Abdou,

I'm not altogether sure I understand your question.

However, Pan-Africanism is a mere idea, a movement, if you like and not all
Pan-Africanists are inclined towards socialism. Liberal capitalism is a
system which I will never advocate. People are and should be more important
than things. Africans should never aspire for the brutal type of capitalism
that exists in the US, for example.

Only a couple of weeks ago I saw on '60 Minutes' how an old, senile lady was
secretly discharged from a Los Angeles hospital, driven in a taxi to a crime
infested neighbourhood where homeless people usually gather and just dumped
there Thanks to CCTV cameras around the taxi could be traced and the lady's
plight highlighted. Why was the lady dumped with nothing but the clothes on
her back? Because she did not have a medical insurance, of course. Is
that the type of treatment you want for Africans under a union government? I
think not.

Africa can find a mix that suits her development needs without being
dogmatic. What Abdourahman Babou and Nkrumah advocated was not far from
that. Nkrumah's government saw to the building of basic infrastructure that
is still benefitting Ghanaians. Ghana was able to come quicker out of its
economic crisis of the eighties and early nineties thanks to that basic
infrastructure that was already put in place by Nkrumah's government. The
industrialisation drive, the mass investment in education and health, etc.,
are what gave Ghana the chance to make a quick come back. look at Ghana
today. Her colleges and universities had produced numerous skillful
Ghanaians with the know-how to contribute positively towards recovery.

On repression, can you show that Pan.Africanist leaders with a socialist
outlook are more brutal dictators than their reactionary counterparts? That
is a mere myth circulated by the enemies of the continent. The most brutal
dictators Africa has knows are among others, Amin, Mobutu, Nguema, Doe, etc.
Any of these that you can call a Pan-Africanist or a socialist? None! You
should not allow yourself to swallow without chewing, it's dangerous.

I guess you know about the CIA's and the West's dirty wars against
progressive African leaders like Nkrumah, Lumumba, the ANC, and now
Zimbabwe. There's your reason why. Responsible leaders are not just going to
sit idly by and watch reactionaries in cahoots with imperialist set back
gains already achieved.

Besides, when Africans were fighting to free themselves from the yoke of
colonialism who were the more dedicated ones at the barricades? It was
always those with a socialist outlook. That did not mean they preferred
'communism' to capitalism, no, it was because capitalism constituted the
enemy. It was the socialist countries who helped the Liberation movements
whiles as late as the 90's Margret Thacher was still dishonestly referring
to Mandela and the rest of the ANC as 'dangerous Communist' and 'terrorist'.
Do we not have an ANC government in power today in South Africa? Do they
have a socialist system? No, they have a brutal capitalist system that has
allowed the blood suckers to keep their loot and there has been no form of
affirmative action the redress the economic inequalities that carried over
from Apartheid, so excuse me if I don't understand what you are talking
about. The best system of government is that which allows ideas to flow and
which rewards personal enterprise but at the same time put checks and
balances in place so that the less unfortunate amongst us are not treated
worse than animals.

Have you ever stopped to think why America is so violent?

If you re-read my mail to you yesterday, you will see that I pointed out how
tyrants will no longer to able to get away with their crimes under a united
Africa. There just would be no need even since there will be a federal
security and justice system that guarantees the rights of all Africans and
none can overthrow a government of Africa. So why should there be a need for
political repression?

Regards,

Kabir.




On 7/2/07, ABDOUKARIM SANNEH <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Kabirr
> Thanks for your enlighten piece but I am just wandering whether Pan
> Africanism should devorce from its past historical ideal of Socialism and
> focus on building a united African base on globalisation the center stage of
> which is capitalist economy with its determinant market economy, private
> property etc. Many scholars of Pan Africanist literature only posulate
> socialist economy as the solution to our underdevelopment. We have also seem
> many adovocates of Pan-Africanism end up suppressing civil liberty, human
> rights and process for democratisation in our continent. Kabirr on that note
> having been aware of the present realties of our continent which way should
> the struggle to fight against dehumanisation in the context of Pan
> Africanism be directed. It the old ideas of adovate like the late Abdouraman
> Babu, Kwame, Mugabe et al. We have been our power abosulely corrupt the
> latter to an extend that hecome an enemy of opposing views. Should Pan
> Africanism embrace liberal
> demoracy, free and fair election or should continue it the utopian dreams
> of scientific Socialism. Reading Walter Rodny, Fanon, Cheirkh Anta et al
> they did not come up with define political formula but many like cabral and
> Kwame were postulating than the solution of our problem is scientific
> socialism directed toward marxism /Leninism. Looking into global domination
> of capitalist economy even China is capitalist economy but cosmetic dressing
> with communism because the ruling elite fear of losing power through
> multiparty demoractisation process.
>
> Kabir Njaay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 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 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
>
> === message truncated ===
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤