Still avoiding the question.
Chris
________________________________
From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 7:35:04 AM
Subject: Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A
SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
Come on Chris, give yourself a bit of respect before you loose mine.
Regards
Daffeh
On 6 April 2011 12:58, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Why did you not participate in the recent interview on Freedom where the
statement you wrote below was discussed?
>
>You did not answer my question as simple as it is. One honest answer will do.
>
>Chris..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 6:29:43 AM
>
>Subject: Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A
>SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>
>
>
>Chris, do I have to give an interview to Freedom? When did that become my
>obligation? What makes you think I was approached for an interview and I
>declined the offer? Even if I have been approached, have I not got the right to
>decline? Could it not be the case that I was not readily available? How about a
>possible lack of interest or perhaps a total contempt for the freedom radio talk
>show? The point is; the judgement and decision is mine, not yours.
>
>In any case, I think you are bit late on this topic as the curtain has already
>been drawn on it.
>
>Cheers
>Daffeh
>
>On 6 April 2011 11:41, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Hi Daffeh,
>>
>>Simple Q for you? Why did you not participate in the recent interview on Freedom
>>where the statement you wrote below was discussed? If you found the time to read
>>Musa Jeng's piece and you made time to listen to two different interviews that
>>Banka Manneh participated in and furthermore you certainly squeezed in the time
>>to write your piece, then why is it that you could not find an hour and a
>>half to participate in an interview where the content of your writings was
>>discussed? I was disappointed that it was not you as the second panelist.
>>
>>Bravo to Mr. Mass who had agreed to come to the interview and discuss an opinion
>>that he did not write. I think he handled the interview extremely well.
>>
>>Also- UDP website. I see alot of recent updates out there. I had checked it
>>several weeks back and it was full of older material. Glad to see the progress.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
>>From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 4:52:24 AM
>>Subject: Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A
>>SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes I am fine, Haruna. There is no point responding to this duo. One is a walter
>>mitty, the other a disingenuous hysteric.
>>
>>Thanks for checking on me.
>>
>>Daffeh
>>
>>
>>On 5 April 2011 06:27, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>Daffeh, I hope you're alright!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>Haruna. Cousin Fakoo Fakoo is closet UDP.
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:26 am
>>>Subject: Re: STGDP=?windows-1252?Q?=92s_?=Call for a Return to NADD is
>>>Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>>>
>>>
>>>Fankung, almost all coalitions are premised on the recognition that no one party
>>>can do it alone. However, that has never precluded the legitimacy of the
>>>majority party to lead. That is why the Conservative Party of David Cameroon is
>>>leading a coalition government here in the U.K despite the fact that they could
>>>not have formed a government on their own without having to coalesce with
>>>another party, the Liberal Democrats. In a democracy, legitimacy is always
>>>derived from the majority, not the minority or your silly notion of equality.
>>>
>>>My rejoinder is only meant to clarify issues. I have no interest whatsoever,
>>>in fostering a ping pong game with people like you on this coalition issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>My advice to you is to consider inculcating some element of sincerity in
>>>yourself when debating national issues.
>>>
>>>Have a good day.
>>>
>>>Daffeh
>>>
>>>
>>>On 4 April 2011 13:28, Fankung Fankung Jammeh <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Here is another evidence that the Gambian opposition is full of power hungry
>>>leaders. It is clearly written in WALLS that NO OPPOSITION PARTY can defeat
>>>Jammeh on its own, or even make a dent in hi support. I know for sure that this
>>>SS Daffeh fellow knows that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER when we hear UDP defeats
>>>Jammeh on its own. And yet, all he sees is Darbo. If Darbo is not the leader no
>>>coalition. Oh well, get preapared for your 9% come November.... GOD BLESS APRC
>>>AND PROFESSOR JAMMEH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gambia: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>>>>STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>>>>By SS Daffeh, Secretary-General UDP UK
>>>>BANJUL, THE GAMBIA—Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of the
>>>>U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the media a
>>>>proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an agreement
>>>>could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the coalition
>>>>negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party [UDP] and a
>>>>purported representative of PDOIS , with the former joining NADD, a political
>>>>entity he described as belonging to all opposition parties, and assume
>>>>leadership of it.
>>>>He posited this as the only realistic option to break the stalemate and went on
>>>>to justify his call on the basis that due to their experience in 2006 and the
>>>>aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what the conventional
>>>>wisdom dictates and become part of a UDP led coalition. He, however, did not
>>>>state what this experience was and why UDP should be held responsible for it.
>>>>As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman, Mr.
>>>>Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be in total
>>>>convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP].
>>>>First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all coalition
>>>>negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national interest above all
>>>>others including ideologies, personal egos and differences. This can only be
>>>>done if all stakeholders including PDOIS accept the universally practiced
>>>>conventions and standards of coalition building to be the unfettered guiding
>>>>principles of negotiations. This requires that the biggest party be adopted as a
>>>>vanguard and for all other parties and political entities to throw their weight
>>>>behind.
>>>>In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian electorates
>>>>as independent sovereign political parties and tested their individual electoral
>>>>strengths. The UDP had almost five times more votes than NADD and currently has
>>>>more representation in parliament than any other opposition party in The Gambia.
>>>>It also has a bigger and more robust grass root support base than any other
>>>>opposition party. To put it in a nutshell; UDP is by far the biggest opposition
>>>>party in The Gambia. This is irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do
>>>>not see any wisdom whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller
>>>>party, NADD, in the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another
>>>>is the only solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be
>>>>for the smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the
>>>>biggest.
>>>>As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to abandon
>>>>their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally behind the
>>>>biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable standards and
>>>>norms of coalition building and as a matter of political legitimacy and
>>>>necessity.
>>>>Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, I find
>>>>it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that the
>>>>resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to
>>>>inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise solution to
>>>>this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment of the
>>>>situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the STGDP would have
>>>>realised that this idea has no potential but for the opening of the Pandora’s
>>>>Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise to be engendered let alone
>>>>realised in that kind of environment.
>>>>By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS party
>>>>apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their proposal, the
>>>>STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of the UDP in the same
>>>>respect particularly on the question of registration that altered NADD’s status
>>>>from that of an alliance to a political party in contravention of the terms of
>>>>the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established it [NADD] and which cost
>>>>the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K Bah, his parliamentary seat. Therefore,
>>>>both the UDP and the NRP can and quite legitimately, equally use their
>>>>experience of 2006 and prior as a justification for their withdrawal and reason
>>>>for refusing to return to NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is
>>>>therefore fundamentally flawed in its lack objectivity and appreciation of the
>>>>facts on the ground.
>>>>Their claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by facts.
>>>>Although the UDP participated in the creation of NADD the alliance, they did
>>>>actually pull out from the organisation in 2006 after careful consideration.
>>>>Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has been entirely
>>>>relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out.
>>>>Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was intended
>>>>to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is clearly stipulated in the
>>>>Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established
>>>>the alliance. However, that creation was completely and utterly obliterated when
>>>>NADD was clandestinely registered with the Independent Electoral Commission,
>>>>despite opposition from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its
>>>>nature and status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state
>>>>that NADD as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties.
>>>>A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided by
>>>>principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished. Otherwise
>>>>it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the universal
>>>>principles and standards that underpin coalition building everywhere in this
>>>>world should be forgone in our case for national interest is utterly simplistic
>>>>at best; and disingenuous at worst.
>>>>STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it is the
>>>>UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break this coalition
>>>>stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is ever determined to
>>>>remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and intransigence, not to
>>>>mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s overtures.
>>>>If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for them to
>>>>consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so that it can
>>>>re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a flag bearer
>>>>chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket. This must be so as
>>>>the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in the alliance anyway.
>>>>Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties
>>>>including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political legitimacy
>>>>of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state whatever
>>>>condition[s] they would like to see attached. That way, we can move this process
>>>>one step forward; from the principal issue of formula to a more secondary issue
>>>>of conditionality and thereby making compromise more realistic and feasible.
>>>>This is how a compromise solution can be engendered. However, PDOIS and NADD
>>>>mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate
>>>>their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP led alliance with
>>>>conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to talk about
>>>>conditionality in that respect.
>>>>In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been
>>>>rendered obsolete but also lacking taste.
>>>>PDOIS’s Subterfuge
>>>>The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent where there
>>>>is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous statement ever made in
>>>>this coalition debate. As far as facts are concern, there is no second round
>>>>voting system in South Africa and yet it was the ANC that led the coalition
>>>>which brought President Jacob Zuma to power; there is no second round of voting
>>>>in India and yet it was Sonia Ghandi’s Indian National Congress that led the
>>>>coalition which returned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to power; there is no
>>>>second round voting system in Brazil and yet it is the biggest party that led
>>>>the coalition which brought that country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff,
>>>>to power. - The list can go on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to
>>>>select a leader/candidate had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s
>>>>pronouncement is therefore not only baseless but also and very clearly, a
>>>>preposterous subterfuge that they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide
>>>>their intransigence and refusal to heed to the popular call for the opposition
>>>>to forge an all inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent APRC in the
>>>>forthcoming elections.
>>>>SS Daffeh
>>>>Secretary-General
>>>>UDP UK
>>>>www.udpgambia.com
>>>>--
>>>>*****************************************************************************
>>>>GOD BLESS THE GAMBIA. LET US JOIN HANDS AND SUPPORT SHEIKH PROFESSOR DR. ALH
>>>>YAHYA JAMMEH (NASIRU DEEN) TO BUILD OUR COUNTRY.
>>>>
>>>>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
>>>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
