Addis Ababa (The Monitor - Addis Ababa, February 8, 2000)

All the idea of change that had been fermenting in the 19th century, all the
socialist revolutions that rocked the world for three quarters of the last
century probably had their origin in a statement made by Karl Marx:
Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point,
however, is to change it.

Karl Marx aimed all his philosophy to this end. The world was indeed
changed, even if not the way Karl Marx had intended: his philosophy was
distorted, and the distorted philosophy shaped the twentieth century world
political and economic situation.

Like a cancer, Marxism spread throughout the world. Tanks and armoured
vehicles of the U.S.S.R rumbled in the streets of what were latter to become
Soviet Bloc countries.

All oppositions were subdued. Some students of Eastern Europe set themselves
on fire, as the only way of expressing their disgust to Soviet invasion.

Few civilian and many military dictators were able to insure long-standing
oppressive leadership, thanks to the U.S.S.R and U.S.A. While the main aim
of the two superpowers was to stay in balance with or superior to each
other, despots were fed with arms and money by which they subjugated their
people.

In U.S.S.R. you got information like you did water or electricity.

The radios that were available did not include the technology that would
allow you to tune to any station you wanted. They were made so they could
transmit messages and songs chosen by the central governmental information
service-whatever its name was.

All you had to do to listen to the radio was to plug in your receiver. In
North Korea when you buy a radio you have to report to the police, where
they adjust it to the North Korean station and fix it there so you 'never'
know if anybody lives any better.

The peoples of poor countries like ours were never made to quit listening to
"capitalist" transmissions, but government media had always good news of
success and development to report to their listeners-even if the same is
still happening here. For anyone who might have thought that the world was
changed, the last years of the twentieth century are harrowing remembrances
that we still revert to brutality to solve our differences.

There have been too many bloody violences in the old world this last decade.
But there is hope in many places.

There is hope in Eastern Europe, because we can understand their conflict as
an attempt to redefine a relationship that was masked by a forced harmony.
Besides, it is in the interest of all wealthy nations that they be peaceful.

The Irish are slogging towards peace, even if with uncertain steps. Now that
the East Timorese got what they wanted, all seems to be well and Israel with
Barak's leadership, may God shield him form assassination, is at last giving
way to its neighbours in return for some assurances.

And Africa is still the dark continent it always was - information age or
no information age. I ask, as many do, if there is any hope for Africa and
taking a bold step, I answer "Not in the foreseeable future." As I tuned to
the BBC's Focus on Africa, I always wanted to note down the main points of
each piece of news, one day, I did just that -- 30,000 refugees are
fleeing Burundi again because of fighting between government and rebels.
- Bemba's rebels are in fierce fighting with the army of Laurent Kabila. -
in Guinea, two ethnic groups, one Christian and the other Moslem, waged a
bloody fight that paralyzed their town, - two factions, one supporting a
town chief and the other supporting a business man who had a dispute over
land with the chief, fought and inhabitants were fleeing (I forgot the
country).

Sometime before that the Egyptian Moslems massacred eighteen of their Coptic
Christian compatriots because a Moslem and a Christian had quarrelled. The
Hausa and Yoruba of Nigeria still lust after each others blood.

The Hutus and Tutsis still try to implicate others for the atrocities they
committed, while their Congolese counterparts prepare for a similar
genocide. We can talk about Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Burundi,. . .Algeria,
Somalia. Or the Ethio-Eritrean border conflict that is bringing the concerned
economies to a halt.

Post-colonial Africa had its philosophers and aspiring men of change. Would
Nkrumah and his charisma have changed his nation if America had not gunned
him down? Even today there is no unanimity on this topic, despite him being
BBC's African of the millennium.

Nyerere had to say forgive me and step down after practising unsuccessfully
his personal principle on his country. The beginnings of the twenty-first
century do not appear to be promising Africa any better future.

I believe that Mengistu Hailemariam, of all his inhumanity, had established
the beginnings of what would have been as supreme example for all Africa
through his basic education programme. The present rulers obliterated the
goods of the past thinking they would succeed their way, so they could take
all praises for themselves.

So who is to draw Africa out of ignorance, poverty, hanger, disease, racial
and religious hatred,. . .? Who are Africa's future apostles of change? Is
it those formerly feared people, the soldiers? As in Nigeria? As in Guinea?
As in Cote d'Ivoire? As in. . .? The old story of military coups by soldiers
who, hopefully, think differently.

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

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

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