo’s
> thieving former
> dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. The programme revealed that
> Mobutu liked to
> hit on his ministers’ and ambassadors’ wives, and would
> take them off
> to his room as they watched.
>
> Mugabe started dating his present wife, Grace, who is 40
> years his
> junior, when she was a secretary at State House, and his
> wife Sally was
> ailing. Grace Marufu, as she was then known, was married to
> Flight Lt
> Patrick Guririza.
>
> When Mugabe decided to take Grace as his, he didn’t do as
> Uganda’s
> former dictator (and friend of Mobutu) Field Marshal Idi
> Amin did when
> he set eyes upon the beautiful Sarah Kyolaba. Idi was
> immediately
> smitten, but like a good general, he first inquired about
> the
> competition.
>
> He was told Sarah had a boyfriend, a fashionable musician
> of the time.
> Idi sent his boys round to the fellow’s house a few
> nights later, and
> he was never seen again, leaving him to take Sarah as his
> youngest (she
> reportedly also became his favourite) wife without any
> rival lurking in
> the shadows.
>
> Compared to Mobutu who grabbed many people’s wives,
> Mugabe stole only
> one. And compared to Amin, he didn’t kill Flt-Lt
> Guririza. He exiled
> him to China as a diplomat. So in those two regards, Mugabe
> is far
> better than Amin and Mobutu.
>
> Now, for those who are too young to remember, in 1980 a
> young sergeant
> in the Liberian army called Samuel Doe seized power in a
> coup. He was,
> like many African military dictators of his time, an
> appalling ruler.
> Rebellion broke out in his country. One of the rebel
> leaders was
> another strange man, Prince Johnson.
>
> As Doe’s forces succumbed to the rebels, the man was
> still hanging
> around in the presidential palace. The story goes that,
> sensing
> danger, Doe hurriedly arranged a helicopter for a
> last-minute escape.
> However, the presidential guard, realising that he was
> leaving them to
> be killed for his sins, detained him and said they were not
> going to be
> left to “die alone”.
>
> So it was that in September 1990, the rebels captured Doe.
> They
> stripped him naked, tied his hands behind his back, and
> begun torturing
> him. In a video that was widely circulated at the time, and
> that didn’t
> do the image of Africa much good, Prince Johnson is shown
> ordering his
> men to chop off a bloodied Doe’s ear and stuff it in his
> mouth.
>
> Having killed Doe, the rebels fought over his intimate
> bits, heart and
> liver which they ate raw in the belief that all his powers
> would be
> transferred to them.
>
> Now, compare that to how Mugabe has treated opposition
> leader Morgan
> Tsvangirai. In the first round of the elections, Mugabe’s
> supporters
> and police beat up and intimidated the opposition and
> mugged them of
> some of their votes.
>
> Still, they had sufficient decency left. They didn’t
> steal enough to
> deny Tsvangirai victory. They only rigged it to prevent him
> getting the
> more than 50 per cent required by law.
>
> A few weeks earlier, Zanu-PF goons had set upon Tsvangirai
> and beaten
> him senseless, leaving him with huge gashes on the head,
> closed eyes,
> and a major limp. Still, he lived to win the first round.
> If it had
> been Liberia, Tsvangirai would have had his ears cut off,
> killed, and
> then the remnants eaten.
>
> You have to give Mugabe his due.
>
> You might say it’s partly because of sanctions against
> him, but unlike
> other presidents, Mugabe spends a lot of his time in
> Zimbabwe. In that
> way he’s definitely better than Cameroon’s strongman
> Paul Biya.
>
> In the last few years, Biya has lived mostly in France
> although he
> remains president. He returns to Cameroon for brief periods
> (perhaps to
> collect money from the Central Bank). But for sure,
> whenever elections
> are up, he comes, rigs the poll, and goes back to France.
>
> There are those who say that, in the process, Biya has
> become the first
> truly hi-tech African president — he rules by remote
> control. Without
> the options of Biya, Mugabe has built his palaces in the
> outskirts of
> Harare, not on the Riviera.
>
> Finally, there is Mugabe’s friend, former Ethiopian
> dictator Mengistu
> Haile Mariam, who has lived in exile in Zimbabwe since he
> was deposed
> nearly 18 years ago. It’s estimated Mengistu killed at
> least 1.5
> million people during his cruel rule.
>
> On the other hand, when he was faced by the
> Matabeleland-based
> rebellion against his rule between 1982 and 1983, Mugabe
> unleashed the
> notorious Fifth Brigade to quash it. More than 20,000
> people were
> killed.
>
> It might well be that Mugabe harbours Mengistu to remind
> himself that
> he is “not as bad”. His regime killed “only” 20,000
> people, as opposed
> to the former Ethiopian hard man who dispatched 1.5
> million.

> >> To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>
> >> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black
> >> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat
> sanctions

> >> if you go to the front page of the ny times on
> >> line, you will see a picture of a baby whose
> >> legs were broken by mugabe's youth core when
> they couldn't find its father.
> >> there is a point where one's repulsion at this
> >> horrific practice becomes overwhelming.
> >> can anyone really apologize for mugabe now;
> >> let chinweizu deny the ugly reality; no images
> >> will move him, i presume; anything can be called
> >> "western propaganda." even idi amin
> played this card.
> >> for jews, this is familiar: it is called holocaust
> denial.
> >> ken harrow
> >>
> >> At 05:16 AM 6/25/2008, you wrote:
> >>

> >>> * <mailto:?subject=Black Africa's
> duty to
> >>> help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions&body=Black

> >>> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat
> >>> sanctions
> >>>

> http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/policy_politics/article01/250608>Send
> >>> to a friend
> >>> *
> >>>
> <http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index2_html?itemID=article01&print=print>Printer-friendly

> >>> version
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> © 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited
> (All Rights Reserved).
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
> >>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> >>> Get a Free Account

> at<http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!
> >> Kenneth W. Harrow
> >> Professor of English
> >> Michigan State University
> >> har...@msu.edu
> >> 517 353-7243
> >> fax 353 3755
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >
> > Kenneth W. Harrow
> > Professor of English
> > Michigan State University
> > har...@msu.edu
> > 517 353-7243
> > fax 353 3755
> > >
> >
>
>
>

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"Let's put the interests and the clearly expressed will of the Zimbabwean people first in our analysis. If nothing else, the result of the last election represents a clear rejection of Mugabe and his oligarchy by the Zimbabwean people." Moses Ebe Ochonu

Do we really "know" this for sure?

There are other reports coming out of Zimbabwe. Must we then rely only on the "reports" from BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post - all Western institutions with vested economic interest in Zimbabwe?

None of the 'African' intellectuals here commenting on Zimbabwe actually resides in Zimbabwe - all our information is at best second/third hand, usually from the same clearly biased sources - Western media.

Why did the Western press not react with the same cry against the clearly stolen mandate of Nigerians and Kenyans during the sham "democratic elections" held in these puppet states of the West?

Why now the outcry against Zimbabwe where at least some honest effort is being made to hold credible elections - even when boycotted by the West's puppet, Tsivingarai?

Or is Tsvingarai now being seen and touted as the "Great Black Hope" for Zimbabweans?

Are we African intellectuals really this naïve?

So, remove Robert Mugabe by any means necessary - even through Western military intervention/invasion.

Then what?

Let's remember: After Abacha's demise in Nigeria, and the return of "Western democracy" in the form of Obasanjo and his PDP (People's Destruction Party), things became so bad for the average Nigerian that most wish the "good old days of Abacha" were back!

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

[Pius Adesanmi]

"What's the West and their African supporters (Like you and Moses Ochonu and Chika Onyeani et al)"   Chei, my Oga,   We must remove Moses from this list with immediate effect. Moses a supporter of the West? Moses should not feature in a list of happy African intellectuals grovelling in the presence of the West. Remember that popular song? "E ma na bobo yen, arawa ni, arawa ni bobo yen arawa ni" Moses is a full time arawa. He is one of us. An eminent arawa for that matter.   Pius

Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com

--- On Sat, 28/6/08, Dr. Valentine Ojo <val...@md.metrocast.net> wrote:

From: Dr. Valentine Ojo <val...@md.metrocast.net>

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

"What's the West and their African supporters (Like you and Moses Ochonu and

Chika Onyeani et al) doing about those other African leaders "killing his
own people?""

1. Nigerian leaders are killing Nigerians in the Niger Delta to provide oil for the West.

2. Millions have been killed in the Congo area by their "African leaders" over the last decade to provide essential minerals for Western industries.

3. The Chinese are not the only ones prospecting for oil in Darfur...

Where is the outcry from the Western press and from our African intellectuals?

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

-----Original Message-----
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:USAAfric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Valentine Ojo
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:28 AM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Edward Mensah

[Olabode Ibironke]

Here is a 1983 video of Joshua Nkomo's interview in exile. It is amazing that Mugabe's trademark antics of eliminating opposition by using his political party's militia that date back to the very moment of Zimbabwe's independence has been reduced a-historically to the Lancaster agreement.... I always regarded intellectuals, the likes of Nkomo as the real Zimbabwean nationalists not Mugabe!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WG8k7jZ2tA

Bode Ibironke.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Pius,

Be careful so that you don't end up on Val's growing list of supporters of the West. After all, you've also called for Mugabe to go. You're on thin ice with Val already for making that prescription, even though you quickly followed that prescription with a very powerful indictment of the West's role in the Zimbabwean crisis and called Britain out on its offensive hypocrisy. Don't think that such a nuanced position would have purchase with Val; that your criticism of Western hypocrisy and double standards would atone for your mortal sin of daring to say that Mugabe has to go. You cannot disagree with Val without being labeled a Western apologist. Be careful.

--- On Sat, 6/28/08, Pius Adesanmi <piusad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Eligius Ihewulezi]

My brother Okilo,
You said the truth. I accept all you said, at the same time, do you not think that our African leaders need to see leadership and duration in office differently? I would have been happier with Mugabe if he did what Nelson Mandela did in South Africa. He left with dignity and allowed others to contribute to what should make South Africa great. I do not think that Mugabe is doing himself and his country a favor by remaining in power when he knows that his presence for whatever reason is not helping matters in that part of Africa.

Cajetan.

--- On Sat, 28/6/08, okello oculi <okell...@yahoo.com> wrote:

__________________________________________________________

[Daniel Egbe]

Dear Tokunbo:

I agree completely with your analysis.  If after 28 years of so, Mugabe has not been able to transform Zimbabwe into a prosperous country, what gives him the audacity to think he is the only true Zimbabwe nationalist?  It is troubling that some Africans on and other forums continue to find ways to justify Mugabe's desperate cling to power at all cost.  Our propensity to defend the indefensible is disgraceful. How does one justify killing his brothers and sisters on grounds that Britain did not keep its end of the an agreement?  Yes the Lancaster Agreements, may have been a deception to get Britain off the hook, but how can anyone justify Mugabe's brutality against his people on malicious intentions of the U.K.  What will African leaders understand when their time comes to exit the stage?  Time after time we have seen this acts of political madness take place in Africa the so called "strongmen" end up exiting the stage in disgrace.  When will the African elite learn to quickly recognize the shenanigan put forward by the likes of Mugabe before they pull the wool down our eyes in the name of nationalism?

Daniel.

[Qansy Salako]

I just don’t get it.

How the West has conveniently become the expedient Fall Guy for every ill that befell, befalls and will befall Africa.

The logic easily intimidates my level of understanding as Mugabe effortlessly overrides opposition.

So if a dozen tyrants reigned in a country at different times, the society might not have the right to sanction any one of them unless it was proven that all of the 12 tyrants have been equally castigated by the society.

But time relativism is a major factor in the reaction of any society to bad leadership.

The relative point in time, history and development of a society largely determine the nature and extent of the reaction of that society to tyranny in their land.

That is why the response of the Nigerian society was more virulent to Abacha era than the Gowon eon.

Even Haiti today has a heightened level of consciousness than Haiti of yesterday, not to talk of Kenya or even Yar’Adua’s Nigeria.

 

I just don’t get the progressive message in the incessant weeping of “the white man is Africa’s problem.”

Maybe it’s because I am just a cab driver.

Whatever sense that the peddlers of this concept are struggling to make is just way above my head.

I get the impression that after stating that the white man enslavement of Africa is the reason Africa is where it is today, there is no other advice or theory for advancement of Africa given its predicament with the evil of the West. Rather, the message is that Africa can’t organize or advance herself until the West completely disengage all its axes of evil machinations in Africa.

That’s it, nothing else to offer as a way out of our mires.

Leave all the corruption in Africa intact until the West stop opening new foreign bank accounts for all our marauding leaders.

No point yelling at Mugabe to leave or Biya to quit or Yar’Adua to go take care of his health instead of dubiously hanging on to a restive country with one kidney.

 

This is the kind of logic that folks like Ojo brandish as a superior intellect among us here.

I am beyond myself that Pius is proud of himself as a member of this intellectual class.

Is it really true that the West do not castigate sham elections in Africa.

I still remember reading the EU language in their condemnation of Yar-Adua’s election as the strongest yet in their election monitoring history.

Didn’t they also condemn Kibaki’s Kenya election last year?

Even US with its fancy footwork eventually capitulated.

Poor West, when they killed Lumumba and surreptitiously kept Mobutu in power in Congo in the name of their own national interest they were bad; when they kept siddon-look attitude and watched Abacha wreck liberty in Nigeria (also in the name of their own national interest) they were ugly; when they shocked and awed their way through the streets of Baghdad to implement a regime change (again in the name of their own national interest) they were villains; when now they stand aback grinning and yelling at evil Mugabe from the sidelines (in the name of their own national interest) they remain evil.

What else should they do?

Can’t a man do anything in the name of its national interest when he has the power to do so?

Is China not doing the same as we speak?

Wouldn’t Africa do same if in such privileged condition?

 

Africans are not the first to be enslaved for God’s sake.

History had it that the Jews were in bondage in Egypt for 3 hundred years.

They got up didn’t they?

You better believe it, expecting that the strong would leave the weak in the food chain of nature is a dumb expectation.

It is as childish as it is unrealistic.

It is simply not the way of nature.

Numerous weaker nations and cultures were [and will be] subjugated throughout history by stronger ones.

Some even multiple times more than others.

Yet, the subjugated often times are not defined by their periods of low history.

They rise up, progress and change their times.

It happened throughout ancient history and is happening contemporaneously in modern history.

 

Even if British colony-mania of the last millennia resulted in Zimbabwe having the kind of leadership

bequeathed to her in Mugabe, that wouldn’t translate to the implication that revolutionaries or mercenaries don’t have conscience.

Wasn’t valiant Mugabe crawling through the forests during the revolution against the Brits with the hope of better life for the peoples of Zimbabwe?

So even if he was half-intelligent and he became the maximum head of the new nation, that conscience he was ready to die for ought to have shined through his governance activities.

And I believe it did for the first few years at the helms.

Unfortunately, Mugabe became the embodiment of the “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” philosophy.

With time he became Zimbabwe in his mind and in his head.

When any leader crosses that river of leadership insanity, society [especially Africa] ought to be able to raise hell, cutlass or guns to chase such monsters out of peoples’ power.

Hell is all we are raising here and it shouldn’t have to depend on whether the West is keeping Mugabe in power or not.

Heck, it has nothing to do with whether the West condoned Kenya’s elections 6 months before, in bed with despot Musharaf, love Mubarak, hate Gaddafi or overlook Kamuzu Banda.

 

This fixation on the transatlantic slavery that ended one hundred years ago as the ultimate show-stopper for the African race ain’t cutting it deep enough in reasoning.

It is shallow, subterranean at best in intellect.

It completely ignores the reality of bankrupt leadership in Africa.

It is unrepresentative of what Africa’s intellect ought to be.

 

Qansy Salako

really want - millions of new email addresses available now at  Yahoo!</a

 

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Dear All,

The issue here is not West versus Mugabe but about us Africans and how we are easily openly and subtly manipulated.

If Mubarak, Biya, Bongo, Museveni all kill their own people and nobody applies sanctions to them and we all show no outrage, what is the cause of our outrage and profuse exchanges especially of the demonise Mugabe variety.

All African former colonies depend on their former colonial masters who dictate the economic tune. We unwittingly play along and are used as agents to serve their interests.

Example Kenya. An election is rigged in broad daylight. Killings start and enter Kofi Anan to create the abracadabra of power sharing without an election resolution. Who won and who lost that December Kenyan elections? That will forever remain speculation. Imagine a stalemate in November between Obama and McCain and then someone like Ba ki Moon calling Kofi and the former Egyptian SG to go and create a position of Prime Minister of the USA?

This is unthinkable but when it happened in Kenya we never had this flurry of exchanges here.

The simple issue here is race. Blacks are taking land stolen by. Whites from Blacks. If we allow this to happen in Zimbabwe then we allow a principled precedence for the Maoris and other indigenous races to reclaim all the land all over the world that Whites from Europe had stolen in the last 400 years.

That is the man under the masquerade and we have removed the mask. All other issues are spin and mis and dis information. We must NEVER allow a nail to pull out in the coffin of oppression that the white Europeans put our world in, and have sealed. So my brothers and sisters let me end with a poser. Had the Portuguese, Spanish, a few Dutch and French settled in the Niger Delta and built fishing villages there in significant numbers in the last 400 years would the so called Whites of Europe and by extension America allowed the rape of the land and the killing by pollution and bullets going on there as we speak?

Please let us all think deeply and not substitute deep thought with well oiled delivery in the language of our oppressors simply bacause some write it better than others (even the native speakers!)

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Moses Ebe Ochonu" <meoc...@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:03:49 -0500

[Jaye Gaskia]

It is unfortunate that sometimes we find it difficult to separate genuine panafricanism from support to particular types of regimes.
There is no doubt that the Zimbabwe state, ZANU PF, and Mugabe can only be understood in their historical context.
To pursue this line of enquiry is to be able to understand the clear and distinct phases of the evolution of all three.
There was a period pre mid 1990's when the Zimbabwe state, ZANU PF and Mugabe were in content and form, liberation and development state, movement and heroic figure.
It is also very important to understand the role played by western powers and neo-liberalism in catalysisng the transformation of all three phenomenon into their opposites.
But it is also a fact of history regardless of the root causes that the Zimbabwean state has become a ruthless and repressive state, under a transformed ZANU PF which has become a pacifying and ocuupying movement, led by a once heroic figure who has now become a historic villain, a blood thirsty dictator.
Nothing can justify or excuse the monumental crimes and violations of ordinary peoples' rights as is now the other of the day in Zimbabwe.
We can try, and infact we must try to understand it, but we can not justify it.
These were the same excuses that were sougth for Abacha in Nigeria.
How many of us live in Zimbabwe or have visited recently?
What on earth can justify the unprecedented suffring and repression that Ziimbabweans are being subjected to by their ersthwhile liberators turned captors and executioners.
It is inhuman to justify or try to rationalise brutality and unconscionable use of force and state terror in this manner.
And is ZANU unable to produce a new leadership?
Mandela is rigth to characterise this as a failure of leadership, I might only add that is a failure with historic proportions.
Any leadership, no matter the underlying circumstances that can not train a successor generation, and that can trust no one else least of all the people to produce a new leadership is a failed leadership.
How can we help Zimbabwe to break sanctions?
The answer is simple. Allow the people to freely chose their leaders. And ofcourse no one has any illussions in the leadership of the MDC, but as it is, propelled to power by mass discontentment, that leadership will be more susceptible to the pressures of the masses.
How can five miilion people flee a country because of economic hardship and political repression in so short a period of time- less than one decade?
It is time for Zimbabwe to deal with its present, and forge ahead to its future. This is not the time to be held hostage by history and memories of a heroic past.
The future beckons.
I get angry when the case is made to justify brutal dictators at the expense of their people.
It is a shame that Africa's political elite have been so disturbingly unconcerned by the tragedy unfolding in Zimbabwe, and it is a tragedy, let there be no doubts about it.
Jaye Gaskia

--- On Sat, 6/28/08, okello oculi <okell...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: okello oculi <okell...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwedefeat sanctions

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Moses:

 

Since I wouldn’t want this to become a personal feud between us, accept my apologies for classifying you with “the West and their African supporters the West and their African supporters.”

 

Since your response below (and the private communication which I appreciate very much) have waxed polemical, I believe there is not much more to gain in continuing the exchange.

 

“I have NEVER read or heard anyone wishing for a return of the "good old days of Abacha." If you have encountered such a perverse nostalgia, please share the info,” you commented in closing.

 

Well, that you “have NEVER read or heard anyone wishing for a return of the "good old days of Abacha"” does not mean it was never uttered. Have you then “read or heard” everything ever written or said?

 

Yes, I have “encountered such a perverse nostalgia” multiple times actually, and I have now shared the info.

 

Once again, accept my sincere apologies for seeming to paint you with the wrong brush, and have a pleasant weekend.

 

Dr. Valentine Ojo

Tall Timbers, MD

 

really want - millions of new email addresses available now at  Yahoo!</a

 

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

If you want people to follow what you’ve got to contribute, please post in more legible colors. This is simply impossible to read.

 

Dr. Valentine Ojo

Tall Timbers, MD

 

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Okilo/Cajetan:

I too, like you, "would have been happier with Mugabe if he did what Nelson Mandela did in South Africa. He left with dignity and allowed others to contribute to what should make South Africa great. I do not think that Mugabe is doing himself and his country a favor by remaining in power when he knows that his presence for whatever reason is not helping matters in that part of Africa."

And this is rightly a challenge to Africa and to Africans: "... do you not think that our African leaders need to see leadership and duration in office differently?"

We should however be very careful indeed that this whole matter and the pressure on Robert Mugabe to leave office is not predicated only and only on when the West is thumbing its chest loudest for a Mugabe ouster, and fielding another Jonas Savimbi or a Mobutu Sese Seko Re-Incarnation as replacement.

This way, we play into their hands and give the impression - rightly or wrongly - that we are supporting them: the West.

We cannot afford that luxury.

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Very funny!

If this juvenile high school rhetoric is your idea of a meaningful response in an exchange between two adults who happen to hold slightly different views on an issue, why not?

Whatever floats your boat!

You are obviously rabidly anti-Mugabe. I am not. That does not however mean that I by a long shot support Mugabe either. That I am not a self-professed Christian does not automatically make me a devil worshipper be default either.

Or does it?

This is for people who chose to see the world only in simplistic dichotomies.

We now know better why Africa is going nowhere soon. It's either or...?

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

[funmilayo]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Mugabe has serious mental illness like many leaders in Africa. Why are
we wasting our time trying to intellectualize all these deranged
leaders. Some of these leaders should be on prescription psychotropic
medications, i.e, Abilify and treatment for the rest of the lives.

Africa is doomed! The entire continent is in a state of anomie.

Any solutions for the current problems in Africa besides ranting and
blogging?

People, let's wake up and take the continent back from these deranged
leaders. Enough is enough!



Funmilayo
www.cafeafricana.com
www.indigokafe.com

On Jun 28, 4:32 pm, "Dr. Valentine Ojo" <val...@md.metrocast.net>

> <meoch...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Salako,

The answer is simple the West created the monsters in the first place so he can dance to their tune. Now that they see it stop dancing to their tune, they bring a fool of a new baby monster to replace the old one. Zimbabweans and true pan Africanists prefer the old monster who has stopped dancing to the oppressor's tune to the baby one who is eager to dance more than required of him.

Long may he reign as the President of the Embassy of the Netherlands!

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Qansy Salako" <ka...@netzero.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:29:06 -0500

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Jaye,

It is also unfortunate not to be wise enough to see the antics of the oppressor in the person of the sell out alternative candidate!

Of the two, the issue is as bad as they may both be, which one serves better the interest of pan Africanism? The old freedom fighter or the young compromiser of the gained freedom?

Answer the question please!

IBK
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaye Gaskia <ogb...@yahoo.com>

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:46:51
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: foi coalition<foicoa...@yahoogroups.com>

[Amatoritsero Ede]

I wonder if this peice from Chinweizu suggests senility. I am baffled. Mugabe is the problem for Zimbabwe, not the sanction-weildng international community. I am also amazed at the patience and long-suffering of Zimbabweans. Mugabe could never get away with this in Nigeria. Why do Zimbabweans tolerate it?!

Amatoritsero

2008/6/25 kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>:

• Send to a friend
• Printer-friendly version

 
 

© 2003 - 2007 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).

--
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

Kenneth W. Harrow
Professor of English
Michigan State University
har...@msu.edu
517 353-7243
fax 353 3755

--
____________________________
SSHRC Fellow &
Doctoral Candidate
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Editor, Sentinel Poetry (online)
www.sentinelpoetry.org.uk
Editor & Managing Editor: Gboungboun Magazine and PONAL Quarterly Forum:Project on New African Literatures
www.projectponal.com

[Tony Agbali]

But the issue is: Must this condition continue in perpetuity? The west, the west, the west, has become like the noise of a locomotive.  Where is the African responsibility in all of these mess, that erupts one after another? Always, the west, the whiteman or woman, but it is time we become accountable for our own actions. True, the west, the whiteman or woman, was, has, and may continue to be part of our problems, but such antics become virulent when we give it a chance and support it with a sort of madness that denigrates the black person in adjectives of inferiority, backwardness, cannibal, primitive, salvage, unsavory, name them. Must we continue to give dignity to the west if their pleasure is the insolence and backwardness that they note as characterizing Africa? Must we play to their clarinets and accordions? We are simply fooling ourselves if we continue to problematize all African crises as being caused by the west. Is the west causing the genocide in Darfur? Is the west the direct incense that ensured the pogrom that was Rwanda? Is it the west that rigged the Nigerian, Kenyan, and now Zimbabwean elections? Africans are behind these monstrosities, and we Africans so-called intellectuals are venting circuitous arguments in favor of oppression, tyranny, and despotism, when many among us would claim they fled those bloated African dictators, their structural decadence (failed universities) and polity rupturing to the west or cling to western institutions to assume relevance (Ford Foundations etc) and yet be making excuses for one despot. This shows the mindset that the Omar Bongos, Mugabes, Gueis, Abachas,would not be the last that would emerge from Africa, as we already know that the crop of intellectuals that they would employ in giving false legitimations and impetuses to their scruplous monstrous schemes, are the ones from whom whose inks, we already know which side of the divide they belong. These tribe of intellectuals we know exists among us and would readily offer their services to dictatorial clones of dubious credentials, yet struts their  pan-Africanist credentials.  Yes, see where are the Omoruyis and the Ihovbere's among many others, and whom are they serving today? Or rather whom did they immediately served yesterday? --- On Tue, 7/1/08, ibk...@gmail.com <ibk...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Qansy Salako]

IBK you wrote:

“Zimbabweans and true pan Africanists prefer the old monster who has stopped dancing to the oppressor's tune to the baby one who is eager to dance more than required of him.”

 

I am not sure how strongly you believe in your statement above.

In fact from your track record in logic out here, I don’t think you believe in this meaningless cliché at all.

The question is: why would “Zimbabweans and true pan-Africanists” prefer any monster at all to be in charge of their affairs?

 

My brother, don’t just follow-follow join them in embracing this embarrassing belief that Africa would have come out ahead with/without her primitive leaderships had the West left Africa alone.

Don’t go along there for it is a slippery slope.

It is slippery because its intelligence content is of a short range.

It reaches its limits rather quickly, forcing its adherents to make the kind of statements you made above, ask Africans not to believe any news coming out of the West about Africa even if true, ignore in-house tyranny, disregard self-inflicted human degradation in Africa, etc.

You, IBK, should not hold yourself to that level of reasoning.

 

The contents of your statement above are wrong severally and jointly.

For purposes of illustration, I will assume that you’re referring to Mugabe as the “old monster” and Tsvangirai as the ‘baby monster” in your questionable statement above. You are not being truthful to declare that Zimbabweans preferred Mugabe because they didn’t vote for him in this past caricature of election. You are not being imaginative to assume that Zimbabweans didn’t know what they were doing. Reminds me of the June 12, 1993 Nigerian elections when folks voted Abiola just to get rid of their reigning tyrant, Ibrahim Babangida. Nigerians knew full well that Abiola was a member of the corrupt political class made of half educated army officers and egotistic civilian sleaze bags. But the citizenry preferred one monster over the other because given their predicament, they believed the only way up for them is by having a different monster. That was what went down in Zimbabwe and you refused to see it. The issue of who created the monsters is moot, African people know how to move themselves forward with or without the evil machinations of the recalcitrant West.

 

The Babalawo (medicine man) who insists on appealing to the abiku child before doing his juju for the mother knows his bones, he simply recognizes that the abiku could render any virility potion impotent because of who abiku is. The Mugabes of our continent are the abikus of Africa. No African in a good frame of mind can be witnessing our Mugabes starve, maim and slaughter Africans in the name power and remain defiant about who is immediately responsible for the moribundity of Africa. The West grew the Mugabes over years of subjugation. Sure. But is that why we should keep our arms akimbo and say or do nothing about our Mugabes?

 

Peddlers of “West is what’s wrong with us” are not in a privileged position to define whom a patriotic Zimbabwean is or which African is a true pan-Africanist.

These arrogant Africans think they are, but they are only deluded.

For one thing, external forces won’t leave any nation alone in today global enterprise.

Even old empires didn’t just stay within their boundaries in centuries gone-by, they always foraged into other lesser communities to expand their own civilization…e.g. Oyo empire, Roman, Bornu, Songhai, etc.

For the other, even if the West completely stays out of Africa and her affairs, there is no way Africa will record any progress with the kind of leadership it has today.

 

To just focus on the gotcha factor of the dubious Mugabe’s land reform and be totally blind to the carnage and collapsing stance of the Zimbabwean nation state is pathetic and unforgiveable of any African.

To simply wish away the West or expect pan-Africanism on the platform of tyranny and corruption is plain dumb.

 

Qansy Salako

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

While we are still on the issue of African leaders, please read this piece from Guardian(Nigeria) of Friday 11 July 2008:

Friday, July 11, 2008              

Mrs Waziri and mad Nigerian leaders
By Reuben Abati Mrs Farida Waziri, the new boss of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was absolutely right when she told a visiting delegation of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) led by Olisa Agbakoba, NBA President that here in Nigeria too many persons in public office are mentally ill, and that to sanitise the Nigerian public space, aspiring public office holders should be subjected to psychiatric tests. "According to her" The Guardian reports, "Most of the negative character traits exhibited by public officers in the country, especially massive looting of the treasury, are symptoms of mental illness."

She even tried to identify these negative traits: the theft of public funds, primitive accumulation, and greed. "You know if you are stealing what you need, it is a different thing but if you are grabbing left, right and centre throughout, then your character should be called to question. This, she said, is necessary in order to help many Nigerians who cannot even raise a voice against some of these practices. They cannot feed three square meals while those who occupy public offices through elections, return to their villages, demolish their shanties and replace them with paradise with no regard for their neighbours who cannot feed. This is merciless". Thank you, Mrs Waziri.

Although not a psychiatrist, more than 20 years as a career police officer in charge of fraud investigations must have brought Mrs Farida Waziri in direct contact with the madness of the Nigerian elite in power. But the fact that we are led by "mad men and women" is not hidden, and it is no fresh news either. Nor is Mrs Waziri the first person to call for psychiatric tests as a condition for eligibility for public office. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo had made a similar suggestion in the past. This was before he assumed office as Nigeria's civilian President in 1999.

Looking back, however, many Nigerians would readily argue that indeed the eight years of experimentation between 1999 and 2007 could have turned out differently if psychiatric tests had been conducted on public officials during the period. To be sure, the Nigerian Constitution 1999, states clearly that persons of unsound mind are not fit to hold public offices in the country. The framers of the Constitution had reasoned that leadership requires a sound mind. And that cranks should be kept away from the corridors of power. In every country or situation in history where a mad man took charge of power, the consequences have always been dire. Caligula is a classic example. In recent years, historians have added to the list of cranks in power: the late Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko and others in that infamous class. Mental health also became an issue for public discussion not too long ago when the Lagos state government announced that person who violate traffic regulations, as part of their punishment would be sent for psychiatric tests.

Public discussions of mental health should be encouraged. It remains a taboo subject in our land, even 104 years after the first mental asylum was established in the country. Whereas the Constitution recognizes the importance of mental health, public officials have treated the institutions of mental health in the country with utter disregard. Nobody wants to fund psychiatric hospitals. Nobody wants to be seen showing an unusual interest in psychiatric hospitals lest suspicions be raised that the person is a patient in one of such hospitals. Psychiatric hospitals are mostly affected by the widespread crisis in the health sector. There is a shortage of personnel, worse there is an utter shortage of facilities. Nigeria continues to pay dearly for this neglect. Professionals in the industry reckon that more than 35 per cent of Nigerians are suffering from one form of mental illness or the other, from mild symptoms to the extreme. Our cultural attitude to madness is perhaps responsible for the denial of this fact and the refusal to do something about it. In traditional communities, a mad person is considered an outcast, a reject of the gods, an unclean thing to be avoided by the community. This traditional attitude towards mental illness has remained resilient even in spite of modernization and broader exposure.

But the point that needs to be pushed is that it is not only when people appear naked on the streets, eat from dust-bins, or behave openly in an incongruous manner that they are mad. There are many otherwise well-behaved persons, well dressed, comfortable, rich, even educated, attractive and decent on the surface who are raving mad, with bees in their bonnets and whose conduct requires the attention of psychiatrists. Unfortunately, it is this class of persons that find their ways into public offices in Nigeria. Psychiatrists talk about manic depression, insomnia, dementia, bipolar affective disorder, neurotic anxiety, schizophrenia, hallucination, delusion, melancholy, substance abuse and addiction etc as forms of metal illness. The theatre of mental illness is the human mind. And Mrs Waziri is right when she reminds of the fact that there are too many persons with troubled minds in positions of authority.

What haven't we seen in this country? We have seen leaders who loot the treasury and stash away public funds in foreign accounts, sometimes running into trillions of Naira. Leaders who hide public money meant for development in overhead water tanks, underground chests and in all kinds of unimaginable places. One former public official allegedly owned over 50 houses in Abuja alone! Would he sleep on two beds at the same time? But wanton display of ill-gotten wealth is not the only sign of mental ill-health in the corridors of power. How about the maltreatment of ordinary people? Anyone who suddenly finds himself in a position of authority thinks that this is a license to misbehave. They chase other Nigerians off the roads.

They violate laid down rules and regulations and claim superiority to the law. These mad men and women terrorise lesser beings, they turn their offices into weapons of assault against the same people whose interests they seem to be representing. But madness is not restricted to the corridors of power. Nigeria is one large sanatorium. If you doubt this, try take a ride round our cities and watch how motorists behave. Even the average cyclist thinks that the only way to assert himself is to break someone's legs or smash the side mirror of other people's vehicles. Tempers are short around here; Nigerians are so uncivil, so mean, sometimes it is better to stay in your own little world and avoid any form of confrontation.

A common sociological explanation is that it is difficult to have a lower rate of mental illness in the face of excruciating poverty and uncertainties. Nigerians are going mad and behaving badly because nobody knows tomorrow anymore. There are no jobs, too many young persons have no sense of fulfillment, there is no security in the land, and so people resort to desperate means and adopt even more desperate measures in order to remain alive. The average Nigerian is trapped in a stress-inducing environment that makes him or her prone to one form of mental disorder or mild neurosis. All of this can be explained but the clear challenge that Nigerians face is how to keep mad people out of public office, how to make mental health care an acceptable subject, and how to provide help for those in need.

Religion is supposed to make a difference especially in the area of behavioural disorders. The religions are supposed to teach brotherhood, civility, temperance and great virtues. Unfortunately in Nigeria, religion has been a strong vehicle for encouraging mass hysteria and other forms of neurosis. The churches are forever promoting phobias, as they build a nether world inhabited by witches, wizards, demons and images of hell and the congregation is advised to attack the Devil with "Holy Ghost Fire, Fire Burn Them." Across Nigeria is a growing population of devil-castigating, Holy-Ghost seeking soldiers of faith, who are ready to kill once they find the Satan of their imagination and their target is usually adherents of other faiths. There are similar delusion-creating institutions in our land including faith healing homes, herbal homes-all of which are in need of reform if this land and its people must become sane. To save Nigeria, we must begin to deal with the crisis of mental disorder in high and low places.

How feasible is the recurring suggestion that public officials should undergo psychiatric tests? Certainly, there are mental health implications to the governance process in Nigeria even if few public officials, if any at all, would readily agree to undergo psychiatric testing. The way forward is for the legislature at both federal and state levels to pass legislation as a matter of public policy requiring public officials to undergo compulsory psychiatric tests. Since many are likely to resist the requirement, there must be a proviso in the enabling legislation = that whoever does not comply within six months will be relieved of his position. Policemen and other uniformed services officials in particular should be made to undergo mental health checks if possible every three months.

But to do this successfully, governments at all levels would have to invest in mental healthcare education. The country does not have enough psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health care givers. The first mental asylum was established in Calabar in 1904, followed by the Yaba asylum in 1907, and the Aro Neuropsychiatric Hospital in 1954, but to date there are only about eight psychiatric hospitals in the country and 12 medical schools which provide one form of mental health care or the other. This is inadequate. Besides, medical students are reluctant to specialize in psychiatric also because of stigma and the fact that this is not considered a lucrative branch of medicine!

Insisting on psychiatric testing should however not result in human rights violations. Mental health legislation must seek to provide care for affected persons and de-stigmatise mental disorder. The overall objective should be the promotion of the mental health of the Nigerian population by guaranteeing access to care and opportunities for counselling. High quality mental facilities would have to be provided. Public enlightenment would also be necessary, and obviously mad persons, including those on the streets must be catered for and integrated into the community.

Given the increasing rate of mental disorder in this country, and the implications for socio-political and economic well-being, government must raise the level of concern about mental health policy. In Britain, the United States and elsewhere, there are Mental Health Legislations, with the most recent Mental Health Acts in the UK and the US passed as recently as 2007. A mental Health Bill has been before the Nigerian National Assembly since 1999. It is time to take a look at it.

 

---

[Okwy Okeke]

Lord Qansy,   May your kabu-kabu (taxi) live long and see you retire with Obokun (Benz) for this nuanced position.   Anyone ever seen a ghastly accident in slow motion, try Zimbabwe. I now more nearly appreciate the Talmudic admonishment that my tongue should learn to say - I don't know.   Zimbabwe is the original "confusion break bone" resulting in double wahala for the dead bodi, and the owner of the dead bodi. Whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone the pitcher, the pitcher always comes to grief.   Simple question for you - should African countries criminalize political parties and persons that receive funds from outside their borders for political activities?   Zimbabwe may be the news today, but the days of sponsoring "civilians" to overthrow their governments with huge campaign funds because military coup de'tat are no longer fashionable may have arrived in wholesale proportion.   Analysis in the U.S. presidential election point towards the best funded candidate always or almost always winning - it is a matter of cash, note that it is so in the U.S., the land of the free, …., of Mickey D, …., stratospheric literacy rate (at least among voters) and easy access to information and the basics of life.   Will foreign aided political parties not win every election in a continent struggling with basic human needs?   Back to my questions, yes, they just increased:   Is Zimbabwe’s election free and fair when a party is funded with huge direct foreign investments? (don’t bring in Nigeria et al funding of ANC, ZANU-PF, those were before a sovereign government was installed in those countries).   Should political parties and persons that receive foreign aid towards politicking be charged with treason?   Why do donors on Obama's site have to certify they are Americans one way or the other to donate to his campaign funds but African political parties openly receive "donations" from Non-African citizens and corporations?    Cheers, Okwy --- On Thu, 10/7/08, Qansy Salako <ka...@netzero.com> wrote:

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Qansy,

A spirited defence of Tsvangarai but do you see the following issues as relevant?

Zimbabwe is wronged by the UK reneging on providing the money to pay off the white landowners:

The economy of Zimbabawe was destroyed by sanctions imposed by the west:

It is double standards to destroy the economy of Zimbabwe but embrace Equitorial Guinea, Cameroon, Gabon and Egypt all with more brutal dictators; why single out Zimbabwe? Could it be crass racism because whites are involved?

Do you accept that Tsvangarai is a stooge of the west?

I await your honest answers to my posers.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Qansy Salako" <ka...@netzero.com>

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:26:16 -0500

[ula...@aol.com]

One of the biggest surprises I have always entertained in my consciousness is the fact that (at least in Nigeria), we did not rise to look for help from the West to crush the post-colonial leaders who perpetuated the sanitary arrangement of night soil men. I do not know what those sanitation bogey men were callled in other African countries.  "Nightsoil men", was a really quite decent expression for a horribly indecent and dehumanizing profession/assignment.  This profession was product of the benevolent salvationism of our imperial masters who wanted to civilize us or as my late friend, Okot P'Bitek, preferred "syphilize" us. The strangely robed sanitary angels(for in hindsight, that's what they were) went to toilets from house to house and carried those nice buckets of excrements out of their niches for disposal at collection points. I do not know whether they had the same system of disposal in Great Britain. The British really treated us well while syphilizing us. But listen. If you are like me, forcefully baptized into chritianity as a child, you would appreciate relapses into our malleable biblical precepts. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children... I am posting this tid-bit for your attention because I see a really baffling and stultifying contradiction in our attitude to Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Who called for punitive measures against Ian Smith's roguish UDI  and how long did it take? Who schemed to foist Bishop Abel Muzorewa on Zimbabwe? When the Zimbabweans got back lands throug h Mugabe's dispensation, why did the same financiers who gave loans to the white farmers refuse to fund black farmers? After addressing these issues, try also to figure out why the Zimbabwe army, a very serious army in that region quiet about this our so-called international villain ? That is now what Mugabe is, right? Africa !!! Let us try and think a little!!! How in the world in the first place did the whole of Northern and Southern Rhodesia morph from the land of Chief Lobengula and other African chiefs into the suzerainty of a cocky wild adventurer called Cecil Rhodes? After charting the trajectory of blood and suffering imposed largely by alien wile and guile, return to my original point. And so we became independent, at least in Nigeria. We forgave the master who introduced us to a strange sanitary system. We also forgave our new masters who perpetuated the system. We did not rise to spring and clutch at their throats and lynch them. That is real justice. Admirable !!! We must apply the same restraint as we cry for Mugabe's blood.We cannot simply forgive the terrible makers of the history of Zimbabwe or indeed the rest of Africa because they have money to give to our various movements and drivers of our conveniently selective democracies.

chimalum nwankwo

It reaches its limits rather quickly, forcing its adherents to make the kind of statements you made above, ask Africans not to believe any news coming out of the West about Africa even if true, ignore in-house tyranny, disregard20self-inflicted human degradation in Africa, etc.

You, IBK, should not hold yourself to that level of reasoning.

 

The contents of your statement above are wrong severally and jointly.

For purposes of illustration, I will assume that you’re referring to Mugabe as the “old monster” and Tsvangirai as the ‘baby monster” in your questionable statement above. You are not being truthful to declare that Zimbabweans preferred Mugabe because they didn’t vote for him in this past caricature of election. You are not being imaginative to assume that Zimbabweans didn’t know what they were doing. Reminds me of the June 12, 1993 Nigerian elections when folks voted Abiola just to get rid of their reigning tyrant, Ibrahim Babangida. Nigerians knew full well that Abiola was a member of the corrupt political class made of half educated army officers and egotistic civilian sleaze bags. But the citizenry preferred one monster over the other because given their predicament, they believed the only way up for them is by having a different monster. That was what went down in Zimbabwe and you refused to see it. The issue of who created the monsters is moot, African people know how to move themselves forward with or without the evil machinations of the recalcitrant West.

 

The Babalawo (medicine man) who insists on appealing to the abiku child before doing his juju for the mother knows his bones, he simply recognizes that the abiku could render any virility potion impotent because of who abiku is. The Mugabes of our continent are the abikus of Africa. No African in a good frame of mind can be witnessing our Mugabes starve, maim and slaughter Africans in the name power and remain defiant about who is immediately responsible for the moribundity of Africa. The West grew the Mugabes over years of subjugation. Sure. But is that why we should keep our arms akimbo and say or do nothing about our Mugabes?

 

Peddlers of “West is what’s wrong with us” are not in a privileged position to define whom a patriotic Zimbabwean is or which African is a true pan-Africanist.

These arrogant Africans think they are, but they are only deluded.

For one thing, external forces won’t leave any nation alone in today global enterprise.

=0 A

Even old empires didn’t just stay within their boundaries in centuries gone-by, they always foraged into other lesser communities to expand their own civilization…e.g. Oyo empire, Roman, Bornu, Songhai, etc.

For the other, even if the West completely stays out of Africa and her affairs, there is no way Africa will record any progress with the kind of leadership it has today.

 

To just focus on the gotcha factor of the dubious Mugabe’s land reform and be totally blind to the carnage and collapsing stance of the Zimbabwean nation state is pathetic and unforgiveable of any African.

To simply wish away the West or expect pan-Africanism on the platform of tyranny and corruption is plain dumb.

 

Qansy Salako

 

< div class=MsoNormal>From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:USAAfric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Agbali

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:59 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions

But the issue is: Must this condition continue in perpetuity?

The west, the west, the west, has become like the noise of a locomotive.  Where is the African responsibility in all of these mess, that erupts one after another? Always, the west, the whiteman or woman, but it is time we become accountable for our own actions. True, the west, the whiteman or woman, was, has, and may continue to be part of our problems, but such antics become virulent when we give it a chance and support it with a sort of madness that denigrates the black person in adjectives of inferiority, backwardness, cannibal, primitive, salvage, unsavory, name them. Must we continue to give dignity to the west if their pl easure is the insolence and backwardness that they note as characterizing Africa? Must we play to their clarinets and accordions? We are simply fooling ourselves if we continue to problematize all African crises as being caused by the west. Is the west causing the genocide in Darfur? Is the west the direct incense that ensured the pogrom that was Rwanda? Is it the west that rigged the Nigerian, Kenyan, and now Zimbabwean elections? Africans are behind these monstrosities, and we Africans so-called intellectuals are venting circuitous arguments in favor of oppression, tyranny, and despotism, when many among us would claim they fled those bloated African dictators, their structural decadence (failed universities) and polity rupturing to the west or cling to western institutions to assume relevance (Ford Foundations etc) and yet be making excuses for one despot. This shows the mindset that the Omar Bongos, Mugabes, Gueis, Abachas,would not be the last that would emerge from Africa, as we already know that the crop of intellectuals that they would employ in giving false legitimations and impetuses to their scruplous monstrous schemes, are the ones from whom whose inks, we already know which side of the divide they belong. These tribe of intellectuals we know exists among us and would readily offer their services to dictatorial clones of dubious credentials, yet struts their  pan-Africanist credentials.  Yes, see where are the Omoruyis and the Ihovbere's among many others, and whom are th ey serving today? Or rather whom did they immediately served yesterday?

No point yelling at Mug abe to leave or Biya to quit or Yar’Adua to go take care of his health instead of dubiously hanging on to a restive country with one kidney.

This is the kind of logic that folks like Ojo brandish as a superior intellect among us here. I am beyond myself that Pius is proud of himself as a member of this intellectual class. Is it really true that the West do not castigate sham elections in Africa. I still remember reading the EU language in their condemnation of Yar-Adua’s election as the strongest yet in their election monitoring history. Didn’t they also condemn Kibaki’s Kenya election last year? Even US with its fancy footwork eventually capitulated. Poor West, when they killed Lumumba and surreptitiously kept Mobutu in power in Congo in the name of their own national interest they were bad; when they kept siddon-look attitude and watched Abacha wreck liberty in Nigeria (also in the name of their own national interest) they were ugly; when they shocked and awed their way through the streets of Baghdad to implement a regime change (again in the name of their own national interest) they were villains; when now they stand aback grinning and yelling at evil Mugabe from the sidelines (in the name of their own national interest) they remain evil. What else should they do? Can’t a man do anything in the name of its national interest when he has the power to do so? Is China not doing the same as we speak? Wouldn’t Africa do same if in such privileged condition?   Africans are not the first to be enslaved for God’s sake. History had it that the Jews were in bondage in Egypt for 3 hundred years. They got up didn’t they? You better believe it, expecting that the strong would leave the weak in the food chain of nature is a dumb expectation. It is as childish as it is unrealistic. It is simply not the way of nature. Numerous weaker nations and cultures were [and will be] subjugated throughout history by stronger ones. Some even multiple times more than others. Yet, the subjugated often times are not defined by their periods of low history. They rise up, progress and change their times. It happened throughout ancient history and is happening contemporaneously in modern history.   Even if British colony-mania of the last millennia resulted in Zimbabwe having the kind of leadership

=0 A

bequeathed to her in Mugabe, that wouldn’t translate to the implication that revolutionaries or mercenaries don’t have conscience. Wasn’t valiant Mugabe crawling through the forests during the revolution against the Brits with the hope of better life for the peoples of Zimbabwe? So even if he was half-intelligent and he became the maximum head of the new nation, that conscience he was ready to die for ought to have shined through his governance activities. And I believe it did for the first few years at the helms. Unfortunately, Mugabe became the embodiment of the “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” philosophy.

With time he becam e Zimbabwe in his mind and in his head.

>=2 0

> interpretation. The20narrative of "capitulation" is a Mugabe

>        & nbsp;  Associate Professor

> Africa's duty to help Zimbabwe defeat sanctions    &nbsp ; Thank you Cajetan

ugorji > &gt ;

> imperialist white power enemies> of> > Black Africa,> >< /PRE>

> site of> > the future capital Harare, and started=2 0grabbing land.>

> lot and wipe them out then&gt ; move> > on towards> > Bulawayo

& gt; approximately 50 per cent of> the> > land. Leaving the> >

> free and fair&gt ; > elections? Yet nobody is organizing regime

 

--~--~--- ------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
   For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
   For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
   To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-    
   unsub...@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

---

The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now!

[Chika Onyeani]

www.africanamedia.com

INDIA MEETS AFRICA: WEDDING OF THE DECADE

By Chika Onyeani, African Sun Times, July 14-20, 2008, www.africansuntimes.com

"Again, I am sure you want to know who is this guy with the over-accomplished daughter, with the 5-acre estate with a mansion to boot in toney Westport, Connecticut. Rajat Gupta, the father of Geetanjali is a brilliant man, and holds many directorships in top companies and universities.  He is the Managing Director of that ivy league of consulting companies, McKinsey and Company…"

Normally, I wouldn’t be writing about a wedding, that’s not my forte, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to talk about the most lavish, and at the same time, the most unusual union of an wealthy Indian family to an equally noble African family.  About two months ago, out of the blue, I received a call from Mr. Vincent Nwanze (actually Chief, actually Ogbuefi he corrected me, as he is from Asaba), but that’s how we knew him then when he was the Deputy Consul-General at the Nigerian Consulate in New York, and after the chit-chat, he proceeded to inform me that he had lost his sight, I guess due to glaucoma which I have and have basically lost my own left eye-site.  He then informed me that his son was getting married.  He wanted my address so that he could send me the invitation.  I didn’t really think anything about it, it never occurred to me that I would be going to the wedding, that’s until I received the invitation card a month later, and whoa, my wife and I said, what’s this?

Although you can’t judge a book by its cover, the wedding card told me that this Indian is not from a poor family, and though Vincent is noble, certainly you can’t classify him as rich.  The rich, expensive card told me that the Indian family must be rich.  So, when next Vincent called me I jokingly asked him how much dowry he was getting from his in-laws, after all in India the women paid the dowry, unlike Nigeria, although in their own neck of the woods, I believe the man is supposed to pay about N25 or so, that’s the Asaba area of igboland.  He laughed and I said that we were seriously thinking of attending the wedding, I couldn’t pass nosing around and finding out and confirming my assumptions.  I was sure it wasn’t going to be one of those marriages where our people would marry one of those fat, ugly, retched, uneducated, illiterate (didn’t I say that already) white trash, and proceed to make all kinds of noise....read the full article here.

=

[Qansy Salako]

IBK,

Characterizing my posting as a spirited defense of Tsvangirai betrays an inadequate understanding of my position on the nettlesome contention over the all-purpose white man’s burdens in Africa.

The theory of “white man is Africa’s problem” is a diffident thinking. I call the members of this whining bandwagon “The Bereaved African Intellectuals (TBAI).”

 

Kai, omode o m’ogun o npe lefo…….the youth doesn’t know juju, he calls it vegetable.

It is me you are throwing questions at, ehn?

If only you knew….ai…ai.

Ok….I’ll walk you through your questions.

 

IBK>>Zimbabwe is wronged by the UK reneging on providing the money to pay off the white landowners:

Yes….sure.

A good leader can use this event to promote the interest of his country by dragging UK to the international arbitration, implementing a genuine land redistribution (reform) program, etc. On the other hand, a bad leader can use the same event to advance his own personal interests, such as running the affairs of his nation with cronies and lackeys, further impoverish the people, perpetuating himself in power, etc. Mugabe is a bad ass. He has mischievously used the land reforms for the wrong reasons and in the process it didn’t work, but he has succeeded in hoodwinking unsuspecting Africans like members of the TBAI. He is too old both in age and in power in Zimbabwe. He has since changed from a valiant revolutionary to a villainous tyrant. Mugabe has outlived his usefulness for the state of Zimbabwe, regardless of the eternal culpabilities of the white man in Africa.

 

IBK>> The economy of Zimbabawe was destroyed by sanctions imposed by the west:
Probably not….West sanctions alone might not have destroyed the Zimbabwean economy.

Other stupid policies such as Mugabe’s insincere and ill-implemented land reforms, unpredictable and uncertain political situations, attendant civil riots/political violence, etc would have contributed their own quotas to the economic woes of Zimbabwe. Be careful of making sweeping generalization statements. You do not know for sure if the West sanctions single-handedly destroyed the Zimbabwean economy.

 

IBK>> It is double standards to destroy the economy of Zimbabwe but embrace Equitorial Guinea, Cameroon, Gabon and Egypt all with more brutal dictators; why single out Zimbabwe? Could it be crass racism because whites are involved?
Your ruminations here are extension of your thought above. Therefore, if you were wrong above (chances are high you are), you would be wrong here too. So I am not even obligated to respond to you here.

 

But I will be nice….I will be liberal with my thoughts in response to yours. I kind of like you.

I have read the thought you’re expressing here quite often from the TBAI people and I always wanted to puke each time. I never knew that you, IBK, were such a prominent card-carrying member of the infamous TBAI cult.

 

Look people, wake up. This is the principle of super-powerism you’re trying to out-reason. Give it up, you can’t. Being super-power does not obligate you to follow other nations’ codes of conduct or sing any UN Kumbaya songs with other nations. You are already the superpower, you don’t need membership of any non-aligned body before you defend yourself or fight anyone you want. Your own national interest is first and foremost in your policies, domestic or international. You follow rules that advance nothing but your interests so you may continue to stay atop other nations. If despot Saddam poses a threat to your friends and interests, you destroy him and his country. If despot Musharaf is useful to your friends and interests you hug and fund him. Talk less of embracing Mubarak and hating Mugabe. All superpowers do this until their time on top is up, and the super-power status moves on to the next nation in the wing. It is not only the West, Soviet did it, China is doing it as we speak. I assure you, India will do it when its time comes. Have you people ever paused to consider…if Africa were the super-power today, would Africa do the same or not?

 

What some of us are saying is that certain things are given in nature that you can’t do much about.

However, given these hard realities, you just don’t roll over and be pointing arthritis fingers to unfriendly passer-bys, you muster all your strength, dignity and natural endowments to get ahead. Africa cannot wait until all nations treat her with respect before she gets up. They may not for a long time. Africa is endowed as much as other nations. She too can overcome unfriendly global competitions and get ahead. Russia did, America did and now China did. Africa cannot have crazy leaders and expect to have sane societies, let alone the one with progress where people do not work and sleep in wars, disease, ignorance and poverty.

Do you accept that Tsvangarai is a stooge of the west?

It is easy to say he is, just as it is easy to say the West is Mugabe’s problems.

I remember how those fighting to reclaim the soul of Nigeria from despot Abacha’s leprous claws were called stooges of the West in those days because they sought help from the West.

In those days, many of us were prolific in writing to support sanctions against Nigeria, we broadcast on radio Kudirat, etc but others were saying we did not love Nigeria. Abacha increasingly became a recluse, started throwing bombs at his own establishments as decoys out of paranoia and when he eventually died, Nigerians of different walks of life spontaneously erupted in celebration, dancing and rejoicing, including those who had questioned our patriotism. Well, were they right to have assumed we were stooges of the West?

Are you today of Tsvangirai?

 

Finally, you must know that debating by merely posing questions is something I contemn.

It is an intellectually weak approach for you will hardly achieve your aim with a good debater.

The reason for this is that the answers of the poser may be different from those of the responder as I might have proved to you above.

Each person ends up proving her own position with her answers, so the poser gains little or nothing after all.

Next time, debate with answers to your own questions, it would be a richer debate that way.

 

Unfortunately for you TBAI people, I am not an intellectual, na una.

I am only a cab driver o…..I beg, I nor know book o.

 

Qansy Salako

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Qansy,

You make good points and I will not argue your assumed older age and wisdom. However, all the rules of international law are geared towards checking the excesses and illegality of super-powerism. TBAI brigade as you perjoratively call us believe strongly that might is not always right. We also know apples and oranges when we see one.

At the last time I checked June 12 was not about MKO and Tofa. Abacha had not contested any elections and the super powers were behind him making my point of double standards but my senior cab driver brother will turn the facts on its head to suit his debate with an unwise younger one.

Mugabe is a bad boy that I agree with you but when I ask you to confront the obvious that Tsvangarai is a stooge and a worse candidate than uncle Bob who is older and wiser than you, you dodge dive and duck.

Yes Africa must rise up and yes Africa but not with the Tsvangarais of Africa they have had their day in the era of Mobutu, Mengistu, and the other lackeys of the west. Now we can line up behind China and India the superpowers on the wings to see off the big bad wolf whose aggressions and illegalities abroad is unravelling her economy and accelerating her decline as a super power. Sadly that means no matter how long your sorry black arse spends behind the cab steering wheel, your home will be foreclosed and fuel prices will get you less passengers. Maybe then you will open your eyes and see that real superpowerism is hedged with rule of law, obedience to international law, multilateral action acting in concert with other wannabee super powers etc

So now that the agbalagba can see the difference between medicine and bitter leaf have a lovely packed lunch behind the wheels of your cab.

Cheers it has been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Qansy Salako" <ka...@netzero.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:49:02 -0500

[Tony Agbali]

IBK, I am not Quansy, though my very good friend, often lucid and thoroughly grounded in some of this responses and critical thoughts herein. The point we may agree is that Tsvangirai may be a bad candidate, a stooge of the west or whatever, but that does not make it ethically appropriate and unaccountable to deny him of an election he has won.   Yes, Tsvangirai has undertaken some initiatives that we may consider dumb in the light of the festering agitation for power change. But in so far as he is the candidate of a rival party to ZANU-PF no matter how you personally adjudge him as a person, that does not and must not be a basis for altering the process of electing him, once his candidancy of the opposition party he represented was acknowledged and vetted.  This has nothing to do with the morality of Tsvangirai, if the people of Zimbabwe decided regardless of his antecedents and antics that favors your conclusion that he is a stooge of the west. In March, the people of Zimbabwe knew that and gave him majority votes- even if short of the needed requirements. It is also bad political taste that Tsvangirai within his desire for change cannot rally the other opposition party behind him to claim the presidency; and I personally think it as equally senseless that he would rather than stick with the original March votes and claim his presidency, decide to run for the run-off, only to abandon it at the last minutes, even though he knew the stronghanded tactics of Mugabe all along, as well the possibility that he would be routed in the run-off.  His abandoning the race at the last moment has not stopped some of the violence against his supporters, but who knows it might have subdued the magnitude. In any event, the issue here is that there should be no mockery of the election process, abusing the sensibilities of the people, when thugs attempt to do as they will. The issue of Abiola you raised is interesting. Didn't Babangida in his speech of June 23rd, 1993, also infer that Abiola was a stooge of the west therefore using that as the basis for annuling his election of June 12th, 1993? I think that leaving such determination of who succeeds within the political process to the whims of the incumbent is a big disservice to the people and the national polities. If Africans cannot respect the political process, then they must come out with something more to their taste than using it as a dummy when convenient to hold on to power, and when inconvinient to make up all kinds of irresponsible excuses. Mugabe is now back to power in a scam of an election; holding onto power as much as he desired it and as much as he loved singing his own tune that Tsvangirai would never succeed him. This is not atypical behavior within the African political landscape.  Yar'dua fulfilled such aberrant behavior for Obasanjo; Shonekan for Babangida, and even Mbeki wanted to do the same in South Africa, as well as Kibaki in Kenya.    This again bring to the fore the emergent  sickening idea of power sharing, after a due process of election has taken place and an illegitimate government with rights of incumbency continue holding the nation as hostage, as a senseless contraption that gives legitimacy to illegitimation. This state of affairs is even insulting, given that it gives impulse to the fact that Africans and blacks are never able to live or perfect systems that have worked elsewhere in the west, Asia, and other spaces.  Thus, making a loud state regarding another attestable evidence of African inferiority and dumbness, which though in fact not provable, gives credence to such views even if erroneous.   In all of these, the nation is not and should not be the private fief of any leader that finds itself to be so enthroned as its ruler, but one that is in principle for all citizens, and with those citizens having the rights to reclaim their power, if and whenever the time is ripe within the dynamics of the political processes. Therefore, it is sad that some like you, IBK can be making inchoate excuses for useless excesses and extremisms of dictators, no matter which one. That the USA, Britain, and other European power have not gone after the rogue leaders of some African countries- Gabon, Cameroon, Egypt,etc, does not make it right. Even, if these nations and so-called world powers are playing games of double standard, our own intellectual standards does not need to mimic or mirror theirs. Our conscience and stance on behalf our suffering brothers and sisters in any and all African political space dominated by dictators, tyrannts, and oppressive regimes, must beckon upon us to denounce the evil that such aberrant regimes and hypocrites of power represent. Making glibbery excuses for dictatorships does not gell, especially if one has had the rare opportunity of encountering one, with all its strictures and delimitation of human existence.  Those who after such experiences of dictatorship now become the arrowhead and mouthpiece of dictatorship elsewhere, have either thoroughly imbibed a dictatorial consciousness as a result of their own malaised existences under dictatorships, or they have simply enamored laughable theatrics exponents because they want others to experience what they have experienced, even though if considered as anomalous and evil, within the sense of  "experience is the best teacher" and pseudo-nostalgia of "see what I lived through." It is objectionable for any rational mind to simply put their resources at the beck and call of dictatorship, even when they think that their mindfulness reflects almost a game-like scenario mapping reality.

--- On Sat, 7/12/08, ibk...@gmail.com <ibk...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: ibk...@gmail.com <ibk...@gmail.com> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's duty to helpZimbabwedefeat sanctions To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Dear Tony,

Thank you. The bottom line is that Mugabe is bad but Tsvangarai is worse. The outcome of the first inconclusive election had the hands of the west written all over it. I was at dinner just now with a Tanzanian. Professor who advised Mugabe on the land issue many years ago in the 80s and he convinced me that Mugabe sold that land dummy to all but the question arises about the quality of opposition. This opposition man is a sell out. African issues are complex and they require deep thinking and not shallow engagement. Mugabe is bad but Tsvangarai is worse.

The first and second elections are flawed but if he Tsvangarai knew he did not have the liver for the fight he should have said so and not lead his supporters to their deaths and he duck out in the end.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: Tony Agbali <atta...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:51:32 -0700 (PDT)

[Qansy Salako]

Tony,

See what we are saying?

With all your good addendum notes below, look what IBK came back saying again.

So it all comes down to “quality of opposition” under a police state now, ehn?

How much quality dissention can a country achieve under a despot who can maim and kill without flinching even an eyelid?

How much quality opposition could Nigeria achieve under Abacha, when Sgt Rogers’s quad were in the ready mode to kill, at the nod of Mustapha, any citizen including academics, market women, politicians, journalists, traders, students, etc?

Nigerian activists within tried hard, but the scariest and highest quality of opposition were from those based outside of Nigeria.

At least Tsvangirai stayed inside in Zimbabwe throughout his ordeal!

 

I don’t know what IBK is doing in the TBAI cult…..he seems clear minded on a lot of issues, except for when it comes to bad news from Africa, then he sees nothing else but the white man.

Otherwise why would someone who doesn’t even hold a Zimbabwean green card be arguing that the Zimbabwean-elect Tsvangirai is not fit for his elected office because he is deemed a stooge of the West?

I can’t tell whether my friend, Okwy Okeke, is a card-carrying member of the TBAI.

Sometimes, he sounds sympathetic to the TBAI philosophy, sometimes he talks like one of us in the progressive group.

But the one who confuses me the most is my other friend, Pius Adesanmi.

I will probably never know if he is a proud, goading or closet member of the TBAI cult.

 

Everything starts and ends with the all-causing white man.

The Bereaved African Intellectuals weep and wail incessantly believing that the West had killed Africa as she slept quietly and innocently in her hut.

We are telling them, look, Africa is not dead.

She may be weak from the white man’s burdens, she is alive!

It is her criminal leadership crops that are administering bad medicines to her – corruption, power-for-life, greed and avarice, mayhem, murder, poverty, hunger, poor governance, etc.

These medicines first sent Africa into stupor, and now rendering her comatose.

Still Africa is alive….she could be revived.

We are saying, hey people, pay closer attention to getting rid of Africa’s primitive, prodigal and clueless leaders rather than waiting for the day the West will be dragged in chains and tried under the “international law.”

 

Whose laws are international laws?

It’s not going to happen.

Those with veto powers at the UN security council all play the same game.

If you veto me, I will veto you….it’s all about national/superpower interests.

No one is gonna jail the West for Africa.

No one can help Africa more genuinely, deeply and accurately as Africans themselves.

We can start by raising hell on all dead woods in our corridors of power in Africa.

We can start at anytime, we can start with Biya, Mugabe…. we don’t have to have started since 1957.

</html

 

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Dear Quansy,

Since you praised me a little, I will be straight with you. I am not a member of the TBIA coalition even though I agree that the West crippled Africa. One point I made that you cleverly avoid is that the Nigerian June 12 issue is the direct opposite of the Zimbabwe one. The west was behind Abacha solidly. I spoke to a UK govt official 2 weeks before Shonekan's installation asked me whether the UK pro democracy activists would support Shonekan and I said where did such a crazy idea come from? That Shonekan as an agent of the British helped UAC siphon Nigeria's wealth but lo and behold 2 weeks later Shonekan was installed.

So you see that you are clever but wrong to pin on me the quality of opposition argument. My point of double standards and duplicity is made by the very point. When Abacha made a €1billion arms contract with UK all our noise that the arms will be used to kill civilians but they maintained that they would give him the arms to kill civilians! Not the Zimbabwe scenario. Let us even look at quality of opposition, Tsvangarai is not MKO and Kudirat Abiola is he?

Until you have accurately analysed why and how you are in a hole you cannot begin to imagine how to get out of the hole.

Your glib mischaracterization of African political problems will keep Africa longer in the doldrums.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Qansy Salako" <ka...@netzero.com>

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:50:48 -0500

[Tony Iyare]

How I Became a ‘Refugee’ in Stockohlm A twist of fate turned my recent trip to attend the annual World Editors Forum (WEF) in Goteburg, Sweden into a nightmare. But as it would later play out, I was transformed from a harrowing ‘refugee’ status to a ‘prince’ by Nigerian Embassy officials and toasted to a red carpet, writes TONY IYARE Arlanda Airport, a vital gateway to the Scandinavian region wore a gorgeous look on this Sunday afternoon as it beckoned to this first time visitor.  As the Turkish Airlines A310 which took us on the three hour trip from Ataturk Airport in Istanbul glided and screeched to a stop, we were soon tossed into the bosom of one of Europe’s busiest airports that serves as nexus to Norway, Finland and Denmark. Welcome to the alluringly green country of the Vikings where almost every available space is strewn with trees, flowers and impeccably tended lawns. You needed to see Stockohlm and die.     There was hardly any facility here including rest rooms, that did not provide for those on wheel chairs. Almost everything was automated including the checking–in process for passengers. Like other airports in Europe, Arlanda located some 50 kilometers to Stockohlm and off the ever busy highway leading to Uppsala, home to some of the world’s renowned intellectuals like Bjorn Beckman and Yusuf Bangura, is well connected with taxis, buses, trams and trains. For those enamoured by the blend of Geography, Sweden, a country embedded in rocks, mountains and islands provided an interesting setting for writers. Its capital, Stockohlm is located in the belly of the country on the Baltic Sea, while my destination, Goteburg (called Yotebury by the locals) is located on the banks of the North Sea in the southern tip. Rather than do the uneventful 55 minute journey by air from Arlanda to Goteburg’s Landvetta Airport,  I opted to travel three and half hours by express train in a journey that would cut through the heart of the country.  Unfortunately fate compelled the change of course and made me abandoned my adventure. I had just arrived the Central Train Station in Stockohlm, just 20 minutes from Arlanda by express train with the intent of connecting another by 4.10pm to Goteburg. The Central Train Station was as busy as a bee as hordes of passengers hurry to get on several layers of underground trains linking different parts of the country. Some only grudgingly pointed the way to the information desk to this writer, who was bordered by the thought of not getting on the wrong train.   As I tried to cross check the exact point of embarkation from the information desk, I had dropped my three luggages-a bag containing my clothings, another bearing my laptop, money and other vital documents and a polythene bag for newspapers, just few steps away. Done in a jiffy with my enquiry and assured that I was not on the wrong platform, I turned to pick up my luggages and whaoh the bag containing my laptop, money, flight ticket, passport, travel insurance and other vital documents was gone. My ordeal as a ‘refugee’ had begun. Utterlly shattered, I paced up and down like someone beserked, searching frantically for the bag as my whole life was gone. “Why should the Almighty God allowed this to happen to me?”, I muttered to myself. Initially I thought I was in trance.  It was hard to believe that the laptop containing all my writings from September 2007 had vanished in twinkles. Also gone was my back up flash drive with its stunning multi function as a pen, torch and mercury guide. It was a priceless possession acquired from the duty free shop on South African Airways, on one of my several trips from Jo’burg.   But this was no Lagos, Benin or Onitsha but Stockohlm, where goodlife is assured for a little over a million people who live in this city.  Unlike New York and London, here you could hardly spot anybody living under the bridges as the country’s vast social welfare system provides for all including the jobless, homeless and the aged. So why would anyone in this very clean city ardorned with Elizabethan architecture, want to inflict pain on this hapless traveller from a country where nothing works? The World Editors Forum (WEF) holding in Goteburg, alongside the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) Congress, which I had laboriously prepared to attend, was no longer my fancy. With everything including all my money gone, I just wanted to return to Nigeria. Dejected and terribly disconsolate, I returned to the information desk to complain about the loss of my baggage from where I was immediately linked up to the police. The journey to the police station, just some shouting distance away from the Central Train Station was ardous. With virtually no dough to take a taxi, I had to carry all my luggages. A lady whom I accosted down the road for direction was so moved by my story and offered me N100 Swedish Krona (about N1,950). I eventually got to the police station where fortune started smiling once again. Johan Kjellmor, the police inspector was very diligent in running through the interview. He was quite frantic in cooling my nerves. Armed with the report of the incident destined for the Nigerian Embassy, I was later taken in a police bus to a social welfare office by two cute smart lady officers who must be in their late 20s. Even in my tribulations, I could glean their beauty and the ambience of a police bus fitted with all manner of communication gadgets. Though a son of a retired police officer, only then did the thought of joining the police ever crossed my mind. At the social welfare centre (Socialjouren) located in the centre of Stockohlm, it was red carpet. Anna Carin Jevrell who attended to me not only offered a cup of tea, but allowed me to send an e-mail on my ordeal to one of my colleagues, Kenneth Ugbechie, a former editor of the Daily Times.  With a dole of 100 Krona for dinner and tickets for bus and train rides to the Nigerian Embassy the next day, Jevrell also got me a room at Best Western Amani Hotel in Arsta, just on the outskirts of Stockohlm where I passed the night.   Sleeping was a problem in a country where darkness comes only at 11pm and daylight begins at 3am. The northern tip of the country with its midnight sun is almost without darkness. I was up at five to prepare to get to the Nigerian Embassy on the dot of eight. Even before 7am, I had hopped on bus 134 which took me to the metro station from where I took a train to the now dreaded Central Train Station. From here I went underground to board the slow moving train to Morby Centrum. Alighting at Tekniska Hogskolan, I was soon at the Embassy’s gate on number 8, Tyrgaten. Zoran Lekic, the Serbian driver who received me was a moving enclopedia on European history. Even as I wait on the edge for my fate, Lekic regaled with historic excursion from the exploits of the Ottoman Empire to the Vikings. I was later ushered into the office when it opened just few minutes past eight. After briskly filling the form for the travel certificate at the front office, I confronted my first huddle. I needed to affix a passport photograph.  It was then I remembered that about 20 copies done by Jide Dehinsilu, the award wining acting photo editor of the Daily Times who passed on last April, had also gone with my bag.  Bearing my heavy luggages, I was compelled to go back the tortuous journey to the undergroud train station where I had problems decoding the automated photo machine with its Swedish instructions. All I could decipher was that I needed 75 Krona coins to operate the machine. As I walked around the machine in awe, a young Swedish boy later came to my rescue. Exactly three minutes later, out came four copies of my passport photographs.  Back at the Embassy, I submitted the form now complete with my passport photgraph. But there was another huddle. The emergency travel certificate cost 900 Krona (about $150) which I didn’t have. Almost in exasperation, I explained that I couldn’t afford that kind of money as all I had was gone. The Gambian front officer asked me to put my ordeal in writing which I did. Not long after he eventually filed my request upstairs, than I was invited by a very amiable diplomat, George Ezuma, the minister-counsellor who not only sympathised with my ordeal but ushered me into another more expansive waiting room. I later met the Ambassador, Dr Godknows Boladei Igali, an urbane diplomat who recalled my regular analyses on conflict and development issues on AIT. Even before I had finished with my story, he had directed that a return ticket to Goteburg should be gotten for me. Back to Ezuma’s office, I was toasted to a cup of tea and choice biscuits, while his Ugandan assistant prepared my travel certificate for his endorsement. More surprises awaited me. I was not only handed an SAS return ticket to Goteburg by the Head of Chancery, Adelakun Abel Ayoko and some stipend to augment my living expenses but was also chauffeured in one of the diplomatic vehicles to Arlanda.                              The afternoon session at the WAN/WEF conference was almost over when I arrived the massive venue. When I relayed my ordeal to Bertrand Pecquerie, WEF’s director, he not only offered to waive the 1,150 Euros registration fee, but directed that one of his assistants got me an accommodation at Quality Hotel Panorama, the city’s five star hotel. In fact he was willing to do more including offering cash assistance if I needed any. But I thought only a glutton would have actually crossed the bar.  My colleagues were equally gracious. Mike Awoyinfa, editor in chief of the Sun and his deputy, Dimgba Igwe doled out 200 Euros each the following day, while Dele Omotunde, deputy editor in chief, Tell and the magazine’s executive editor, Ayo Akinkoutu who shared the same hotel, paid for taxis and the sumptous lunch of semo and egusi soup and drinks at the Nigerian house.  I had good times afterall which diminished my loss. Executive Director of The Punch, Azu Ishekwene, also a board and associate member of WEF and WAN respectively, streneously made a case for me. I was toasted to several rounds of banters by Eluem Izeze, managing director of The Guardian and Segun Babatope, a former chairman, editorial board of the now rested Concord newspapers. Both of them had come to the conference with their charming wives. Debo Adeshina, editor The Guardian also taunted me with my new ‘refugee’ status while the publisher of The Punch, Ajibola Ogunsola was also on hand at our lunch table to steer critical and insightful debates about our country.  I savoured the very interesting and illuminating sessions. It turned out a very memorable trip. I returned to Stockolm on Thursday morning and was soon Ezuma’s guest at Denderys. Tucked away in this crescent almost overlooking a river that empties into the Baltic Sea, his well landscaped home with a family of five, provided a refuge. My walk down the road in the evening of the following day to the bank of the river, where many Swedish bevies were sun tanning, was quite revealing. Ezuma and his family also took me on several rides through the beautiful city of Stockohlm. On Sunday, he dropped me off by 12 noon at Arlanda on the first leg of my trip to Lagos. When the lady at the check-in counter said my name was not confirmed for the flight, my blood pressure rose. I scampered to the nearby Turkish Arlines office where the lady who had printed another electronic ticket for me few days earlier, was equally bemused. As I waited in pains for this problem to be sorted out, I ruminated why my first trip to Stockohlm had become so awful. After repeated calls and with only 20 minutes for the departure of the plane to Istanbul, it was eureka! My economy ticket had been upgraded to business class. Even before I settled down on my seat, the hostesses were almost stumbling on one another as they offered choice wines and some snacks. Like some who got wind of my predicament had predicted, God had indeed intervened on my behalf.   Tony Iyare Group Editor, Daily Times of Nigeria Plc, Lateef Jakande Road, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Nigeria.  Mobile Phone:: 234-803-304-6943, 234-702-809-1704, Home Phone: 234-1-850-6335 E-mail: ehia...@yahoo.co.uk Website: www.dailytimes-nigeria.com

[Pius Adesanmi]

From The Times July 2, 2008 Never forget how we created Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe has little global significance. Our obsession is a hangover from our colonial past Michael Holman   So this is the way colonialism really ends - not with the formal flag-lowering ceremony, the Prince of Wales in attendance, that marked Zimbabwe's independence, but with the toothless British bulldog, mouthing gummy platitudes and making empty threats, locked in ignominious verbal battle with a delusional dictator. Seldom has so much time, space and hot air been devoted to a country that is so inconsequential to British interests. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, where oil, narcotics or terrorism are deemed grounds enough to warrant British troops, no soldier will die on African soil. No British jobs are at stake, no significant investment in jeopardy, no pension fund risks taking a knock. Tourism has been reduced to a trickle, trade is negligible. Tibet and Burma surge briefly and fall away, leaving few if any marks on the national psyche. But Zimbabwe endures, as emotive as Suez but without the import. So what explains the national obsession with this far-off land? Why the acres of newsprint, the opinions of columnists, the editorials in profusion, and the “undercover” dispatch of the BBC heavyweight who looms out from the nation's television each night, the Great Bull Elephant of his profession? Something must be done, the pundits say. Ministers huff and the Prime Minister puffs - and the effect is negligible. Of course, the human rights abuse in Zimbabwe is outrageous. But does it exceed Darfur, are the numbers trapped in misery greater than in Congo? Does the failure of the state match the collapse in Somalia? Of course, Zimbabwe matters, albeit for reasons beyond its borders: the crisis is proving contagious, spilling over to its southern African neighbours. Refugees head for South Africa and Zambia; Botswana puts up an electric fence to keep them out; dockworkers refuse to handle a Chinese arms shipment bound for Zimbabwe; divisions between President Mbeki and his successor-in-waiting, Jacob Zuma, worsen; and there have been xenophobic attacks on Zimbabweans in South Africa. Nevertheless, much of the coverage is driven not by these concerns, but by an atavistic memory of what once was, an ill-concealed frustration on the part of some commentators that it cannot be again, by a yearning for the empire in its pomp - all coupled with that syndrome known as “black hands on white thighs” - fears for the 20,000 or so British who remain. What is missing is recognition of an unpalatable fact: Robert Mugabe is a creature shaped by British colonial rule. Colonial chickens are coming home to roost. Most readers will know that it was white settlers who, in the 1890s, occupied the country they were to call Southern Rhodesia. Soon they laid the foundations of the racially skewed land ownership that remains at the heart of its turbulent politics. Nearly 100 years later, London played midwife to the birth of Zimbabwe, hosting the Lancaster House conference. With an almost audible sigh of relief, Britain welcomed an independent Zimbabwe. But its responsibility lives on. Between the arrival of settlers and the handover to Mugabe in 1980, the UK's record was a shoddy one. Three decisions stand out: At the break-up in 1963 of the Central African Federation of Southern and Northern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) Britain allocated the bulk of the Federal Army to white-ruled Rhodesia. This gave the minority regime of Ian Smith the muscle to make a unilateral declaration of independence two years later, in 1965, and to wage war against black nationalist guerrillas; Britain effectively vetoed the landlocked Zambia's request in the early 1960s for World Bank funds to build a railway to the port of Dar es Salaam. That forced dependence on trade routes through apartheid South Africa - and rebel Rhodesia; Britain reneged on the spirit, if not the letter, of a provision in the Lancaster House settlement, intended to tackle the worst feature of the legacy of white rule - that half of the land was owned by whites. The UK contributed in real terms to the buyout of 5,000 white farmers in Zimbabwe just half the amount that it provided for a similar exercise in Kenya in the early 1960s - although that former colony had barely 1,000 white farmers. No one suggests that Robert Mugabe does not shoulder the bulk of the blame for today's tragedy. Nelson Mandela has shown how leadership can transform a country. But it is this historical involvement in Zimbabwe that gives a unique British dimension and responsibility. Time is surely running out for Mugabe. But the editorial writers who sharpen their pens in anticipation of his demise may be in danger of missing the point - they should be preparing not only the obituary of a dictator, but an epitaph for an empire that helped to create the ogre we now need to destroy.   Michael Holman, a former Africa editor of the Financial Times, grew up in Zimbabwe. His novel, Fatboy and the Dancing Ladies, is published by Abacus next month.

Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com

--- On Sun, 13/7/08, ibk...@gmail.com <ibk...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: ibk...@gmail.com <ibk...@gmail.com> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Black Africa's dutytohelpZimbabwedefeat sanctions To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, 13 July, 2008, 12:09 PM

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Dear Quansy Salako and Tony Agbali,

Please read this honest piece. You will see the many layers of colonial errors that created the big monster and the attempt to topple him with another spineless one.

Contrary to your view that the quality of opposition was poor, the colonialists chose the wrong person for monster cloning.

Better our monster with a spine than one without who will sell the whole of Zimbabwe just to grow a spine to start his own 20 year of terror.

Let us ensure that these experiences in Zimbabwe bring out genuine African loving leadership not lackeys and stooges of colonial UK that lost her claim to any super powerism since 1939 when the Germans crushed their illusions. The US just tag along to ensure the token UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IBK

PS

Thank you Pius for sharing.

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: Pius Adesanmi <piusad...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Never forget how we created Robert Mugabe

[Pius Adesanmi]

Yes o, IBK, I was hoping that this would add nuance and context to the interesting conversation you're having with my broda, Tony. As for our broda, Quansy Salako, I have decided to transfer the struggle for the redemption of his intellectual perspectives to the spiritual level. I'm surprised you have not yet surmised that what is going on is "not ordinary eye". When next I'm home, I will visit all the spiritual spheres along the Lagos-Ibadan express way where the Holy Ghost answereth permanently by fire. I will declare war on the principalities, dominions, and powers that are holding our broda's perspectives hostage. The devil is a liar!

Pius Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL) Department of English Carleton University Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175 www.projectponal.com

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Pius,

Now you want to commit spiritual murder! I am laughing so loud at the spruced up Buka called Old Rock in the middle of Arusha. It reminds me of Melville Obiriango's Banana Split show on the original Radio Nigeria. It was so funny that I often slipped out of boring sermons to listen on the car radio. I go die o! Bo bo!!

How can we behave like a stoic fool who is hit 10 times with a big club and pretend that we do not sport fractures and bruises and we run Ben Jonson's 100 metres.

Slavery, colonialism, and neo colonialism hit us more than 10 big clubs on the medula oblongata or how do you explain the insanity of godfatherism on the Uba, Adedibu, and Bola Tinubu scale?

Looting the treasury with impunity to buy houses in Potomac and Bishop's Avenue in North London where Londoners will themselves never live or the shamelessness of a President who sought medical treatment in Germany and had to direct his aviation minister to do something about a citizen defending the pride of a Nigerian from the exemplar colonial behemoth the British Airways. Unless one is mad, how can we steal so much and stash in Western Banks?

When we can create heaven on earth in our own country! What melted our brains and replaced it with guguru and epa if not colo menta!

A beg let us admit the damage and stop looking in the wrong direction.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: Pius Adesanmi <piusad...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

[Qansy Salako]

Pius,

The day a youth sees others with differing opinions as crazy is the day he reaches the end of his knowledge.

You so much reached the end of your wisdom, you couldn’t even spell my name correctly.

Even if anyone on this forum is mentally retarded, is it from your mouth that others should hear of it?

Do you think foolhardiness confers extra smartness on you or attracts the much needed benevolent spirits around you?

Pius, you really believe that killing a cyber fire with a mountain fire makes you pious, ehn?

Tu…tu…tu…Pius, Pius…

 

And so, you boys finally reached the end of your logic power.

You failed to out-debate the views of the opposition, you started seeing devils and spirits.

Reminds me of when Obasanjo went to South Africa on one Apartheid day in 1977 or so.

When he saw the arrangement under Apartheid, he proclaimed out of frustration that only African curse (epe) can overcome the white man’s evil in South Africa.

Obasanjo was our Nigerian army general and head of state at the time.

Thirty years later, there is no difference between African citizens Obasanjo and Pius Adesanmi.

Anyone who does not agree to waiting out the West over the problems of Africa must be a lying devil that needs to be redeemed.

It is not surprising that the intellectual appeal of a harebrained philosophy does not endure.

It is bound to age fast against unrelenting tragedy of many a government on our continent.

 

This is exactly how far the African scholar and erudite George Ayittey, who also cannot stand the destructive African leadership elite, could go with the bereaved African intellectuals (TBAI).

The Piuses expressed their bereaved mentality loud, Ayittey articulated his own even louder.

Ayittey was called all sorts of names, including the  usual - stooge of the West, ignorant, crazy, etc.

But years come and years go, the marauding leaders of Africa change nothing, except for lowering the depth of impoverishment of their people, while the TBAI yelling against the West remains the only panacea they could muster for moving Africa forward.

What doesn’t make sense, just won’t make sense no matter how much deluded a proponent is.

 

IBK, before you stray too far to the cursed realm like Pius, there is nothing new in what Michael Holman is saying in his Times article below.

His main message is that Britain created Mugabe.

Sure, everybody knows and agrees with that.

There is  no nuance or hidden value in its revelation.

It is the same way that America created Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

Even the same Lancaster House rings a bell in the outcomes of the Nigeria independence negotiations.

The West fingerprints are probable causes in the events of Tshombe/Lumumber, Murtala, Abiola, Abacha, etc.

These are all well known sentiments that shouldn’t have been the cornerstone premise of the truly intelligent.

Nor is the principle and essence of this reality difficult to conceptualize when you have global power.

If you can control the whole global economy with your language and currency, it is only natural that you will manipulate the world economy to enable you perpetuate the superiority of your hegemony.

Only egomaniac intellectuals will fail to see that with global power comes preferred alignments, tinkering with the goings-on in other sovereign states, selfish trade policies, etc.

These are all the ‘givens’ in our global co-existence today.

The question that you  boys have failed shamelessly to answer is: “what can Africa do under these circumstances to advance itself?”

 

All we hear is that the West is Africa’s problems.

They created Mugabe and we are better of staying with Mugabe, Biya, Kibaki, Museveni, regardless of how far off the cliff these Africans take their countries.

Sounds like, the enemy of my enemy if my enemy.

We should keep hanging on with whoever the West installs on us, until they have a change of heart, are sanctioned under international laws, or some other stupid wishful thinking like that.

You might be saying something else, but this is all we hear from you, tirelessly.

This sort of philosophy leaves everything to the total whims of the West as the only mechanism of rejection is

yelling.

 

We are saying that, at a minimum, we should be able to make hell for whoever is imposed that turns out to

be a bastard  on Africa, until we gain control of our own affairs.

If we make hell for Mugabe and vote for Tsvangirai, we can turn the same venom on Tsvangirai when he turns

out to be a turncoat over our affairs.

At the least, we will have been establishing a consensus, strong and fearful method of government.

This approach puts all “stooges of the West” incumbents on alert, regarding their proclivity for cupidity, power for life, murdering citizens, insensitivity to human living conditions, and their pathetic administrative skills.
It will curtail embezzlement, open up our economy and gives us momentum, at least, a bit faster than what we are under our current yelling state.

With this serious level of social involvement in who lords it over us, the West grip on our throat is bound to weaken over time, faster than your bereaved ideology.

 

Your philosophy does not address how to immediately tackle the human conditions in Africa.

It completely ignores it, due to your neurotic fixation on the West against whom Africa is currently

ill-equipped to confront or negotiate.

Holman’s has not offered any new insight or depth into your ideology.

It is whining, unprogressive, dumb.

Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!</a </html

 

[ibk...@gmail.com]

Baba Quansy,

Olopa eewo ni ti epe, a mu ni ni nje a mu ni. In short curses are redundant on the lips of the policeman who arrests a suspect. Your pseudo intimidation will not diminish the lucid logic that you do not build the power required by accepting the stupidity that the West is trying to shove down Africa's throat. Might cannot always be right.

When you have the devil's alternative you pick the less of the devil's offer. Mugabe is that lesser devil's offer. Shikena.

IBK

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Celtel Tanzania

---

From: "Qansy Salako" <ka...@netzero.com>

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:39:04 -0500
To: <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

[Kayode Ogundamisi]

The Liberty Forum UK 24 Tarleton Court London N22 6AX 15TH July 2008.   NIGERIANS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OPPOSE THE USE OF BRITISH WEAPONS IN NIGER DELTA.     The Liberty Forum United Kingdom announced its intention to picket venues of events to be attended by the President Of the federal Republic of Nigeria during his 4 days State visit to the United Kingdom. Since the declaration of the intention, the Nigerian embassy in the UK cancelled two major events one being the publicised meeting of the president with Nigerian resident in the UK, The meeting was scheduled to take place at the Nigerian High commissioner’s official resident on Friday 18th July 2008 at 18.30 hrs.   The cancellation of the meeting by the Nigerian High Commissioner in the UK His Excellency Dr Dalhatu Saraki in our opinion is to deprive Nigerians an opportunity to register their protest to the president on his handling of the crisis in the Niger Delta.   We are at a lost at the secrecy surrounding events the president would be attending. We find the removal of all information of the Presidents visit from the Nigerian High Commission website not only distasteful but an overreaction to a simple declaration of intent to picket.   For a government that prides itself on the enthronement of rule of law, we make bold to say that a right to peaceful protest is also a major component of a democracy.   If the British public could picket the events of the visit of the American President to the United Kingdom we wonder why the president of Nigeria with all its claim of democratic ideals would be visiting the UK like a fugitive and details of his events are known only to loyal members and supporters of the Yaradua Government in the UK.   We restate our protest against the British prime minister Gordon Brown and attempts to reduce the Niger delta crisis to a law and order issue rather than the struggle by the people of Niger delta for social justice, environmental right and resource control.   Whilst the Corrupt Nigerian government, the oil companies and the British government are looking at profit the people of the delta are facing a life long sentence to poverty and environmental degradation.   We condemn any form of Military intervention in the resolution of the Niger Delta crisis by Nigeria or any foreign interest.   We call on president Yaradua to reject any offer of arms, from the British or any foreign government for use in the Niger delta or any part of Nigeria.   Nigerians living in the United Kingdom and British Nigerians will not sleep walk into an agenda by the hawks in the western government to turn Nigeria into another Iraq by a Prime Minister whom in our opinion is clueless about the situation in the Niger delta and the struggle of the people of the Delta for environmental, social and political justice.   The promotion of war and rumour of wars by the British Government will only escalate the situation in the Delta Region.   The role of the British government is to call on the Nigerian government to go into genuine dialogue with the people of the Niger delta, put in place concrete measures to ease the frustration in the delta and be accountable to the Nigerian people rather than the oil companies and the multinationals.     Signed   Kayode Ogundamisi   Convener   The Liberty Forum. UK.   +447951402986 +442030150739 **"Truth is not only violated by Falsehood; it may be equally outraged by Silence"**.   VISIT www.kayodeogundamisi.blogspot.com