Mary Nje
And at a certain point one wonders if we as Africans are not taken for fools,
let us go back to Iddi Amin for a moment. This president was brought to power
by the British them selves, just this last week-end I posted a whole piece on
how they prepared and brought him to power, I was personally in Kampala on the
January morning of 1971 when he took over the government and the soldiers that
captured Kampala Road were commanded by an Israeli Colonel Balevi and a couple
of British soldiers. Iddi Amin's best advisor was Bob Astles another British.
Not a Ugandan but a British. The moment Iddi Amin directed the Indians to
leave Uganda, then only then did he become an enemy of the West. Yet when he
came to power Amin was recognised by Callaghan as the best president Uganda
will ever have. That is what really makes me so angry with the Pat Anderson's
of today that decide to lick a head of state when he is used by the West. On
record there is no single African leader who fights for his nation that is
praised by the West. Absolutely none.
And you stand up and talk such crap about a man that has not only fought for
his nation but sacrificed every thing he had for the whites to stop using
electricity into Pigs farms when the Zimbabweans that were taking out their
shit do not. The Pigs of the British looters in Zimbabwe had power into their
kraals but the Zimbabweans that were looking after them were denied a right to
electricity in their houses. So to the British in Zimbabwe the Pigs had a more
right than the Zimbabweans that took care of them.
And Pat Anderson for she is a white fails to recognise all those factors but
defends the British to regain their own to the lands of Zimbabwe. But not only
that but Africans like Chifu Wa Malindi forget all those mistreatment of their
own and moderate the postings we make to make these facts public. Let them put
all embargoes to the Zimbabweans, let them terrorise every body to death for
they have an illusion that they own the world, but there was no single British
that stood up and created Zimbabwe it was Zimbabweans behind Mugaabe. And there
is absolutely no one with a right to re write that history.
Changes will happen in Zimbabwe, but it will be the Zimbabweans to decide when
to implement those changes not Pat Anderson not Eddie Cross not Chifu Wa
Malindi and not Professor George Ayittey. But Zimbabweans, and when we reach
this point let me state too, that the land of Zimbabwe is gone, whether Mugabe
is in power or not and the Pat Anderson's of today better learn to live with it.
And soon but very soon the land of Kenya will be returned to the Kenyans too.
It is only when.
EM
Toronto
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"
----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Nje
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL
PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Re: [Mwananchi] Zimbabwe: What a Shame, the AU
Defends Mugabe
MsJoe,
That was a good response. It is beyond comprehension that many have fallen
prey to the false propaganda from western media about Mugabe.
President Mugabe remains a prime case-study of what Africans should expect
when the pick on western interest to protect their country. Yes he is not a
saint just like the Iraqis will not view Tony Blair or Brown as any saint.
Thank God South Africa has step up at the right moment to help. The people of
Zimbabwe in particular and that of the entire southern part of Africa have
experienced one of the most in-human treatment mankind has ever seen, thanks to
the colonial effort of the UK. Now it is time to get some Justice, at least
justice to own their own land.
Mugabe has been a crusader for most of his life. Thank God he now has the
continent of Africa behind him, at least with regard to this summit.
Robert Mugabe, history will have it that you remain an African Hero.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello E. Ablorh-Odjidja:
Your article is a pedestrian walk of annoyance. I don't know what
octogenarian has to do with it except to serve for your venting. Shimon Peres,
a month shy of his 84th birthday, was sworn in as the President of Israel, and
will be 91 years old at the completion of his term. On February 25, 2007,
President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal won re-election for a second term. He is 81
and his term does not expire until 2012. So how is President Mugabe's age of
prime relevance? The queen of England does not appear to hand over the reigns
at 82.
Your article should be the object of pity if you believe the African Union
needs to be the whip for Gordon Brown and for the AU to succumb to EU
blackmails. The EU-AU Summit has been postponed since 2003. Be reminded that
some EU nations are becoming weary of UK's protracted need to engulf the whole
of Europe over this. That is why the conference will take place with or without
Gordon Brown. That much is clear.
You wrote: "Of course, the EU is not seeking to bar Zimbabwe from the
Lisbon summit. It is only seeking to block Mugabe from attendance. Any high
ranking official from Zimbabwe can represent the country."
My response: You invoke the colonial sensibilities where the masters
appoint who is appropriate to represent their colonies. What errant temerity!
Under what principle does the EU seek to engage the AU in EU's psychological,
political and economic warfare with President Mugabe? The EU may decide who is
a member of EU; not who is a member of good standing in AU.
You wrote: "Clearly, the AU principles mentioned have to be about the
special rights given only to dictators on the continent - to the detriment of
the sensibilities of the rest of us. No wonder the genocide in Darfur
is at an impasse and Sudan still remains a member of the AU. When it comes
to doing the right thing for Africa, this organization, it seems, constantly
remains flummoxed. This fealty or sympathy for
Mugabe is a perfect example."
My response: E. Ablorh-Odjidja, in your juxtaposing, you appear to be very
confused and uninformed. Alliances do not necessarily eject members because of
internal disputes. If so, it would be termed abnormal that in 1945, when 50
countries met in San Francisco for the United Nations, it was under the aegis
of the US, when the US was an abuser of human rights with its segregationist
policies. When the US lost automatic majority in the UN Generally Assembly with
the growing Afro-Asian block becoming members and Latin countries shifting from
pro-US stance, it joined Russia to limit UN power and authority, reserving
major issues within the purview of the Security Council whether 5 nations have
veto power. The result is inaction and undemocratic processes in addressing
world affairs.
If you have been writing, the brilliance of the ECOMOG force in containing
the Sierra Leone debacle should not have escaped your mention as a model to
emulate. But why was ECOMOMG replaced? If the African Union force lacks
capacity, it would occur to any honest person that fortifying an African Union
force should be the priority; not the thinly veiled monster called Africom? Go
do your history.
Please, take your preaching to Africans who have no clue of the dynamics at
play. But more Africans are become astute with critical thinking.
You wrote: " Mugabe has for long stirred up anger within the international
community on human rights issues."
Response: Can you explain, just one example, what Mugabe does, which
approximates the worse things Musharaff of Pakistan does? But Musharaff, who
just won elections in army uniform, is a bosom ally of those who are vilifying
Mugabe and imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe. You don't even have the courage of
your conviction to simply say British and her allies in the West. Don't wrap
"international community" around "vested interests."
You wrote: "But most of the harm he has caused to date, he has done to his
own people and neighbors.
Question: And you do not think payments by British intelligence to MDC is
harmful to the sovereignty of a nation?
You wrote: "His land reform effort, a complete fiasco stemming from a bad
policy, has broken the
back of the once healthy Zimbabwean economy."
Question: Are you not being ridiculous to link domestic policies with the
need to ban Mugabe from attending an international conference?
You wrote: Granted that Britain happens to be a former colonial master and
is to a great extent responsible for much of the land trouble in Zimbabwe, it
is still not a good reason for Africa to help Zimbabwe cut its
nose to spite its face.
Response: You are truly worthy of pity. If people wondered how Africa
readily succumbed to colonization and its erosive effect on African mentality,
you are a recipe for a laboratory. If nations allowed themselves to be
controlled because they need to be feed, there would be strings of puppet
republics. Precisely,
"International community" has $10 billion ready for regime change. That is
inducement enough not cut your nose to spite your face..erhh stomach.
MsJoe
In a message dated 10/9/2007 1:10:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
Zimbabwe: What a Shame, the AU Defends Mugabe
Accra Mail (Accra)
E. Ablorh-Odjidja
Ghanadot
Well, it never changes when you least expect it to. Leaders of the AU
are out again in support of Mugabe, the octogenarian, in his latest
tiff with the EU. The appeal by EU to dissuade the Zimbabwean
president from attending the Lisbon summit has failed. The unanimity
of the decision and the reasons given for the support are enough to
make you pity Africa.
"The African Union wants all African countries to take part in the
summit in Lisbon in December", said an official from the AU.
"Zimbabwe, in spite of the crisis, is an African country and we are
defending principles here. We have asked Mugabe to talk to his
opposition, but the AU respects the principle of non-interference. We
resort to interference only in extreme cases of violence or
genocide." The official continued.
It is exactly difficult to understand what principles this man is
talking about. Of course, the EU is not seeking to bar Zimbabwe from
the Lisbon summit. It is only seeking to block Mugabe from
attendance. Any high ranking official from Zimbabwe can represent the
country.
Clearly, the AU principles mentioned have to be about the special
rights given only to dictators on the continent - to the detriment of
the sensibilities of the rest of us. No wonder the genocide in Darfur
is at an impasse and Sudan still remains a member of the AU. When it
comes to doing the right thing for Africa, this organization, it
seems, constantly remains flummoxed. This fealty or sympathy for
Mugabe is a perfect example.
Mugabe has for long stirred up anger within the international
community on human rights issues. But most of the harm he has caused
to date, he has done to his own people and neighbors. His land reform
effort, a complete fiasco stemming from a bad policy, has broken the
back of the once healthy Zimbabwean economy.
Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world, said to be
about 1 million percent and rising, and according to the United
Nations Economic Commission, the worst economic performance in Africa.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, continuing his country's policy
on Zimbabwe, is eager to push Mugabe out of office. His effort
concerning the Lisbon summit is for this purpose. But it may fail
because of the unanimity of Africa's support for Mugabe.
Granted that Britain happens to be a former colonial master and is to
a great extent responsible for much of the land trouble in Zimbabwe,
it is still not a good reason for Africa to help Zimbabwe cut its
nose to spite its face. After all, who is hurting now, the British or
the Zimbabweans? It will take a lot of callousness on the part of AU
officials to defend Mugabe, but they do.
"It (Zimbabwe) is not the only country not to respect democracy, look
at Togo, Niger... Zimbabwe's problem is mainly with London, it's a
bilateral issue and is none of our business," said an official of the
AU in defense of Mugabe.
Funny the connection is made to Togo. The current regime there, under
Faure Gnassingbe, is barely three years old. The AU declared as fair
the election that brought Gnassigbe to power in 2005. Now this
official is comparing "democracy" under Gnassigbe's baby regime to
the 27 years old grandfather regime of Mugabe. What a shame!
Mugabe has been running the government of Zimbabwe since independence
in 1980. Is there any question about the negative impact of his
tenure on development in his country and those around Zimbabwe? Isn't
this reason enough for the AU to ask for a change, knowing that the
next ruler will be a Zimbabwean and not a British?
The summit Mugabe and the AU are adamant about attending in concert
was originally planned for April 2003, but according to the BBC, it
has been postponed several times; all in attempt to send a message.
In August 2007, Human Rights Watch wrote a paper called "A Call to
Action: The Crisis in Zimbabwe - SADC's Human Rights Credibility on
the Line." In it, the group reported that:
"The continuing use of arbitrary and excessive use of force by the
police and other agents of the government of Zimbabwe calls into
question its commitment to ending the political crisis in the
country, and creates a huge obstacle to finding a viable solution to
this crisis."
The message was for SADC (Southern African Development Community)
meeting that month to act on the problems in Zimbabwe. Regrettably,
everything that concerned Zimbabwe was mentioned in the Summit's
communiqué, including a call on Britain to honor her land settlement
promise. Missing was the response to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe
sought.
Thus human rights continue to be enigma in Africa: Is it human rights
abuse when the perpetrator is a black man or the person at the
receiving end has a black skin? The puzzle is yet to be resolved.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,Publsiher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, October
8, 2007
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with
credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web
page to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Or don't publish at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Moderator
Abuja Nigeria.
P.S.
FOr conference, Press Release and other Event coverage
Call. AbujaNig on +2348075671223 or email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snail Post: Box 8551, Wuse Abuja NIGERIA.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abujaNig/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abujaNig/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
