Wow! Jamila,

I am just from Basse and did not have the opportunity to read the mails
until today. A youth conference is taking place and I was invited to deliver
a paper.
I came back from NewYork/Washington in high spirit. I will engage every one
who has something to say with clarity and precision. Some people in the L
can easily brand people. I would prefer to be left to engage to any body who
needs further clarification. As I said in NewYork this is the era of the
battle of mind. No political force can survive this era which lacks
convincing policies and programmes. The truth can only become invinciable
under fire and hammer.
Greetings
Halifa











----- Original Message -----
From: Jamila Allston <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:00 PM
Subject: Ebou Colley's Reply to Halifa Sallah - MRDG-NY Symposium


> My Dear Brother Ebou Colly,
>
>   It deeply saddens me that I must write to you in such manner via this
> public vehicle, but you leave me no choice.  I am appealing to you to
> immediately cease the diatribe and unhealthy challenge made to Halifa
> Sallah.
>
>   You have acknowledged that you did not arrive to the MRDG-NY
> Symposium until 10 p.m. and departed approximately 20 minutes later (or
> definitely less than an hour after your arrival). Thus by your own
> acknowledgement missed at least five hours of prior dialogue; and
> departed prior to the final hour and a half of closing dialogue.  Thus
> your statements can be viewed as being subjected and biased opinions
> that are being unethically presented to the people as fact.
>
>   I am so disheartened because I consider you one of my brothers and a
> friend.  I know that you have information regarding the coup that you
> would like to share with the world but you are going about it in the
> wrong way.  By engaging in such a manipulative and purposeful divisive
> dialogue, you stand to lose the literary credibility that is required
> if your story is to be believed by those forces in power to do anything
> about the terrible situation in the Gambia.  I don't think that you
> intend to purposely sabotage your own efforts.  Why lose perspective at
> such a critical time!
>
>   In addition, literary ethics demands that you don't mix two stories
> together, especially of two such distinct time periods (i.e., the 1994
> coup and your limited assessment of the MRDG-NY Symposium).  That is
> like playing on the people's desire to hear the next chapter of the
> 1994 Coup and then slipping in a small disingenuous snippet to be taken
> as face value as true and valid.  That is ethically wrong.
>
>    As part of the planning committee for the NY Symposium and the
> videographer of the event, it is Saul Mbenga and I who are listening
> and reviewing the program and we will not subject ourselves to a devise
> dialogue as to what was or was not said at the symposium.
>
>    The purpose of the NY symposium was to bring together in peace the
> Gambian opposition leaders/representatives, to engage in proactive
> dialogue regarding The Gambia, coalition building and the upcoming
> presidential election. As the videographer who eyes and ears were
> directly in tune to documenting this event, I saw and heard two great
> men of different parties and different philosophies sit down together
> in peace and engage in healthy dialogue (by their own admissions)
> regarding The Gambia. I was in the presence of an audience that showed
> respect to both men, regardless of the points that they agreed on or
> disagreed on. Applause by the audience was not based on UDP supporters
> clapping for UDP statements and PDOIS supporters clapping for PDOIS
> statements. Isn't DEMOCRACY about allowing the people to listen and
> show appreciation for the insight of leadership regardless of their
> party affiliation?  To indicate contrary is extremely disturbing.
>
>    To keeping harping on this illusion of Capitalism versus Socialism
> when the people of the Gambia are being forced to sell their souls (and
> their bodies) just to obtain rice for the family is insulting.  The
> present state of AFRICA and The Gambia is directly correlated to the
> devastating effects of imperialism and capitalism.  In addition,
> Africans live no better under the capitalist system throughout the
> Diaspora (i.e., the Western world). It is so disheartening to know that
> at a time that our people throughout the world are being destroyed, we
> are wasting time in engaging in debates about western doctrines that
> were basically written by WHITE FOLKS!  Have we lost our minds at such
> a critical juncture!
>
>   My work for The Gambia and my associations with the many Gambians I
> now consider my friends and part of my family is not based on political
> or party identification, sameness of ideology or economic or social
> standing. In fact my advocacy work has assisted more UDP members than
> any other party!  It is so ironic that the African Liberation Day (ALD)
> weekend that historically is supposed to be a time for coming together
> became a time for such manipulative divisiveness regardless of where
> the symposiums took place!
>
>   Finally, comments regarding the financial arrangements made with each
> party are uncalled for, especially if you were not a member of any of
> the coordinating committees.  There were negotiations made by all
> committees to all invited parties to incur some or all of the travel
> and lodging costs, including the UDP.
>
> I submitted a posting after reading your first statement and I also
> concur with Halifa's remarks that "Those who sincerely want change in
> the Gambia should encourage the party of your choice to do its best and
> not undermine others who are doing their best. This is one code of
> conduct that all those who want change should adopt."
>
> Am I now also to be viewed as the enemy because I will not be a part of
> a divisive camp, nor hold up capitalism or privatization as the savior
> for AFRICANS!
>
>   I am asking you as a friend, comrade and family member to please
> reassess your comments and tactics.  You have lot to contribute.  Don't
> let frustration regarding the situation in The Gambia make you lose
> insight and credibility.
>
>                       Your Sister In The Struggle,
>
>                        Jamila
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> --- ebou colly <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > MR. SALLAH
> > To be frank with you Mr. Sallah, I hate hurting
> > people's feelings for no good reason. Therefore for a
> > while after reading your piece on me, highlighted by
> > angry remarks from what you said was my distortion of
> > the fact you presented in the Bronx a couple of weeks
> > ago, I thought I should have simply written back few
> > statements apologizing for what I thought was mere
> > misunderstanding.  Anyway after a second review of
> > your article I came to realize that I had nothing to
> > apologize for after all.
> > In the first place, Mr. Sallah, I still don't know how
> > you missed it but my article was not in anyway written
> > to report the cause or effect of the symposium held in
> > the Bronx. I don't think there is a need for me to say
> > it but I will still go ahead and state it anyway; that
> > the central theme of my piece was the sixth part of
> > the narrative I have been writing about on the 1994
> > coup in The Gambia.
> > My presence at that meeting was of minimal
> > significance to what you have come to present about
> > your party's doctrine in the USA. Anyway I'm glad that
> > you mentioned Manding Darbo. He was one person who was
> > aware of my presence at the meeting and could
> > therefore bear me witness that I arrived there after
> > 10:00 p.m. and left barely an hour later. As a result
> > given the fact that that was the only session of yours
> > I attended since your arrival, I could not have been
> > in that position of authority in anyway to criticize
> > your party's efforts to be better understood here.
> > When I walked into that hall that day, I found Mr.
> > Darbo on his feet addressing the audience
> > From what I understood you had, by then, already given
> > your keynote address. Perhaps that was the time when
> > you presented that comprehensive breakdown of your
> > party's economic strategies with regards to the
> > damnable economic mismanagement that has rendered The
> > Gambia chronically indebted and the solution you
> > theoretically had for it. I only read about most of
> > that in your piece written from an ill-conceived
> > judgement. Without doubt when the coalition topic was
> > raised you gave a protracted analysis of the important
> > factors to be considered against the background of
> > what you called a tactical instrument which was
> > paramount in Senegal's last presidential election.
> > Politically, in your discussion you certainly talked
> > about the coalition format of the P.S., Gibo Kah's
> > party and that of Niasse's all to, of course, to rub
> > in your point that a coalition was better ventured
> > into in the second and not first round of presidential
> > election. Economically I also heard you talking about
> > the disadvantage of capitalism when "11% of the labor
> > force in The Gambia is employed by the formal sector
> > comprising of the public, 'parastatals' and private
> > sector". To buttress your public-run enterprises you
> > briefly explained how a PDOI government would exploit
> > the fishing industry by buying fishing trawlers and
> > building fish-processing plants and hiring Gambians to
> > work there. That was all I could account for in what
> > you, Mr. Sallah, had said about the coalition agenda.
> > I will come to that later.
> > Anyway in that Bronx hall, after Mr. Darbo's speech,
> > which he delivered in English and Mandinka, it was
> > followed by the introduction of the executive members
> > of the NY movement who made the meeting possible. And
> > then came the question and answer time from the
> > audience.
> >  If I am not mistaken it was after one or two persons
> > spoke that Mr. Saul Mbenga came up with the question
> > of the controversial coalition. Roughly twenty minutes
> > later I was on my way home especially after realizing
> > to my great disappointment that the prospect of
> > opposition-party coalition for The Gambia's
> > presidential election, something I strongly desired,
> > had little chance of materializing, thanks to PDOIS'
> > intransigence.
> > So you see Mr. Sallah, you could notice that I was not
> > necessarily in tune with all the economic theories you
> > highlighted apart from the ones you mentioned in that
> > short period between when the coalition question was
> > asked and when I left the hall for home. As I said
> > earlier I did not hear all those grandiose economic
> > theories you said you discussed or argued about from
> > Washington to New York.
> > Here I would again remind you that my article was far
> > from a report of the Bronx meeting but the sixth part
> > of my series on the coup in the Gambia with the
> > limited mention of my experience in that hall that
> > day. Evidently my focal subject was the APRC loyalist
> > often disguised in our midst as typified by those two
> > elements I surely resented so much.
> > Anyway it certainly went beyond that when I also
> > decided to discuss for mainly the consumption of the
> > Lers what I understood to be a serious obstacle in
> > this issue of opposition coalition that had been a
> > critical subject of interest to most of them. From
> > what I understand, it was the dream of most of us that
> > the opposition parties in The Gambia will, come
> > October, put all their differences apart, political,
> > economic or philosophical and form a unified front to
> > get rid of Yaya Jammeh. Just like you put it in your
> > closing statements about the wrongs committed by Yaya
> > to the Gambian nation, he is definitely the worst
> > thing that has ever happened to our country and the
> > need to wipe him out should be prioritized over any
> > individual party's hopes or aspirations. It was
> > therefore our belief in the Diaspora that the
> > opposition parties coming together NOW would
> > tremendously help in this effort. Anything otherwise,
> > I personally feared would put the country in that
> > hopeless situation where we might end up with Yaya
> > defiantly persecuting one group of opposing forces to
> > the other while some others frantically search for
> > nonexistent answers in the prostituted constitution or
> > in the useless office of the chief justice. I hope you
> > could relate to what I am driving at.
> > So Mr. Sallah, I hope you now got it clear that I was
> > not trying to reduce all that you had said "to a
> > defense of a state-controlled economic system. Nor was
> > I showing my little respect for fact and objectivity.
> > By referring to those two elements against the
> > background of your statement that seemed to anger you
> > so much might be inappropriate on my side, but
> > certainly it did not mean that I had "little taste for
> > facts and much taste for fiction". I think you were
> > unnecessarily hard on me my friend.
> > It is pitiful that your party spent over D20, 000.00
> > for the long travel to the USA just for you to go back
> > with only $500.00. And too bad still that some
> > Washingtonians robbed you of more money by taking your
> > party's paraphernalia without giving you a dime. If
> > they really knew that the items were for your party's
> > fund raising but chose to ignore that, then I think
> > you have the right to call it a foul. But if they were
> > not informed by anyone then the blame should be
> > redirected to a different target. Anyway I don't know
> > why me. By the way, was it that those who invited you
> > to come gave you the impression that substantial
> > amount of money was awaiting  you to receive after all
> > that huge expense to come to the US? I could have
> > never known.
> > Anyhow Mr. Sallah let's move on. When I read your
> > piece on me, I was surprised by the degree of
> > sincerity you said guided your line of argument on the
> > subject.  "I spoke with sincerity and fairness", you
> > emphatically stated.  Then down the line after you
> > said you argued about the critical issues surrounding
> > the possibility of a coalition in the first round of
> > voting you wrote: "I did not want the discussion to
> > degenerate into argument. I therefore posed the
> > question as to what formulae Darbo had in mind for the
> > selection of the presidential candidate". Did that
> > really mean that you were not necessarily interested
> > in that question or its answer but only made to divert
> > the trend of discussion to avoid argument, as you put
> > it? If so then the level of our honest appreciation of
> > the situation must have been ludicrous.
> > Then you further wrote: "At that point any competent
> > observer would be able to read from Darbo's words that
> > when he was talking about an "electable" candidate he
> > did not have any formulae in mind for the coalition to
> > select its candidate".
> > I may be an incompetent observer but as far as I could
> > observe, Mr. Darbo's reaction showed me that the
> > selection of a presidential candidate should not be
> > the main obstacle to the coalition and could be worked
> > out after an agreement was struck in principle. After
> > all I don't think Mr. Saul Mbenga who asked the
> > original question or any of those who were listening
> > for answers expected you or Mr. Darbo to be fully
> > prepared for all the answers especially on that very
> > sensitive question.
> > Anyway up to the time I left the hall neither you nor
> > Mr. Darbo presented any formula for selecting the
> > candidate. I was however surprised to read what you
> > wrote here: "For example, PDOIS's presidential
> > candidate would easily accept being a president for
> > one year to restore all the constitutional provisions
> > that are reasonable and justifiable in a democratic
> > society.  Strengthening the IEC, open up the media and
> > then call for another presidential election after
> > creating the constitutional machinery for that to take
> > place in a year after assuming office. In that case
> > the people would have made an undiluted choice. Such
> > formulae are bases for coalition. We can go on and on.
> > Other parties may also come up with their own
> > formulae."
> > Now Mr. Sallah, it seemed that you were really talking
> > here. Although your statement tend to refer to what a
> > PDOIS presidential candidate would do after
> > immediately assuming office, my instincts, after
> > evaluating your last sentences here made me conclude
> > that this is exactly the fundamental terms and
> > conditions your party would want to settle for in a
> > coalition bid.
> > I did not however stay at the Bronx hall to the end of
> > the meeting but since you thought Mr. Darbo was
> > unprepared for a coalition formula while you were, I
> > hope by all that sincerity and honesty you had
> > claimed, you did present your conditions as you had
> > done in your article. If not, why? After all that
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
> http://buzz.yahoo.com/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> You may also send subscription requests to
[log in to unmask]
> if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write
your full name and e-mail address.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>

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

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------