Hi Abdou,

Sorry for the late response! I promised myself yesterday to give this a
tardy response today.

Well, 'Pan-Africanism' to me means simply 'Pan-African brotherhood and
oneness'.

I believe the reason why the idea is alien, far fetched and Utopian to some
Africans as opposed to being the necessary, long overdue and the natural,
not to mention, logical direction for Africa to take, may be due mainly
to lack of information about the whole idea and process.

Philosophers tell us that no condition is permanent, that the only condition
that is permanent is change.

Africa of five hundred years ago was different from Africa of four thousand
years, just as Africa of 2007 is different from Africa of  1963. One may
dismiss what happened so long ago as being irrelevant to Africa's condition
today and give many rational arguments to support one's position, even refer
to Asian countries as examples of what Africa could have been.

Africa's experience though cannot be fairly compared with the reality of any
other people and the legacy of both slavery and colonialism haunts Africa to
this day. Many Africans, and I am in no doubt that you agree with me on
this, are in denial. Some would rather bury the painful past and never even
talk about it. Yet that is totally impossible, for how can one know where
one is going if you don't know where you're coming from, and not least, what
happened along the way?

The most important areas that will be covered by an eventual treaty of
unification is in the interest of all Africans and friends of Africa.

Integration of our political, economic and defence policies will go a long
way into curbing most disadvantages and the bullying that goes on both
within the continent and from without. Africa will be able to negotiate
agreements with other parties as equal partners because she will always be
able to flex her economic muscle. Our markets are growing increasingly more
important for exporters and we are the producers of major raw materials that
advanced industries need.

Cotton growers in West Africa for example, will no longer have their
individual countries find markets for their products and Africa can demand
with a strengthened voice at trade talks that Western countries get rid of
subsidies to their farmers that enable them to dump their products on the
global market, marginalising African growers in the processing.

Dictators will no longer to able to cry 'interference in the internal
affairs of a member country' when other AU members raise their voices
against tyranny. Dictators will also lose the luxury of retiring into exile
to the country of a former ally after committing gruesome atrocities at home
and residents of Mombasa will see it as their business if a Burkinabi
national suffers police brutality in Hamburg and may fore go an afternoon in
the park with his son so that he can join a protest march to the German
embassy.

Skillful Africans living in self-imposed exile in the West will find it
easier to return home and be able to contribute their know-how in a more
conducive environment. For many the spirit of solidarity with Africa will
outweigh the economic incentives of plying their trade in the West. Into
that you can bring self-image, a sense of worth and the rewards of sense of
feeling of actualization.

We don't need all this 'United States of,' all we need is Africa!

After all Africa was never divided into its present borders by Africans,
neither was it done with our consent, so the only ones who have anything to
fear from a unified Africa are undemocratic leaders and and those who would
rather continue to portray Africa as a basket case whiles they continue to
suck it dry. Britain, for example, will never again be able to isolate a
country, as in the case of Zimbabwe, based on a lie and punish her for
standing up for her people. There will be a strong unified African voice
that will be telling Britain: 'Go hang!' and they will come back with
respect as they realise that the old divide-and-rule tactics works no more.

An economically and politically integrated Africa will facilitate trade, big
and small, without the hinder of foreign exchange issues or entrance permits
into 'another country'. Africa will be better able to resist the
dictatorship of the IMF and the World Bank as they try to dictate our
budgets.

An African armed force may not engage in any acts of war unless in defence
of her territorial integrity or under the auspices of the UN.

A unified Africa will better speak for itself in all fields where she meets
other people. African integrated news networks can gather news and
present analysis and commentaries on African events by home-grown journalist
who have the wherewithal to give a more informed and nuanced picture
than the racist reporting we still see even in 2007 from Western media
outlets.

An 'afrosat' communication satellite up in the heavens can broadcast to the
whole world on different channels to an audience both at home an abroad.
Diasporans, presented with a diverse choice and content-rich program
packages will subscribe in their millions to bring Africa into their living
rooms. An Africa they can all identity with with pride (I have in mind here
those in denial). Change from one channel to the next, on a any day and
enjoy news analysis, debates, interviews, etc., or sports from the
continent, to music and culture etc.

Yes, I do agree that a United African is a dream, a dream limited only by
the tameness of one's imagination. It's a dream that has lived long and the
torch has been carried on from one generation to the next since the first
pan-African Congress was held in 1919, and though the flame may
have flickered from time to time, it has never died.

What Tajudeen and many other Africans sympathetic to the idea of a united
Africa are doing is enlightening and informing about the idea, presenting
its pros and cons and campaigning and arguing that the pros far outweigh the
cons and the sooner we embark upon it the better for the people of Africa.

I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Pan-African movement has long
been divided into two main camps; one holds the view that a United Africa
must not include the Arab/Maghreb north, and another that considers this
position ridiculous. These two camps practically consist of mere schools of
thought though and how far up the political hierarchy their positions are
shared is difficult to say.

Much has changed during the pass fifty years and there have been lessons
learnt. In 1963 many African leaders shied away from Nkrumah's call for
unification and the consequences have been grave. His prophesy, when he
veered from his prepared speech in Addis in 1963, pointing at African
leaders in turn and warning them of how, if they fail to unite, each of
their small counries will be isolated, exploited, their leaders overthrown,
etc., has come to pass. It is a lesson learnt the hard way but nonetheless
learnt. Is Africa better off today than it was in 1963? Why?...

I hate to delude myself though and however much of a dreamer I may be, I do
not expect the leaders gathered in Accra to sign a document of unification
before leaving for their respective kingdoms. A grassroots movement, more
intensive dissemination of information and a gradual elimination of certain
restrictions, like cross-border travel/trade, the institution of a common
currency, etc., is needed so as to convince ordinary people of the practical
benefits and that it is all for the better.


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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤