Aye Aye Bailo. What a wonderful group of folk here on Ellen. I am proud to
be your fellow citizens. Thank you for you.
Haruna.
In a message dated 6/26/2008 5:53:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Koto Baba,
Well said!
Typically, one gets nothing other than nauseating hypocrisy from the British
establishment. Yes Papa Mugabe is the liberator-turned tyrant to his people.
He should have started his reign with what he is trying to end it with; Land
reforms and redisribution. After all his people took up arms against Ian
Smith's white supremist regime to win their freedom, human dignity and take back
ownership of the lands that Cecil Rhodes and his band of muderous
tresspassers seized from their foreparents. Unfortunately today for majority of
Zimbabweans, not only are they yet to have their land back, they are also yet to
have their freedoms and dignity back. Zimbabweans who dare to reclaim their
God-given human rights have been beaten, tortured, and murdered by Mugabe's
henchmen and unruly thugs. Zimbabweans voted for change for their own betterment
on March 29, 2008 and all that have been delivered to them so far is more
hardships, torture, death and an
uncertain future.
We Africans should move away from this historical view of Mugabe as a
liberator of his peoples and an African Icon who stood up to the White tribes of
the world. If once he was, he no longer is. His people are now more destitude
than anytime in their recorded history and it cannot all be the fault of
Britain, the former colonial power or the West in general. After nearly 30 years
on the throne, Mugabe now needs to own up to his prominent role in messing up
Zimbabwe.
While Mugabe should be urged to rein in his Zanu-PF party supporters who
are also inflicting violence and destruction on innocent Zimbabweans whose only
fault is to have chosen an alternative political course, he should be
guaranteed a dignified retirement, free from humiliation by any future government
of Zimbabwe or by the so-called International Community. The current Western
powers agenda of seeking to humiliate and vilify Mugabe won't solve the crisis
in Zimbabwe. If George Bush, Tony Blair et al who have been directly
responsible for the the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis could be
free, why not Mugabe? Should Morgan Tsangarai genuine seek peace, justice
and development for his country, he therefore needs to close the door of
possibility of prosecuting Mugabe should the latter agree to step down. Mugabe and
his inner circle perceives the threat of prosecution as persecution. At
times a perceptions brings about
or enforces a reality that is not intended. Sometimes, its much better to
turn a new leaf and let by-gones be by-gones. Mandela and his comerades
demonstrated this to the whole of mankind.
That said, I gathered that our own Larry Ceesay, AFPRC's first Secretary
General and Head of the Public Service is the current UN Resident Representative
in Zimbabwe. Let's us therefore urge him to encourage the course of truth
and reconciliation between MDC and ZANU-PF's leaderships as an alternative to
the belligerent stance of the British and US Governments against Mugabe's
regime. Papa Mugabe should start negotiating with Morgan for a dignified exit out
of this potential tragedy for him and his compatriots.
Zimbabweans deserves better!
Bailo
--- On Wed, 25/6/08, Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Queen Strips Mugabe of Knighthood [NY Times]
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 25 June, 2008, 11:09 PM
BambaLaye,
I think this so-called de-knighting of Robert Mugabe represents another
classic
case of the British government’s – and the western world’s - nauseating
hypocrisy in dealing with Africa. When did Robert Mugabe ever deserve a
knighthood from the Queen? Or more generally, what are the criteria for the
conferment of this supposedly great honor on African and other commonwealth
country leaders? Is knighthood conferred on those leaders who demonstrate
respect for their own people or those that demonstrate respect for the
so-called British commonwealth? I am raising these questions because Mugabe
had
been a brutal dictator for at least fourteen years (1980-1994) before the
hallowed title of “Sir” of which he is now being stripped, was conferred
upon him by our impressed Queen of the Great British Empire and Common
wealth. A
cursory glance at Zimbabwean history illustrates this point.
The two guerrilla armies that fought the liberation war in Zimbabwe – Robert
Mugabe’s Zimbabwe National Liberation Army (ZANLA), and Joshua Nkomo’s
Zimbabwe People’s Liberation Army (ZIPRA) – were largely constructed along
the age-old ethnic binary of Shona and Ndebele. While the boundaries between
these two ethnic groups have almost always been blurred and contested, ZIPRA
had its center in Bulawayo and recruited most of its members and supporters
from Matabeleland in western Zimbabwe. And while it included a spattering of
Kalanga, Venda, and Tswana speakers, the ZIPRA army was overwhelmingly
Ndebele
and its lingua franca was Sindebele. On the other hand, ZANLA drew its
support
from the majority Shona peoples who lived in most parts of the rest of the
country.
In the “post-liberation” era, particularly during the
“counter-insurgency” period in the mid-1980s, the Mugabe regime, in the
name of “purifying and cleansing the body of the nation,” ruthlessly
authorized violence against the people he saw as in the way of a united
Zimbabwe - the Ndebele. Appropriating and deploying the Emergency Powers of
the
ousted Rhodesian state, as well as its concept of collective punishment,
Mugabe
sent troops into Matabeleland in a project he termed Gukurahundi (Shona for
“Sweeping Away the Rubbish”) to crack down on alleged traitors to the
national cause. During this “cleansing” period in Matabeleland, Mugabe’s
soldiers proved to be more brutal and vicious than the ousted occupying
forces;
indeed, historians argue that their methods were much more brutal and
devastating than those employed by the brutal colonial forces. Like other
parts
of Africa, the high hopes and sacrifices of a liberation war turned out to
be
little more than an avenue for the appropriation and abuse of political power
by those – like Robert Mugabe - who posed as champions of freedom during the
struggle for independence. The people of Zimbabwe had rallied behind the
doctrines of their guerrilla movements, and their religious doctrines and
institutions – both Western and African – to fight for the birth of a black
nation free of the tyrannies, injustices, inequities, and bondage of White
Rhodesia. In the “post-liberation” period, most Zimbabweans, particularly
those considered to be on the wrong side of the new political dispensation –
realized that attaining the liberation they fought for was far more complex
and
difficult than they could possibly have imagined. Common Zimbabweans who had
sacrificed everything in support of the liberation struggle now discovered
that
the fruits of independence represented more of a pie in the sky than the
readily
available and abundant fruits of independence that they imagined. Most of
them,
particularly those considered to be Ndebele, as well as most youth and women,
felt angry and betrayed as the Mugabe regime centralized its power and
control
of the state, and privileged pre-colonial and colonial authoritarian means of
social control and coercion such as patriarchy and the police and military
over
the values of justice, equality and the rule of law.
Are the British authorities, the British queen, the administrators of the
so-called British commonwealth telling us that they were ignorant of these
brutal purges Mugabe visited upon his own people as soon as the white
colonial
government was kicked out of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)? Are they telling
us
that they had all being unaware of Mugabe’s criminal violations of human
rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe between 1980 and 1994? Why should the
queen confer such a supposedly hallowed title on a ruler who had already
spent
fourteen years in power in an ostensibly democratic country? Would the queen
confer such an honor on a British prime minister who hijacks the British
peoples’ rights to periodic change of leadership and stays continuously on in
power for fourteen years? But of course, we do have such a thing as African
democracy, which is different from the more civilized British democracy,
right?
So I contend that the queen should give us a break about stripping Mugabe of
his so-called knighthood which he never deserved anyway, unless of course,
being deserving of such an honor is judged by criteria pertinent to nothing
more than being a good boy of British empire. Now of course, Mugabe is
probably
the worst British boy ever on account of his ceaseless rantings and
vilifications of the pious British establishment.
Thanks for sharing.
Baba
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:55:58 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Queen Strips Mugabe of Knighthood [NY Times]> To:
[log in to unmask]> > June 26, 2008> Queen Strips Mugabe of
Knighthood By ALAN>
COWELL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/alan_cowel
l/index.html?inline=nyt-per>>
> Queen Elizabeth II has stripped Robert>
Mugabe<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_mug
abe/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,>
Zimbabwe<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritor
ies/zimbabwe/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>'s>
strongman president for nearly 30 years, of his honorary knighthood as a>
"mark of revulsion" at the human rights abuses and "abject
disregard" for> democracy over which he has presided, the British
Foreign Office announced> Wednesday.> > The rebuke showed the extent
of international frustration over Mr. Mugabe's> insistence to go ahead
with a presidential runoff on Friday, even though his> sole opponent,
Morgan>
Tsvangirai<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/morgan
_tsvangirai/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,>
pulled out of race on Sunday because of the persistent violence and>
intimidation against him, his party and their supporters.> > Mr.
Mugabe's government has had a long history of human rights abuses, but>
he was granted an honorary knighthood during an official visit to England
in> 1994 when, the foreign office contends, "the conditions in Zimbabwe
were> very different."> > But with the widespread attacks against
the opposition, the foreign office> said the honor could no longer be
justified. Stripping a dignitary of an> honorary knighthood is exceedingly
rare. A foreign office spokesman could> think of only one other time it had
been done — in 1989 to the Romanian> dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu.> >
Mr. Tsvangirai, the beleaguered opposition leader, called on the United>
Nations<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/un
ited_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org>on>
Wednesday to send a peacekeeping force to bring calm to the country> and>
help pave the way for new elections in which he could participate as a>
"legitimate candidate."> > "Zimbabwe will break if the
world does not come to our aid," he said in an> op-ed in The Guardian
newspaper in London. After weeks of mounting political> violence against the
opposition and its supporters, Mr. Tsvangirai withdrew> from Friday's
runoff and took refuge Sunday in the Dutch Embassy in Harare.> > He
emerged from the embassy briefly on Wednesday to hold a news conference> at
his home in which he challenged President Robert Mugabe to cancel the>
runoff and open negotiations.> > But, he said, he was not prepared to
deal with a government validated by an> election in which Mr. Mugabe is by
default the only candidate. Mr. Mugabe> has insisted Friday's voting
will go ahead.> > "We have said we are prepared to negotiate on this
side of the 27th, not the> other side of the 27th," Mr. Tsvangirai said,
according to Reuters.> > He listed four demands: an end to political
violence; the resumption of> humanitarian aid; the swearing in of
legislators elected in the first round> of voting on March 29; and the
release of political prisoners.> > "We have always maintained that
the Zimbabwean problem is an African problem> that requires an African
solution," he said, referring to continent-wide and> regional African
bodies including the Southern African Development> Community.> >
"To this end, I am asking the African>
Union<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/afri
can_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org>and>
S.A.D.C. to lead an expanded initiative, supported by the United> Nations,
to
manage the transitional process.> > "The transitional period would
allow the country to heal," he said. "Genuine> and honest dialogue
amongst Zimbabweans is the only way forward." He said he> wanted the
African Union to endorse his proposals at a forthcoming summit> meeting in
Egypt.> > Mr. Tsvangirai's demands coincided with a scramble of
regional and> international diplomacy with many African and Western
institutions saying> the vote on Friday will be neither free nor fair. A
critical group of> southern African countries opened a meeting Wednesday in
Swaziland to seek a> way out of the crisis.> > The meeting grouped
leaders or ministers from Swaziland, Angola and Tanzania> — the so-called
troika charged with responsibility for the region's> political, defense
and security issues. The group said it had also invited> the leaders of
Zambia and South Africa to attend, but President Thabo>
Mbeki<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/thabo_mbeki
/index.html?inline=nyt-per>of>
South Africa, the regional mediator on the crisis in Zimbabwe, said> through
a spokesman that he would not attend.> > The spokesman, Mukoni
Ratshitanga, said in a telephone interview that South> Africa was not a
member of the troika and had not been invited.> > Amid the international
outcry over his government's handling of the crisis,> Mr. Mugabe, 84,
was reported Tuesday as hinting that he might be open to> talks with the
opposition, but only after Friday's vote confirmed his power.> > >
He remained defiant about going ahead with the runoff.> > "They can
shout as loud as they like from Washington or from London or from> any other
quarter," Mr. Mugabe said in televised broadcasts. "Our people,>
our people, only our people will decide and nobody else."> > Taken
together, his remarks were the most explicit affirmation that he> intended
to go through with an election widely condemned as illegitimate.> > But
the hint of readiness to talk was also the first sign that Mr. Mugabe> might
negotiate — as Mr. Mbeki has been urging him to do — once he has what> he
can depict as a position of strength.> > The state-run Herald newspaper
quoted Mr. Mugabe on Wednesday as saying: "We> are open, open to
discussion but we have our own principles."> > The American
ambassador in Harare, James McGee, has concluded that Mr.> Mugabe and his
Zanu-PF party area determined to hold the runoff "at all> costs,"
according to the State Department.> > "We've received reports
that Zanu-PF will force people to vote on Friday and> also take action
against those who refuse to vote," Mr. McGee said in a> conference call
described by the State Department. "So, they're saying 'We> want
an election at all costs. We want to validate Mr. Mugabe's victory>
here.'" "There's really nothing that we can do here in the
international> community to stop these elections," Mr. McGee said.>
> The BBC quoted Jendayi Frazer, the State Department's assistant
secretary of> state for African affairs, as saying Washington would not
recognize the> outcome of the vote if it went forward.> > "People
were being beaten and losing their lives just to exercise their> right to
vote for their leadership so we cannot, under these conditions,> recognize
the outcome if, in fact, this runoff goes forward," she was quoted> as
saying.> > South Africa, the region's most influential player, has
rejected outside> intervention in the crisis.> > In a statement on
Tuesday, South Africa's ruling African National>
Congress<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/a
frican_national_congress/index.html?inline=nyt-org>insisted>
that "any attempts by outside players to impose regime change will>
merely deepen the crisis."> > While the A.N.C. statement came out
with an unusually strong condemnation of> the Zimbabwean government, saying
it was "riding roughshod over the hard-won> democratic rights" of
its people, the party also insisted that outsiders had> no role to play in
ending its current anguish.> > "It has always been and continues to
be the view of our movement that the> challenges facing Zimbabwe can only be
solved by the Zimbabweans> themselves," the statement said.
"Nothing that has happened in the recent> months has persuaded us to
revise that view."> > Despite that assessment, Prime Minister
Gordon>
Brown<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/gordon_brow
n/index.html?inline=nyt-per>of>
Britain told Parliament on Wednesday, "We are preparing intensified>
sanctions, financial and travel sanctions, against named members of the>
Mugabe regime." That included a ban on the Zimbabwean cricket team to>
prevent it from touring England, news agencies reported.> > The A.N.C.
warned against international intervention a day after the United> Nations
Security>
Council<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/se
curity_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org>took>
its first action on the electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, issuing a> unanimous
statement condemning the widespread campaign of violence in the> country and
calling on the government to free political prisoners and allow> the
opposition to hold rallies.> > Writing in The Guardian, however, Mr.
Tsvangirai, again took issue with Mr.> Mbeki's mediation, saying
"it sought to massage a defeated dictator rather> than show him the
door and prod him towards it."> > "We ask for the U.N. to go
further than its recent resolution, condemning> the violence in Zimbabwe, to
encompass an active isolation of the dictator> Mugabe," Mr. Tsvangirai
said.> > "For this we need a force to protect the people. We do not
want armed> conflict, but the people of Zimbabwe need the words of
indignation from> global leaders to be backed by the moral rectitude of
military force. Such a> force would be in the role of peacekeepers, not
troublemakers. They would> separate the people from their oppressors and
cast the protective shield> around the democratic process for which Zimbabwe
yearns," he said.> > "The next stage should be a new
presidential election. This does indeed> burden Zimbabwe and create an
atmosphere of limbo. Yet there is hardly a> scenario that does not carry an
element of pain. The reality is that a new> election, devoid of violence and
intimidation, is the only way to put> Zimbabwe right," Mr. Tsvangirai
said.> > It was not immediately clear how other African nations would
respond to Mr.> Tsvangirai's call.> > The A.N.C. statement, which
was the first official response from South> Africa since Mr.
Tsvangirai's withdrawal, was not signed by any individual> in the A.N.C.
It seemed to represent a marked departure from Mr. Mbeki's> refusal to
castigate Mr. Mugabe, and seemed to reflect the increasing> frustration with
the Zimbabwean president.> > At the same time, in what seemed a clear
rebuke to the efforts of Western> nations to take an aggressive stance
against the Zimbabwean government, the> A.N.C. included a lengthy criticism
of the "arbitrary, capricious power"> exerted by Africa's
colonial masters and cited the subsequent struggle by> African nations to
gain freedoms and rights.> > "No colonial power in Africa, least of
all Britain in its colony of> 'Rhodesia' ever demonstrated any
respect for these principles," the A.N.C.> said, referring to Zimbabwe
before its independence.> > Zimbabwe, once one of Africa's most
prosperous countries, has been reeling> from a widening campaign of violence
and intimidation since Mr. Mugabe,> Zimbabwe's president for nearly 30
years, came in second in the initial> round of voting on March 29.> >
In a show of support for the opposition, the powerful Congress of South>
African Trade Unions declared on Tuesday that it was "appalled at the
levels> of violence and intimidation being inflicted on the people of
Zimbabwe by> the illegitimate Mugabe regime."> > "The June
27 presidential election is not an election, but a declaration of> war
against the people of Zimbabwe by the ruling party," the union group>
said.> > Urging a boycott of Zimbabwe, it said: "We call on all our
unions and those> everywhere else in the world to make sure that they never
ever serve Mugabe> anywhere, including at airports, restaurants, shops,
etc.> > "Further, we call on all workers and citizens of the world
never to allow> Mugabe to set foot in their countries."> > Celia
W. Dugger and Barry Bearak contributed reporting from Johannesburg.>
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
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]
|
