This was culled from the rag newspaper..big O........

US based Gambian takes UN to task on Baba Jobe's travel ban Following recent
publications of the UN travel ban on Baba Jobe, a Gambian, Cherno Jagne,
based in the USA, has urged the UN to make clarifications. Below is his
arguments: The travel ban on Baba Jobe is the main political talk these days.
The ambit of the discussion seems to be centred on the narrow perspective of
an individual. What has not been analysed are the issues of a bigger picture
that will portray a better understanding of what might be involved. The
reason for this perspective is simple - the accusations levied require a high
level of sophisticated transaction which also requires a good measure of
capacity to undertake and deliver the services. Thus it is important to
analyse the issue from a geo-political perspective that will portray a
multinational capacity necessary to deal with gun-running. What this article
begs to do is to crave the understanding of the reader to go beyond the
constricted viewpoint of the issue affecting just an individual but trying to
put it in an international context. It is important to first appreciate the
position and role of The Gambia in the present day international political
arena. This perspective does not seek to justify the position of the
individual affected but it looks at the wider dimension within which such
operations can be conducted. It should be an eye opener for the developing
world in the context of globalisation at the political level. Geo-political
interest is of immense importance in the comportment of international
politics. It has always been great news to learn of US protests concerning
her citizens accused and held in other countries for various offences ranging
from drug abuse and trafficking. We have even had Hollywood movies made on
such incidents. In short, the protection of citizenry particularly, in the
realms of a foreign accusation is not new in the light of protecting
geo-political principles and interest. The Gambia should be no exception to
this, moreso on an issue that has connotations of novelty on national
integrity. It should not be a case of the powerful doing what they want to do
whilst the weak accept what they have to accept. By the way, this is not a
case of accusing the great powers but merely an example of concern for
citizens of a nation. The Gambia has in the past five years or so emerged as
a geo-political entity that has challenged, or rather questioned, traditional
super-power definition and control of some fundamental issues. It has sailed
against the grain of opinion on some of these issues. The country brought
alive issues that had almost become archaic to discuss. These issues concern
the case of Libya, Cuba, Nigeria, Taiwan, to name a few. The role of the
country in brokering peace in the region should not also be taken lightly.
Yes, these are familiar issues but for which traditional diplomacy required a
stealth approach rather than a vocal pronouncement particularly at the
Security Council level of UN. All these happened at the turning point in the
history of political development of The Gambia - just after a military
takeover and the institution of a second republic. These have put the country
on the political map of controversy almost bordering on effrontery and
defiance for a small state. The significance of these matters do not find
excuse for whatever accusations are being levied but it is important to
sometimes take note of bigger picture issues that can impact on decisions
that are also made in a bigger picture manner. The UN Security Council surely
did not have a name-by-name presentation of a travel ban. A more bigger
picture approach would appeal to be a gradual development of a policy on a
travel ban on the role of the Liberian government in the war of Sierra Leone.
Voting on that would not require a roll call of names to be banned. This
brings us to the next important aspect of this matter. The Department of
State for External Affairs should pay greater attention to the process of
arriving at the decision of including a Gambian national on the list than a
bigger picture condemnation of the decision itself. The former should be the
starting point of inquiry. A simple note of concern would have been adequate
as a first step at the UN Security Council level with an outline of what
follow up actions would be made at governmental level to ensure that its
citizen has indeed been fairly treated in the decision. It is indeed normal
to query such an accusation from a nationalistic point of view - forget about
the individual for a minute. It is the individual citizens that form the
nation or the state and vice versa. Of course, it is also more diplomatic to
pursue the matter by scrutinising the processes involved in the reporting and
decision- making than a blanket condemnation of the decision. As a nation,
could we know the process involved? What means of verification of information
provided to the UN Security Council were there? Does the accused as an
individual and The Gambia as a nation have any input in the investigation?
Who were the team members - composition and nationality (not names)? How long
did the investigation take? How was it conducted? Are there any means of a
defence? How was information corroborated? In fact all members of the UN need
to know all these. In fact, why has the UN not responded to the letters sent
by the Department of State for Foreign Affairs on this subject, both prior
to, during and after the investigations? Well, our representative at UN has a
lot of homework to

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------