[Talk] Fw: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues - Issue No. 16/2005, 28 Feb- 2 March 2005
Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues Issue No. 16/2005, 28 Feb- 2 March 2005 Editorial JAMMEH, THE SECURITY SITUATION AND THE PRESS The development in the country confirms that if all sectors of society take ownership of the country it will go in the direction that people want and all those who go in the opposite direction will be left behind by events. When Deyda was murdered the press did not consider itself small and weak. It boldly took the initiative to safeguard its place and space in the democratic process. It was conscious of the fact that the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the unions and all other associations have their places and spaces in a sovereign nation. It therefore held a procession and made its demands. The demands were threefold: First, they wanted to know how far the police had gone with their investigation into the allegation that some security forces were responsible for the arson attack of the Independent printing press. What is the state of the demand? At least, for the first time the journalists were informed that the accused were called for questioning. The Gambia Press Union is yet to declare whether the answers to these enquiries are satisfactory to them or not. Secondly, the journalists demanded an end to the use of vehicles without number plates. The representative of the police force had a long interview with GRTS to condemn such a practice. This means that the demands of the journalists are not based on anti-government sentiments but were reasonable and just. Thirdly, the journalists called for the establishment of a mobile patrol with a number for emergency calls. The Ex-Inspector General of Police had given a number and cautioned against abuse of the number. There is no doubt that with mobile phones everywhere the type of hit and run tactic that Deyda was subjected to can be nipped in the bud if there is an efficient mobile police patrol twenty four hours a day in high density areas. Instead of praising the responsible initiative of the journalists and criticize the action of his government for failing to show solidarity by restricting the process to journalists, continuing his students party on the day Deyda was buried, he continued to be out of tune with the demands of the moment by defending draconian press laws which impose imprisonment without an option of a fine or upper limits to term of imprisonment. This is what is being criticized. Nobody has blamed the government for killing Deyda. People are suspicious of the shooting of Ousman Sillah, the burning of machines of the Independent, the arson attacks against Radio One FM. What government should always do is to speak to the occasion to allay fears rather than use such sensitive moments to spit fire on journalists. What President Jammeh should come to terms with is that he is in full control of GRTS and has been using this powerful tool which is state property established through a loan by Libya which Gambians are still paying for to insult tribes and individuals which deserves charges of libel but he is above the law on libel and would not be impeached by his own National Assembly for violations of the constitution. In FOROYAAs view, the Gambian press is unique in the world in that they even try to prolong debates between opponents by approaching the other side for comments whenever something is said by one side. Hence if the APRC or President Jammeh fails to get his ideas published then they have themselves to blame. We are hundred percent sure that if the president wishes to respond to anything said in the press he will have free access. May be he does not need the non-government press because he has the state media at his disposal. May be the opposition who have no access to the state media to respond to his attacks need the non-government press. Instead of alleging that the journalists are opponents of the government he should open up the state media like in Benin, Senegal, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, etc to divergent views. In this regard The Gambia is far behind and this is what should preoccupy the president, respect section 207 of the constitution and allow Neneh Macdoll and Kebba Dibba not only to interview him but also to interview the opposition to enable them to respond to his allegations. If he does not do this then he should know that the Gambian non-government media which allow divergent views to be expressed is more principled than he wants to give them credit for. WATER PROBLEM AT THE AIRPORT By Abdoulie Dibba On Tuesday 22ndFebruary 2005, the water supply of the Airport failed to function. When this reporter made enquiry as to whether there was a breakdown, he was informed that there was none. The lack of water is a characteristic feature of the famous utility company, NAWEC. Tuesdays, according to the workers at the Airport, are one of the busiest days. On this particular day, six flights were to land and others to take off with their passengers. The water shortage however posed
[Talk] Fw: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues - Issue No. 17/2005, 3-6 March 2005
Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues Issue No. 17/2005, 3-6 March 2005 Editorial THE PRESIDENT ADDRESSES PARLIAMENT TODAY The President is to address Parliament today on the state of the nation. The 1997 constitution states that, "The President shall at least once in each year attend a sitting of the National Assembly and address a session on the condition of The Gambia, the policies of the government and the administration of the state." The constitution is very clear on what it expects the President to do. The President is expected to speak on three subjects, that is, the condition of The Gambia, the policies of the government and the administration of the state. If the President wants to be listened to he must adhere to the dictates of the constitution rather than say what pleases him. A private person is free to say what he desires but as representative of his / her electorate such a representative would not utter any word that would be prejudicial to the rights and legitimate interest of any person or group. The nation hopes that with a new Alliance promising to put an end to the politics of slander, character assassination, patronage and intimidation and its replacement with the politics based on enlightenment, principles, policies and programmes a new President would be born, a President who would elaborate on the principles, policies and programmes of the government and avail himself and respond to the criticism of those who are opposed to them and leave the masses to decide which opinion to accept. Take the issue of the amendment of the Criminal Code regarding sedition and libel. The President keeps on arguing that journalists do not want laws designed to deter seditious and libelous publication. The fact of the matter is that such laws already exist and newspapers have grappled with libel cases. What the whole world disagrees with is to impose penalties such as custodial sentences without upper limits and without the option of a fine. This is not acceptable in any civilized society. No civilized and democratic minded person will ever accept such draconian provisions. Leaders who defy common sense must be pushed by ones unacceptable conduct to accept the dictates of common sense. Look at Tony Blair in Britain. He has to become very apologetic to the British people in order to seek public approval of his candidature. Leaders who cannot humble themselves to the people cannot be heads in a republic. A republic is fundamentally different from a monarchy because leadership is derived from popular consent. The problem of the present regime is due to its birth. It came through the barrel of a gun and cannot acknowledge that such a regime could not have survived even a day in present day Africa. Africa has changed forever as Eyademas son has just learnt. The regime should also forget its past and live in accordance with the principles of governance of present day Africa. It must accept diversity and exercise tolerance. It must seek to adhere to the principles of best practice. In this way, even if it is no longer there it would have left a foundation to build upon rather than a hole to fill or dustbin to clear. All of us must wait what 2005 will bring. The next issue will bring it out in full. Amadou Samba Claims He Owns Ladulaba As Shell Company Clarifies By Yahya Dampha In Issue No. 14/2005, Foroyaa published the allocation of land situated in Mandinary, called Ladulaba to Shell Oil Company, in their bid to relocate their storage tanks outside the city of Banjul. It was reported among other things in the article that the said land is where the community of Mandinary and its surrounding villages cultivate rice and do some fishing; that Shell Oil Company were to pay the villagers an amount of D7 million; that an initial amount of D1 million was brought to the villagers who shared it among themselves which caused some rift among villagers as some claimed that the sharing was not done fairly. At the time of going to press, all efforts to contact Shell Company proved futile. After the publication of Issue No. 14/2005 of Foroyaa, we got in touch with Shell Oil Company to seek more clarification. This was what the country representative of Shell Mr. Tsegaye Degefu had to say to our reporter. "We are very happy about such positive development and welcomed such initiative by people to diversify the service delivery of oil products in the country. But however, we want to bring this to the notice of your paper in particular and the general public at large that my company is not part of any group of people who want to operate Mandinary and we have absolutely no business there." The same message was reiterated by the marketing manager Mr. Lang Conteh. Foroyaa decided to mount a vigorous investigative campaign in order to shed more light on the whole story. First and foremost, our reporter came to understand that the people of the village were unable to differentiate the various oil companies, Total, Elf,
[Talk] Fwd: Bush picks right-wing attack dog as UN ambassador
Bush picks right-wing attack dog as UN ambassador http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/bolt-m09.shtml By Bill Van Auken9 March 2005 The nomination of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations has decisively refuted media speculation that in its second term the Bush administration is turning toward multilateralism and reconciliation with erstwhile allies estranged by the illegal US war in Iraq. Bolton, more than any figure in the Washington foreign policy establishment, personifies the administrations rejection of international law and reliance upon unilateral military aggression as its preferred instrument for pursuing US imperialist interests. Choosing Bolton as its ambassador is an unmistakable attack on the United Nations itself and a warning that the Bush administration will actively pursue its destruction if it fails to subordinate itself fully to US global strategic objectives. Boltons views on the United Nations are well known. In 1994, while biding his time in right-wing think tanks between the administrations of Bush senior and Bush junior, he spoke on a panel organized by the World Federalist Association, declaring, There is no such thing as the United Nations. He added, If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldnt make a bit of difference. During the same period, he advocated a complete cutoff of US dues owed to the UN. On January 1, 2000more than year before George W. Bush took officeBolton wrote an article in the right-wing Weekly Standard vilifying UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and affirming the policy of unprovoked militarism that would become the administrations hallmark. He described as the Annan doctrine the rather unremarkable assertion by the UN secretary general that the UNs Security Council was the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force. Bolton warned, If the United States allows that claim to go unchallenged, its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future. This was no mere ideological assertion. By that time, Bolton and other right-wing Republicans who were to make up the Bush administration already had well-developed plans for the unilateral use of US force in invading and occupying Iraq. In the late 1990s, Bolton was a director of the Project for a New American Century, an outfit that included most of those who were to constitute the Bush administrations national security command. The PNAC drew up explicit plans for the conquest of Iraq well before the pretexts of September 11 and weapons of mass destruction were developed by Washington. Bolton played a key role in the Republican theft of the 2000 election. After the Supreme Courts decision halting the ballot count, he marched into the Tallahassee, Florida library where state officials were counting Miami-Dade ballots and declared, Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and Im here to stop the vote. After Bushs inauguration, Bolton was installed at the State Department as the undersecretary for arms control. The title smacked of nothing so much as the Ministry of Peace in George Orwells 1984. Bolton opposed virtually every treaty written to limit arms production and distribution. Like other members of the Republican right, Bolton opposed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He likewise came out against a ban on chemical weapons and even nuclear test ban treaties, declaring that supporters of such bans were misguided individuals following a timid and neo-pacifist line of thought. In 2001, he scuttled a UN conference called to confront illegal trafficking in small arms by affirming that Washington would reject any treaty that restricted the right of the US constitutional right to bear arms. A subsequent UN meeting called in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to draft measures to strengthen a treaty restricting biological weapons by imposing verification procedures was similarly sabotaged by Boltons efforts. According to one report, he gloated in his success in killing the deal, telling State Department colleagues, Its dead, dead, dead, and I dont want it coming back from the dead. His hostility to such treaties, however, was based on fundamental principle rather than their specific merits. He essentially opposed any subordination of US policy to international law. In 1999 he declared, It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so, because over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States. Bolton took responsibility for the unsigning of the treaty founding the International Criminal Court in 2002, a direct assertion of US unilateralism and a warning that Washington was embarked on a policy of aggression that would produce multiple war crimes. While the treaty did not fall under his jurisdiction as undersecretary for arms
