In a message dated 3/11/04 12:49:22 PM Central Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:


> Jabou,
>
>                   I dont see US Military presence in the region as an
> occupation, but its infact in their continual effort to fight terrorist and
> terrorism that is why they have come up with a strategy of training African armies.
> I personally think that the war against terrorism is a just one and US
> military presence in our sub-region will send a message to all this dictators.
>
>   Minteh,

First, let me say, keep up the good work and that if the concern brought on
by the war on terrorism happens to help Africa get rid of tyrant governments
who are agents of the arms trade, then I ma sure it would be welcome. So please
od not let my comments and playing devil's advocate lead you to think that I
am arguing in favour of tyrants and arms dealers being ejected by this effort.

Now having got that out of the way, I think we will just have to agree to
disagree on your belief that the U.S and other super powers are motivated only by
a genuine interest in the welfare of Africa and Africans in their sudden
interest and actions on the African continent towards fighting terrorism. As I
mentioned before, the war against terrorism is a valid one no doubt, but at the
same time, that very effort can be used as an excuse to accomplish other
agendas and there is no doubt that the U.S and it's allies are very much into empire
building. The situation is complex but we must make sure we are careful to
separate genuine effort to fight terrorism from the agenda for empire.
Another point that you brought up in your post regarding arms from the former
Soviet Block countries clearly shows that when the super powers make
decisions, they are doing so in their own interest, and infact, the only time they
seemingly have Africa's and other developing countries interest at heart is if
their interest happens to coincide with ours as in the case of arms
proliferation on the African continent. In the years since the Soviet Union fell, a lto fo
arsm trading has taken place but it si only now that there is concern over
this because those arms were endangering the lives of Africans who these people
consider dispensable.

For example you wrote:


> "NATO set a criteria for those nations that wanted to be welcome on
> board,some were open and others were part of the daily administrative
> routine.Most the arms and amouries of those countries were controlled by
> the Kremlin before.The arms that most of them had were not up to standard
> compared to those within the NATO alliance. That is,countries like

> France,Spain,Germany,Belgium,England and so on.
> These former members of the Soviet bloc had to resort to abandoning their
> old stock and then get the latest and modern military hardware.
> The transition that sent left overs to poor third world countries like
> ours:"
>
> The countries of the NATO alliance knew well enough that these arms were
there and that infact, these people were finding a market for them in Africa. If
NATO had our interest at heart, they could have made part of the requirement
for these countries to join them not only the replacement of their old equipment
with more modren ones, but most importantly the proper collection and
disposal of this old equipment so that it does not end up in the hands of mad
dictators.

Jabou Joh
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.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://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~