Kabir,
As they say the computer is as fast as the slowest component. Gambia-l 
is limited by the technology used by our host.
We will allow html as soon as it is acceptable.

Malanding


Kabir Njaay wrote:

>I think it's high time Gambia-L takes another look at the policy on HTML.
>Allowing only plain text is like holding on to the analogue in a digital
>age.
>
>Regards,
>
>Kabir.
>
>
>Why Africa finds it hard to support MDC
>
>*By Reason Wafawarova*
>*
>September 04, 2007*
>
>The March 31 2007 Sadc Dar-es Salaam communiqué on Zimbabwe; the July 2007
>Accra AU Conference's position on the same; and the reaffirmation of the
>African stance at the 27th Sadc Summit in Lusaka, Zambia; have all but sent
>one clear message to the MDC:
>
>Africa stands by Zimbabwe.
>
>These three gatherings unanimously expressed solidarity with the position of
>the Government, officially (and maybe rightly) stated as the "people of
>Zimbabwe". Africa has, three times in a row; in a period of five months,
>unequivocally and solidly stood by Zimbabwe in relation to the illegal
>sanctions regime, the land reform programme as well as the validity of the
>last three national elections in which the MDC participated and lost.
>
>That solidarity has expressed condemnation of the Western-administered
>economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, supported the land reform policy and
>validated the election results for 2000, 2002 and 2005 as free and fair.
>
>The solidarity has gone further and proposed packages to rescue Zimbabwe
>from its current problems.
>
>All this has been against expectations of a heavy-handed approach and
>hard-line stance on Zimbabwe from the Western ruling elite and members of
>their MDC political project.
>
>Both the MDC and the Western ruling elite are clearly less than amused that
>African leaders have not lived up to their bidding on Zimbabwe in general
>and President Mugabe in particular.
>
>The question to be asked is why Africa finds it so hard to support a party
>that claims to be a champion of democracy or better still; why have these
>African leaders failed to see the alleged excesses and inhumane nature of
>the Zimbabwean Government?
>
>The simple answer that has often been put forward is that all those African
>leaders supporting or failing to condemn Zimbabwe are either equal
>"dictators" or simply too impressed by President Robert Mugabe's credentials
>as a liberation icon.
>
>Some have even inferred that it is all because all Africans are inherently
>corrupt and genetically incapable of handling complex matters related to
>things like economic policies.
>
>This, of course, is not only simplistic and reductionist thinking but also
>smacks of gross inferiority complex on the part of Africans who embrace such
>warped thinking.
>
>The MDC has expressed its disappointment with South Africa, Sadc, Comesa and
>the AU so many times since its formation in 1999 that one actually wonders
>if political insight and free and fair political space are a phenomenon only
>as young as eight years; the life span of the MDC? At least judging by the
>rulings of the MDC on each and every decision taken by any of these African
>stakeholders on Zimbabwe.
>
>Every time a position is made on Zimbabwe, it turns out that the position
>falls short of MDC expectations and is subsequently lampooned as "unfree and
>unfair."
>
>If there is one thing the MDC factions have always got right, it is the
>assertion that the problems in Zimbabwe need a political solution. However,
>that political solution does not necessarily lie in illegal regime change
>nor does it lie in an MDC government.
>
>The solution lies in resolving the bilateral conflict between Harare and
>London, a conflict that has been given a semblance of multi-lateralism when
>Britain lobbied the EU to back its position.
>
>As the 19th century Prussian conflict theorist, Carl von Clausewitz put it;
>conflict or war "is politics continued by other means." Marx and Engels
>regarded conflict as the continuation politics of the powers concerned. In
>this context it is more than important to analyse all the political aspects
>of a conflict or a crisis as the Zimbabwean situation is often termed.
>
>Here, there is need to find the real policies (not the stated ones) of which
>a conflict is a continuation, and the policies of the players involved in
>that conflict. There is need to examine all the belligerent powers, not just
>one.
>
>If one agrees with the policies that have led to the conflict from one side
>of the conflict, then they agree with the politics of that particular side,
>even when such policies are pursued through the means of a struggle,
>revolution or force.
>
>Conversely, if one is a political opponent of the policies from another
>side, then they do not put aside their political opposition simply because
>the side they agree with has decided to confront the conflict by forceful or
>revolutionary means.
>
>What happens is that one remains an opponent of the policies and politics
>that led to the conflict itself and not necessarily to the means by which
>the conflict has been pursued.
>
>Only pacifists are opposed to conflict just for the sake of attaining peace
>through maintaining the status quo and those politicians heading African
>states are most certainly not a bunch of moralistic pacifists bent on
>turning the other cheek each time an imperialist blow is thrown at them.
>They are like every other politician worthy the name; visionaries sworn to
>fight for emancipation and a legacy of positive social change.
>
>They support Zimbabwe's land reform programme, not necessarily because they
>agree with the modalities of how the policy has been implemented so far but
>primarily because they support the politics behind the land reform
>programme.
>
>They support Harare's position with regard to the Western-administered
>sanctions regime, not necessarily because Harare is home to fellow Africans
>but because they fundamentally agree with the politics that led to those
>sanctions; or conversely, they disagree with the politics that motivated the
>Western allies who have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.
>
>The stated politics behind the sanctions are that they are firstly not
>economic sanctions but mere travel bans, a fact disputed even by the US
>State Department itself, if one looks at their March 2007 announcement that
>they are actually stepping up the anti-Zimbabwe programme through the
>so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.
>
>The other stated politics behind the sanctions states that Zimbabwe is
>pursuing "unsound policies", that Zimbabwe is governed by a tyrannical
>regime, that there is a culture of human rights violations, that the
>political playing field is uneven, that the declining wealth of the country
>is a result of gross looting by those in power, that elections after the
>formation of the MDC have all been fraudulent and that President Mugabe is
>the sole dictatorial individual making everybody in Zimbabwe suffer.
>
>The Government, with apparent support from the African family, disputes the
>stated politics and asserts that the real politics is nothing more than the
>bitterness of the British and their western allies over the seizure of
>white-held, not owned, farms for onward distribution to landless black
>people.
>
>After all, they seem to argue; no imperialist goal has ever been pursued in
>the name of its real intentions. No imperialist army, of course, marches off
>to war under the slogans "Higher Corporate Profits!" or "Blood for Oil!" on
>its banners.
>
>No, the army marches behind the massive power of the imperialist rulers'
>ideological agents-its politicians and their mass media.
>
>These work overtime to create a pretext that can convince the ordinary
>people that the imperialist rulers are fighting against tyranny, for
>democracy, for the defence of their families, against terrorism, for freedom
>and human rights, against any evil their minds can cook up or for any
>"noble" causes their imagination can muster.
>
>It is the expectation for these super attractive happily ever after sweet
>freedoms and liberties that many of the youthful Zimbabweans in the MDC have
>come to a point where they now consider themselves citizens of a "new
>Zimbabwe", pretty much the same way we hear religious people saying they do
>not belong to their homes here on earth but to a new home in Heaven.
>
>For 90 years, Zimbabweans were made servile citizens in their own homeland
>under brutal apartheid British rule and that yoke was broken on April 18
>1980. For 27 years, Zimbabweans have considered themselves citizens of an
>independent Zimbabwe and they have always believed that they are African
>Zimbabweans.
>
>In comes the western money bags, thrown right into the hands of one Morgan
>Tsvangirai and his MDC and we have a whole bunch of youngsters and misguided
>elderly people clamouring for a new status as Western Zimbabweans, hailing
>from what they call "new Zimbabwe".
>
>In 1992, Noam Chomsky, a prolific and renowned intellectual, was asked by
>Heinz Dieterich why some Latin Americans had turned themselves into
>"Ibero-Americans" (after 150 years as Latin Americans) and how a bit of
>Spanish money could make such a change possible after such a long time of a
>solid identity.
>
>Noam Chomsky replied, "People have a price, some will sell themselves for
>five cents, others will demand a million dollars."
>
>To this writer, it would appear like many in the MDC have given themselves
>for two cents and it is because of this cheap price that Africa finds it
>hard to support or stand by the MDC. The opposition has just postured as a
>cheap outfit of donor mongers bent on selling our birthright for two cents
>and its simply difficult if not impossible for any African worthy the name
>to identify with the MDC.
>
>Africa, through South Africa, Sadc, Comesa or the AU, has simply refused to
>support the western politics behind the problems in Zimbabwe. To the
>contrary, they have openly supported the Zimbabwean politics behind the
>Harare-London bilateral conflict. To this end they have refused to be mere
>pacifists blinded by bruises of rebels who come second best in physical
>showdowns with the police.
>
>They rather choose to view the conflict in the context of its politics,
>regretting what might be considered the excesses of the conflict but never
>losing sight of the just cause for which Zimbabwean politics stands.
>
>In this context, the MDC is right in pointing out that the solution lies in
>politics. It lies in the politics of the MDC realising that a Western
>Zimbabwe is not going to materialise and that Zimbabwe can never be bought
>for five cents.
>
>The solution lies in the realisation that the imperial agenda of reversing
>the land reform programme is not worthy supporting, regardless of the baited
>silver. It is not worthy supporting because it is a tool of permanent
>subjugation of one's own people. It seeks to reinstate our pre-1980 status
>as servile citizens in our own motherland.
>
>As for Arthur Mutambara; the message is very clear. There is absolutely no
>need to make a fool out of oneself by trying a hopeless juggle between the
>western money-bags and one's birthright.
>
>It only makes one look plain ridiculous in the eyes of both Zimbabweans and
>the Western ruling elite.
>
>The learned Professor has to simply come home to himself and tell the
>Westerners that he is no longer for sale and return every cent "donated" to
>his faction after he was installed to the presidency by Professor Welshman
>Ncube.
>
>It is almost cruel to advise Tsvangirai to do the same because in all
>honesty, the man deserves the money since he is basically career-less and
>politically hopeless. This writer would insist that Tsvangirai should desist
>from calling for more sanctions on the country and should stop misleading
>his sponsors by telling them that change is in the pipeline.
>
>However, he deserves to keep whatever proceeds of treachery he has so far
>acquired, purely on the moral grounds of the uncertainty of his future.
>After all, the crumbs did take Bishop Abel Muzorewa a substantial amount of
>time before we began to hear rumours of destitution.
>
>Anyway, this may be the lighter side of our Zimbabwean politics but the
>serious side is that the MDC; in all its shapes, factions and formations
>should seriously consider transforming itself into a home-grown opposition
>party by firstly cutting its unholy ties with our country's erstwhile
>oppressors.
>
>The sooner those in the MDC realise that their politics cannot be supported
>in Africa the better for all who genuinely want to promote democracy through
>a multi-party system.
>
>This writer is certain that Zimbabweans are a hopeful people and will soon
>solve the current problems and shame the vultures waiting for land
>re-grabbing disguised through the vehicle of freedom and democracy or maybe
>property rights.
>
>*Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean writer writing from Sydney, Australia. He
>can be contacted at [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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤