Abdoulie, Thanks for sharing with us this paper.

I think the notion that no matter who leads the Gambia will continue to
depend on foreign money to finance its development projects should not be a
surprise to us given that the Gambia does not have the resources (human and
mineral) to develop from within. What I find interesting though is the
contrast in the type of money the two governments rely upon.

It looks like the present government gets money largely through borrowing
compared to "must be 80/20 grant/loan financing" policy of the Jawara days.
While the present approach may be one of "get the money what ever the cost
and do it your own way" does produce in the short term it does seem to be
based on the assumption that "once its all built business will flourish to
pay it all".

If we believe that to be the case then one would like to ask: can we realize
the anticipated business given our size, geographic location, natural
environment, political and business environment? Even if business comes
would it grow quick enough to pay it all?

Malanding Jaiteh


----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Cisse <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:59 AM
Subject: The Foreign Policy of Gambia since the coup:1994-9 -Reply


> Jaajef Abdoulaye,
>
> Thank you for sharing this very informative paper with the
> bantaba. It is good to read something so well balanced,
> where positive and negative are both recognised, the heat of
> emotional responses are put aside, and the reader is enabled
> to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented.
>
> Just a couple of comments/suggestions:
>
> An example which could be used of "Jawara succeed(ing) in
> attracting...support from the outside, principally because of
> his pro-Western, anti-Communist..."stance is the Gambia's
> boycott of the Moscow Olympics.
>
> What I found most interesting in your paper was the parallels
> drawn between Jawara and Jammeh, especially regarding the
> priorities of safe-guarding territorial integrity and fundraising
> (aid). That despite different political outlooks etc., the logic of
> the situation has pushed Jammeh into doing what he
> critisized Jawara for doing. Importantly you express the
> opinion that  " Future presidents are not likely to
> deviate significantly from this trodden path." The implications
> of this are to in effect disabuse us of the illusion of the
> "individual as saviour", where it is supposed that it is within
> the power of leader to provide dramatic solutions to any
> nation's crisis, where whatever good has happened is due to
> the goodness of the leader, or whatever bad is happening is
> down to the evilness of the leader.
> This is not to absolve individuals from personal accountability
> for their actions, but it is to pose the question how does real
> and lasting change occur? If all our countries are caught in
> the neo-colonial trap of having to "...balance Western
> capitalist interests, adverse effects of structural adjustment,
> on one hand and the welfare of a poor and growing
> population, on the other."
>
> James Connolly, the Irish Independance leader executed by
> the British in the 1920's once said (about the Irish
> independance struggle) "You could raise the green flag over
> Dublin castle tomorrow, but England would still rule youto
> your ruin through it's banks, financiers and landlords..."
> (quoted from memory).
>
> It would seem to follow therefore, that whatever leader of
> whatever ideology would end up with similar policies, unless
> there was a complete break with the international finacial
> system. Could such a policy even be comtemplated without
> certain pre-requisities such as a regional/pan African outlook
> rather than a narrow nationalist one? Without the prior
> building of an economic base by which the ordinary citizens
> would be able to survive the sanctions that would inevitably
> result?
>
> These, in my humble opinion, are important points, in that
> crucial to identifying a solution, is firstly in identifying the
> problem.
>
> If one believe that the problem resides in X being the leader,
> then the solution might well be replacing X with Y (until of
> course Y becomes the problem) whether by election or coup,
> and so the pattern repeats itself. Each new leader enjoying a
> honeymoon period until the true neo-colonial economic
> realities prevail (i.e. Structural adjustment etc) and
> dissolusionment creeps in. The myth of the western model of
> democracy is based on this process of switching ruling
> cliques/leaders every few years, whilst the status quo
> continues unintterupted (this might be acceptable in a
> relatively prosperous nation, but in an impovershished one it
> spells disaster for the living conditions of the people).
>
> If real change is not about "leader substitution, the challenge,
> in my opinion, is, how to move toward real progress and
> change, changing the whole game, the whole system, if an
> election or coup changes little?
>
> The question is open to debate... I would not pretend to have
> the answer, only to be committed to contributing to such a
> debate.
>
> Yeenduleen ak Jaama
>
> Tony
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------