Abdou,

I've a bit busy but will give you a response, hopefull by tomorrow.

Regards,

kabir.




On 6/29/07, ABDOUKARIM SANNEH <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Kabirr
> Once again thanks for your interesting forwards. It may notice that it
> cross into my political thinking that devorce from such postings. Pan
> African is an utopian dream and I don't know whether with its socialist
> school of thoughs is the solution to our continent's predicament. I know
> with this world of globalisation small nation state are really marginalise
> in global economy with market force. Africa as a continent must be  unite as
> one country. I really respect the views of Tajudeen Abdul Raheem a great
> expert of Pan Africanist. I will defer with him on the socialist vision. I
> value liberal democracy with both right and left wing perspective but
> dragging us toward scientific socialism will remote the dream of continental
> unification. The only way forward to unite Africa is putting in place
> functional democracy, respect liberal values, human rights and rule of law,
> grass roots development etc. We have seen Pan Africanist leaders
> metamorphosis into dictators and when is
> the next Uhuru! You critical suggestion to the issue is welcome.
> Best Regards!
> Abdoukarim
>
> Kabir Njaay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Pan-African Postcard
>
> UNION GOVERNMENT OF AFRICA: IT'S NOW OR NEVER
> Tajudeen Abdul Raheem
>
> July 1-3 African Heads of state and governments will be assembling in
> Accra for the 9th ordinary session of the African Union. There is
> only one item on the agenda: the formation of a government for union
> of Africa, writes Tajudeen Abdul Raheem.
>
>
> The official title says this is a Grand Debate on a United States of
> Africa. This is unfortunate because even those of us enthusiastic
> about the unity of Africa would wish that the leaders are a bit more
> creative than just wanting to create another USA. Given what one USA
> is doing to the world and its previous record it would be a
> disservice to humanity to want to inflict another USA on the world.
>
> Our values is certainly made of better ethics and love for humanity
> and affirmation of life with dignity than to be copying the United
> state of America whose unity is based on genocide against indigenous
> Indians, slavery of people of African origin and continuing plunder
> of the rest of the world.
>
> The agenda has pitched leaders against leaders and different sectors
> of our informed and ill- informed publics against one another. But
> basically there are two broad positions neither of which disagrees
> about the need for Africa to unite. So if there is no disagreement
> about the goal what is the debate about?
>
> Calling it a Grand Debate about USA is a misnomer and misleading
> characterization that has diverted people's attention from the
> proposal on the table and invited acrimonious 'debates' about form
> instead of content.
>
> So delegitimised are many governments on this continent, in spite of
> the fact that an overwhelming majority are now 'elected' that when
> Africans hear United States of Africa or an African Union government
> they run. They instinctively think that what is being said is a
> transferring of the tyrannical, insensitive anti-people state and
> government that many of us have experienced and in some cases
> continue to suffer, even in the guise of democracy, to a continental
> level. What a disaster that would be! However it is a baseless fear.
>
> Even if the leaders all voted for a Union government in Accra it does
> not mean that it will be formed immediately and all these states as
> we know them will disappear and many of the presidents may return as
> ministers or district commissioners or be consigned to the dust bin
> where they belong. Were this possible I am not sure many Africans
> will mourn their passing since quite a number of them already
> willingly act as agents of imperialism and shop keepers for foreign
> interests against their peoples anyway!
>
> From the inception of Pan Africanism by Africans in the Diaspora in
> the latter years of the 19 th century but gaining more prominence and
> political legitimacy in the first half of the 20th century through
> the first five Pan African Congresses (1900 -1945, all held outside
> Africa) and subsequently brought home to Africa (through the All
> African people's conferences of 1958, and much later the 6th and 7th
> Pan African Congresses held in Africa in Dar 1974 and 1994, Kampala)
> the destination has always been total unification of Africa under a
> common government, common citizenship, a common market, from Cape
> town to Cairo and full participation for Africans in the Diaspora.
>
> This ambition inspired the anti colonial movement in Africa and got
> expression in the formation of the OAU. Even though the OAU
> compromise was to respect the colonially imposed borders they were
> not meant to be permanent detention centers or garrisons on our way
> to total liberation and unification. But this is what they became
> under the multiple pressures of neocolonialism, cold war
> authoritarianism, militarism and opportunistic elites. The formation
> of the AU was meant to correct some of the weaknesses of the OAU
> especially in the areas of state sovereignty that operated as
> 'sovereignty of dictators that induced official indifference to the
> suffering of other Africans including Genocide; collective security
> instead of regime security; people-driven or at least people friendly
> union instead of a leader-centric OAU; and finally coordination of
> African responses to global developments and building of African
> consensus instead of allowing ourselves to be picked up individually
> to the slaughter house.
>
> But after five years of the AU we have made progress in some areas
> but ARE STILL STRUGGLING IN MANY AREAS AND THE FULL POSITIVE AND
> DEMOCRATIC IMPACT OF THE UNUION are still not being felt.
>
> The Grand Debate is therefore about what more needs to be done to
> accelerate the process of unity which we have all agreed on. It is
> not a debate about the desirability of a Union government because by
> signing up to the ideals of Pan Africanism, the OAU and AU all our
> states already agreed to that goal.
>
> The reason why the Au may not have performed to the highest
> expectation has to do with the lack of political authority,
> enforcement powers and adequate resources to discharge its
> responsibility. IF unity is our goal therefore the leaders have to
> decide on a few key areas. One, the Study group on Union government
> for Africa identified 16 strategic areas (including aspects of
> foreign policy, defense, security, finance, global negotiations, etc)
> in which the leaders have to agree to cede some powers to the Au to
> effectively act in our collective interest. There is no point in us
> having a Union while many states still deal with the world
> individually. It undermines the AU and undermines the states
> themselves. Two, for too long the Au has talked about rationalizing
> regional economic communities but they keep proliferating even if
> most of them are struggling. Yet they are supposed to be '; the
> building blocks' of the AU. How many blocs do we need for the
> foundation? In Banjul they put a moratorium on forming new ones but
> the existing or limping ones are still too many. The suggestion is to
> cut them down to the five regions recognized by the AU charter (the
> Diaspora is Sixth region but has not regional Economic Community).
> Africa of five main blocks will be better coordinated. Three, many
> decisions are made at the Au level but there is no proper mechanism
> for implementation at the local and national level and do not even
> have enforcement capacities. If there is agreement on the 16 priority
> areas then the confusion at the national level; can be eliminated and
> AU decisions become mandatory. Four, the big issue of funding, the
> overall budget of the AU is not more than 1 billion Dollars annual.
> It is an insult that 53 states in a continent so rich in human and
> material resources cannot raise this money and more. Just imagine if
> JUST 5% of all our national budgets automatically go into the Union
> budget. That can only come with political authority being given to
> the union through an accountable government.
>
> Which leads me to my final point about the cynicism of many Africans
> about the political will and commitment of Africa's current leaders.
> A genuine worry but these leaders are produced from amongst us
> therefore we can and should change them where necessary . In addition
> we need to make sure that the potentially democratic and democratic
> institutions of the AU like the ECOSOCC and the Pan African
> Parliament have real power to over see the work of the executive. It
> means actively taking part in the ECOSOCC at your national level AND
> ALSO CAMPAIGNING FOR the Pap to be elected on a universal African
> suffrage and the parliament to have full legislative powers. That way
> we will become active African citizens instead of the vocal or
> passive cynics that many are turning to.
>
> * Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium
> Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article
> in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.
>
> * Please send comments to [log in to unmask] or comment online at
> http://www.pambazuka.org
>
> /\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\
>
> KILLING OF JOHN GARANG: WHO DID IT?
> Tajudeen Abdul Raheem
>
> "When my husband died, I did not come out openly and say he was
> killed because I knew the consequences. At the back of my mind, I
> knew my husband had been assassinated"
>
> Those were the chilling words of Mrs. Rebecca Garang, the widow of
> the late Liberation fighter, Dr (Col) John Garang de Mabior, leader
> of the SPLA/M who was killed on July 30 2005 in a helicopter crash on
> the borders of Uganda, Kenya and Sudan. The helicopter he was
> traveling in belonged to President Yoweri Museveni, Dr Garang's
> closest ally and comrade.
>
> I was one of many people who refused to accept the immediate
> conclusion then that it was an accident. Not because we missed Garang
> too much and found it impossible to let go which we did but because
> the explanation was too obvious.
>
> If anyone wanted to kill Garang (and there were many forces) there
> was no better cover for an almost perfect crime than for him to be
> traveling unofficially in the helicopter of his closest ally. Since
> Khartoum did not officially know that he was leaving the capital
> anyone of the many vested interests who felt threatened by Garang's
> messianic entry into Khartoum early in July that trip provided your
> best opportunity.
>
> Mrs. Garang has now thrown open widely what many had been suspecting.
> All the inquiries so far have 'concluded' that it is pilot error, bad
> weather, and other technical conclusions but the dearth was political.
>
> So who could have done it?
>
> My first suspect was and remains the extremist wing of the government
> and Northern hegemonists in the security and intelligence of the
> country. Their heart must have shook and their desperation further
> heightened by the tumultuous welcome from all Sudanese commitment to
> creating a New Sudan when he arrived in Khartoum to be sworn in July
> 9 2005. They must have seen their world collapsing before their eyes.
> A Black prophet arising from the South must seem like end of the
> world for them. Garang was not the first Black Sudanese to have been
> made Vice President. Khartoum has had a succession of Black poodles
> willing to be tools of misrule against their people and the whole of
> Sudan. But in John Garang, a formidable personality who had
> distinguished himself both militarily and politically the hegemonists
> shook at what would happen to their rule were Garang to have the
> opportunity to reshape the country because Garang could be no one's
> errand boy. For Sudanese democrats he was a bridge of hope with the
> potential of turning the country into a genuinely democratic
> environment where Sudanese might, in the Martin Luther King hope , '
> be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their
> character ' . The enemies of hope had to act and act quickly before
> goodness broke out in a country that has been in conflict for most of
> its post independence (1956) existence.
>
> Khartoum is not the only suspect in Garang's death. Chief amongst
> other suspects could be extremist wing of Southern Nationalists whose
> agenda was to secede from Sudan and may have great fears that Dr
> John's commitment to creating a New Sudan uniting the North and the
> South was a betrayal. Plausible but not probable. They needed Garang
> and backed him in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which gave
> them the option of full independence by referendum in the course of
> the 6 year term of the agreement.
>
> Mrs. Garang is herself a believer in Southern Sudan Independence, and
> between her and her husband they agree to disagree on this issue
> therefore it is highly unlikely that Southern nationalists killed Dr
> John.
>
> Mrs. Garang made her public disclosure at an award ceremony by the
> Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Foundation (JOOF) in Nairobi, Kenya. The late
> John Garang had been honored with a posthumous Uhuru Award for his
> contribution to the liberation struggles of Africa. Prof. Dani Wadada
> Nabudere was the guest speaker on the theme of CONFLICT AS A CATALYST
> FOR CHANGE.
>
> It was not just about her husband's death that Mrs. Garang spoke. Her
> speech also touched on a number of sensitive issues across Africa.
> One of them is how we treat. Partners of our heroes. Often they are
> not seen as persons in their own right. They may have been married to
> heroes but some of them have a place in the struggle in their own
> rights. Mrs. Garang spoke from the heart but not as a grieving widow
> rather as a combatant. She disclosed the embarrassing fact that that
> award by the JOOF was the first time that Dr John was being honored
> by an African organization. What doe this tells us about the way in
> which we treat our heroes and heroines. Garang was the recipient of
> many awards from all kinds of people in Europe ands North America but
> his first ward from Africa is posthumous and even then from an
> Independent foundation. Is this yet another case of a prophet having
> honor but not in his village or not in his life time?
>
> * Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium
> Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article
> in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.
>
> * Please send comments to [log in to unmask] or comment online at
> http://www.pambazuka.org
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤