President Museveni Discusses Libya & Gaddafi: A Must Read

[MsJo...@aol.com]

Let Libyans Solve Their Own problems By President YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI of Uganda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the time Muammar Gaddafi came to power in 1969, I was a Third Year university student at Dar es Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arabist position.Soon, however, problems cropped up with Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa are concerned: 1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania. Unfortunately, Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Amin presumably because Amin was a ‘Muslim’ and Uganda was a ‘Muslim country’ where Muslims were being “oppressed”’ by Christians. Amin executed a lot of people and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Amin when we attacked him. 2. The second big mistake was Gaddafi’s position vis-à-vis the African Union. Since 1999, he has been pushing for a United States of Africa. We tried to politely point out to Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at regional federations. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. He would resurrect something that has been covered by previous meetings. He would ‘overrule’ a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position. 3. The third mistake has been the tendency by Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries using the little money Libya has compared to those countries. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa — kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes. I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king who involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Gaddafi. 4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi, to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the Black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent. However, I must salute him and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan and advising President Omar el-Bashir to respect the results of that exercise. 5. Sometimes, Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence — not distinguishing between military and non-military targets. The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, and plant bombs in bars. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure, but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately. These five points above are some of the negatives associated with Gaddafi. The positions have been unfortunate and unnecessary. Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points, objectively speaking. These have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point: 1. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries, which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People’s Republic (Mao Zedong, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs). In Africa, we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, and Samora Machel of Mozambique. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships in Uganda, we had a problem arising from a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. 2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went up to US$40. I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation by Western countries. 3. I have never taken time to investigate socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi? In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya’s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political? Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and it about the current size of GDP in Spain. 4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism, which is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi’s side. Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues: 1. The first is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should co-ordinate with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of her citizens. When rioters are, however, attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, for often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to do so. I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. This, and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling, have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa. The wrong priorities in many African countries are, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities in Uganda. External interests linked, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about this. If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, which has got a different system from the West? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square or in Tibet? The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions. We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda who killed Americans on 9/11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by western companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture? The West is always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World — Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries. There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. The West denied him money because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. Israel, France and Britain attacked him. Another negative point is going to arise out of the habit of the Western countries overusing their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right.” I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world. All this notwithstanding, Mr Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us — Ambassador Abdalla, Dr Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People’s Conference. There is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, dialogue is the correct way forward. The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extraordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation. Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years — Mobutu, Houphet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc. Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly. Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. To be puppets is not good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  About the writer:  Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is the President of Uganda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 3

Visit Your Group

To Subscribe to kenyaonline, visit:    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/join
or send a message to
kenyaonlin...@yahoogroups.com

You can also send a message for the following services:

To Post a message: kenya...@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe:  kenyaonline...@yahoogroups.com
To The List owner:  kenyaonl...@yahoogroups.com
URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline

For articles on Kenyan issues, check out our Library at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/files/

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

---

Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

[ogb...@yahoo.com]

And by that the life president of Uganda means let Gadaffi be allowed to slaughter his own people and brutally suppress the popular uprising? Given that he has overwhelming fire power on his side which he has shown every willingness to use and abuse?
What is it with this brand of 'professional revolutionaries' that they assume that because they were once revolutionaries, they remain revolutionaries for life even if they have become transformed into the dialectical or polar opposite in the course of time?
What is it with their brand of revolutionary transformation that they assume that without them the revolution is lost? Without their absolute leadership the cause is defeated?
How is this different from the 'civilising missionary motive of colonialism and imperialism?
So we should accept this brand of ideology which assumes that we are children incapable of knowing our right from our left simply because it is homegrown?
Regards,
Jaye

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: MsJo...@aol.com

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:28 EDT

To: <kenya...@yahoogroups.com>; <afric...@yahoogroups.com>; <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>; <in...@africaaction.org>; <in...@aim4obama.com>; <in...@blackpressusa.com>; <in...@democracy-africa.org>; <in...@friendsofthecongo.org>; <in...@thenewghanaian.com>; <unio...@yahoogroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Cc: <for...@washpost.com>; <mwan...@yahoogroups.com>; <nigerianw...@yahoogroups.com>; <niger...@yahoogroups.com>; <washingt...@naacpnet.org>; <zim...@yahoogroups.com>; <Africans_Wit...@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya & Gaddafi: A Must Read

--
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

[wa...@comcast.net]

Well, the Gadhafi phenomenon is by no means the best. However, in condemning his long stay in office, it is important to take a closer look at the monarchical culture of the Arabs. The later cannot be divorced from the raison d'etre of Arab leaders' proclivity to stay in office for life.

 

The main question that should be of concen to all men and women of justice is the double standard of the imperial/colonialist nations of the world in quickly jumping into bombing Libya with the sole defense that they are protecting the so-called revolutionaries, who did not deem it fit to properly organize themselves to overthrow the 'oppressive regime' of Gadhafi?

 

At times some compatriots on this listserve appear to sound politically correct with their lenses tinted to blur the fact that 'oil' is the basis of the recent intervention? Where were they when Saro Wiwa was murdered by the Abacha regime? Where are they now when Israel is busy bombing the Palestinians of Gaza? It is really sickening that our critical thinking at times is submerged to pandering to neo-colonial expansionist tendency!

 

Steve Nwabuzor

[Abdul Karim Bangura]

Yours comprise a concise and excellent take and poignant questions, Mwalimu Nwabuzor. They may not know that those of us who fight for our Afrikan people and against neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism comprise the majority on this forum, albeit some of our comrades decide to keep silent to avoid being disrespected by a few folks who think it is their right to do so.

-----Original Message-----
From: wa...@comcast.net
Sent: Mar 23, 2011 11:37 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

Well, the Gadhafi phenomenon is by no means the best. However, in condemning his long stay in office, it is important to take a closer look at the monarchical culture of the Arabs. The later cannot be divorced from the raison d'etre of Arab leaders' proclivity to stay in office for life.

 

The main question that should be of concern to all men and women of justice is the double standard of the imperial/colonialist nations of the world in quickly jumping into bombing Libya with the sole defense that they are protecting the so-called revolutionaries, who did not deem it fit to properly organize themselves to overthrow the 'oppressive regime' of Gadhafi?

[Ayo Obe]

Why should the double standards of the imperialist/colonialist nations be our "main concern"?  As though every human being on this planet doesn't exercise double standards, even if only by the things they choose to write or comment on or not to write or comment on.

See, I have a long list of concerns, but jerking around in reaction to what the West is or is not doing is not at the top.  Or even near it.

Ayo

[Olabode Ibironke]

Steve, 

People should try and get the basic narrative right before they express sentiments one way or the other. Gaddafi does not consider himself a monarch. Even if he were to be a monarch, that does not take away from the people of Libya the right to self determination. The question of the right of kings vs the right of the people seems to have been settled, it would seem. However, once the people set on the course of demonstrations to assert their sovereign will, which is TREASONABLE, if they were to lose the struggle, they faced an inevitable death penalty. It was obvious that they were going to lose and Gaddafi says there will be no mercy for the "rats". We know what happened to the "cockroaches" in Rwanda. This, to my understanding was the unique circumstance that forced a highly reluctant  Obama into the fray. Neocolonialism is a problem, but so are colonial anxieties!

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

Every one paying attention knows that foreign policy is about protecting a country’s national interest. The foreign policies of the major western countries (western powers) have therefore always been informed by the countries’ conceived or perceived national interest.  If this is recognized and understood, there will be no need to waste valuable time alleging inconsistency in the policies. There is no inconsistency because foreign policy that is informed  “national interest” cannot be expected to be consistent. Foreign policy is for the most part is situational.  The debates and disagreements in major western countries’ on whether or not there should be should interference or intervention in the affairs of other countries is usually about whether “our interest is sufficiently threatened for us to interfere or intervene, and what would it cost to interfere or intervene”. In other words “can we get away with it?” Saudi Arabia’s security forces rolled into Bahrain last week and crushed the protesters in Bahrain without consequence so far for Saudi Arabia. The protests in Bahrain were mostly by a Shia Muslim majority. It was in Saudi Arabia’s “national” interest that the protests in Bahrain be crushed and so it was. Saudi Arabia’s intervention was not altruistic even though it was claimed to be. The world is the world and the world has its ways.

International relations are about each country defining, articulating, protecting, and advancing her national interest in her dealings with other countries. One country cannot be rightly and reasonably be held responsible for another country working against the latter country’s interest. The world of international relations is a jungle. There are predators and prey in this jungle. It is for each country to choose whether or not to be to be a predator or a prey. Everyone knows what predators think of and inevitably do to their prey.     

Realists know that that morality is oftentimes an inconvenience and/or encumbrance in foreign policy development and implementation. They also know that what usually happens is to protect your national interest and answer any questions later, especially when you can get away with it.

 

oa   

[wa...@comcast.net]

Therefore foreign policy entails selective intervention in others internal affairs under the guise of protecting civilians?  One is not oblivious of the lack

of morality in International politics. However,  it would have been appropriate to see a clear demarcation about peoples right to self determination, Ghadafi's tenure and

the hasty intervention of the Westerrn forces in Libya. Why have Russia, China etc not jumped into the wagon? Are we not by our superficial criticism of Gadhafi

not failing in our duty to caution the 'big bullies' of this world? The fact that selfish national interests often supercede morality does not make the latest intervention proper.

 

Yes, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are good contemporary examples of the nauseating foolishness of the US, Britain and France. Let each country take care of its own. I wonder how the US would react if the KKK were to rise up against the 'White House because a black man is the president', as noted by Louis Farrakhan?

 

We cannot allow this impunity of the West to go on without drawing their attention to the double standards. Whether this would make any difference is another

matter. But TRUTH cannot be sacrificed on the altar of colonialism and imperial demagoguery.

[kenneth harrow]

steve asks why russia and china have not jumped on the bandwagon.
let me see: one answer is called chechnia, and another is called tibet.
we tax the west rightly for double standards, but produce an equal number ourselves on this list, starting with all the praisesingers, sotto voce, for gaddafi, who ignore his sins and sing praises for his rhetoric.
ken

On 3/24/11 2:56 PM, wa...@comcast.net wrote:

Therefore foreign policy entails selective intervention in others�internal affairs under the guise of protecting civilians?� One is not oblivious of the lack

of morality in International politics. However,� it would have been appropriate to see a clear demarcation about peoples right to self determination, Ghadafi's tenure�and

the hasty intervention of the Westerrn forces in Libya. Why have Russia, China etc not jumped into the wagon? Are we not by�our superficial criticism of Gadhafi

not failing in our duty to caution the 'big bullies' of this world? The fact that�selfish national interests often supercede morality does not make the latest intervention proper.

�

Yes, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are good contemporary examples of the nauseating foolishness of the US, Britain and France. Let each country take care of its own. I wonder how the US would react if the KKK were to rise up against the 'White House because a black man is the president', as noted by Louis Farrakhan?

�

We cannot allow this impunity of the West to go on without drawing their attention to the double standards. Whether this would make any difference is another

matter. But TRUTH cannot�be sacrificed on the altar of colonialism and imperial demagoguery.

�

Steve Nwabuzor

�

�

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ogugua Anunoby" <Anun...@lincolnu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:36:59 PM
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

Every one paying attention knows that foreign policy is about protecting a country�s national interest. The foreign policies of the major western countries (western powers) have therefore always been informed by the countries� conceived or perceived national interest.� If this is recognized and understood, there will be no need to waste valuable time alleging inconsistency in the policies. There is no inconsistency because foreign policy that is informed ��national interest� cannot be expected to be consistent. Foreign policy is for the most part is situational. �The debates and disagreements in major western countries� on whether or not there should be should interference or intervention in the affairs of other countries is usually about whether �our interest is sufficiently threatened for us to interfere or intervene, and what would it cost to interfere or intervene�. In other words �can we get away with it?� Saudi Arabia�s security forces rolled into Bahrain last week and crushed the protesters in Bahrain without consequence so far for Saudi Arabia. The protests in Bahrain were mostly by a Shia Muslim majority. It was in Saudi Arabia�s �national� interest that the protests in Bahrain be crushed and so it was. Saudi Arabia�s intervention was not altruistic even though it was claimed to be. The world is the world and the world has its ways.

International relations are about each country defining, articulating, protecting, and advancing her national interest in her dealings with other countries. One country cannot be rightly and reasonably be held responsible for another country working against the latter country�s interest. The world of international relations is a jungle. There are predators and prey in this jungle. It is for each country to choose whether or not to be to be a predator or a prey. Everyone knows what predators think of and inevitably do to their prey. ����

Realists know that that morality is oftentimes an inconvenience and/or encumbrance in foreign policy development and implementation. They also know that what usually happens is to protect your national interest and answer any questions later, especially when you can get away with it.

�

oa ��

�

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abdul Karim Bangura
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:11 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com; usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

�

Yours comprise a concise and excellent take and poignant questions, Mwalimu Nwabuzor. They may not know that those of us who fight for our Afrikan people and against neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism comprise the majority on this forum, albeit some of our comrades decide to keep silent to avoid being disrespected by a few folks who think it is their right to do so.


-----Original Message-----
From: wa...@comcast.net
Sent: Mar 23, 2011 11:37 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

Well, the Gadhafi phenomenon is by no means the best. However, in condemning his long stay in office, it is important to take a closer look at the monarchical culture of the Arabs. The later cannot be divorced from the raison d'etre of Arab leaders' proclivity to stay in office for life.

�

The main question that should be of concern to all men and women of justice is the double standard of the imperial/colonialist nations of the world in quickly jumping�into bombing�Libya with the sole defense that they are protecting the so-called revolutionaries, who did not deem it fit to properly organize themselves�to overthrow the 'oppressive regime' of Gadhafi?

�

At times some compatriots on this listserve appear to sound politically correct with their�lenses tinted to blur the fact that 'oil' is the basis of the recent intervention?�Where were they when Saro Wiwa was murdered by the Abacha regime? Where are they now when Israel is busy bombing the Palestinians of Gaza? It is really sickening that our critical thinking at times is submerged to pandering to neo-colonial expansionist tendency!

�

Steve Nwabuzor

----- Original Message -----
From: ogb...@yahoo.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com, kenya...@yahoogroups.com, afric...@yahoogroups.com, in...@africaaction.org, in...@aim4obama.com, in...@blackpressusa.com, in...@democracy-africa.org, in...@friendsofthecongo.org, in...@thenewghanaian.com, unio...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: for...@washpost.com, mwan...@yahoogroups.com, nigerianw...@yahoogroups.com, niger...@yahoogroups.com, washingt...@naacpnet.org, zim...@yahoogroups.com, "Africans Without Borders" <Africans_Wit...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:42:13 AM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

And by that the life president of Uganda means let Gadaffi be allowed to slaughter his own people and brutally suppress the popular uprising? Given that he has overwhelming fire power on his side which he has shown every willingness to use and abuse?
What is it with this brand of 'professional revolutionaries' that they assume that because they were once revolutionaries, they remain revolutionaries for life even if they have become transformed into the dialectical or polar opposite in the course of time?
What is it with their brand of revolutionary transformation that they assume that without them the revolution is lost? Without their absolute leadership the cause is defeated?
How is this different from the 'civilising missionary motive of colonialism and imperialism?
So we should accept this brand of ideology which assumes that we are children incapable of knowing our right from our left simply because it is homegrown?
Regards,
Jaye

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: MsJo...@aol.com

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:28 EDT

To: <kenya...@yahoogroups.com>; <afric...@yahoogroups.com>; <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>; <in...@africaaction.org>; <in...@aim4obama.com>; <in...@blackpressusa.com>; <in...@democracy-africa.org>; <in...@friendsofthecongo.org>; <in...@thenewghanaian.com>; <unio...@yahoogroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Cc: <for...@washpost.com>; <mwan...@yahoogroups.com>; <nigerianw...@yahoogroups.com>; <niger...@yahoogroups.com>; <washingt...@naacpnet.org>; <zim...@yahoogroups.com>; <Africans_Wit...@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya & Gaddafi: A Must Read

�

Let Libyans Solve Their Own problems By President YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI of Uganda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the time Muammar Gaddafi came to power in 1969, I was a Third Year university student at Dar es Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arabist position.Soon, however, problems cropped up with Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa are concerned: 1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania.

Unfortunately, Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Amin presumably because Amin was a �Muslim� and Uganda was a �Muslim country� where Muslims were being �oppressed�� by Christians.

Amin executed a lot of people and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Amin when we attacked him.

2. The second big mistake was Gaddafi�s position vis-�-vis the African Union. Since 1999, he has been pushing for a United States of Africa. We tried to politely point out to Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at regional federations. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. He would resurrect something that has been covered by previous meetings. He would �overrule� a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.

3. The third mistake has been the tendency by Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries using the little money Libya has compared to those countries.

One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa � kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes.

I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king who involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Gaddafi. 4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi, to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the Black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent. However, I must salute him and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan and advising President Omar el-Bashir to respect the results of that exercise.

5. Sometimes, Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence � not distinguishing between military and non-military targets.

The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, and plant bombs in bars. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure, but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately. These five points above are some of the negatives associated with Gaddafi. The positions have been unfortunate and unnecessary. Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points, objectively speaking. These have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point:

1. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries, which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets.

Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People�s Republic (Mao Zedong, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs).

In Africa, we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, and Samora Machel of Mozambique. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships in Uganda, we had a problem arising from a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. 2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went up to US$40.

I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi�s efforts.

The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation by Western countries.

3. I have never taken time to investigate socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi?

In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya�s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad?

Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political? Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and it about the current size of GDP in Spain.

4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism, which is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi�s side.

Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues: 1. The first is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should co-ordinate with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of her citizens. When rioters are, however, attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, for often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to do so. I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous.

�

It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. This, and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling, have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa. The wrong priorities in many African countries are, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities in Uganda. External interests linked, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about this. If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, which has got a different system from the West? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square or in Tibet? The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions. We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda who killed Americans on 9/11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success.

Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by western companies on account of Gaddafi�s nationalist posture? The West is always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World � Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries. There was a military coup d��tat that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt.

The West denied him money because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. Israel, France and Britain attacked him.

Another negative point is going to arise out of the habit of the Western countries overusing their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is �right.�

I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world.

All this notwithstanding, Mr Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us � Ambassador Abdalla, Dr Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People�s Conference.

There is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, dialogue is the correct way forward. The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extraordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.

Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years � Mobutu, Houphet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc.

Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.

Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. To be puppets is not good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�About the writer:� Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is the President of Uganda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

�

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

��������� New Members 3

Visit Your Group

To Subscribe to kenyaonline, visit:��� http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/join

or send a message to
kenyaonlin...@yahoogroups.com

You can also send a message for the following services:

To Post a message: kenya...@yahoogroups.com

To Unsubscribe:� kenyaonline...@yahoogroups.com
To The List owner:� kenyaonl...@yahoogroups.com

URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline

For articles on Kenyan issues, check out our Library at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/files/

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

---

Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest � Unsubscribe � Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

“But TRUTH cannot be sacrificed on the altar of colonialism and imperial demagoguery.”

 

What is the truth? Whose truth? What/where is the certainty that what you believe to be the truth is indeed the truth? What is the distinction between reality and the truth? How would you choose between reality and the “truth”? Could your truth and somebody else’s truth be the truth but also different? I could go on and on.

I am not aware that foreign policy has to be honest, sincere, fair and just to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is not required to pass the rationality of even the common sense test to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is not required to meet the expectations or standards of its critics to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is what it is conceived and intended to be. It does not have to be good or bad. All it needs to be is effective namely help a country  achieve its intended objectives in the short, medium, and /or long term.

[Olabode Ibironke]

 "I wonder how the US would react if the KKK were to rise up against the 'White House because a black man is the president', as noted by Louis Farrakhan?" Steve Nwabuzor

This is the typical clannish mentality that is destroying progressive politics in Africa. All you need to do is invoke neocolonialism [or otherness etc] and suddenly comrades Mugabe and Museveni become heroes and spiritual masters that intellectuals begin to recite. Is the above not the exact content of Gaddafi's letter to Obama when he said 'if Al-Qaida [read KKK] were to challenge your authority tell me what you would do and I would follow your example.' It is thus on the record that in the desperate struggle of people in North Africa to throw off the yoke of oppression, certain AfriKan intellectuals were solidly on the side of their oppressors!!!

[ROSEMARY MWENJA]

Who is the oppressor and who is not? You are allowing yourself to be drawn into the Western way of thinking, The fact of the matter is that this is an internal matter and very suspect at how it started. Who are these rebels? What is their agenda? How different is what they want from what Qaddafi is offering? Where does the West get the moral authority to support one group against another in a domesticated matter unless they are behind the insurgence in the first place?   --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Olabode Ibironke <ibir...@msu.edu> wrote:

From: Olabode Ibironke <ibir...@msu.edu> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

[wa...@comcast.net]

oa,

The truth is that nations mind their own internal political affairs. No country should dictate to the other what type of government. Let the citizens of any country find ways to resolve their problems.  Throwing in the towel by ignoring the bully tactics of the West is to say the least defeatist and a minus for our humanity.

[Foday Morris]

Anunoby, Ogugua <Anun...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
"Every one paying attention knows that foreign policy is about protecting a country’s national interest. The foreign policies of the major western countries (western powers) have therefore always been informed by the countries’ conceived or perceived national interest.  If this is recognized and understood, there will be no need to waste valuable time alleging inconsistency in the policies. There is no inconsistency"

Good greetings Ogugua,

When there was famine in Sudan and other places the West rendered humanitarian assistance.  When Japan was recently struck by an earth the entire world including the West lavished aid on that country.  Sometimes the West gives humanitarian and/or military assistance to save humanity.  Are you saying, the foreign police of the West does not include humanitarian assistance and it is not in their national interest?  How do you determine a country's national interest? - considering humanitarian and military assistance.

This excerpt is culled from the USAID website, (emphasis are mine)

"The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country. It is this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the world -- and shows the world our true character as a nation.

U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world. Spending less than one-half of 1 percent of the federal budget, USAID works around the world to achieve these goals.

USAID's history goes back to the Marshall Plan reconstruction of Europe after World War Two and the Truman Administration's Point Four Program. In 1961, the Foreign Assistance Act was signed into law and USAID was created by executive order.

Since that time, USAID has been the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms."

Source:  http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/

I would argue that humanitarian aid is foreign policy that is also in the national interest of every nation that renders such assistance.   Yes in deed there is inconsistency and such is is made clear with how Ivory Coast is treated compared to the very quick action in Libya.   I fully support the actions in Libya but would have like to see the same actions in Ivory Coast, where Gbagbo is removed from power just as  actions underway to neutralize Gadafi.  There is inconsistency all over the place my friend.

Best regards,
Foday Morris

 "We must all be ready now to embrace change, change in our attitude towards one another, change in our attitude to our work and responsibilities.  All of those changes should translate positively into progress and development for our country,” 
His Excellency, Dr. Ernest B. Koroma.

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

Humanitarian aid yes but why does it happen? What are the benefits to the giver? What is the cost to the recipient? There are at least two ways to garner influence namely the hard way and the soft way. Humanitarian aid is one of the soft ways. Humanitarian aid hopefully wins friends for the  giver and may therefore reduce the number of real and potential opponents/enemies. Humanitarian aid makes is recipient more compliant to the giver.

Mugabe’s Zimbabwe receives much less humanitarian aid from some western countries today than she did before Mugabe’s problems with some of the countries. Have the western countries become less kind and generous? The answer of course is “No”.  The denial of humanitarian aid can be a foreign policy instrument, sometimes an effective one. Is it not the case that South Korea gives humanitarian aid to the people’s Republic  of North Korea to influence her behavior and reduces or discontinues humanitarian aid when the expected response is not forthcoming?  Humanitarian aid is an integral part of foreign policy . Would a country offer needed humanitarian aid to another country that she is at war with, if humanitarian aid will not strategically benefit the giver country, or will  prolong the war ? Answer truthfully if you will.

 

oa

MARKETPLACE

Error! Filename not specified.

---

Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!

Error! Filename not specified.

Error! Filename not specified.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

Error! Filename not specified.

__,_._,___

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

What truth my dear Steve?

There is aspiration. There is reality. They are not always in consonance. Was Libya always a country? Who created Libya as a country? How old is Libya as a country?

The world does not always work as we will like it to. Countries try to dominate others with a view to controlling a greater share of the world’s resources. It is not for nothing that countries seek strategic competitive advantage in international relations.

 

oa.

[kenneth harrow]

there is no such thing as a western way of thinking.
there are lots of problematic ways to put together knowledge, but it isn't geography that creates it, and even history's role is a divided one.
to lock us in to such formulae is to arrest critical thought.
ken

[Mensah, Edward K.]

Rosemary the Decider of Africanness

Broadly classifying certain people as Western thinkers is your attempt
to derail all rational debates. In essence, your 'western thinkers' are at
least cognitively non-African. In your way of thinking, which to me is
quite non-African, only Western thinkers see Ghaddafi, a guy who has
funded more wars and rebellions in Africa than any leader in modern
African history--from Iddi Amin's Uganda to Sierra leone, Chad, Liberia,
Northern Nigeria, Southern Sudan, etc,.--as a murderer, opportunist,
megalomaniac, and a supreme dictator. And to real African thinkers he does
no wrong. Is that what you are saying? Or, inspite of all the problems he
has been causing in Africa over the past 4 decades, he will always be a
saint to real African thinkers,right?. Some of us will disagree with this
line of thinking. I do not respect or honor your credentials to decide on
who are the real African thinkers.

Best Regards

Kwaku Mensah
Chicago

, March 24, 2011 5:13 pm, ROSEMARY MWENJA wrote:
> Who is the oppressor and who is not? You are allowing yourself to be drawn
> into the Western way of thinking, The fact of the matter is that this is
> an internal matter and very suspect at how it started. Who are these

> rebels? What is their agenda? How different what they want from what

[Jaye Gaskia]

My immediate contribution here will be to simply say that there is more to
Africanness than the mere historical accident of skin pigmentation or geography!
Ofcourse Africanness has its origins in those two criterias, but surely ones
thought processes and actions needs to be liberating and not oppressive of
Africa and Africans for one to qualify as an African Thinker?
Regards,
Jaye

[Jaye Gaskia]

It is neither western nor eastern; northern nor southern, to identify in thought what exists in reality: the presence in human communities of oppressors and oppressed; exploiters and exploited; those who control power and wealth, and those who lack wealth and power.

 

And whereas a particular country's leadership may be anti imperialist in its relationship with the power centres of imperialism; within the country itself, that leadership may actually be the repressive representative of the exploiting and oppressing classes superintending on a very inhuman systems which simultaneously produces massive wealth in a few hands, and mass misery among the generality of citizens.

Jaye

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 3:29:29 AM

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Thanks, Edward Mensah, for succinctly capturing my thoughts on Rosemary's cheap tactic of resorting to the labeling game. It is indeed emotional blackmail designed to close shut down rational debate. When logic and facts are not on their side, they resort to the canard of who is "Western" or not Western in their thinking---whatever that means. Bode has eloquently addressed the philosophical peril of always and mechanically opposing all things Western. Why, for goodness sake, can't we examine what the West does and does not do on a case by case basis. Pointing out hypocrisies and inconsistencies is okay. But using that to critique what was clearly an intervention to save the population of a city from imminent, declared, no-mercy genocide (an intervention that was actively solicited by the audacious but outgunned rebels and their non-combatant supporters, by the way) then it ceases to be a mere critique of the well known Western double standards and morphs into something else. Why do we have to overcomplicate matters? When does complication become complicity? We have to be skeptical and vigilant. If the intervention exceeds its mandate and transitions into familiar imperial territories, we should pounce. But for now, we should all be happy that a genocidal dictator was prevented from decimating the people of Benghazi, whom he vowed not to show mercy to. Ghadafi's many crimes against Africa--the Africa he claims to love-- should strip him of any Pan-African sympathies. But if pan-AfriKans (note the uppercase "K") want to cheerlead him into continental heroism, it is their prerogative.

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


---Mohandas Gandhi

[wa...@comcast.net]

Ibironke,

 

"It is thus on the record that in the desperate struggle of people in North Africa to throw off the yoke of oppression, certain AfriKan intellectuals were solidly on the side of their oppressors!!!"

This is where you miss the import of this discussion. No one contends that struggling people cannot throw away the yoke of oppression. The methodology is the question, and the forked tongue of the imperialist nations of the world? Yes, the lack of moral authority of an external bully nation to inject herself into the authentic struggle of a people who may have reasons for clamoring for a change in leadership.

 

Dancing around this matter as if economic interests were not the motivation for the West's involvement is disingenuous and places on record the Janus face of some African intellectuals, who would rather follow than to lead!

 

Steve Nwabuzor

 

 Original Message -----
From: "Jaye Gaskia " <ogb...@yahoo.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:48:23 AM

[ROSEMARY MWENJA]

I am an African and I would never think that my people are inferior and therefore needing the West or an outside power to tell them how to think or do things. That is the Western way of thinking, take it or leave it but it is true. There is no need for circumlocution, because it becomes mundane in the process.   Yes there will be oppressors and oppressed in the world. That is the world we live in. But can we a least agree that in the same way that America oppresses some of it's citizens and has a history of doing so, yet without outside interference, in the same way other nations have the right to be left alone to determine their destiny.   People can only accept oppression to a certain extent because it gets to a time that they decide enough is enough and stand up to change the dynamics. This is what happened to African nations before Independence. And let us remind ourselves that the freedom fighters were called terrorist by the colonialists.   Their colonial masters had weapons far more superior than their machete and arrows yet they prevailed. They did not have America sending their fighter jet plane to bomb their nation as means of helping them dismantle the colonialist, but they organized themselves and vowed to fight until they succeeded.   That is my stance in the Libya saga   --- On Fri, 3/25/11, Jaye Gaskia <ogb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ROSEMARY MWENJA]

I am amazed at how my comment has unnerved many. I wonder why? We are a product of our experiences and that has a big influence in how we think. If you have been part of the oppressor you think in a particular way. If you are the oppressed you think in a particular way. Then there is the saying that "if you can't beat them, join them" crops in. In my humble opinion that is how most educated Africans think.         --- On Thu, 3/24/11, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:

[ROSEMARY MWENJA]

" I do not respect or honor your credentials to decide on who are the real African thinkers"

With the greatest respect to you Mensah, you have turned personal. Why turn into sarcasm? You are being dishonest with your self to suggest that a person in the West thinks in the same way as that of African. How can they when their experiences are different? Please read my comments without emotions and deciphere correctly what I am saying.

--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mensah, Edward K. <deha...@uic.edu> wrote:

From: Mensah, Edward K. <deha...@uic.edu>

[kenneth harrow]

this is called determinism. marxism 101 teaches us that the revolution
comes because people refuse to accept determinist thinking, both the
oppressors, from which the vanguard is to come, and the oppressed whose
consciousness is not immutably determined by the ruling class.
who today would accept determinism like this? you would have people
thinking like objects,as though they had no agency to determine how to
think.
ken

On 3/25/11 1:19 PM, ROSEMARY MWENJA wrote:
> We are a product of our experiences and that has a big influence in
> how we think. If you have been part of the oppressor you think in a
> particular way. If you are the oppressed you think in a particular way.

--

[Edward Mensah]

Rosemary,

 

I never intended to offend you. Sorry from deep inside  my heart if I did. My upbringing as a Zongoman ( Ghanaians on this forum know what I mean and the Nigerians who know Sabon Garis will appreciate it), does not prepare me to understand the breadth of experiences of all Ghanaians, let alone the Zulus of South Africa or Bantus of Cameroon, or the Baganda of Uganda. That is, there is no universal African thought process. We all sympathize will the plight of our continent. But in no way do we all think alike.  And I have come across many citizens of different non-African countries who, as Africanists, love Africa as much as any African I have met. Some even more!!  If our leaders love Africa how come they go for simple medical checkups at Mayo Clinic when the hospitals in  Africa are falling apart?

 I always refuse to be pigeonholed.

 

Kwaku Mensah

Chicago

[Okafor, Chinyere]

Rosemary makes very good points in her piece. I think that people have digressed from its main import about outside intrusion in internal national matters and the moral authority of the intruders. As for her reference to Western and African thinking, who can really claim not to have some of the western when we all use the language of western thought? The main issue is about the suffering of people in Libya in the hands of internal gunfire and external bombardment.

Professor Chinyere G. Okafor, Ph.D
Department of Women's Studies & Religion
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
Phone: (316) 978-6264, fax (316) 978-3186
E-mail: chinyer...@wichita.edu
URL <http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/handle/10057/1222>
<http://webs.wichita.edu/wmstudy/faculty.html><http://www.chiwrite.com/>
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [har...@msu.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:49 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

this is called determinism. marxism 101 teaches us that the revolution

--

[kenneth harrow]

i am so disappointed that after all the millions dead in rwanda and the
drc that this opposition to outside intervention is made. it is an
argument that dismisses any need to oppose genocide or its equivalent.
where is the moral compass here?
ken

On 3/26/11 12:20 PM, Okafor, Chinyere wrote:
> Rosemary makes very good points in her piece. I think that people have digressed from its main import about outside intrusion in internal national matters and the moral authority of the intruders. As for her reference to Western and African thinking, who can really claim not to have some of the western when we all use the language of western thought? The main issue is about the suffering of people in Libya in the hands of internal gunfire and external bombardment.
>
> Professor Chinyere G. Okafor, Ph.D

> Department of Women's Studies& Religion

> Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
> Phone: (316) 978-6264, fax (316) 978-3186
> E-mail: chinyer...@wichita.edu
> URL<http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/handle/10057/1222>
> <http://webs.wichita.edu/wmstudy/faculty.html><http://www.chiwrite.com/>
> ________________________________________
> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [har...@msu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:49 PM
> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya&Gaddafi: A Must Read

[Dr. Emmanuel Franklyne Ogbunwezeh]

Ken,

Good Morning. What Most of the arguments here lack is exactly that: Moral compass! You get this when academics betray their vocationa and allows themselves to become Thermometers that rise and fall according to the temperatures of popular opinion.

Dr. Franklyne Emmanuel Ogbunwezeh

[mbay...@msu.edu]

The banalization/ghettoization of Pan-Afrikanism in recent years has made it impossible for some of us (Pan-Afrikanists) to see beyond the pro-Western and anti-Western binary. In effect, we have learned nothing from the experiences in Rwanda, DRC, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and more recently Cote d'Ivoire. Even when Ghadaffi is slaughtering his own people, because he is a "Pan-Afrikanist," we see no moral responsibility in stopping (be it by a Western coalition force or Libyan anti-Ghadaffi revolutionaries).

Tamba M'bayo
Hope College, MI

[kenneth harrow]

hi franklyne
it can be popular opinion, or other factors that distort the debate. can't help but think of this old title: "La Trahison des clercs," 1920s title. here's the wiki blurb on it:
Benda is now mostly remembered for his short 1927 book La Trahison des Clercs, a work of some notoriety in its day. The title of the English translation was The Betrayal of the Intellectuals, although "The Treason of the Learned" would have been more accurate. This polemical essay argued that French and German intellectuals in the 19th and 20th century had often lost the ability to reason dispassionately about political and military matters, instead becoming apologists for crass nationalism, warmongering and racism. Benda reserved his harshest criticisms for his fellow Frenchmen Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès.

ahidjo's speech writer, sengat-kuo, was regarded by cameroon watchers as one; another was the inexplicable support and participation in the regime which oyono lent to both rulers. power attracts intellectuals as well as anyone else, and i don't even want to think about those in zimbabwe who now find excuses for supporting what our former hero mugabe has become.
i know people disagree in honest debate, and that is the case here. but the disregard for so many lives on grounds that seem to me to be ideological spouting reminds me so much of walcott's poem "The SPoiler's Return," one of my favorites.
here are some lines:
"All those who promise free and just debate,
then blow up radicals to save the state,
who allow, in democracy's defense,
a parliament of spiked heads on a fence,
all you go bawl out, 'Spoils, things ain't so bad,'
This ain't the Dark Age, is just Trinidad,
is human nature, SPoiler, after all,
it ain't big genocide, is just bohbohl,
safe and conservative, 'fraid to take side,
they say that ROdney commit suicide,
is the same voices that, in the slave ship,
smile at their brothers, 'Boy is just the whip,'
I free and easy, you see me have chain?
A little censorship can't cause no pain
a little graft can't rot the human mind,
what sweet in goat-mouth sour in his behind
So i sing with Atilla, I sing with Commander,
what right in Guyana, right in Uganda."

ken

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

This is merely a continuation of my commentary on Museveni's article
above. Of course, I do not write to him " Your humble servant" etc. ,
because I am not his humble servant.

I will continue with my commentary and if it is rejected here - again
- then there is no point in me being here, and as I should say to
Gaddafi in the name of the same freedom that I have so too you could
say to me : Good riddance - and that would in no way bother me
whatsoever.

So here' my last try at posting my opinion:

http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/2011/03/26/libya-re-that-article-by-president-yoweri-kaguta-museveni-of-uganda-2/

> ...
>
> read more »

[Esi Bani]

Many commenting on the intervention in Libya are truly trapped in history. It's frightening. It looks like while the people fighting and DYING for their freedoms in the streets of North Africa and the Middle East are redefining the paradigms useful for the 21st century, many on here are embarrassingly trapped in the past and textbook quarterbacking. Seriously, it is no wonder as academics, we get dismissed as pointy-headed fossils clueless in a world changing around us at warp speed.

It is pathetic how some Africanists cling for dear life to the colonial/ neo-colonial prism of analysis for EVERY single situation no matter what. So are the defenders of Ghaddafy saying that his so-called bona fides as "anti-imperialist' trump the the yearning of his citizens NOW for a change in dispensation? How patronizing. Whatever happened to the basic idea that leaders, no matter how charismatic, should govern with the CONSENT of their people; that they leave power within a constitutionally defined term in office, and/or when that consent dries up? The argument that Gaddafy has done so much that Libyans should be "grateful" for is insulting. The country is NOT Gadaffy's personal property, and doing right by one's people is not an excuse to subject said people to "benevolent" subjugation. This is the sickness that has kept autocrats in power long past their "sell-by" dates.

The rest of the African continent that has not yet extracted itself from the stifling grip of octogenarian autocrats can borrow a page from their scrappy North African peers who decided that holding their own leaders accountable for their miseries was a more productive use of their energies. It is time for Africa's old guard to go. Period. No one can have any more useful ideas for governing after 8-10 years in power. No leader is indispensable no matter how wonderful the revolutionary credentials that brought them into power. The young generation of Africa and the Middle East is starving for the opportunity to remold their coutnries, and even make their own mistakes, in this new century. Is that too much to ask without the ivory-towered furrowed brows brigade snarling at them for "aiding" the scary "western imperialist powers"?

 

Esi Bani

---

From: Dr. Emmanuel Franklyne Ogbunwezeh <ogbun...@yahoo.com>
To: "usaafric...@googlegroups.com" <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, March 27, 2011 3:26:32 AM

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read

[Pius Adesanmi]

Ken, Franklyne, Esi Bani: The thing tire me o. They are saying that Gaddaffi is AfriKan and Gbagbo is AfriCan. All it takes for genocide and sit tightism to be acceptable to these pan-AfriKan enemies of neocolonialism and imperialism is for the perpetrator to be an AfriKan and not an AfriCan leader. Our spellin bee pan-Afrikanists will never cease to amaze! Lesson: had Nigeria's Sani Abacha and Uganda's Idi Amin been sensible enough to build a pan-AfriKanist legacy under their heaps of corpses, Mwalimu Bangura and co would be out praising and defending them today! Pius --- On Sun, 27/3/11, Esi Bani <alea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

But, Pius, don't forget that the great pan-AfriKan, Louis Farrakhan, vigorously defended Abacha in an infamous interview that has since gone viral. Farrakhan's defense of Abacha mirrors the cookie-cutter pan-AfriKanism of today's defenders of Gadaffi. A key theme in Farrakhan's defense is the same familiar, lazy critique of European imperialism, neocolonialism, and resource-grabbing violence. To every reference to Abacha's atrocities by the interviewer, Farrakhan responded by pointing to America's double standards, history of state-sanctioned violence, genocidal imperialism, etc--as if that made it okay for Abacha to brutalize his compatriots. Farrakhan infamously concluded his pro-Abacha lecture by uttering these defeatist, exculpatory, immortal words: "there is no country without problems." History is always a guide in these things. Our new pan-AfriKan friends are merely recycling themes from the Farrakhan anti-imperialist, pro-Abacha playbook.